Pomona Trash Final EIR

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project State Clearinghouse Number: 2009051126
Prepared for: The City of Pomona 505 S. Garey Avenue Pomona, CA 91766
Prepared by: Applied Planning, Inc. 5817 Pine Avenue, Suite A Chino Hills, CA 91709
August 2011
Table of Contents
Section 1.0 Page
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Content and Format .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Revised Draft EIR Commentors...................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Lead Agency and Point of Contact ................................................................. 1-3 1.5 Project Summary ............................................................................................... 1-3 Revisions and Errata Corrections .............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Text Revisions .................................................................................................... 2-1 Comments and Responses.......................................................................................... 3-1 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting ........................................................... 4-2
2.0
3.0 4.0
Appendix A: Attachments to Comments and Responses Attachment 1: Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project Health Risk Assessment Addendum Attachment 2: Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Appendix B: Comment Letters not included in Section 3
Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project Final EIR - SCH No. 2009051126
Table of Contents Page i
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Page Revised Draft EIR Commentors.................................................................................. 3-2
4.2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ......................................................................................... 4-3
Table of Contents Page ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
This document, combined with the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (Revised DEIR), constitutes the Final EIR for the Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project (Project). The Revised DEIR describes existing environmental conditions relevant to the proposal, evaluates the Projects potential environmental effects, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts. The Revised DEIR was circulated for public review and comment from January 28, 2011 through March 14, 2011. 1.2 CONTENT AND FORMAT
Subsequent to this introductory Section 1.0, Section 2.0 of this Final EIR presents revisions and errata corrections to the Revised DEIR text. Responses to comments received on the Revised DEIR are presented at Final EIR Section 3.0. The EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plan is presented at Final EIR Section 4.0. 1.3 REVISED DRAFT EIR COMMENTORS
1.3.1 Overview The complete list of Revised Draft EIR commentors, along with copies of comment letters and responses to comments, is presented at Section 3.0 of this Final EIR. The following list provides a summary of the comment letters received in regard to the Revised Draft EIR.

State Agencies (5 Letters) County Agencies (3 Letters) City Agencies (1 Letter)

Introduction Page 1-1
2011 Applied Planning, Inc.
Local Agencies (1 Letter) Utilities (1 Letter) Local Businesses and Organizations (5 Letters) Individuals (24 Letters) Alcott Annex Elementary Students (34 Letters) Form Letters:1 General Public (182 Letters) St. Madeleine and First Presbyterian Staff and Parishioners (136 Letters) Washington Park Senior Adult Services (33 Letters) Jaycee Park Exercise Class (16 Letters) Parents, teachers, and students from area schools (602 Letters)
Opposition Petition (123 Signatures)
1.3.2 Presentation of Comments and Responses Agency comment letters (state, county, city, and local), letters from utilities, and letters from businesses, organizations, and individuals are included, along with corresponding responses, in their entirety at Final EIR Section 3.0, Comments and Responses. In instances where comments are provided as form letters, a representative form letter is included and a universal response is provided at Final EIR Section 3.0. In this instance, the form letter comments received on the Project/EIR were submitted in both English and Spanish. Accordingly, a representative English language form letter, and a representative Spanish language form letter are included, as are English language and Spanish language responses. Form letters are provided at FEIR Appendix B. A signed petition stating opposition to the Project was also submitted as part of the public review process. Representative text from the Petition is included at Final EIR Section 3.0, and Petition signatories are addressed universally. The petition is provided at FEIR Appendix B.
Form letter totals do not reflect duplicate letters received.
Additionally, where multiple commentors raise similar issues (as in comments received from Alcott Annex Elementary Students), a representative letter is included at Final EIR Section 3.0, the concerns identified by commentors are listed, and responses are provided for the issues/concerns identified. Alcott Annex Elementary Students letters are included at FEIR Appendix B. 1.4 LEAD AGENCY AND POINT OF CONTACT
The Lead Agency for the Project and EIR is the City of Pomona. Any questions or comments regarding the preparation of this document, its assumptions, or its conclusions, should be referred to: Brad Johnson, Planning Manager City of Pomona Planning Division 505 S. Garey Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 1.5 DEIR. PROJECT SUMMARY For additional detail in regard to Project characteristics and Project-related
The following information is summarized from the Project Description in the Revised improvements, along with analyses of the Projects potential environmental impacts, please refer to Revised DEIR Sections 3.0 and 4.0, respectively. 1.5.1 Project Location The Project will be constructed within an approximately 10.5-acre site located in the City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, approximately 0.4 miles west of the San Bernardino County line. Specifically, the Project site is located at 1371 East 9th Street, and is bounded by Mission Boulevard to the north; existing commercial and industrial buildings to the east; East 9th Street on the south; and Southern Pacific Railroad tracks1 to the west.
1
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) acquired Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) in September of 1996. However, LA County Tax Assessors maps show the tracks adjacent to the Project site as belonging to SPRR and corresponding jurisdiction is referenced herein to avoid confusion.
1.5.2 Project Overview The Project proposes construction and operation of a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) transfer station within the City of Pomona. The primary function of the proposed transfer station is to accept and consolidate MSW received from individual haulers for subsequent transport by larger semi-trailer transfer trucks to area landfills for disposal. 1.5.3 Project Objectives The Applicant has established the following Project Objectives:
Manage municipal solid waste in an efficient and cost-effective manner consistent with the States AB 939 mandates;
Provide a minimum 20-year waste transfer capacity to the region to accommodate future growth and increased total waste generation;
Enhance customer service and stabilize rising solid waste collection costs; Minimize haul distances for collection trucks by providing locally-available solid waste transfer and material recovery operations;
Provide a facility that maximizes solid waste management efficiencies while concurrently reducing potential environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, land use, traffic, air quality, water quality, noise, visual, and odor impacts;
Establish a waste transfer facility with proximate rail access in anticipation of potential future regional or inter-regional rail-oriented waste hauling operations; and
Foster economic growth and create additional employment opportunities for City and area residents.
1.5.4 Discretionary Actions 1.5.4.1 Lead Agency Discretionary Actions and Permits
Requested decisions, or discretionary actions, necessary to realize the Project include, but may not be limited to the following:
CEQA Compliance/EIR Certification - The City must certify the EIR prior to or concurrent with approval of the Project;
Approval of a Tentative Parcel Map - The Project proposes a commercial/industrial parcel map that would consolidate and reconfigure existing smaller lots and create a two-parcel map. Parcel 1 will be approximately 10.49 acres and would accommodate the Project; Parcel 2 (approximately 2.66 acres) is identified as Not-A-Part, and would not be developed or otherwise employed as part of the Project;
Approval of an Amendment to the City of Pomona Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE) as required by Public Resources Code Section 50001(a) to allow implementation and operation of the Project;
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit - The Project is subject to City of Pomona Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirements as provided for under City of Pomona Municipal Code Chapter 62 Utilities, Article VI. Solid Waste, Sec. 62-845. Facility requirements and conditional use permit; and City of Pomona Zoning Ordinance, Section .421 (M-2-Uses Permitted) and Section .580 (Conditional Use Permits);
Various City of Pomona construction, grading, and encroachment permits will be required to allow implementation of the Project facilities; and
Awarding of a Franchise Agreement - the Project is subject to City of Pomona Franchise Agreement requirements as provided for under City of Pomona Municipal Code Chapter 62 Utilities, Article VI Solid Waste, Section 62-844 Award of a franchise; franchise required; time frame; nonassignability.
1.5.4.2
Responsible and Trustee Agency Discretionary Actions, Permits, and Consultation
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 also states that the EIR should, to the extent known, include a list of all the agencies expected to use the EIR in their decision-making (Responsible Agencies) and a list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project. Based on the current Project design concept, the anticipated permits to realize the proposal (and associated Responsible Agencies) will likely include, but are not limited to, the following:
Storm Water Permit A Notice of Intent (NOI) for a General Industrial Storm Water Permit with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) must be filed;
Industrial Waste Discharge Permit The facility will require an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD);
Solid Waste Facilities Permit A Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) issued by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) will be required pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Div. 7, Art. 6, Section 17403.7; and
Permitting will be required by/through the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for the Project waste transfer station (WTS) operations and its associated equipment, including specific approval of an odor mitigation plan pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 410.
2.0 REVISIONS AND ERRATA CORRECTIONS
2.0 REVISIONS AND ERRATA CORRECTIONS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Based on the comments received on the Revised DEIR (which are provided in full in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR), this Section presents revisions to the text of the Revised DEIR. For text corrections, additional text is identified by bold underlined text, while deletions are indicated by strikeout font. All text revisions affecting mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan presented in Section 4.0 of this Final EIR. Text changes are presented under the chapter or topical section of the Revised DEIR where they are located. It should be noted that the revisions and corrections provided here expand and clarify analyses previously provided, and do not constitute substantive new information. Conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected by these revisions. 2.2 TEXT REVISIONS
2.2.1 Text Revisions to Revised DEIR Section 4.3, Air Quality 2.2.1.1 DPM-source Cancer Risks
One common and recurring concern expressed by commentors in their review of the Revised DEIR is that Project-related diesel particulate matter (DPM)-source emissions would result in certain exceedances of South Coast Air Quality Management District cancer risk thresholds. Commentors also expressed generalized concerns regarding effects of additional sources of DPM emissions within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin).
Revisions and Errata Corrections Page 2-1
Summary of Responses to Concerns Responses to the above-noted concerns are presented in the following discussions, and include: a summary of the Revised DEIR analysis and findings regarding Project-related DPM-source cancer risks; restatement of existing incompatible land use patterns that contribute to those risks; clarification of Project-related DPM emissions sources and opening year DPM reduction measures; identification of additional DPM emissions reduction measures proposed in response to commentor concerns; modeling of resulting DPM emissions levels/DPM-source cancer risks (See HRA Addendum, Final EIR Appendix A); and inclusion of additional DPM mitigation measures in this Final EIR. Revised DEIR Analysis of Cancer Risk Exposure As discussed in the Revised DEIR, with application of mitigation, cancer risk thresholds would be exceeded at the two (2) residential uses located closest and adjacent to the Project site. At the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street) the mitigated cancer risk would be 45.10 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 11.59 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. It is again noted that modeling of potential increased cancer risks as presented in the Revised DEIR is considered to represent a conservative estimate of real-world conditions. That is, pursuant to the adopted SCAQMD/EPA methodologies, calculated DPM-source cancer risks are predicated on extended 70-year/30-year exposure scenarios. Both the 70-year and 30-year cancer risk assessments considered in the Revised DEIR represent estimates of theoretic DPM-source cancer risks, and are based on the assumption that a person is exposed to the emission source 24 hours a day for 365 days a year for the entire length of the assumed exposure period. Individuals are typically not stationary at any given outdoor location, and a portion of each 24-hour cycle is spent indoors. In addition, individuals and families at a given location for 70 or
Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project Final EIR - SCH No. 2009051126 Revisions and Errata Corrections Page 2-2
even 30 years would be considered the exception rather than the norm. The California OEHHA has indicated that based on EPA studies, the EPA recommends a central tendency estimate of 9 years for residency at a given location, and a high-end estimate of 30 years for residency time. Thus, the methodologies used to determine cancer risk (e.g., the assumption of a 24- hour exposure for a 30 or 70 year period) represent a maximum theoretic cancer risk, and are not intended to account for or represent DPM exposures based on residency and occupancy tendencies. Project-related Cancer Risks Attributable in Part to Collocation of Incompatible Land Uses As also discussed in the Revised DEIR, absent the two affected residences (1415 East Ninth Street and 1295 East Ninth Street, both of which exist as non-conforming residential uses in an industrial zone) cancer risk thresholds would not be exceeded. The Revised DEIR notes further, that over the life of the Project and pursuant to the adopted M-2, General Manufacturing zoning designation for the Project site and surrounding areas, it is anticipated that existing non-conforming residential uses will transition to industrial uses. In this manner, sensitive receptors would be removed from industrial air pollutant sources, and potential adverse air quality impacts (including DPM impacts) affecting these current uses would be alleviated. Additional Opening Year DPM Emissions Reduction Measures Proposed Within the context of the preceding considerations, and in response to commentor concerns, additional DPM emission reduction measures are proposed that would act to further reduce the Projects opening year DPM emissions levels. More specifically, additional mitigation is proposed that would ensure that under opening year conditions, all Applicant-controlled commercial trash collection vehicles accessing the Project site, and all transfer trucks accessing the Project site (all of which are also Applicant-controlled), will be powered by compressed natural gas (CNG), or emission equivalent technologies. Applicant use of CNG-powered vehicles, as opposed to dieselpowered vehicles, will act to incrementally reduce DPM-source emissions and related DPM-source health impacts.
Screening level analyses indicate that these revisions to the assumed vehicle mix composition currently reflected in the Revised DEIR would likely provide certain reductions in DPM emissions levels and associated cancer risks when compared to those currently identified,1 but would not reduce DPM-source cancer risks to levels that are less-than-significant. In order to achieve more substantive reductions in DPM emissions and associated DPM-source cancer risks, further conversion of diesel vehicles to use of CNG (or emission equivalent technologies) is required. Additional Year 2020 DPM Emissions Reduction Measures Proposed As noted above, under opening year conditions, all Applicant-controlled trash collection and trash transfer vehicles will be powered by CNG (or emission equivalent technologies). However, as discussed in the Revised DEIR, the Project would accept solid waste from other (non-Applicant) commercial solid waste collection vehicles, as well as from private vehicles. These non-Applicant collection vehicles may not be CNGpowered within the opening year timeframe. To address DPM emissions from these non-Applicant vehicles, measures are also proposed that will provide transitional resolution of potential Project-related DPM emissions and DPM-source cancer risk impacts. To this end, and consistent with mitigation refinements intended to be achieved through the CEQA and EIR review processes, future year (2020)2 CNG-only (or emission equivalent technologies) access restrictions for all other commercial trash collection vehicles are proposed as additional mitigation within this Final EIR. Under these additional restrictions, on or before January 2, 2020, only CNG-powered (or emission equivalent) commercial trash collection vehicles would be permitted access to the Project site.
As reflected in the Revised DEIR and HRA it was initially and conservatively assumed that the predominance of transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles accessing the Project site would be diesel-powered, thereby establishing a potential maximum DPM impact scenario.
1
The year 2020 timeframe implementation schedule proposed here is consistent with, and parallels EPA/CARB tiered emissions reductions goals for heavy-duty trucks.
2
In combination, opening year CNG conversion actions described above, complemented by subsequent CNG-only access restrictions imposed on all commercial trash collection vehicles, will ensure that by the year 2020, all transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles3 accessing the Project site will be powered by CNG (or emission equivalent technologies). With incorporation of these measures, DPM emissions levels and DPM-source cancer risks will be further reduced when compared to those identified in the Revised DEIR, and would, by the Year 2020, reduce Project DPMsource cancer risks to levels that are less-than-significant. Modeling of Resulting DPM Emissions Impacts Conducted To determine the DPM emissions levels and potential DPM-source cancer risk resulting from the CNG-fueled vehicle mix described above, emissions dispersion modeling has been conducted pursuant to adopted SCAQMD HRA protocols. (See HRA Addendum provided at Final EIR Appendix A.) Results of the HRA Addendum indicate that with the stipulated conversion of diesel-fueled vehicles to CNG vehicles described herein, and application of DPM emissions Mitigation Measures 4.3.17 through 4.3.20 (previously proposed in the Revised DEIR), the maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially affected receptor would, by the Year 2020, be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. More specifically, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street), the mitigated cancer risk would be 3.98 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 0.52 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore be less than the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. The HRA Addendum results indicate further, that no schools would be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially
Only private/individual haulers would be exempt from access requirements specifying CNG-powered (or emission equivalent) vehicles.
3
significant non-cancer risks at any schools. Please refer also to detailed HRA modeling results presented at Final EIR Appendix A. Notwithstanding these findings, this Final EIR conservatively maintains previous conclusions regarding potential Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risks. That is, for the purposes of disclosure, and to maintain the conservative analysis construct employed to date, Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risk exposures at the residences located at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street are considered to be significant until the Year 2020. No other locations would experience potentially adverse elevated DPM-source cancer risk exposures (nor potentially adverse elevated non-cancer risk exposures) resulting from Project operations or activities. DPM Emissions Reduction Measures Incorporated as EIR Mitigation Measures In order to ensure that DPM emissions levels generated by the Project and the resulting cancer risk exposures are consistent with, and do not exceed the estimates reflected in the HRA Addendum and summarized herein, the following Mitigation Measures, 4.3.21-(A)mended and 4.3.22-(A), are incorporated into the Final EIR. These measures are presented in the Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Final EIR Section 4.0) and replace Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.21 and 4.3.22. 4.3.21 The commercial solid waste collection fleet (fleet) accessing the Project site between 2011 and 2019 shall consist of a maximum of 70% diesel engines and a minimum of 30% natural gas engines. All diesel engines, including transfer truck diesel engines, shall operate using ultra low sulfur fuels and be fitted with a particulate trap that is rated at a 90 % reduction rate or greater. 4.3.22 The commercial solid waste collection fleet (fleet) accessing the Project site shall consist of a maximum of 10% diesel engines and a minimum of 90% natural gas engines on or before January 2,2020. By year 2020, all diesel engines, including transfer truck diesel engines, shall operate using ultra low sulfur fuels and be fitted with a particulate trap that is rated at a 90% reduction rate or greater.
MM 4.3.21(A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks and all Applicantcontrolled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). MM 4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). As noted previously, incorporation of the above additional measures, in combination with the DPM emissions reduction measures identified previously in the Revised DEIR, would act to reduce year 2020 Project-related DPM-source cancer risk exposures to levels that are less-than-significant. 2.2.1.2 Other Revisions to Section 4.3, Air Quality
In response to comments received (commentor Richard Milhorn), the following text has been added to Mitigation Measure 4.3.14: Mitigation Measure 4.3.14 Waste dumping, sorting/handling, and loading of waste into transfer trailers shall be restricted to inside the transfer building. All off-road equipment used in association with the Project shall employ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Tier III or superior diesel off-road engine technologies, to reduce emissions generated by on-site equipment operations. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
In response to comments received (commentor Richard Milhorn), the following text has been added to Mitigation Measure 4.3.19: Mitigation Measure 4.3.19 Throughout Project operations, an operational relations officer/ community liaison, appointed by the Applicant, shall be retained on-site. In coordination and cooperation with the City and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the operational relations officer/ community liaison shall monitor any concerns related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, including but not limited to restricted access for non-CNG trucks when/as applicable, and enforcement of on-site idling limitations. In addition, Ssign(s) with the following language or similar shall be installed at the Project entrance, along internal truck routes, at/within unloading areas, and at all parking areas: MAXIMUM FIVE (5) MINUTE ON-SITE IDLING OF TRUCK ENGINES TO BE PERMITTED IN DESIGNATED AREAS ONLY. VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO PENALTIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF CONTRACT/RESTRICTED FACILITY ACCESS. The sign(s) shall not be less than twenty-four (24) inches square. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Additionally, in response to review comments and correspondence received, the Revised Draft EIRs Air Quality Mitigation Measures are amended as follows. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. 4.3.2 The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and
disturbed areas within the Project site are watered at least three times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall
occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, mid-afternoon, and after work is done for the day. Implementation of this measure is estimated to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions by approximately 61 percent. 4.3.3 The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and
Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive dust. Implementation of this measure shall reduce PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive dust haul road emissions by approximately 44 percent. 4.3.13 The truck access gates on the Project site shall be posted with signs which state: Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use; Diesel delivery trucks servicing the project shall not idle for more than 5 Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB shall be
minutes on-site; and posted to report violations. 4.3.15 The interior of main tipping floor, including the main transfer station building contractor drop area, and all its equipment shall be cleaned at the end of each day by a mechanical sweeper, hand-brooming, and wipe-down, or other means to remove dust and dirt debris. In no case shall dust or debris result in or cause: (1) safety hazards due to obscured visibility; (2) irritation of the eyes; (3) hampered breathing; or (4) migration of dust off-site. Please refer also to the Project Draft Transfer/Processing Report (Revised DEIR Appendix G), item 6.4 Dust Control. 4.3.26 The Project shall obtain approval of the proposed draft OIMP as set forth in the EIR tTechnical Appendices (EIR Appendix G, Operational Programs), and
as also submitted to the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and the City of Pomona. As approved, the OIMP shall include design features that comply with Appendix A of SCAQMD Rule 410. 4.3.27 Buildings shall exceed California Title 24 Energy Efficiency performance standards by a minimum of 20 percent for water heating and space heating and cooling. As deemed acceptable by the City of Pomona, any combination of the following design features may be used to fulfill this mitigation measure provided that the total increase in efficiency meets or exceeds 20 percent. To the extent that they are compatible with landscaping guidelines
established by the City of Pomona, shade-producing trees, particularly those that shade paved surfaces such as streets and parking lots and buildings, shall be planted at the Project site. design. To reduce energy demand associated with potable water conveyance, the Landscaping palette emphasizing drought tolerant plants; Use of water-efficient irrigation techniques; and U.S. EPA Certified WaterSense labeled or equivalent faucets, highProject shall implement the following: Paint and surface color palette for the Project shall emphasize light and All buildings shall be designed to accommodate renewable energy sources, off-white colors which will reflect heat away from the buildings. such as photovoltaic solar electricity systems, appropriate to their architectural
efficiency toilets (HETs), and water-conserving shower heads. Install solar or tankless hot water heaters, and energy-efficient heating Create water-efficient landscapes, including the installation of waterBuildings shall be designed to be water-efficient, including the installation ventilation and air conditioning. efficient irrigation systems and devices and the use of reclaimed water. of water-efficient fixtures and appliances.
The use of water to clean outdoor surfaces (i.e., in street sweepers) and
vehicles (i.e., truck wash facilities), as well as watering methods that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces, shall be restricted. Construction and demolition waste, including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard, shall be reused and/or recycled. Interior and exterior storage areas shall be provided for recyclables and Education and publicity shall be provided regarding reducing waste, green waste and adequate recycling containers shall be located in public areas. available recycling services, and water conservation. 2.2.2 Text Revisions to Revised DEIR Section 4.4, Noise In response to review comments and correspondence received, the Revised Draft EIRs Noise Mitigation Measures are amended as follows. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. 4.4.2 Construction contractor(s) shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or
mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. 4.4.5 For the duration of Project demolition, site preparation, and grading
activities, a temporary noise barrier of 3/4-inch plywood, a minimum of six-feet high, and containing no gaps greater than 1/8-inch, shall be installed along portions of the Project's easterly, westerly and southerly boundaries. Anticipated line-of-sight noise attenuation resulting from this or similar barrier with a Sound Transmission Class rating of STC 30 or greater is 5 dBA. Alternative measures (e.g., temporary sound curtains) providing equivalent noise attenuation may be employed if approved by the City. Proposed location of this the plywood (or alternative) barrier would be at the approximate locations of the permanent six-foot high perimeter block walls that will be implemented by the Project, as indicated at Figure 4.4-4. Final dimensions and location of this barrier
shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first development permit. 2.2.3 Text Revisions to Revised DEIR Section 4.5, Hazards/Hazardous Materials In response to review comments and correspondence received, the Revised Draft EIRs Hazards/Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures are amended as follows. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. 4.5.1 If during implementation of the Project, soil contamination is suspected,
construction in the affected area shall stop pending determination of the extent and character of contamination (or lack thereof). Suspected soils shall be tested at a certified laboratory approved by the Department of Health Services (DHS). Excavation, transport, and disposal of any soils determined to be contaminated shall be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the following agencies: City of Pomona; Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) - Los Angeles County Fire California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL-EPA); California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration United States Department of Transportation (USDOT); and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
Department;
(CAL-OSHA);
Under the California Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material Management Regulatory Program, (Chapter 6.11, Division 20, Section 25404 of the Health and Safety Code), hazards/hazardous materials management is addressed locally through the Certified Unified Program Agency. The primary CUPA for the City of Pomona is the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
2.2.4 Text Revisions to Revised DEIR Section 4.6, Hydrology/Water Quality In response to review comments and correspondence received, the Revised Draft EIRs Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation Measures are amended as follows. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. 4.6.1 The City of Pomona requires a Notification of Intent (NOI) and
compliance with all applicable general permits. Each industrial discharger, discharger associated with construction activity, or other discharger described in any general stormwater permit addressing such discharges as may be adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), or the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall provide Notice of Intent, comply with, and undertake all other activities required by any general stormwater permit applicable to such discharges (Pomona Code of Ordinances, Subpart A, Chapter 18, Article X Stormwater Management, Division 3. Discharge Regulations and Requirements, Section. 18495. Reduction of pollutants in stormwater). 2.2.5 Text Revisions to Revised DEIR Section 4.7, Public Services and Utilities Consistent with the comments provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the text at Revised DEIR Section 4.7.2.1, Page 4.7-4 (excerpt following) is amended to reflect the current updated information: Station No. 183 is staffed around the clock by one captain, one fire fighter specialist/paramedic and one fire fighter/paramedic. and two firefighters. This station is equipped with one paramedic engine. one engine company and one paramedic squad vehicle.
Additionally, the text at Revised DEIR Section 4.7.5.2, Page 4.7-12 (excerpt following) is amended to reflect the following current updated information. Countywide, the LACoFD operates 160 170 fire stations that are divided into 21 22 batallions. Consistent with updated information provided by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, the text at Revised DEIR Page 4.7-20 is amended accordingly as follows: The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) would be responsible for the treatment of wastewater generated by the Project. The City of Pomona provides local sewer lines for conveyance to the Districts 36-inch diameter Chino Basin wastewater line, located in Grand Avenue at Reservoir Street. The 36-inch diameter JOA-1A Chino Basin Wastewater Line conveyed a peak flow of 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd) when last measured in 2009. Additionally, LACSD notes that the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant currently processes an average flow of 8.7 million gallons per day (MGD). excerpted text at Revised DEIR Page 4.7-20 et al. is amended accordingly: The LACSDs Pomona Water Reclamation Plant has the capacity to provide primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment for approximately 15 million gallons per day (MGD), and currently processes an average flow of 8.3 8.7 MGD. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The following
2.2.6 Text Revisions to Revised DEIR Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations Footnote No. 4 at Page 5-39 is corrected as follows: Anticipated phased conversion of diesel vehicles to natural gas vehicles, as required by EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.16 and 4.3.17 , would fully mitigate potential Project-related cancer risk exposure impacts. Future fleet conversion in combination with other mitigation measures would reduce the maximum residential cancer risk exposure to 16.44 per million, which would affect only one (1) residence (1415 East Ninth Street) within the Study Area. Nonetheless, the Project HRA conservatively assumes no quantitative reductions for these measures, and cancer risk exposure impacts are considered to be significant at 1295 East Ninth Street and 1415 East Ninth Street until such diesel-to-CNG conversions are fully realized. Please refer also to EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, and the detailed Project Health Risk Assessment (HRA) presented at EIR Appendix C, Air Quality Impact Analysis. Related text at Page 5-40 is corrected as follows:: It is further noted but for the presence of non-conforming residential uses within the industrial land use district encompassing the Project site, no cancer risk thresholds would be exceeded. Over the long term, anticipated conversion of diesel vehicles to CNG, as required by EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.16 and 4.3.17 [4.3.21 and 4.3.22], will reduce the maximum residential cancer risk exposure to 16.44 per million, which would affect only one (1) residence (1415 East Ninth Street) within the Study Area. will eliminate potential increased cancer risks due to Project operations. Even absent these measures, the transition of surrounding nonconforming residential properties to industrial uses, pursuant to the City General Plan buildout vision for the industrial area encompassing the
Project site and surrounding area, will alleviate any potential increased cancer risk exposure at residential land uses. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. 2.2.7 Text Revisions to Revised DEIR Appendix H, Environmental Justice Considerations The text at Page H-19 is corrected as follows: Lastly, it is again noted that anticipated phased conversion of diesel vehicles to natural gas vehicles per EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.16 and 4.3.17 [4.3.21 and 4.3.22], would reduce the maximum residential cancer risk exposure to 16.44 per million, which would affect only one (1) residence (1415 East Ninth Street) within the Study Area. fully mitigate potential Project-related cancer risk exposure impacts. Even absent these measures, under General Plan Buildout conditions (approximately 2030), the existing non-conforming residential uses within the industrial zone encompassing the Project site are anticipated to transition to industrial development, consistent with underlying General Plan land use designations. In this manner, currently significant operational air quality impacts affecting the two (2) sensitive residential receptors located adjacent to the Project site (1295 and 1495 East Ninth Street) would be rendered less-than-significant and in so doing, alleviate potential environmental justice concerns. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

The following Section presents written comments received pursuant to public review of the Revised DEIR, and provides responses to those comments. Comment letters have been generally organized by state agencies; county, city and local agencies; utilities; local businesses and organizations; individuals; and various groups providing consolidated or similar comments. Comment letters have been assigned identifying designations (generally an acronym or name abbreviation), and comments within each letter have been numbered. Table 3-1 lists all Revised DEIR commentors and the designation assigned to each. Commentor correspondence and correlating responses are presented subsequently. As noted previously at Final EIR Section 1.0, Introduction, in instances where comments are provided as form letters, a representative form letter is included and a universal response is provided in this Section 3.0. In this instance, the form letter comments received on the Project/EIR were submitted in both English and Spanish. Accordingly, a representative English language form letter, and a representative Spanish language form letter are included herein, as are English language and Spanish language responses. Form letters are provided at FEIR Appendix B. A signed petition stating opposition to the Project was also submitted. Representative text from the petition is included in this Section 3.0, and petition signatories are also addressed universally. The petition is provided at FEIR Appendix B. Additionally where multiple commentors raise similar issues (as in comments received from Alcott Annex Elementary Students), a representative letter is included in this Section 3.0, concerns identified by commentors are listed, and responses are provided for the issues/concerns identified. All Alcott Annex Elementary Students letters are included at FEIR Appendix B.
Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project Final EIR - SCH No. 2009051126 Comments and Responses Page 3-1
Table 3-1 Revised DEIR Commentors

Commentor State Agencies (5 Letters)
State Clearinghouse Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle Letter 1) Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle Letter 2) California State Polytechnic University, Pomona California Department of Transportation, District 7 SCH CAL1 CAL2 POLY DOT CSD LAFD FFL COM PUSD GAS SA FP1 FP2 ONE CD LB AB JB EBAR TC ZCJC LE AG PSH TH JH KH MJ RM 3/15/11 3/14/11 4/30/10 3/11/11 3/10/11 3/11/11 4/7/11 2/25/11 2/1/11 3/14/11 2/15/11 3/10/11 2/26/11 3/7/11 3/4/11 2/3/11 2/18/11 3/10/11 3/7/11 3/8/11 3/7/11 3/7/11 3/11/11 3/11/11 3/12/11 3/9/11 3/13/11 3/11/11 3/8/11 3/9/11
Acronym Assigned
Correspondence Date
County Agencies (3 Letters)

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Fire Department Los Angeles County Fire Fighters Local 1014
City Agencies (1 Letter)

City of Montclair
Local Agencies (1 Letter)

Pomona Unified School District
Utilities (1 Letter)
Southern California Gas Company
Local Businesses and Organizations (5 Letters)

Speidel & Associates, Inc. First Presbyterian Church (Letter 1) First Presbyterian Church (Letter 2) One LA Pomona Valley Cluster Commercial Door Company, Inc.
Individuals (24 Letters)

Leonard Baleon (2 identical letters, sent to City and Planning Commission) Anayansi Balmaceda (2 identical letters, sent to City and Planning Commission) Joe Bauman (2 identical letters, sent to City and Planning Commission) Elizabeth Butcher and Angela Rodriguez (2 identical letters, sent to City and Planning Commission) Tony Cerda (2 identical letters, sent to City and Planning Commission) Zennie Cummings and Johnnie Clark (2 identical letters, sent to City and Planning Commission) Lisa A. Engdahl Adrienne Garcia P. Scott Harmon Thomas Hsieh Johnny Hwang Karen Hwang Maria Jimenez Richard Milhorn
Comments and Responses Page 3-2

Individuals (contd)
Al Solis Sara Stephens Belinda White John and Lynnette Whitney Erick Aldrete Brenda Alvarez Karla Carrillo Alan Casteneda Natalie Casteneda Jillian Cordova Angel Cortes Marvin Delgado Jordan Fitzhugh Sylvia Flores Decidoro Gomez Fernando Hernandez Kimberly Hernandez Jesus Herrera Ashley Juarez Briana Juarez Jorge Lamas
1
AS SS BW JLW April Llamas Dariela Garcia Lopez Eduardo Mendez Daniel Mendoza Devann Munoz Bernice Pena Arianna Ramirez Sandro Reyes, Jr. Fernando Rios Ahluna Sanchez Franchesca Sanchez Marlene Sanchez Persephany Sanchez Enet Tovilla Tyler Watanabe Brandon (last name not provided) Ernesto (last name not provided)
2/28/11 3/11/11 3/14/11 3/13/11
Alcott Annex Elementary Students (34 Letters; Letters are included at FEIR Appendix B)
Form Letters General Public (182 Letters; Letters are included at FEIR Appendix B)
Carmen Vicuna Rayvon Estes Lorna Vergara Diana Luna Angela Cervantes Jose Ramirez Adrienne Taylor Maria Flores Rita Meraz Alma Acosta Mary Sanchez Zuri Villalpando Sandra Villarreal Elizabeth Curiel Elizabeth Olalde Lina Guel Paula Rodriguez Eduardo Avila Vanessa Nguyen Edwin Estrada Yonson Godina Abraham Ojeda Jorge Lira Jessica Velasquez Celso Jimenez Azquillahs Muteti Morgan Brown Angie Castanon Tyra Weis Angie Nash Rosalinda Camarillo Andriana Hernandez Anthony De La Cruz Ubaldo Escamilla Virginia Ontiveros Brian Taylor Veronica McKelvey Henry Mollet Iran Vergara Omar Marroquin Marlen Sanchez Sonia Ibarra Benjamin Margolis Alejandra Jimenez Meg Johannsen Anne Jacobs Amanda Llorente Bree Hsieh Sal Sevilla Christina Caraballo Jesse Hernandez Teresa Murillo Luis Villa Cecilia Garcia Ryan Simms Michael Baltierra Brenda Ortiz VanAnh Nguyen Jeff Johannsen Leticia Gabriel Trina Minero Marnee Randle Emma Velasco Ramona Hernandez

Form Letters1 General Public (contd.)
Melissa Hernandez Carina Perez Rosa Verduzco Leslie Garcia Marisol Rangel Pilar Alanis Martha Salcedo Carmen Leal Alma Ortiz Ana Villatoro Elsa Ruiz Juana Marin Maria Solobzano Sandra Lopez Semonal Washington Yolanda Ortega Roberto Carrera Luis Lopez Jose Pacheco Ruth Saldana Alberto Garcia Kristen Villa Natalie Diaz Jason Renfro II Karla Diaz Jose Lemus Ana Mendez Lizette Monrroy Juan Morales Uriel Reza Ana Rivera Tim Campbell Joanna Rojas Nelson Andino Maritza Andino Itzayana Martinez Andy Padilla Larry Miranda Vishra Patel Rajendra Patel Mansi Patel Karen Domingues Meliza Gandara Viviana Casteneda Elvis Dominguez Steven Colorado Gustavo Michel Andrea Acevedo Alysa Sibrian Manuel Dimas Joseph Morabido Luz Carrillo Gloria Raygoza Zenaida Leyva Adela Sanchez Curtis Wayne Turman Mary Turman Linda Peete Lourdes Gonzalez Emily Luttnill Miguel Albino Maria Kurtek Carlos Aguirre Juan Hurtado Cynthia Urquizo Ana Saucedo Jasmin Navarrete Jose Sanchez Brayan Reyes Joseluis Magallon Peter Alarcio Aide Gutierrez Silvester Ramirez Gissel Tostado Celeste Torres Jenny Salinas Jose Sanchez Maria Ramirez Felipe Ramirez II Jorge Ramirez Josue Sanchez Veronica Ramirez Michael Ramirez Carolyn Dominguez German Guardado Iris Guardado Rosemarie Zelaya German Zelaya Michelle Zelaya Ana Sevilla Laura Gonzalez Gustavo Rodriguez Esther Gochez Jose Trujillo Maria Carrillo Catalina Carrillo Eric Granados Jose Gonzalez Aurora Velarde Maria Castro Perla Castro Esmeralda Castro Engracia Castro Asaf Rodriguez John Rodriguez Bertha Hernandez Cecilia Avalos Leticia Lopez-Bentacourt Cassandra Gonzalez Ana Franco Mayra Cruz Thomas McPheeters IV Efrain Huertas Ronald Pound Chester Tadeja Manela Barju Tom Caraballo Rebeca Amezcua
St. Madeleine and First Presbyterian Staff and Parishioners (136 Letters; Letters are included at FEIR Appendix B)
Carmen Martinez Adriana Beltran Yvonne Bricens Adrian Benitez Adriana Benitez Isidoro Barron Alfred Vera Virginia Hill Esthela Clarke Leslie Hill Maria Gonzalez Linda DeBerry Filander Franco Maria Lopez Alejandro Pena Socorro Rodriguez Victor Fuentes Jorge Torres Pedro Diaz Luz Sanchez Oscar Molina Ninfa Arriaga David Rodriquez Jorge Angulo Juana Martinez Guadalupe Jacinto Carmelita Angulo Marcario Angulo

Form Letters1
St. Madeleine and First Presbyterian Staff and Parishioners (contd.) Ernie Garcia Vanessa Franco Wayne Noble Manuel Valarde Jennie Perez Teresa Hernandez Jose Hernandez Hillary Reyes Ashley Reyes Mayra Chavez Hermenegildo Garcia Diana Rodriguez Adrian Lopez Roxanne Maniquis Maria Phillips Virginia Carrasco Juana Diaz Fidensia Elkins Roger Elkins Carlos Hernandez Ramona Hernandez Jackie Flores Martha Landeros Philip LaFarge Lydia Lopez Martin Landeros Maxine LaFarge Maria Rodriguez Ofelia Ruano Socorro Castellanos Araceli Jimenez Filemon Sanchez Donitila Franco Anita Raybon Maria Bonilla Mary Whitehead Jose Martinez Juan Aguilera Elvira Aguilera Rita Martinez Ana Aguilera Daniel Salcedo Celia Salcedo Victoria Isidoro Adriana Salcedo Mario Guzman Jose Oclaro Maria Ortega Alicia Claro Isabel Salcedo Maria Rodriguez Everardo Tovar Adriana Garcia Vincentia Duffy Guillermo Rocha Maria Contreras Norma Botelho Maria Villalobos Martha Thacker Manuel Rodriguez Margaret Velarde Helen Uceda Bladimiro Gudino Nelly Vargas Roberto Hernandez Maria Victoria Portillo Juana Vasquez Daniel Meza Manuela Meza Gloria Garate Francisco Flores Delia Avedano Irene Acosta Pedro Vargas Maria Vargas Oscar Ramirez Eva Guerrero Omar Montes de Oca Anahi Monte de Oca Pedro Vargas Paola Elias Rafael Almeria Edna Chavez Carlos Montes de Oca Martina Montes de Oca Miguel Moreno Ana Delgado Daisy Gonzalez Haiden Esquivel Maria Chavez Gustavo Contreras Arturo Gomez Lorena Rafael Alma Gomez Rosa Rangel Tereso Peralto Reyna Franco Jaime (last name not provided) Irineo Rodriguez Jacinto Benitz Rachel Torres Margaret Hunter Amelia Gonzalez Luz Maria Cervantes Maria Lara Antonia Garcia Maria Crazo Aurora Narvaez Jorge Angulo, Jr. Lupe Perez Diana Fletes Nancy Thorbourn Jaime Fletes Gloria Heredia Maria Fletes Blanca Guzman Manuel Guzman Manuela Romero Linda Gonzales Carolyn Cianciolo Cecilia Munoz Heriberto Heredia Patricia Chapman Mike Suarez Dolores Castro Frank Ebiner Robert Moran Gliorer Guerrero Rosie Aguirre Marlene Linthicum Milton Lyles Carole Lyles Mario Molina Tumasa Qugada Gustavo Contresa Bonnie Johnson Betty Rayford Maria Luisa Alcota Consuelo Perez Hermila Rueda Laura Lopez
Washington Park Senior Adult Services (33 Letters; Letters are included at FEIR Appendix B)

Form Letters1 Jaycee Park Exercise Class (16 Letters; Letters are included at FEIR Appendix B)
Elvia Cortez Marisela Tapia Alma Ortiz Gloria Lopez Maria Carrillo Maria Ibarra Virginia Marquez Glora Lobos Maria Salcedo Arcelia Flores Teresa Loma Maria Bustos Lourdes Montiel Maria Rodriquez Margarita Jacobo Nancy Ceja
Parents, teachers, and students from the following schools: (602 Letters; Letters are included at FEIR Appendix B)
Alcott Elementary, Allison Elementary, Armstrong Elementary, Barfield Elementary, Cortez Elementary, Decker Elementary, Diamond Ranch High, Emerson Middle, Ganesha High, Garey High, Golden Springs Elementary, Kingsley Elementary, Lexington Elementary, Lopez Elementary, Lorbeer Middle, Madison Elementary, Mendoza Elementary, Monte Vista Elementary, Montvue Elementary, Park West High, Pomona High, Pueblo Elementary, Ramona Elementary, San Antonio Elementary, San Jose Elementary, Simons Middle, St. Joseph Elementary, St. Madeleine Catholic, Village Academy High, Washington Elementary, Western University of Health Sciences Maria Villa Jose Rivera Amy Vine Anh Duy Ton Jennifer Grijalva Maria Gomez Veronica Hernandez Daniela Nevarez Vitalina Vasquez Grio Trejo Canddaria Campos Bernardino Estrada Laura Infante Melissa Hostetler Rosa Perez Nely Perez Rocio Gonzalez Beatriz Tamayo Jose Ortuno Lilia Escarcega Nely Franco Diana Luna Jesus Dimas Elizabeth Alameda Blanca Hernandez De Lira Laura Pizano Monica Martinez Maritza Vasquez Silvia Palauos Miguel Ramos Antonio Hurtado Adriana Sanabria Lizbeth Rodriguez Roberto Perez Laura Chavez Victor Sican Michael Santos Eloise Arrington Zaide Reyes Francisco Corona Berenice Limon Max Castro Abdiel Hernandez Kiana Duran Emily Perez Lazaro Cardenas Andrea Enriquez Andres Serrato Nayeli Torres Wendy Rosales Ana Hernandez Aaron Adame Christian Nunez Guadalupe Casteneda Damiana Aldana Leanor Gonzalez Rosa Nunez Shawn Nash Na Young Song David Joyce Kevin Howard Andrew Lin Michael Lipp John Royer Gabe Guerrero Brian Scrivens Daniel Becerri Olga Jaimes Dorothy Mann Maria Rodriguez Maria Bello Salvador Silva Maria Vergara Estela Salazar Maria Villanueva SanJuana Porras Azucena Manreal Jorge Villalpando Guadalupe Silva Dennis McKelvey Veronica McKelvey Manuel Dortha Jesse Magana Francisco Tamayo Jessenia Carrera Marvelia Pacheco Celia Gomez Jessica Escamilla Jose Escamilla Mario Cos Elizabeth Becerra Theodore Mugerian Julio Ortega Juan Rodriguez Dorothy Kim Pedro Gonzalez Susan Villa Helen Estrada-Merritt Charles Gelsinger Rosaura Jimenez-Mireles Janice Sedig Corinne McIntire Bob Dupaquier Maria Dolores Zendejas

Form Letters1 Parents, teachers, and students: (contd.)
Tracy Jorensen Knicole Nelson Roberta Mindiola Trina Long Adrianna Perez Lorraine Monroy Loretta Vasquez Angel Vivor Melisa Inzunza Amanda Romo Islene Leon Elisa Fox Maryanne Villarosa Cindy Yuen Rosa Miranda-Zimmer Jonathan Kraus W. Sapson Ruben Esparza Gabriela Camargo Maria Esparza Paz Herrera Elba Perez Emma Ramos Lorraine Monroy Marisol Serrano Elizeth Moreno Sabina Gamino Daisy Aceves Maria Ledesma Laura Ramirez Fredy Ramos Felix Perez Claudia Ortega Ana Cabrera Elizabeth Martinez Armando Mancinas Jacquelyn Callison Ivan Sanchez Catheryn Fernandez Oliver Lopez Clarissa Contreras Alec Bacon Scott Simms Jorge Medina Daisy Verduzco Paulo Rojas Julia Campos Jocelyn Richard Cesar Jimenez Abel Zarate Jailene Herrera Xena Perez-Angeles Brandy Perez Suzette David J. Avila Edgar Estrada Jason Orta Roy Lopez Carlos Magin Jose Rodriguez Laura Le Arlene Sandoval Louis Acevedo Chinara Wilson Claritza Ramirez Jesus Moreno Jessica Contreras Sandy Carrasco Alexandra Duarte Joel Ramirez Jennifer Argueta Manuel Magin Magan Vergara Steven Raynoso Jonathan Medrano Eli Cordova Carlos Francisco Aragoa Lopez Maria De La Cruz Plascenda Maria Garcia Ramona Hernandez Maria Salcedo Maria Saenz Chris Myers Roxana Molina Maria Dortha Xochilt Moreno Ubaldo Escamilla Emila Ponce Martin Ponce Rose Ponce Mona Lisa Guzman Sonia Ramirez Erica Rodriguez Rosa Ramirez Maria Santana Carmen Santana Frank Guzman Teresa Acosta Jose Guadalupe Perez Carmen Perez Maria De la Luz Martinez Patricia Santellan Maria Uceda Veronica Sedano Thelma Jimenez Martin Espinoza Belinda White Susan Wentz Teresa Turman Bernice Walker Alba Escobar Tara Tavi Alvarez Carolina Esmerelda Andrade Karen Vance Polly Tam Chan Yolanda Gonzalez Maria Rubalcaua Ernesto Leon Noemi Guzman Joana Gonzalez Veronica Mendoza Selene Munoz Julio Limon Eduardo Rangel Alejandro Pena Magdalena Orozco Jose Miguel Prado Jesus Arambula Vanessa Correa Victor Sanabria Brayan Hernandez Jose Alex Prado Yolanda Sandoval Gloria Ruiz Alan Martinez Ricardo Sandoval Nadia Castillo Danilo Garay Victor Lua Gregory Cain Jazmin Bravo Maritza Aguirre Myrka Salcedo Marisol Ruiz Maria Ortega Adolfo Quintana Edith Solis Maria Castro Maria Sanchez Brenda Arteaga Ma. Luisa Lepe

Leticia Sanchez Soledad Sapien Iliana Molina Yeni Palacios Gabriela Esparza Nathan Jones Andrea Bautista Dhylva Metzler Carmen Hernandez Sharon Blake Hector Martinez Jessica Gonzalez Jesus Mora David Jimenez Nancy Montoya Rosalba Camayena Ysabele Santana Virginia Martinez Martina Rangel Margarita Mejia Mercedes Santos Veroni Galiz Ivonne Lopez Damiana Partida Ricardo Galaviz Christina Rodriguez Andriana Aguilar Margarita Hernandez Cynthia Meraz Marisol Galaviz Abigail Vega Brenda Soto Elidio Arellano Martha Ramirez Virginia Martinez Maria Canare Sara Garcia Dalia Vasquez Leticia Dircio Adrian Avila Natalie Barrios Andrea Angulo Alan Flores Jazmine Meza Yesmin Torres Manuel Diaz Cristal Leon Adrian Nunez Byron Gonzalez Guadalupe Dircio Yanira Lopez Mariarosa Ballesteros Steven Flores Josh Ngo Valeria Segura Thuy-Vi Mai Oziel Lopez Katherine Duran Mike Ramirez Nick Agnoletto Jose Reyes Rosa Murillo Josue Garcia Nicholas Muro Stephanie Saldana Nanette Alarcio Brianda Arriaga Gabriel Valasquez Mayra Quintero Billy Ibarra Ana Guzman Dayana Ruiz Rodrigo Felix Nicole Mladosich Serafin Alvarez Jaqueline Medina Jesus Arredondo Alicia Rivera Brianna Martinez Stephanie Espinoza Yolanda Sandoval Maria Salgado Manuel Flores Rocio De Los Santos Ernesto Castillo Maria Chavez Diana Demara Matilde Vega Anahi Montes de Oca Rosalinda Gonzalez Maria Nunez Maria Martinez Sandra Saldana Floridalma Reyes Lucy Gutierrez Laura Huerta Gloria Peraza Andrea Regalado Marta Rivas Rosalia Diaz Adrian Martinez Urbano Resendiz Maria Soto Adolfo Castro Herman Molina Miguel Carlos Alfredo Felix Jesus Adame Tiana Molina Noemi Rivera Nibia Jimenez Delfina Buenrostro Dolores Reyes Guadalupe Castaneda Mukta Cham Silvia Paredes Elvira Salazar Patricia Ortiz Maria Trujillo Claudia Alonzo Elsa Martinez Ana Lopez Ana Zaragoza Maria Baez Susie Trujillo Aurelia Aguiar Maria Torres Xitlali Rincon Juan Barruto Lisa Drake David Drake William Soriano Irma Manzano Antonio Renfro Wilber Soriano Jessica Urquizo Yolimar Magana Ernesto Aldrete Hyleen Renteria Reyna Velis Janet Vargas Lilia Rodriguez Reyna Chavez Edgar Galeana Michelle Romero Cesar Flores Luis Lemus Florentina Gutierrez Karla Eusquiano Daniel Contreras Anthony Loza Luis Benitez Victor Bernal Pablo Andrade Cynthia Ibarra Grisol Ramirez

Nancy Martinez Gladys Murillo Pilar Maldonado Maria Pacheco Jesus Villalbazo Rosalbo Gonzalez Alicia Meda Norma Vega Veronica Esquivel Mary Peek Maria Infante Josefina Chacon Irma Sabalza Gabriela Priego Iris Rojas Teresa Noyola Maria Jimenez Adriana Serrano Maria Medina Genesis Escareno Maria Lira Rosa Escareno Sandra Ramirez Laurentina Infante Emely Garcia Erika Rivera Emilia Mendoza Ulysses Mladosich Joanna Villarreal Laura Rivera DaSean Renfra Abram Garcia Jessica Serrano Kassandra Medina Brandon Vallejo Zaid Martinez Valentino Marrufo Israel Ceran Jaime Rojas Daniel Magana Jesus Ochoa Teresa Alvarado Johan Guzman Cynthia Cazares Henry Loya Rebecca Van Guilder Werner Casteneda Christian Flores Alejandro Rodriguez Alejandro Mota Isidore Robles Ramon Arambula Daisy Roman Lizzett Ramirez Francisco Cruz Steven Tinajero Jose Ruiz William Leonard Andres Castro Jennifer Rodriguez Eric Peraza Isidro Amador Hannah Barreras Arelys Ramirez Alicia McMullin Veronica Estrada Angelina Gonzalez Erika Duran Juana Castro Heather Peck Estela Ortega Judith Rose Maria Zimdars Andy Marquez Elias Verduzco, Jr. Blanca Castro Dalila Delgado Maria Tamayo Maricela Arredondo Alejandro Martinez Maricela Delgado Maria Armas William Brogie Alberto Lopez Victoriano Chavez Esparanzo Orozco Maria Paco Francis Soto Anthony Saucedo Elsa Frias Ana Miller Sonia Trejo Jose Garcia Leonides Buenrostro Rosa Cazares Gisela Delgado Sandra Reyes Maria Carrasco Silvia Lopez Veronica Villarreal Maria Donis Alejandra Ayala Maria Aquilar Elena Pasillas Maria Aguirre Maria Gonzalez Jose Torres Lorena Bonilla Alicia Rodriguez Agueda Guerrero Erick Castillo Veronica Anguiano Ricardo Garcia Maria Reynel Irma Artega Elvia Lopez Ana Lopez Alan Laureano Juan Gutierrez Cindy Becerra Veronica Martinez Justin White Denise Robles Fabian Arredondo Samira Barco Cindy Gonzalez Natalie Varela Ana Elizabeth Arzola Jose Araiza Ariana Ayers Araceli Hernandez Cynthia Guillen Steven Harper Janet Ortiz Shellsey Ortega Gabriela Gurrola Juan Castaneda Kristin Burgess Diana Avitia Vincent Mora Estefania Aldrete Karla Lima Jennifer Noriega Gloria Andino Michael Hernandez Ashley Hedrick Robyn Clark Rosie Martinez Maria Rubalcava Eloy Amancio Ricardo Amancio Luz Ramirez MaElena Valdovinos Diana Zarazua Minerva Vences Ruben Yepizom

Francisco Lua Jennifer Gomez Yaritza Leon Selena Chavez German Ramos Julian Bravo Sirenna Dominguez Christian Contreras Cathy Garcia Elvia Bernal Luisa Porras Javier Bernal Anaycly Alonso Rafael Reyes, Jr. Maricela Cruz Onelia Cruz Eneida Vasquez Maria Diaz Malori Lared Roberta Vasquez Emilia Aquayo Roberto Aquago Roberto Aquago, Jr. Abigail & David Hernandez Maria Perez Margarita Arellano Eva Alcala Alex Horta R. Horta Josefina Ortega Felix Villalobos Rita Villalobos Estela Agudo Rosa Diaz Carlos Castellon Marcelino Campos Patricia Gonzalez Jose Flores Maria Flores Martin Saldana
1
Mariza Lopez Goycoolea Alba Calderon Patrick Adongo Cynthia Macedo Dinorah Rivera Ivette De Casas Claudia Paz Rocha Jilma Smith Seals Sonia Chavez Silia Orozco Maria Hernandez Celia Hernandez Maria Urenda Margarita Ordaz Armando Morales Luis Arellano Steve Beas Maora Baigas Miguel Rodriguez Alicia Rodriguez Arnold Rodriguez Louisa Moya Mon Sanchez Claudia Espinoza Adriana Mercado Michela Morales Mike Morales Urbano Margarito Karina Salazar Jaime Andrade Lauro Morales Lourdes Cortez Francisca Saberanie Mario Carillo Maria Orendain Eluira Becerra Alejandro Angel Angelina Becerra Emilio Becerra Carmen Vivanco
Maria Uribe Gustavo Ramirez Maria Banderas Rosa Villarreal Dalia Bibiano Miriam Vargas Patricia Gonzalez Maria Rizo Maria Guadalupe Puentes Socorro Vera Patricia Diaz Socorro Moreno Rosabla Avila Ann Cruz Angelica Avila Jose Avila Heliodoro Avila Duarte Maria Sanchez Luis Acuna Teresa Acuna Sanila Acuna Rosio Acuna Guadalupe Lopez Carolina Villagomez Illegible Illegible Illegible Illegible Oscar Escobedo Nancy Escobedo Enriqueta Escobedo Salvador Escobedo Gerardo Renteria Janet Renteria Daniel Tzec Enrique Tzec Elia Hernandez Nicole Hernandez Christine Ortega Luis Hernandez
Brooke Hayashi Raquel Galicia Grisada Mayana Andrea Buenrrostro Illegible Carolina Morales Ivette Corness
Opposition Petition (123 Signatures, Petition is included at FEIR Appendix B)

Maricruz Hernandez Fernando Jimenez Maria Juache Illegible Jessica Juache Cesario Jimenez Beatriz Jimenez Angeleica Hernandez Martha Cortez S Blanco Art Lemus Ana Fernandez Illegible Illegible Virginia Illegible Richard Ramos Victoria Ramos Juan Carlos Gutierrez Jacqueline Bravo Juana Perez Rangel Jesus Illegible Illegible Illegible Jen Gutierrez Lourdes Espinoza Giovani Arvizu Karla Arvizu Ruben Lopez Jared Moreno
The number of form letters does not reflect duplicate/multiple letters received from the same commentor.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE SCH No. 2009051126 Response SCH-1 State Clearinghouse receipt of the Pomona Valley Transfer Station Draft EIR is acknowledged, as is distribution of the Draft EIR to the listed State Agencies. The Stateassigned Clearinghouse reference number (SCH No. 2009051126) and dates of the public review period for the Draft EIR (January 28, 2011 through March 14, 2011) are also acknowledged.
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 801 K Street, MS 19-01 Sacramento, CA 95814 Letter #1 Dated March 14, 2011 Response CAL1-1 The commentor notes CalRecycles opportunity to review and comment on the January 2011 Revised Draft EIR (Revised DEIR). CalRecycle has no further comments on the Revised DEIR beyond those presented in CalRecycle comment letter dated April 30, 2010, (which provided comments on the March 2010 Draft EIR). The Lead Agency appreciates CalRecycle comment and input on the Project and EIR. Additional information provided here is acknowledged. The CalRecycle comment letter dated April 30, 2010 and responses to that letter are attached. Additional necessary responses to the CalRecycle comment letter dated March 14, 2011 are provided herein. Response CAL1-2 CalRecycle staff requests that a copy of the Statement of Overriding Considerations be provided, along with any related resolutions. Should the EIR be certified, and the Project approved, a copy of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, along with any related resolutions will be provided to CalRecycle staff. Response CAL1-3 CalRecycle requests that hard copies (paper, not electronic) of all subsequent environmental documents be provided, to include but not limited to: the Final Environmental Impact Report; the Transfer Processing Report, Statement of Overriding Considerations, copies of public notices and any Notices of Determination for the Project.
The Lead Agency acknowledges CalRecycle request for hard copy documents, but suggests that limited available resources (human and other) are more effectively and efficiently employed for purposes other than document reproduction and handling. Moreover, given the manpower and dollar costs of reproduction; potential for loss, damage, or destruction of information; warehousing and cataloging requirements; and information retrieval difficulties, it is unclear how the provision of hard copy (vis--vis electronic copy) documents is of benefit. Further, provision of electronic information where available is consistent with CEQA paperwork reduction policies and guidelines; and is the preferred method of document presentation for information submitted to the State Office of Planning and Research. It is noted also that the use of electronic documents, rather than hard copy printing, supports and is consistent with the Citys and (states) source reduction and recycling mandates. Lastly, printing of documents in part or in total can be achieved from the electronic copies provided. CalRecycle or other agencies have the option of printing in house or contracting with private commercial services for document production. Response CAL1-4 The commentor cites 14 CCR, 15094 (d): If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the local agency shall also, within five working days of this approval, file a copy of the notice of determination with the Office of Planning and Research. Should the EIR be certified and the Project approved, the Lead Agency shall comply with 14 CCR, 15094 (d) notice of determination requirements. Response CAL1-5 The commentor requests that responses to CalRecycle comments and notice certification dates (with or without public hearing) be provided a minimum of ten (10) days prior to any such certification actions and/or hearings.
The Lead Agency will provide responses to CalRecycle comments a minimum of ten (10) days prior to any anticipated or potential EIR certification actions. CalRecycle will be provided notice a minimum of ten (10) days prior to public hearing or other venues allowing for potential EIR certification. Response CAL1-6 CalRecycle point of contact information for questions and responses is provided: Martin Perez, email to martin.perez@calrecycle.ca.gov; telephone 951.782.4194; mail to: 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 4025, Sacramento, CA 95812-4025. Point of contact information provided by the commentor is noted. No further response is required.
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 801 K Street, MS 19-01 Sacramento, CA 95814 Letter #2 Dated April 30, 2010 Response CAL2-1 The commentor notes CalRecycles opportunity to review and comment on the March 2010 Draft EIR (EIR). CalRecycle notes that comments on the EIR are provided for the Lead Agencys consideration. CalRecycle specifically notes that if the Project as described by CalRecycle is materially different than that understood by the Lead Agency, that any significant differences be incorporated in the Final EIR. CalRecycle cites CEQA Section 15088.5 and requirements for EIR recirculation based on inclusion of significant new information subsequent to public review. The Lead Agency appreciates CalRecycles comment and input on the Project and EIR. Additional information provided here is acknowledged. Response CAL2-2 CalRecycle materially and correctly summarizes substantive aspects of the Project. However, certain elements of the EIR Project Description are incorrectly or partially represented. Elements described by CalRecycle vis--vis the EIR Project Description are compared below. Corrections and/or clarifications to the CalRecycle description of the Project are noted.
CalRecycle Summary City of Pomona Planning Department acting as Lead Agency is proposing the construction of a fully enclosed Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Facility and associated supporting facilities . . . . EIR Project Description The Lead Agency is not proposing construction or operation of the Project. The Project Applicant, Grand Central Recycling & Transfer Station, Inc. (Mr. David Perez) proposes construction and operation of the Project (EIR at Page 2-2, et al.). The City of Pomona is the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA because it has the principal responsibility and authority for deciding whether or not to approve the Project, and how it will be
implemented. As the Lead Agency, the City of Pomona is also responsible for preparing the environmental documentation for the Project in compliance with CEQA (EIR, Page 3-46). As noted by CalRecycle, the proposed transfer station building will be fully enclosed. Consistent with Rule 410 and CIWMB odor control/minimization requirements, the proposed MSW transfer station is fully enclosed and designed to create negative air pressure (EIR, Page 3-41). The facility will be approximately 10. 5 acres located at 1371 East 9th Street with access to Mission Boulevard. The Project site encompasses approximately 10.5 acres. The Project site is located at 1371 East 9th Street (EIR at Page 1-2, et al.). Access to the transfer station will be provided via three (3) driveways, one (1) on Mission Boulevard to the north, and two (2) on 9th Street to the south. The northerly Mission Boulevard driveway will be a one-way entry, and will provide access solely to inbound transfer trucks. The westerly driveway on 9th Street will provide access for inbound/outbound employees and visitors, while the easterly driveway will provide access for inbound/outbound collection trucks, self-haul vehicles, and some employee vehicles. Outbound transfer trucks will also exit the site via the easterly driveway (EIR at Page 3-23). The facility will receive material from municipal collection vehicles, commercial franchise haulers operating within the City, public self-haul vehicles and waste transported from outside the City. The facility will be permitted to operate twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week. Project MSW sources as summarized by CalRecycle is materially correct.
. . . Although the facility would be permitted to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, pursuant to the EIR Mitigation Measures, the transfer station hours of operation for MSW acceptance and transfer shall not exceed 12 hours per day, occurring between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (EIR, Page 3-33). The Applicant proposes to further restrict Project hours for MSW acceptance and transfer to between 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, and the facility will be closed for business on Sunday. Maintenance and cleaning activities would occur after hours. Notwithstanding, to establish a likely maximum impact scenario, this [EIR] analysis assumes the facility will operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (EIR, Page 3-34).
CalRecycle indicates Project peak tonnage at 1,500 tons per day; and Project hours of operation as 24 hours per day.
The Project Applicant has requested a Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) to allow for acceptance of up to 1,500 tons of MSW per day (EIR, Page 3-32). Please refer also to preceding remarks regarding Project days/hours of operation.
Response CAL2-3 The commentor summarizes significant Project-specific and cumulative impacts identified in the EIR. Where applicable, discrepancies and clarification of impacts listed by the commentor, vis--vis those presented in the EIR are summarized below. Traffic and Circulation: Intersection Impacts. Project-specific and cumulatively significant traffic impacts at the intersection of Mission Boulevard at SR-71 described by the commentor are materially correct. No revision/clarification required. Air Quality: Construction-related PM10/PM2.5 emissions Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Exceedances. Construction-related PM10/PM2.5 LST exceedances noted by the commentor are both Project-specific and cumulatively significant. On this basis, temporary construction-source emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 and operational NOx emissions in exceedance of thresholds will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these pollutants within a non-attainment area (EIR at Page 4.3-132). At affected receptors (those closest to the Project site), the Projects localized PM10 and PM2.5 emissions concentrations, in combination with ambient PM concentrations, and other PM10 and PM2.5 emissions generated by offsite sources would be cumulatively significant (EIR at Page 5-12). PM10 and PM2.5 emissions levels will tend to diminish as the use of heavy equipment in the early construction stages concludes, and will dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. Air Quality: Diesel Particulate Matter Source (DPM-source) Cancer Risk Threshold Exceedances. As described by the commentor, DPM-source cancer risk threshold exceedances at two (2) residences is a Project-specific and cumulatively significant impact.
Please note further, that in response to commentor concerns, and consistent with mitigation refinements intended to be achieved through the CEQA and EIR review processes, additional mitigation is proposed that would act to further reduce Project-related DPM emissions. More specifically, additional/revised mitigation is proposed [MM 4.3.21 (A)mended and MM 4.3.22(A), below+ that would ensure future year (2020) CNG-only access restrictions for all transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles served by the Project. 1, 2 MM 4.3.21 (A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks, and all Applicantcontrolled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). MM 4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling of DPM-source cancer risks resulting from application of proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A) in combination with other DPM emissions mitigation currently proposed in the Revised DEIR (See Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.17 through 4.3.20) has been conducted as one component of this Final EIR (please refer to HRA Addendum included at Final EIR Appendix A). Results of the HRA Addendum indicate that with the stipulated conversion of diesel-fueled vehicles to CNG vehicles described herein, the Year 2020 maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially affected receptor would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant.
The Year 2020 timeframe implementation schedule proposed here is consistent with and parallels EPA/CARB tiered emissions reductions goals for heavy-duty trucks.
2
Proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A) would replace/supercede MM 4.3.21 and 4.3.22 currently reflected in the Revised DEIR.
More specifically, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street), the mitigated cancer risk would be 3.98 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 0.52 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore be less than the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. The HRA Addendum results indicate further, that under no circumstance would area schools be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially significant non-cancer risks. Please refer also to detailed HRA modeling results presented at Final EIR Appendix A. Notwithstanding these findings, this Final EIR conservatively maintains previous conclusions regarding potential Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risks. That is, for the purposes of disclosure, and to maintain the conservative analysis construct employed to date, Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risk exposures at the residences located at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street are considered to be significant until the Year 2020. No other locations would experience potentially adverse elevated DPMsource cancer risk exposures (or non-cancer risk exposures) resulting from Project operations or activities. Please refer also to related discussions of DPM emissions impacts and proposed additional/revised mitigation presented at Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging significant Project-specific, and cumulative localized DPM emissions impacts. Continuing, other significant impacts noted by the commentor and discussed in the Revised DEIR include: Air Quality: Regional Threshold Exceedances (NOx only). As described by the commentor, Project operations will result in long-term exceedances of SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx only. This is a Project-specific and cumulatively significant impact. No revision/clarification required.
Noise: Construction Noise. As noted by the commentor, Project-related construction noise will temporarily and intermittently exceed the Citys 65 dBA exterior residential noise standard at proximate residential receptors. This is a Projectspecific and cumulatively significant impact. Construction-source noise levels will tend to diminish as the use of heavy equipment in the early construction stages concludes, and will dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. No revision/clarification required. Response CAL2-4 The commentor notes that other specific comments are provided by CalRecycle, and requests that future reference to the former California Integrated Waste Management Board be by that agencys new name(s), CalRecycle or the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery or the acronym DRRR. Responses to other specific comments provided by CalRecycle follow. Future reference to the commenting agency will be under the title(s) CalRecycle and/or the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (DRRR). Response CAL2-5 The commentor requests clarification of the types of Municipal Solid Wastes received. General categories of waste accepted by the Project (as summarized at Draft Transfer Processing Report( Draft TPR), Page 22, DEIR Appendix G), include: Mixed Residential Waste, Commercial Waste, Wood/Green Waste, and Construction, Demolition, and Inert (CDI) Debris. Based on similar existing operations at the Grand Central Transfer Station (City of Industry, CA) it is anticipated that mixed refuse/green waste will comprise up to approximately 84.7 percent (by weight) of the total daily waste stream. A refuse to green waste ratio of 9 to 1 was assumed and based upon traditional waste volumes associated with the existing transfer facility (Pomona Valley Transfer Station Odor Impact Analysis (OIA), unnumbered page 3). The CDI debris waste stream component is estimated at approximately 15.3 percent (by weight) of the daily waste stream (OIA; Attachment B, Calculation Worksheets and Emissions Rates, unnumbered page 3, Waste Stream
Characterization). No hazardous materials will be accepted at the proposed transfer station. (14 CCR 17407.5(a).) Response CAL2-6 The commentor summarizes operational limits imposed pursuant to the EIR mitigation measures, and operational attributes voluntarily proposed by the Applicant. Processing Report. As requested by the commentor, Project operational constraints and limitations (whether implemented through the EIR mitigation measures, required pursuant to Project Conditions of Approval, voluntarily proposed by the Applicant, or otherwise initiated) will be reflected in the Transfer Processing Report. Notwithstanding, for the purposes of establishing a likely maximum impact scenario the EIR analysis assumes a twenty four hour per day, seven days per week operational condition. Response CAL2-7 The commentor inquires: Why are two shifts necessary when the facility will only be open from 6:00 am through 6:00 pm? Staffing and shift duration are as proposed by the Applicant. Twelve hour shifts as suggested by the commentor (while not uncommon) are not the norm for most business operations. Moreover, while the facility will accept waste only between the hours of 6:00 am and 6:00 pm, certain staff will be onsite before 6:00 am and after 6:00 pm providing a variety of services including but not limited to: facility/equipment maintenance and cleaning, facility security, and daily opening and closing operations. Moreover, personnel staffing preferences (whether as a single shift or as multiple shifts) would not substantively affect the EIR analyses or conclusions. The commentor requests these same operational limitations be reflected in the Transfer
Response CAL2-8 The commentor inquires: Will any transfer vehicles be leaving the site between 6:00 pm and 6:00 am? Will any processing or loading of vehicles take place between 6:00 pm and 6:00 am? As a general rule, and under normal operating conditions, no transfer vehicles will exit the site between 6:00 pm and 6:00 am. Nor will there be any processing or loading of vehicles between 6:00 pm and 6:00 am. Transfer vehicles that have entered the site prior to 6:00 pm and are already on-site at the established closing time would be permitted to load and exit the site. Response CAL2-9 The commentor summarizes EIR Table 3-3 presentation of Project vehicle trip generation and its translation to passenger car equivalents (PCEs). The commentor requests clarification of gas station internal trip capture information presented at Table 3-3. Detailed trip generation information is presented in the Project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Specific parameters and assumptions regarding Project gas station vehicle trip generation and internal trip capture is excerpted below: Traffic attributable to the gasoline/diesel station has been estimated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for land use 944 (ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition), which are listed on Table 5-2.A. The proposed six (6) vehicle fueling position (VFP) gasoline/diesel station will be publicly accessible in the northeasterly corner of the project site. However, it is conservatively estimated that the majority of the trips generated by the gasoline station would be serving vehicles and trucks being generated by the transfer station. As such, a 75 percent internal capture reduction has been assumed for the gasoline station. It is also important to note that the pumps will be equipped with a Card Lock system which takes any major credit card for payment, but does not accept cash, and there will not be an attendant operating the gasoline station.
The Card Lock system and lack of an attendant are anticipated to result in a much lower than normal percentage of vehicles being drawn to the gasoline station (i.e., not attributable to the waste transfer station). Lastly, the internal capture percentage used for this project is consistent with that observed at the existing Grand Central Waste Transfer Station in the City of Industry which also utilizes a Card Lock system (TIA Page 70). It is also noted that the Applicant no longer proposes gasoline fueling within the Project site. Only diesel and CNG fueling facilities are proposed. Diesel fuel would be available to all vehicles entering the Project site, while CNG fuel points are available for franchise commercial haulers and transfer trucks. By eliminating gasoline from the available fuel choices, this fueling arrangement would tend to decrease trips dedicated solely to obtaining fuel, increase internal trip capture, and decrease overall net Project trip generation when compared to that assumed in the EIR analysis. Response CAL2-10 The commentor requests clarification on the proposed transfer station building design. The commentor inquires: Will the self-haul area be enclosed or open on the side where the vehicles enter? The transfer station will be fully enclosed. Consistent with Rule 410 and CIWMB odor control/minimization requirements, the proposed MSW transfer station is fully enclosed and designed to create negative air pressure (Revised DEIR, Page 3-41). Roll up doors are provided for self-haul vehicle access. Please refer also to building elevations presented at Revised DEIR Figure 4.3-4, Transfer Station Architectural Concept. Response CAL2-11 The commentor notes CalRecycles opportunity to review and comment on the March 2010 Revised Draft EIR. The Lead Agency appreciates CalRecycles comment and input on the Project and Revised DEIR. Additional information provided here is acknowledged.
Response CAL2-12 CalRecycle staff requests that a copy of the Statement of Overriding Considerations be provided, along with supporting findings as required under 14CCR Section 15091. CalRecycle staff requests that any related resolution adopted by the decision-making body also be provided. Should the EIR be certified, and the Project approved, a copy of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, along with supporting findings and any related resolutions will be provided to CalRecycle staff. Response CAL2-13 CalRecycle requests that hard copies (paper, not electronic) of all subsequent environmental documents be provided, to include but not limited to: the Final Environmental Impact Report; the Transfer Processing Report, Statement of Overriding Considerations, copies of public notices and any Notices of Determination for the Project. The Lead Agency acknowledges CalRecycles request for hard copy documents; however, the provision of electronic information where available is consistent with CEQA paperwork reduction policies and guidelines and is the preferred method of document presentation for information submitted to the State Office of Planning and Research. It is noted also that the use of electronic documents, rather than hard copy printing, supports and is consistent with the Citys and (states) source reduction and recycling mandates. Response CAL2-14 The commentor cites 14 CCR, 15094 (d): If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the local agency shall also, within five working days of this approval, file a copy of the notice of determination with the Office of Planning and Research. Should the EIR be certified and the Project approved, the Lead Agency shall comply with 14 CCR, 15094 (d) notice of determination requirements.
Response CAL2-15 The commentor requests that response to CalRecycle comments, and notice certification dates (with or without public hearing) be provided a minimum of ten (10) days prior to any such certification actions and/or hearings. The Lead Agency will provide responses to CalRecycle comments a minimum of ten (10) days prior to any anticipated or potential EIR certification actions. CalRecycle will be provided notice a minimum of ten (10) days prior to public hearing or other venues allowing for potential EIR certification. Response CAL2-16 CalRecycle point of contact information for questions and responses is provided: Raymond M. Seamans, telephone 916.341.6728, email to raymond.seamans@calrecycle.ca.gov; or Martin Perez, telephone 951.782.4194, email to martin.perez@calrecycle.ca.gov; mail to: 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Point of contact information provided by the commentor is noted. No further response is required.
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 3801 West Temple Avenue Pomona, CA 91768 Letter Dated March 11, 2011 Response POLY-1 On behalf of the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly Pomona), the commentor requests that the Lead Agency support and approve the proposed Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project and related EIR (Project, EIR). The commentor cites job creation and economic stimulus as reasons for Project support. Commentor and Cal Poly Pomona support of the Project and EIR are recognized. These comments are forwarded to the decision-makers. Job creation and economic growth noted by the commentor are consistent with the Project Objective to *f+oster economic growth and create additional employment opportunities for City and area residents (Revised DEIR, Page 3-45). Response POLY-2 The commentor reiterates job opportunities created by the Project, and notes tax benefits accruing to the City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) resulting from development within a redevelopment area. The commentor restates support for the Project. The commentors statements regarding Project job creation and location of the Project within a City redevelopment area are materially correct. The Revised DEIR notes job opportunities created by the Project, *s+taffing estimates provided by the Applicant as of December 2009 indicate a requirement for 45 to 50 employees (Revised DEIR, Page 3-34, et al.). Location of the Project within the City of Pomona Reservoir Industrial Redevelopment Project Area is also discussed in the Revised DEIR: The Project site also lies within the City of Pomona Reservoir Industrial Redevelopment Project Area. Like the General Plan and zoning designations
applicable to the site, the Redevelopment Plan for the area within which the Project is located encourages the establishment of industrial uses. Property taxes resulting from any increase in assessed value of the Project site become a source of tax increment revenue for the City of Pomona Redevelopment Agency. Thus, the Redevelopment Agency will retain a portion of the property tax dollars paid as a result of an increase in property values caused by the Project. By law, the Pomona Redevelopment Agency must use the money to alleviate blighted conditions. Blighted conditions are physical and economic problems that are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. In this respect, the Project will provide a revenue source available to the Redevelopment Agency for alleviation of blight and improvement/resolution of other physical or economic conditions that are detrimental to public health, safety and welfare (Revised DEIR, Page 4.1-8). Commentor statements supporting the Project are forwarded to the decision-makers. Response POLY-3 The commentor notes the Lead Agencys preparation and recirculation of the Revised DEIR. The commentor offers an opinion that the Revised DEIR [analysis] is highly conservative and likely overstates Project impacts. Revised DEIR disclosure of likely environmental impacts and identification of feasible mitigation is noted by the commentor. Lead Agency recirculation of the Revised DEIR as noted by the commentor is materially correct. Revised DEIR text in pertinent part is excerpted below: Based on comments received, the City of Pomona, acting as the Lead Agency, has determined that recirculation of this Revised [emphasis added] Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project (Revised Draft EIR) will be of benefit in providing on-point responses to comments as well as correction, clarification, and amplification of information provided previously in the March 2010 Draft EIR (Revised DEIR Preface, Page 2).
Correction, amplification, and clarification of information provided in this Revised Draft EIR does not constitute new significant information as defined under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088.5, Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification, and recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is not a required action under CEQA. Recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR has nonetheless been voluntarily initiated by the Lead Agency in furtherance of disclosure and public participation mandates established under CEQA. Noticing, content, and review of the Revised Draft EIR is undertaken consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. In this latter regard, the Revised Draft EIR has been distributed to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), responsible and trustee agencies, and all parties requesting the document (Revised DEIR Preface, Page 3). Project impacts and proposed mitigation are discussed in the detail throughout the Revised DEIR. A summary of impacts and mitigation is provided at Revised DEIR Table 1.10-1, Pages 1-29 through 1-51. Response POLY-4 The commentor offers an opinion that the City Planning Commission and City Council should enthusiastically support and approve the EIR and the Project. The commentor offers further opinion that the Project location is preferable to the site selected for the proposed Universal facility, noting that Universal facility site required a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change, and was located adjacent to a mobile home park. The commentor notes the Pomona Valley Transfer Station (PVTS) Projects consistency with existing zoning and location amid similar uses. Commentor opinions regarding Planning Commission and Council actions concerning the EIR and Project are forwarded to the decision-makers. Commentor opinions regarding location of the proposed PVTS Project vis--vis the site selected for the proposed Universal project are forwarded to the decision-makers. Project consistency with existing land use designations, and compatibility with adjacent uses noted by the commentor are materially correct.
Land use issues are discussed in detail at Revised EIR Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, Revised DEIR Pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-18. The Revised DEIR analysis states in pertinent part: . . . [N]o established communities or other physical arrangements would be divided or otherwise adversely physically altered by the Projects proposed land uses, design features, or operations. The Project proposes industrial land uses consistent with existing General Plan (General Manufacturing) and zoning (M-2, General Industrial) designations. The Project industrial land uses will be compatible with adjacent land uses in that adjacent land is also designated for industrial uses under the Citys General Plan and zoning ordinance, and is either developed with such uses or allows for such development (Revised DEIR, Page 4.1-18). Response POLY-5 The commentor summarizes previous remarks and restates Cal Poly Pomona support of the Project. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers.
Department of Transportation District 7, Regional Planning IGR/CEQA Branch 100 South Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Letter Dated March 10, 2011 Response DOT-1 The commentor provides introductory remarks, and indicates comments are provided on the Revised DEIR. Responses to DOT comments are provided here. Response DOT-2 DOT requests clarification of information presented at Page 146 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), dated June 12, 2009. Specifically, DOT requests clarification of how merge/diverge improvements along I-10 and SR-60 be realized without any geometric improvements. An addendum to the Pomona Valley Transfer Station traffic study has been prepared which includes the revised basic freeway segment and merge/diverge analyses for existing and future traffic conditions. (Please refer to Final EIR Appendix A). Based on the results of the revised analysis, there are no merge/diverge (or basic freeway segments) with improving density/LOS values in comparison to previous analysis scenarios. The revised analysis indicates that there are no significant impacts. As such, no merge/diverge improvements have been recommended. These findings are consistent with the findings found in the Pomona Valley Transfer Station Traffic TIA, dated June 12, 2009.
Response DOT-3 The commentor requests that actual [traffic] volumes and speeds be reflected in the TIA in order to determine the density (instead of employing peak hour volumes derived from Average Daily Traffic volumes, ADT). Caltrans-maintained Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data for April 14, 2009 has been utilized to determine the total and truck flow on the I-10 and SR-60 Freeways within the mixed-flow lanes. (See footnote at TIA Addendum Table 7). The mainline volumes reflected in the Addendum analysis are based on actual peak hour volumes and have not been derived from the ADT. Volumes from the PeMS website have been provided as an attachment in the addendum letter. Results and conclusions of the TIA are not affected. Response DOT-4 The commentor states that Level of Service (LOS) calculations should consider the mainline volumes only (excluding HOV lane volumes/capacities). The Addendum to the TIA (included at Final EIR Appendix A) considers only the traffic volumes/capacities within the mixed-flow lanes on the applicable I-10 and SR-60 Freeway segments. HOV lane capacities and volumes have not been considered in the Addendum analysis. Response DOT-5 The commentor requests incorporation of the above-noted revisions/suggestions within the TIA, and that the revised TIA be resubmitted to Caltrans for review. Caltrans point contact information is provided. The TIA Addendum (included at Final EIR Appendix A) reflects all revisions/suggestions provided by Caltrans. The TIA Addendum has been provided to Caltrans for review. Results and conclusions of the TIA are not affected. Caltrans point of contact information is noted.
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 1955 Workman Mill Road Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Letter Dated March 11, 2011 Response CSD-1 The commentor provides introductory remarks indicating that CSD comments are provided on the Revised DEIR. The commentor identifies the Project location within LACSD District No. 21. Responses to CSD comments are provided here. The Project location within LACSD District No. 21 is recognized. Response CSD-2 The commentor notes that previous CSD comments (correspondence dated June 8, 2009, as updated by comments provided) apply to the Project and EIR. Previous CSD comments and updated CSD information are recognized. conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response CSD-3 The commentor notes that the 36-inch diameter JOA-1A Chino Basin Wastewater Line conveyed a peak flow of 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd) when last measured in 2009. Updated CSD information regarding the 36-inch diameter JOA-1A Chino Basin Wastewater Line serving the City of Pomona is recognized. The information at Revised DEIR Page 4.720 is amended accordingly, as follows: The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) would be responsible for the treatment of wastewater generated by the Project. The City of Pomona provides local sewer lines for conveyance to the Districts 36-inch
Updated
information is incorporated where applicable as noted in these Responses. Results and
diameter Chino Basin wastewater line, located in Grand Avenue at Reservoir Street. The 36-inch diameter JOA-1A Chino Basin Wastewater Line conveyed a peak flow of 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd) when last measured in 2009. It is also recognized that information based on time- and context-sensitive peak flow monitoring conducted by LACSD will fluctuate periodically. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response CSD-4 The commentor notes that the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant currently processes an average flow of 8.7 million gallons per day (MGD). Updated CSD information regarding average flows at the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant serving the City of Pomona is recognized. The information at Revised DEIR Page 4.720 et al. is amended accordingly, as follows: The LACSDs Pomona Water Reclamation Plant has the capacity to provide primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment for approximately 15 million gallons per day (MGD), and currently processes an average flow of 8.3 8.7 MGD. It is also recognized that time- and context-sensitive information such as Water Reclamation Plant average flow monitoring conducted by LACSD will fluctuate periodically. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response CSD-5 The commentor notes that all other information concerning the Districts facilities and sewerage service presented in the Revised DEIR is correct. The commentor provides District contact information: Adriana Raza, phone (562) 908-4288, ext. 2717. The Lead Agency appreciates the Districts comments. District contact information is noted.
Los Angeles County Fire Department 1320 North Eastern Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90063 Letter Dated April 7, 2011 Response LAFD-1 The commentor states that the Revised DEIR has been reviewed by potentially affected departments of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The Lead Agency appreciates the Los Angeles County Fire Department comment and input on the Project and Revised DEIR. Response LAFD-2 The commentor provides current station information and corrects information presented in the Revised DEIR. Revised DEIR Section 4.7.2.1, Page 4.7-4 (excerpt following) is amended accordingly. Station No. 183 is staffed around the clock by one captain, one fire fighter specialist/paramedic and one fire fighter/paramedic. and two firefighters. This station is equipped with one paramedic engine. one engine company and one paramedic squad vehicle. The text at Revised DEIR Section 4.7.5.2, Page 4.7-12 (excerpt following) is also amended to reflect the updated information. Countywide, the LACoFD operates 160 170 fire stations that are divided into 21 22 batallions. These revisions are reflected in Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Response LAFD-3 The Land Development Unit provides guidance in regard to specific emergency response requirements for the Project (i.e., ingress and egress points, fire hydrant spacing, and driveway/turning clearances). As noted within these comments, the Projects development plans are subject to further Fire Department review as part of the Citys design review process, which would occur subsequent to EIR Certification. The City will coordinate its review of the Project with Fire Department staff, to ensure that the Projects design complies with all relevant requirements in regard to fire prevention and safety. Response LAFD-4 The Forestry Division states that areas germane to their statutory responsibilities have been addressed. Forestry Division remarks are noted. No further response is necessary. Response LAFD-5 The Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD) recommends that, based on the potential for soil contamination at the Project site, the Project Applicant should enter into a cost recovery program with HHMD or another State agency and obtain a No Further Action Letter prior to grading or construction activities. As discussed in detail at Revised DEIR Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and the Project Phase I/II ESAs, the Project site is not subject to, or affected by, known contamination with hazardous materials. Notwithstanding, given the historic industrial use of the Project site, and its proximity to other industrial uses, there exists the potential for encountering as yet unknown soil contaminants in the course of Project implementation. Mitigation Measure 4.5.1 (excerpted below for ease of reference) ensures that any suspected soil contaminants are properly assessed; and as necessary, remediated and/or removed from the Project site and properly disposed. 4.5.1 If during implementation of the Project, soil contamination is suspected,
construction in the affected area shall stop pending determination of the extent and
character of contamination (or lack thereof). Suspected soils shall be tested at a certified laboratory approved by the Department of Health Services (DHS). Excavation, transport, and disposal of any soils determined to be contaminated shall be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the following agencies: City of Pomona; Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) - Los Angeles County Fire Department; California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL-EPA); California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CALOSHA); United States Department of Transportation (USDOT); and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Under the California Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material Management Regulatory Program, (Chapter 6.11, Division 20, Section 25404 of the Health and Safety Code), hazards/hazardous materials management is addressed locally through the Certified Unified Program Agency. The primary CUPA for the City of Pomona is the Los Angeles County Fire Department. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, and based on the existing detailed discussion at Revised DEIR Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the potential for soil contamination has been appropriately addressed and reduced to levels that are lessthan-significant. The results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Los Angeles County Firefighters Local 1014 3460 Fletcher Avenue El Monte, CA 91731 Letter Dated February 25, 2011 Response FFL-1 The commentor notes that Los Angeles County Firefighters Local 1014 (Local 1014) represents Pomonas firefighters and paramedics. The commentor requests that the Lead Agency approve the EIR. Local 1014 representation of Pomona firefighters and paramedics is noted. The
commentors request regarding approval of the EIR is forwarded to the decision-makers. The commentor cites Project job creation and increased tax revenues as the basis for Local 1014 support. The commentor offers an opinion that monies generated by the Project could be used to keep all eight Pomona Fire Stations operating at full capacity and restore student programs in Pomona schools. Job creation and economic growth noted by the commentor are consistent with the Project Objective to *f+oster economic growth and create additional employment opportunities for City and area residents (Revised DEIR, Page 3-45). Commentor opinions regarding use of City revenues generated by the Project are forwarded to the decision-makers. The Lead Agencys voluntary re-circulation of the Revised EIR in support of full-disclosure and public participation is noted by the commentor. Lead Agency voluntary recirculation of the Revised DEIR as noted by the commentor is materially correct. Revised DEIR text in pertinent part is excerpted below: Based on comments received, the City of Pomona, acting as the Lead Agency, has determined that recirculation of this Revised [emphasis added] Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project (Revised Draft EIR) will be of benefit in providing on-point responses to comments as well as correction, clarification, and amplification of information provided previously in the March 2010 Draft EIR (Revised DEIR Preface, Page 2). Correction, amplification, and clarification of information provided in this Revised Draft EIR does not constitute new significant information as defined under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088.5, Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification, and recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is not a required action under CEQA. Recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR has nonetheless been voluntarily initiated by the Lead Agency in furtherance of disclosure and public participation mandates established under CEQA. Noticing, content, and review of the Revised Draft EIR is undertaken consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. In this latter regard, the Revised Draft EIR has been distributed to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), responsible and trustee agencies, and all parties requesting the document (Revised DEIR Preface, Page 3). Revised DEIR disclosure of likely environmental impacts and identification of feasible mitigation is noted by the commentor. Project impacts and proposed mitigation are discussed in the detail throughout the Revised DEIR. A summary of impacts and mitigation is provided at Revised DEIR Table 1.10-1, Pages 1-29 through 1-51. Further, in response to comments received on the Revised DEIR, additional and revised mitigation measures are proposed in this Final EIR. Mitigation measures, together with mitigation timing and monitoring/reporting responsibilities are comprehensively presented at Final EIR Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
The commentor cites a previous *unidentified+ court decision indicating that the Project site is environmentally superior to any other in town. The commentor states that [t]he Project [site] has been zoned to allow the proposed use for several decades, and it is ideally located in the vicinity of other similar uses. No supporting evidence or documentation is provided regarding previous court ruling(s) regarding environmental superiority of the Project site. The commentors statements in this regard are forwarded to the decision-makers. Notwithstanding, the Revised DEIR Alternatives Analysis (Revised DEIR Pages 5-28 through 5-60) indicates that no feasible alternative site exists that would allow for attainment of the Projects basic objectives, while demonstrably reducing the Projects significant environmental impacts. The commentor summarizes requests to approve the EIR and Project. The commentors summary statements requesting approval of the EIR and Project are forwarded to the decision-makers.
City of Montclair 5111 Benito Street P.O. Box 2308 Montclair, CA 91763 Letter Dated February 1, 2011 Response COM-1 The commentor states that the City of Montclair Staff (Staff) has reviewed the Revised DEIR, and that Staff has no comments at this time. The Lead Agency appreciates the City of Montclair Staffs timely review and comment on the Revised DEIR. As the City of Montclair Staff has no comment on the Revised DEIR, no further response is required. The City of Montclair statements are provided to the decisionmakers.
Office of the Superintendent of Schools Pomona Unified School District 800 South Garey Avenue, P.O. Box 2900 Pomona, CA 91769 Letter Dated March 14, 2011 Response PUSD-1 The commentor notes Pomona Unified School District (PUSD, District) review and comment on the Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project (Project) Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report dated January 2011 (Revised DEIR). The commentor also lists and describes District schools within one-mile of the Project site, and states the Districts obligation to ensure any potential impacts of the Project affecting school populations, facilities, programs, faculty, and staff are evaluated and mitigated. The commentor notes further that schools are sensitive land uses, requiring focal environmental scrutiny. The Lead Agency appreciates PUSDs timely review and comment on the Revised DEIR. Unless otherwise noted herein, information presented in the Revised DEIR is consistent with, and is not substantively revised from, information presented in the March 2010 Draft EIR. Pagination citations haven been amended where applicable. Please refer also to previous responses provided to PUSD included at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Schools listed by the commentor are specifically noted in the Revised DEIR: . . . As indicated at [Revised DEIR] Figure 4.3-3, a total of ten (10) schools/ school facilities exist within an approximate one-mile radius of the Project site. No schools exist or are planned within one-quarter mile of the Project site. Schools nearest the Project site include: Washington Elementary School (PUSD), Village Academy High School (PUSD), and Pueblo K-8 School (PUSD). Other schools within an approximate one-mile radius include: Kingsley Elementary School (PUSD), San Antonio Elementary School
(PUSD), St. Madeleine Catholic School, Ramona Elementary School (OMSD), Alcott Elementary School and Annex (PUSD), Simons Middle School (PUSD) and Emerson Middle School (PUSD) (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-90). The Revised DEIR also identifies school uses in total as sensitive land uses: . . . For the purposes of this discussion, sensitive land uses are considered to include residential land uses, schools, hospitals, daycare centers, or any other land uses that provide long-term occupancy and/or accommodate vulnerable populations (e.g., children, the elderly, and the infirm). Sensitive land uses are located throughout the City of Pomona (Revised DEIR Page 4.5-4). . . . As noted previously, land uses such as schools, hospitals, and daycare centers would also be considered sensitive land uses that may be subject to increased risk from any hazards associated with, or resulting from, Project construction and operations. In this regard, the Pomona Unified School District (PUSD), in their response to the EIR Notice of Preparation, identified several schools within a one-mile radius of the Project, with concerns expressed regarding potential Project-related hazards as they may affect these schools. School locations cited by PUSD, as well as other schools within an approximate one-mile radius of the Project site, are indicated at [Revised DEIR] Figure 4.5-2. Of these schools, the closest are Washington Elementary School, approximately 0.5 miles westerly of the Project site, and the Village Academy at Indian Hill campus facility (Village Academy High School and Pueblo K-8 School), approximately 0.7 miles northeasterly of the Project site (Revised DEIR, Page 4.5-6). Throughout the Revised DEIR, potential impacts of the Project that may affect schools are discussed and analyzed. Mitigation is proposed for any impacts determined to be potentially significant. Focal discussions related to schools as sensitive land uses are provided under the topics of Air Quality (Revised DEIR Section 4.3), Noise (Revised DEIR Section 4.4), and Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Revised DEIR Section 4.5). Potential
cumulative impacts under these topical issues are evaluated at Revised DEIR Section 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations. Representative Revised DEIR topical discussions are summarized in the responses presented here. Response PUSD-2 The District notes its previous comments provided in response to review of the Pomona Valley Transfer Station March 2010 Draft EIR. The District notes further that additional comments are provided on the Revised DEIR and requests responses to those comments be provided in the Final EIR for the Project. Responses to additional comments submitted by the District are provided herein. Response PUSD-3 The commentor inquires as to the Final EIR certification process, timing, and the Lead Agencys acceptance of further comments. PUSD will be provided notice of all public hearing dates for the Project including potential certification of the EIR. Public comments will be accepted by the Lead Agency throughout the public review/hearing process. Response PUSD-4 The commentor summarizes potential construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutant air quality impacts arising from the Project. As noted by the commentor: Even after application of mitigation, Project construction activities are projected to temporarily and intermittently exceed applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for fugitive dust (PM10/PM2.5) emissions. (See Revised DEIR, Pages 4.3-70, 4.3-71.)
However, as stated on Page 4.3-71 of the Revised DEIR, application of Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.12 will reduce all construction-source air pollution emissions, including PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, to the extent feasible. The Project will also comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and will employ Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce the impact. Additionally, and importantly, the calculated exceedances of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur temporarily and intermittently during site preparation and grading processes, and would not affect any receptors aside from those illustrated at Figure 4.3-1 of the Revised DEIR. These uses include adjacent industrial occupancies, and limited (fewer than 10) residential occupancies which exist as non-conforming uses within the industrial district encompassing the Project site. No schools sites would be significantly affected. It is further noted that in the case of the subject site, PM 10/PM2.5 LST exceedances would likely be the case under any development scenario. This point is illustrated and substantiated by the discussion of air quality impacts presented under the consideration of a Light Industrial Alternative for the Project site (Revised DEIR, Pages 5-10, 5-51). Under the Light Industrial Alternative, currently permitted or conditionally permitted light industrial uses would be constructed at the Project site. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, even under a Light Industrial Alternative, construction-source emissions of PM10/PM2.5 would exceed applicable SCAQMD LSTs. This is due to the fact that the subject site is bounded on all sides by receptor land uses, including non-conforming residential uses. Under any development scenario, grading and heavy equipment activities at the edges of the subject site will unavoidably generate certain fugitive dust emissions (PM10/PM2.5) that would affect adjacent off-site land uses. It also noted, however, that because construction-source PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are short-term and intermittent, such emissions will not result in any risk of chronic or longterm health impacts to human beings. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-71.) That is, health consequences from PM10 and PM2.5 manifest themselves after prolonged and constant exposure periods, as opposed to the intermittent and short-term exposures resulting from Project construction activities.
As also noted by the commentor, the Revised DEIR concludes that even after application of mitigation, the Projects long-term operational activities are anticipated to exceed applicable South SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx emissions. However, as set forth on page 4.3-78 of the Revised DEIR, the operational NOx emissions from the Project are the result of fuel combustion and vehicle tail pipe emissions. Tail pipe emissions are regulated by CARB and USEPA. Regionally, NOx emissions have incrementally declined over the past several decades and are likely to further decline pursuant to current and proposed regulatory actions; on-going transition from older, inefficient vehicles to contemporary vehicles; and application of alternate fuel/fuel conserving technologies. It is further noted that in real world applications, few projects of any scale are able to achieve SCAQMD NOx emissions regional thresholds, and such would likely be the case for any development of the subject site. These points are supported by the discussion of air quality impacts under the consideration of a Light Industrial Alternative for the subject site (revised DEIR, Pages 5-10, 5-51). As indicated in the cited discussion, even under a Light Industrial Alternative that assumes reduced trip generation, exceedance of SCAQMD NOx emissions regional thresholds would persist. This is due to the fact that any project that has any significant vehicle operations will typically exceed the identified thresholds. Should the Project be approved, the Lead Agency is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging the Projects significant air quality impacts with respect to (1) short term construction PM10 and PM2.5 emissions and (2) operational NOx emissions as summarized above. Response PUSD-5 The commentor summarizes the Revised DEIR analysis and findings regarding Projectrelated diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions impacts. As noted by the commentor, the Revised DEIR concludes that even with application of mitigation, DPM-source cancer risks are projected to exceed applicable SCAQMD cancer risk thresholds at the two (2) closest residential uses, located adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth
Street).3 (See Revised DEIR, Figure 4.3-2.) The Revised DEIR and Project Health Risk Assessment (HRA, included at Revised DEIR Appendix C) demonstrate that with application of proposed mitigation, significant DPM-source cancer risks would not extend beyond the two (2) noted residential uses. The applicable significance threshold is a cancer risk incidence of greater than ten (10) persons per one million population (10/million). At the two (2) significantly affected residences (1295 and 1415 E. Ninth Street), mitigated cancer risks are estimated at 11.59/million and 45.10/million, respectively. At area schools, unmitigated and mitigated cancer risk levels would not exceed the applicable threshold (10/million), and as discussed in the Revised DEIR would not even exceed one (1)/ million (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-90, et al.). More specifically, at the three nearest discrete school receptors in the Project area (Washington Elementary School, Village Academy High School/Pueblo K-8 School, and Ramona Elementary School), the unmitigated risk is estimated to be 0.8, 0.8, and 0.9 in one million, for the Washington Elementary School, Village Academy High School/Pueblo K-8 School, and Ramona Elementary School, respectively. None of these values exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. Proposed Revised DEIR mitigation measures would further reduce these levels to 0.4, 0.4, and 0.4 in one million, for Washington Elementary School, Village Academy High School/Pueblo K-8 School and Ramona Elementary School, respectively. Revised DEIR Figure 4.3-3 illustrates unmitigated and mitigated Project-related DPM-source cancer risks at proximate area schools. Please refer also to Revised DEIR Pages 4.3-85 through 4.3-106, Health Risk Assessment of Diesel Particulate Emissions. Should the Project be approved, the Lead Agency is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging the Projects significant DPM-source cancer risk impacts at the two (2) residences located adjacent to the Project site as summarized above. As substantiated in the Revised DEIR and summarized herein, the Project will not result in
3 At the nearest residential use located southerly of the Project site, across 9 th street, the mitigated cancer risk is estimated at 4.95/million which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10.0/million.
or cause potentially significant DPM-source emissions impacts at area schools. Results and conclusion of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentor cites the Revised DEIR DPM emissions mitigation measures, and notes that fleet conversion measures (proposed as one component of the Projects DPM emissions mitigation measures), will not be fully implemented in the estimated Project opening year (2011) . . . leaving the potential risk unmitigated for a number of years. The commentor reiterates concerns regarding the potential for the Project to result in significant DPMsource cancer risks at area schools. Firstly, regarding fleet conversion (from diesel to compressed natural gas, CNG) as mitigation of DPM emissions, fleet conversion is only one of several component mitigation measures targeting DPM emissions. Other Revised DEIR mitigation measures include: 4.3.17 The transfer station hours of operation for MSW acceptance and transfer shall not exceed 12 hours per day, occurring between the hours of 6 am and 6 pm. Maintenance activities may occur 24 hours per day, seven days per week except as limited by existing ordinances, regulations, or other restrictions imposed by the City. 4.3.18 The Project transfer station building shall incorporate the unrestricted flow, Alternative (vertical) Stack Design concept summarized herein, and as presented in greater detail within the Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Project. The Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment is presented at Revised Draft EIR Appendix C. 4.3.19 Sign(s) with the following language or similar shall be installed at the Project entrance, along internal truck routes, at/within unloading areas, and at all parking areas: MAXIMUM FIVE (5) MINUTE ON-SITE IDLING OF TRUCK ENGINES TO BE PERMITTED IN DESIGNATED AREAS ONLY. VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO PENALTIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF CONTRACT/RESTRICTED FACILITY ACCESS. The sign(s) shall not be less than twenty-four (24) inches square.
4.3.20 The final site plan shall provide sufficient on-site stacking length to ensure that vehicles do not queue onto adjacent public roadways (Revised DEIR, Page 4.399). As noted by the commentor, the Revised DEIR DPM emissions mitigation measures also include fleet conversion from diesel to CNG fuel sources. As noted at Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.21 and 4.3.22, following: 4.3.21 The commercial solid waste collection fleet (fleet) accessing the Project site between 2011 and 2019 shall consist of a maximum of 70% diesel engines and a minimum of 30% natural gas engines. All diesel engines, including transfer truck diesel engines, shall operate using ultra low sulfur fuels and be fitted with a particulate trap that is rated at a 90% reduction rate or greater. 4.3.22 The commercial solid waste collection fleet (fleet) accessing the Project site shall consist of a maximum of 10% diesel engines and a minimum of 90% natural gas engines on or before January 2, 2020. By Year 2020, all diesel engines, including transfer truck diesel engines, shall operate using ultra low sulfur fuels and be fitted with a particulate trap that is rated at a 90% reduction rate or greater (Revised DEIR Page 4.3-100). It is further noted that the Projects proposed DPM emissions mitigation measures as presented above incorporate applicable recommendations and input provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in their review of the Project and March 2010 Draft EIR. The SCAQMD is a Responsible Agency in the CEQA EIR process, whose responsibility includes but is not limited to, air quality oversight of CEQA projects. As part of its oversight responsibilities, SCAQMD provides recommendations for mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts. As noted, applicable recommendations provided by SCAQMD have been incorporated in the Revised DEIR DPM emissions mitigation measures. The SCAQMD did not otherwise express any
significant concerns regarding the methodologies employed in the Revised DEIR to ascertain impacts and to identify proper mitigation. Additional reductions in DPM emissions resulting from fleet conversion are also discussed in the Revised DEIR: Additional emissions reductions realized through application of Mitigation Measures 4.3.21 and 4.3.22 are reflected at Table 4.3-19. As indicated, fleet transition from diesel to CNG in combination with other mitigation proposed will further reduce Project-related DPM-source cancer risks. However, the SCAQMD cancer risk incidence threshold (10 persons per million population) will still be exceeded when considering theoretic residential lifetime (70-year) exposure rates at one (1) residence (1415 East Ninth Street) located easterly adjacent to the Project site. The estimated cancer risk exposure at this residence is 16.44 in one million. But for this non-conforming residential use, situated within the industrial land use encompassing the Project site, no significant cancer risks would result from Project operations. At the other potentially affected residence (1295 East Ninth Street), fleet conversion in combination with other proposed mitigation measures would reduce [the] Project-related DPM-source cancer risk to 4.17 in one million, below the SCAQMD incidence threshold of 10 in one million (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3101). As indicated above, with assumed fleet conversion, only one (1) residence would be adversely affected by DPM-source cancer risk threshold exceedances. The Revised DEIR significance conclusions, however, do not assume fleet conversion, and even under the Revised DEIRs conservative scenario, only two (2) residences (both of which are nonconforming residential uses in an industrial area) are subject to DPM-source cancer risk exposures exceeding applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Cumulatively significant DPM emissions impacts would also be localized and limited to the above-noted two (2) residential receptors (1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street). (See Revised DEIR, Page 5-16).
In addition to the above summarized analysis of DPM-source impacts and mitigation incorporated in the Revised DEIR, this Final EIR further responds to potential DPM-source impacts. More specifically, in response to commentor concerns regarding DPM-source impacts and consistent with mitigation refinements intended to be achieved through the CEQA and EIR review processes, additional mitigation is proposed that would act to further reduce Project-related DPM emissions. More specifically, additional/revised mitigation is proposed [MM 4.3.21 (A)mended and MM 4.3.22(A), below] that would ensure future year (2020) CNG-only access restrictions for all transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles served by the Project. 4, 5 MM 4.3.21 (A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks and all Applicantcontrolled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). MM 4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling of DPM-source cancer risks resulting from application of proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A) in combination with other DPM emissions mitigation currently proposed in the Revised DEIR (See Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.17 through 4.3.20) has been conducted as one component of this Final EIR (please refer to HRA Addendum included at Final EIR Appendix A). Results of the HRA Addendum indicate that with the stipulated conversion of diesel-fueled vehicles to CNG vehicles identified herein, the Year 2020 maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially affected receptor would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant.
4 The Year 2020 timeframe implementation schedule proposed here is consistent with, and parallels EPA/CARB tiered emissions reductions goals for heavy-duty trucks. 5 Proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A) would replace/supercede MM 4.3.21 and 4.3.22 currently reflected in the Revised DEIR.
More specifically, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street), the mitigated cancer risk would be 3.98 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 0.52 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore be less than the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. The HRA Addendum results indicate further, that under no circumstance would area schools be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially significant non-cancer risks. Please refer also to detailed HRA modeling results presented at Final EIR Appendix A. Notwithstanding these findings, this Final EIR conservatively maintains previous conclusions regarding potential Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risks. That is, for the purposes of disclosure, and to maintain the conservative analysis construct employed to date, Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risk exposures at the residences located at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street are considered to be significant until the Year 2020. No other locations would experience potentially adverse elevated DPMsource cancer risk exposures (or non-cancer risk exposures) resulting from Project operations or activities. Please refer also to related discussions of DPM emissions impacts and proposed additional/revised mitigation presented at Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging significant Project-specific, and cumulative localized DPM emissions impacts. Response PUSD-6 The commentor requests clarification as to whether Washington Elementary School (the school nearest the Project site) would be adversely affected by construction-source emissions.
Construction-source emissions will not adversely affect any area schools, including Washington Elementary School. Please refer (for example) to the discussion at Revised DEIR Page 4.5-35: More specifically, the Air Quality Analysis concludes that within 60 meters (approximately 200 feet) of the Project site, temporary construction emissions will result in exceedances of applicable SCAQMD Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for PM10 and PM2.5. However, at the closest [Washington Elementary] school site (approximately 0.5 mile, or 2,500 feet distant) local air quality conditions would not be noticeably affected by Project construction. The proposed Project does not exceed the LST thresholds for long-term Project operations. The estimated extent/area of construction-source LST exceedances is also graphically portrayed at Revised DEIR Figure 4.3-1. No schools exist, or are proposed within the described area subject to LST exceedances. The commentor states that mobile-source DPM emissions generated by transient Project construction vehicles, and vehicles accessing the site subsequent to Project opening, could result in adverse DPM emissions impacts. This is not the case. As discussed below, any DPM emissions impacts resulting from transient vehicles traveling along area roads would be substantially less than the likely maximum DPM emissions impact scenario considered and evaluated in the Revised DEIR. As noted at Revised DEIR Page 4.3-85, et al., a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) analysis was prepared for the Project. The Project HRA in its entirety is presented at Revised DEIR Appendix C. The Project HRA considers and evaluates maximum potential exposure to DPM concentrations consistent with established SCAQMD methodologies. The methodology considers not only the amount and sources of DPM emissions, (the highest concentrations of which would occur on the Project site), but also considers other exposure/risk determinants including but not limited to: relative distance to and location of receptors, wind patterns, and topography.
With specific regard to DPM emissions impacts potentially generated by Project construction and operational traffic traveling along area roads, these impacts would not exceed or even approach the maximum DPM emissions impact scenario evaluated in the Revised DEIR and Project HRA. That is, the Project HRA considers potential worst case cancer risk exposures by evaluating pollutant concentrations at the Project site, which include pollutant emissions generated by all vehicles within a reasonable distance to, or accessing the site, in combination with emissions generated by on-site stationary sources. These DPM emissions concentrations are substantially higher that any that would result from disaggregated Project traffic traveling along area roadways. It is further noted that the cancer risk exposure scenario considered in the Revised DEIR is a conservative assessment of potential cancer risks arising from DPM exposure. That is, pursuant to the adopted SCAQMD/EPA methodologies, calculated DPM-source cancer risks are predicated on extended 70-year/30-year exposure scenarios. Both the 70-year and 30-year cancer risk assessments considered in the Revised DEIR represent estimates of theoretic DPM-source cancer risks, and are based on the assumption that a person is exposed to the emission source 24 hours a day for 365 days a year for the entire length of the assumed exposure period. Individuals are typically not stationary at any given outdoor location, spending a significant portion of each 24-hour cycle indoors. In addition, individuals and families remaining at a given location for 70 or even 30 years would be considered the exception rather than the norm. Any individuals or populations that may be temporarily out-of-doors along a roadway that would carry some Project traffic would not be exposed to the maximum potential DPM concentrations for the 24 hour per day, 70year/30-year lifetime exposure reflected in the Project HRA. In comparison, DPM emissions concentrations and exposures that may result from Project vehicles traveling along area roads would be substantively reduced in that they reflect only a portion of transient vehicle traffic/emissions and persons would be only exposed for that limited amount of time that they may be out-of-doors and adjacent to a road carrying Project traffic. Moreover, when compared to DPM concentrations modeled at the Project site, transient vehicular DPM emissions are dispersed through vehicle movements and localized winds. Lastly, as discussed on pages 4.3-12 through 4.3-13, recent analysis, i.e.,
Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Total Mortality Among Elderly Californians, 1973-2002 (Dr. James Enstrom, UCLA) Inhalation Toxicology. 17(14):803-16, 2005 Dec 15) has cast doubt as to whether there is a causal health risk correlation between diesel particulate emissions from modern day diesel engines and cancer, notwithstanding the analytical protocols required by USEPA and SCAQMD. Results and conclusion of the EIR are not affected. The commentor suggests that the Revised DEIR include a discussion of air monitoring activities to be implemented during project construction and operations. Monitoring of emissions will be realized consistent with applicable AQMD rules [e.g. Rule 401 (Visible Emissions); Rule 402 (Nuisance); Rule 403 (PM10 Fugitive Dust); et al.]. See also: www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/sc/cur.htm. Monitoring activities are also reflected in the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Final EIR Section 4.0). Results and conclusion of the EIR are not affected. Response PUSD-7 The commentor offers an opinion that *t+he sections in the EIR pertaining to noise and traffic do not sufficiently discuss potential localized impacts. The commentor speculates that increased traffic and traffic noise from construction vehicles and/or Project operational vehicular traffic could somehow impact area schools, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up time frames. Revised DEIR analyses/discussions addressing the commentors noise and traffic concerns are summarized below. NOISE Potential Project-related noise impacts are presented at Revised DEIR Section 4.4, Noise. The detailed Project Noise Analysis is presented at EIR Appendix D. Project operational source noise will not cause or result in adverse noise impacts affecting schools. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, vehicular source noise
generated by Project operations would not adversely affect any area land uses (including schools): . . . Project-related vehicular source noise will increase ambient CNEL conditions by, at most, 2.3 dBA, which would not be perceptible, and therefore would not represent a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise. Nor would Project-related vehicular source noise result in a transitional exceedance in noise levels from below 60 dBA CNEL to above 60 dBA CNEL. The potential for Project vehicular source noise to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project is therefore less-than-significant (Revised DEIR, Page 4.4-41). Vehicular noise impacts are a function of traffic types, volumes, speeds and source-receptor proximity and presence (or lack of) intervening noise-attenuating structures or other line-of sight-obstructions. As summarized above and presented in detail in the Revised DEIR (Section 4.4, Noise) and supporting Noise Analysis (Revised DEIR Appendix D), potential Project operational vehicular source noise levels received at area land uses is less-thansignificant. The types and volumes of vehicles, and resulting vehicular noise reflected in the Revised DEIR operational vehicular source noise impact analysis establish the maximum vehicular source noise levels that would be received at area land uses. Any noise that may be generated by intermittent and random construction vehicles that may be transported along, or travel along area roads would be substantially less than the noise generated by total daily traffic volumes considered in the Revised DEIR. This conclusion is based on noise levels generated by vehicular traffic and noise source/receptor separation, and is not significantly or materially affected by school scheduling and/or school pickup/drop-off times. TRAFFIC Potential Project-related traffic impacts are summarized at Revised DEIR Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation. The detailed Project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is presented at
Revised DEIR Appendix B. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, there are significant Level of Service (LOS) impacts projected under Opening Year Conditions (2011) at Mission/SR-71: . . . Pending completion of required interchange improvements, Projectrelated traffic impacts at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71 are determined to be significant. These improvements are fully funded and are currently under construction and completion of these improvements is anticipated in 2011. If these improvements are completed before the Project is operational, the identified impacts at Mission Boulevard and SR-71 will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level (Revised DEIR, Page 4.2-2). All other potential Project-related and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are lessthan-significant or are reduced to levels that are less-than-significant pursuant to the EIR mitigation measures. As discussed in the TIA, within the City, heavy transfer trucks will access the Project site via designated truck routes (Reservoir Street and Mission Boulevard) both of which currently convey heavy truck traffic. Project traffic (transfer trucks) distribution is illustrated at TIA Exhibit 5-1. Smaller collection trucks and self-haul trucks are assumed to access the Project site via the most expedient permissible routes and will travel along all classes of City roads, as is the current condition. Collection truck and selfhaul truck trip distribution is presented at TIA Exhibit 5-2. It is noted, however, that except for required direct access, trucks over three (3) tons in gross weight (e.g., all commercial trash collection vehicles) are limited under current ordinance to travel along designated truck routes.6 The Project will not contribute additional truck traffic to streets not already assigned this function. With specific regard to potential traffic impacts (including potential construction traffic impacts) during school pick-up and drop-off times, the Project does not propose uses or activities that would adversely affect or conflict with school uses. Moreover, contrary to the commentors assertion, no school uses exist proximate to the Project site. The closest school is approximately 0.5 miles from the Project site, and is separated from the Project site
6
See: Pomona, California, Code of Ordinances; Division 2, Truck Routes; Sec. 58-291. Designation.
by intervening railroad tracks, the existing City street network, and numerous buildings. It is unlikely that significant amounts of Project-related traffic will interact with other ambient traffic during pick up and drop off times. The Project does not propose nor require routing traffic such that it would conflict with school activities, including but not limited to school pick-up and drop-off activities. As noted above, heavy transfer trucks accessing the Project site will travel within the City along existing designated truck routes. It is anticipated that other trucks will access the Project site via the most expedient permissible routes. Other vehicles will likely access the Project site via the most expedient permissible means. All vehicle operators would be required by law to observe street weight load limits, school zone speed limits and school crossing restrictions. Because the Project will not cause or result in any potentially significant localized traffic impacts, potential traffic impacts along roads serving area schools would also be less-than-significant. Traffic volumes that may be generated by intermittent and random construction vehicles that may be transported along, or travel along area roads would be substantially less than the total daily and peak hour traffic volumes considered in the Revised DEIR. This conclusion is based on Project trip generation and Project trip distribution as discussed in the Revised DEIR and Project TIA, and is not materially affected by school scheduling and/or school pickup/drop-off times. With regard to construction traffic, it is further noted that in accordance with City and County policies, review and approval of Project construction traffic management plans, complemented by ongoing coordination with the local fire and police departments throughout planning and development of the Project, will ensure that potential interference with school traffic patterns are minimized to the extent feasible. It is also noted that as provided under CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) . . . CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experiment recommended or demanded by commentors. The Lead Agency considers the EIR analysis of potential localized noise and traffic impacts to be adequate and appropriate and substantiated by facts and evidence.
Further, as provided for under CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) *EIR+ Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. The commentor offers no supporting evidence, facts, or expert opinion supported by facts that would indicate that Project construction or operational traffic could result in potentially significant localized vehicular noise or traffic impacts at area schools. Please refer also to extensive discussion of these same issues presented at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentors opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Response PUSD-8 The commentor summarizes alternatives considered in the Revised DEIR, and comments are provided on the EIR Alternatives Analysis. The commentor states that, with specific regard to the Projects calculated DPM-source cancer risk exposures, an Alternative with fewer or zero proximate sensitive land uses should be considered. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, any potential Alternative Site should, as the commentor notes, be evaluated based on its potential to reduce or minimize potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. However, this is not the sole criterion employed in evaluating a potential Alternative Site or Sites. Alternative Sites are also evaluated based on their ability to achieve the basic Project Objectives and their overall feasibility. The State Resources Agency, the State Agency charged with implementing CEQAs regulatory scheme, has defined feasible, for purposes of CEQA review, as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) provides further that An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.
As discussed in the Revised DEIR, Alternative Sites considered for analysis were distilled from the list of sites deemed potentially feasible by the Citys Ad Hoc Solid Waste Study Committee (formation of Committee approved by the Pomona City Council in 1999). Of the sites listed by the Committee, most were of insufficient acreage to accommodate the Project (less than 10 acres) and were not further considered on this basis. Six (6) of the sites, however, conformed to basic feasibility criteria (+/- 10 acres; rectangular configuration; compatible with existing and proposed land uses; proximate access to local roadway systems; available or anticipated utilities infrastructure) and were preliminarily evaluated through review of aerial photographs and site inspections. On the basis of preliminary evaluation, five (5) of the sites were determined to be infeasible and/or would not materially reduce the Projects environmental impacts. One of these sites (2205 Mount Vernon Avenue) is further evaluated in the EIR and is also ultimately determined to be infeasible, and would not materially reduce impacts resulting from the Project at its current location. The Revised DEIR Alternatives analysis conforms with provisions of the CEQA Guidelines to present a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that would potentially lessen its environmental effects while allowing for attainment of the basic Project Objectives. With specific regard to calculated cancer risk exposures presented in the Revised DEIR and noted by the commentor: . . . this [cancer risk exposure] exceedance would affect only two (2) residences (1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street) located respectively, westerly and easterly adjacent to the Project site. At 1415 East Ninth Street (the 70-year residential exposure PMI) the mitigated cancer risk is estimated at 45.10 in one million; at 1295 East Ninth Street, the mitigated cancer risk is estimated at 11.59 in one million. At all other study area receptor locations (whether residential, worker, or school sites) potential Project-related DPM-source cancer risks as mitigated would be below the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold. Absent the above-noted non-conforming residential uses (1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street), situated within the industrial land use
encompassing the Project site, no significant DPM-source cancer risks would result from Project operations (Revised DEIR at Page 4.3-92] As also discussed in the Revised DEIR: . . . The Citys General Plan recognizes that sporadic non-conforming residential uses exist within manufacturing/industrial designations. (See General Plan, pp. 35-37.) At the same time, the Citys General Plan contains policies that encourage the transition of non-conforming residential uses to industrial uses and also promote industrial development within industriallydesignated General Plan Land Uses and zoning districts. (See General Plan, pp. 27; 28; 38.) (Revised DEIR, Page 4.1-4). Within the range of potential exposures noted above, it can be reasonably argued that over 30-year and/or 70 year timeframes, the two (2) currently affected non-conforming singlefamily residences would transition to conforming industrial uses, thereby alleviating potential cancer risk exposure concerns. Moreover, modeling of potential increased cancer risks as presented in the Revised DEIR is considered to represent a conservative estimate of real-world conditions. That is, pursuant to the adopted SCAQMD/EPA methodologies, calculated DPM-source cancer risks are predicated on extended 70-year/30-year exposure scenarios. Both the 70-year and 30-year cancer risk assessments considered in the Revised DEIR represent estimates of theoretic DPM-source cancer risks, and are based on the assumption that a person is exposed to the emission source 24 hours a day for 365 days a year for the entire length of the assumed exposure period. Individuals are typically not stationary at any given outdoor location, and a portion of each 24-hour cycle is spent indoors. In addition, individuals and families at a given location for 70 or even 30 years would be considered the exception rather than the norm. The California OEHHA has indicated that based on EPA studies, the EPA recommends a central tendency estimate of 9 years for residency at a given location, and a high-end estimate of 30 years for residency time. Thus, the methodologies used to determine cancer risk (e.g., the assumption of a 24-hour exposure for a 30 or 70 year period)
represent a maximum theoretic cancer risk, and are not intended to account for or represent DPM exposures based on real world residency and occupancy tendencies. Again, as discussed at Revised DEIR Pages 4.3-12 through 4.3-13, recent studies have cast doubt as to whether there is a causal health risk correlation between diesel particulate emissions from modern day diesel engines and increased cancer risks, notwithstanding the analytical protocols required by the USEPA and SCAQMD. Location of the Project such that increased cancer risks would affect fewer or zero proximate sensitive land uses as suggested by the commentor constitutes a location that would affect one (1) or zero sensitive land uses. Within the context of feasibility, such a site would also be approximately 10 acres in size and of rectangular configuration; be located in a designated industrial area; have proximate acceptable access; be compatible with existing and proposed land uses; be provided available or anticipated utilities infrastructure; achieve the basic Project Objectives; and would not result in new environmental impacts, nor increase the severity of environmental impacts otherwise occurring under the Project. Such a site was not identified by the Citys Ad Hoc Solid Waste Study Committee and does not exist in the City based on an independent evaluation by the Citys EIR consultant and City Planning Staff. Nor is any such site available wherein the Project could be accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. On this basis, the EIR evaluation of potential Alternative Sites is considered adequate and fulfills the requirements established under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, subd. (f) (2). Please refer also to Response PUSD-5 which presents additional mitigation [MM 4.3.21 (A), 4.3.22 (A)] that will further reduce potential Project-related DPM-source cancer risk exposures such that all DPM-source cancer risks affecting area land uses will be mitigated to levels that are less-than-significant on or before the Year 2020. Response PUSD-9 The commentor misrepresents the previous response to the Districts comments regarding the March 2010 Draft EIR Alternatives Analysis (included at Revised DEIR Appendix K and materially reiterated above at response PUSD-8) by stating that it . . . responds to the
Districts concerns by stating that the EIR has fulfilled the requirements under the CEQA Guidelines with respect to considering alternatives and that the Citys Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee did not suggest a site near one or zero sensitive receptor sites. The Appendix K response previously provided to the District discussion (and materially reiterated above at Response PUSD-8) summarizes significant cancer risk exposures of concern to the District. Consistent with the intent and purpose of the CEQA alternatives analysis, the discussion further establishes a reasonable range of alternatives that could potentially and demonstrably reduce the identified significant impact. Lastly, the discussion substantiates that there are no feasible alternative sites that would demonstrably and substantially reduce significant cancer risk threshold exceedances resulting from the Project. The commentor offers an opinion that the response . . . evades the question of whether feasible Project locations should be evaluated that would locate the project away from sensitive land uses. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the Revised DEIR describes a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain the basic Project Objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the proposal. The CEQA Guidelines provide further that an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative, but rather, the discussion of alternatives and their relative merits and impacts should be provided in a manner that fosters informed decision-making and public participation. To this end, the CEQA Guidelines indicate that the range of alternatives selected for examination in an EIR should be governed by rule of reason, and requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed decision. Consistent with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, the Revised DEIR analysis of alternative sites presents a reasonable range of alternative locations for the Project that would potentially lessen its environmental effects while allowing for attainment of the basic Project Objectives. Please refer also to response PUSD-8 and the Revised DEIR discussion
of alternative sites, Pages 5-31 through 5-38. The commentors opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Response PUSD-10 The commentor provides concluding remarks anticipating responses to comments provided, and requesting formal notification pursuant to PRC Section 21092.2 of any public hearings concerning the Project and/or the EIR. The District reserves its rights to supplement its comments and provide additional comments. Responses to PUSD comments are provided herein. Consistent with applicable provisions of PRC 21092.2, the District will be notified regarding any public hearings concerning the Project and/or EIR. Public comments will be accepted by the Lead Agency throughout the public review/hearing process.
Southern California Gas Company Orange Coast Region - Anaheim 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92086-6114 Letter Dated February 15, 2011 Response GAS-1 The commentor notes location of the Project within an area currently provided service by the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). The commentor notes further that gas service to the Project can be provided from existing proximate gas mains. Service will be available in accordance with and based on SCGCs policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Current availability of gas service to the Project is acknowledged. The Project Applicant will comply with all applicable SCGC policies, extension rules, and contractual requirements. The commentor notes that the provided SCGC letter and comments are informational only, and do not constitute a contractual agreement. The commentor notes further that gas availability to the Project may be affected by regulatory actions of other agencies (e.g., the CPUC and/or federal agencies). The SCGC letter and comments are understood to be informational only. No contractual arrangement is understood to exist, nor are any contractual arrangements otherwise understood to be implied. It is further understood that regulatory actions of agencies other than SCGC could affect gas service to the Project. The commentor notes that statements regarding, or indication of, gas service availability to the Project are made without consideration of non-utility laws and regulations. Effects of these regulations can only be ascertained in the process and context of contractual arrangements and construction activities.
It is understood that SCGC statements regarding, or indication of, gas service availability to the Project are made without consideration of non-utility laws and regulations. It is further understood that effects of these regulations can only be ascertained in the process and context of contractual arrangements and construction activities. The commentor notes that estimated gas use for the Project can be obtained from SCGC Commercial-Industrial/Residential Market Services. SCGC notes further that its assistance is available for selection of energy efficient systems and appliances. Gas use demand modeling services provided by SCGC are acknowledged. The Applicant will consult with SCGC regarding selection and implementation of energy efficient systems and appliances.
Speidel & Associates, Inc. 925 North Garey Avenue Pomona, CA 91767 Letter Dated March 10, 2011 Response SA-1 The commentor requests City support and approval of the Project and EIR. The commentor notes his long-time City residency and business ownership. The commentor notes and supports the Lead Agencys preparation and recirculation of the Revised DEIR. The commentor offers an opinion that the Revised DEIR is highly conservative and likely overstates Project impacts; notably traffic and air quality impacts are likely overstated. Commentor support of the Project and EIR is recognized. These comments are forwarded to the decision-makers. Lead Agency recirculation of the Revised DEIR as noted by the commentor is materially correct. Revised DEIR text in pertinent part is excerpted below: Based on comments received, the City of Pomona, acting as the Lead Agency, has determined that recirculation of this Revised [emphasis added] Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project (Revised Draft EIR) will be of benefit in providing on-point responses to comments as well as correction, clarification, and amplification of information provided previously in the March 2010 Draft EIR (Revised DEIR Preface, Page 2). Correction, amplification, and clarification of information provided in this Revised Draft EIR does not constitute new significant information as defined under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088.5, Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification, and recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is not a required action under CEQA. Recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR has nonetheless been voluntarily initiated by the Lead Agency in furtherance of disclosure and public participation mandates
established under CEQA. Noticing, content, and review of the Revised Draft EIR is undertaken consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. In this latter regard, the Revised Draft EIR has been distributed to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), responsible and trustee agencies, and all parties requesting the document (Revised DEIR Preface, Page 3). Project impacts (and proposed mitigation of those impacts determined to be potentially significant) are discussed in the detail throughout the Revised DEIR. A summary of Project impacts and mitigation is provided at Revised DEIR Table 1.10-1, Pages 1-29 through 1-51. Further, in response to comments received on the Revised DEIR, additional and revised mitigation measures are proposed in this Final EIR. Mitigation measures, together with mitigation timing and monitoring/reporting responsibilities are comprehensively presented at Final EIR Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Response SA-2 The commentor offers an opinion that the City Planning Commission and City Council should enthusiastically support and approve the EIR and the Project. The commentor notes the PVTS Project consistency with existing zoning and location amid similar uses. Commentor opinion regarding Planning Commission and Council actions concerning the EIR and Project is forwarded to the decision-makers. Project consistency with existing land use designations and compatibility with adjacent uses noted by the commentor are materially correct. Land use issues are discussed in detail at Revised EIR Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, Revised DEIR Pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-18. To summarize: . . . [N]o established communities or other physical arrangements would be divided or otherwise adversely physically altered by the Projects proposed land uses, design features, or operations. The Project proposes industrial land uses consistent with existing General Plan (General Manufacturing) and zoning (M-2, General Industrial) designations. The Project industrial land uses will be compatible with adjacent land uses in that adjacent land is also designated for industrial uses under the Citys General Plan and zoning
ordinance, and is either developed with such uses or allows for such development (Revised DEIR, Page 4.1-18). Response SA-3 The commentor cites job opportunities created by the Project, and notes location of the project within a City redevelopment area. The commentor summarizes observed historic changes in the Citys development patterns, and notes his involvement in current and planned development proposals within the City. Commentor statements regarding Project job creation, and location of the Project within a City redevelopment area are materially correct. The Revised DEIR notes job opportunities created by the Project, *s+taffing estimates provided by the Applicant as of December 2009 indicate a requirement for 45 to 50 employees (Revised DEIR, Page 3-34, et al.). Location of the Project within the City of Pomona Reservoir Industrial Redevelopment Project Area is also discussed in the Revised DEIR: The Project site also lies within the City of Pomona Reservoir Industrial Redevelopment Project Area. Like the General Plan and zoning designations applicable to the site, the Redevelopment Plan for the area within which the Project is located encourages the establishment of industrial uses. Property taxes resulting from any increase in assessed value of the Project site become a source of tax increment revenue for the City of Pomona Redevelopment Agency. Thus, the Redevelopment Agency will retain a portion of the property tax dollars paid as a result of an increase in property values caused by the Project. By law, the Pomona Redevelopment Agency must use the money to alleviate blighted conditions. Blighted conditions are physical and economic problems that are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. In this respect, the Project will provide a revenue source available to the Redevelopment Agency for alleviation of blight and improvement/resolution of other physical or economic conditions that are detrimental to public health, safety and welfare (Revised DEIR, Page 4.1-8).
Commentor statements regarding historic City development patterns and commentor involvement in current and planned development proposals are forwarded to the decisionmakers. Response SA-4 The commentor notes that the Project will generate not only jobs, but would also generate tax revenues available to the City. Please refer to previous discussion of Project job creation at Response SA-2. Tax revenues generated by the Project are also discussed in the Revised DEIR, for example: Property taxes resulting from any increase in assessed value of the Project site become a source of tax increment revenue for the City of Pomona Redevelopment Agency. Thus, the Redevelopment Agency will retain a portion of the property tax dollars paid as a result of an increase in property values caused by the Project. By law, the Pomona Redevelopment Agency must use the money to alleviate blighted conditions (Revised DEIR, Page 4.1-8). Development impact fees and property tax revenues generated by the Project will provide funding sources available for support and enhancement of fire and police protection services (Revised DEIR Page 4.7-14) Further, fees and taxes paid by the Project will provide funds available for the purchase and maintenance of equipment and hiring of personnel commensurate with Project-related demands (Revised DEIR, Page 5-56). Response SA-5 The commentor summarizes previous remarks and restates support of the Project. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers.
First Presbyterian Church 401 North Gibbs Street Pomona, CA 91767 Letter #1 Dated February 26, 2011 Response FP1-1 The commentor states general concerns regarding the Project, noting concerns for the welfare of parishioners as well as welfare of the community (City of Pomona) at large. The commentor summarizes general aspects of the Project, notes the Projects proposed location, and recognizes the Citys environmental review/public comment processes for the Project. The commentor states that comments provided are under the official capacity as First Presbyterian Churchs pastor. General concerns regarding the Project are noted, as are the commentors concerns for the welfare of parishioners and area residents. The commentors summary of the Project and its proposed location are materially correct. Please refer also to the detailed Project Description provided at Revised DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description. Commentor statements regarding the Project Environmental Impact Report and public review/comment process are materially correct. The commentors official capacity as the First Presbyterian Churchs pastor is recognized. Responses to environmental concerns identified subsequently by the commentor are presented herein. Please refer also to previous First Presbyterian Church comments (dated April 22, 2010) and responses to those comments provided at Appendix K to the Revised DEIR. Unless otherwise noted herein, information presented in the Revised DEIR is consistent with, and is not substantively revised from, information presented in the March 2010 Draft EIR. Pagination citations have been amended where applicable. Please refer also to previous responses provided to First Presbyterian Church comments included at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Response FP1-2 The commentor notes that 51 percent of the [First Presbyterian Church] congregation live within one mile of the Project site, and that their children attend one of eight public schools within that radius. The commentor reiterates concerns regarding consequences of the operation of this transfer station on the health and life of more than one-half of my parishioners. Commentor statements regarding parish demographics are recognized and assumed correct. With regard to the consequences of the operation of this transfer station on the health and life of area residents, as required under CEQA, the Revised DEIR discloses the Projects significant environmental impacts. A summary of these impacts is provided at Revised DEIR Page 1-25, as excerpted below. Traffic and Circulation Intersection Impacts Pending completion of required interchange improvements, Project-related traffic impacts at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71 are determined to be significant. Air Quality Construction LST Exceedances For localized emissions, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, construction source emissions will exceed applicable SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for PM10 (24-hour concentrations) at receptors located 60 meters or nearer and emissions of PM 2.5 (24-hour concentrations) at receptors located 30 meters or nearer from the construction activity. This impact is significant. Cancer Risks Threshold Exceedances Even with the application of all feasible mitigation, Project-related DPMsource cancer risk significance thresholds (SCAQMD threshold for lifetime residential exposure) will be exceeded at two (2) residential receptors
adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street). This is considered a significant impact of the Project. No other receptors (whether residential, worker or schools) are subject to potential cancer risk threshold exceedances. As the two (2) affected non-conforming residential uses transition to industrial uses per the City General Plan, Project-related cancer risk exceedances would be alleviated. Regional Thresholds Exceedances Even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, long-term operational source emissions will exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold for NOx only. Noise Construction Noise Noise generated by Project construction activities will temporarily and intermittently exceed the Citys 65 dBA standard at an estimated 25 to 30 proximate residential receptors. The temporary and intermittent construction noise impact is considered significant. These noise levels will tend to diminish as the use of heavy equipment in the early construction stages concludes, and will dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. Re: Traffic Impacts - As indicated above, pending completion of on-going and programmed improvements at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71, Projectrelated traffic impacts at this intersection only are determined to be significant. No other significant traffic impacts are projected. Re: Air Quality Impacts - As indicated above, persons residing within 60 meters of the Project site could be temporarily and intermittently significantly affected by constructionsource PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) exceedances. These impacts will diminish as the use of heavy equipment and site grading activities in the early construction stages concludes, and will dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. No other significant localized construction-source air quality impacts are projected.
As indicated above, Project-related DPM-source cancer risk significance thresholds (SCAQMD threshold for lifetime residential exposure) will be exceeded at two (2) residential receptors adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street). No other significant localized DPM-source air quality impacts are projected. It is also noted that in response to commentor concerns, and consistent with mitigation refinements intended to be achieved through the CEQA and EIR review processes, additional mitigation is proposed that would act to further reduce Project-related DPM emissions. More specifically, additional/revised mitigation is proposed [MM 4.3.21 (A)mended and MM 4.3.22(A), below+ that would ensure future year (2020) CNG-only access restrictions for all transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles served by the Project. 7, 8 MM 4.3.21 (A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks and all Applicantcontrolled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). MM 4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling of DPM-source cancer risks resulting from application of proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A) in combination with other DPM emissions mitigation currently proposed in the Revised DEIR (See Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.17 through 4.3.20) has been conducted as one component of this Final EIR (please refer to HRA Addendum included at Final EIR Appendix A). Results of the HRA Addendum indicate that with the stipulated conversion of diesel-fueled vehicles to CNG
vehicles described herein, the Year 2020 maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially affected receptor would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. More specifically, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street), the mitigated cancer risk would be 3.98 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 0.52 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore be less than the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. The HRA Addendum results indicate further, that under no circumstance would area schools be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially significant non-cancer risks. Please refer also to detailed HRA modeling results presented at Final EIR Appendix A. Notwithstanding these findings, this Final EIR conservatively maintains previous conclusions regarding potential Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risks. That is, for the purposes of disclosure, and to maintain the conservative analysis construct employed to date, Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risk exposures at the residences located at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street are considered to be significant until the Year 2020. No other locations would experience potentially adverse elevated DPMsource cancer risk exposures (or non-cancer risk exposures) resulting from Project operations or activities. Please refer also to related discussions of DPM emissions impacts and proposed additional/revised mitigation presented at Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. Re: Noise Impacts - As indicated above, noise generated by Project construction activities will temporarily and intermittently exceed the Citys 65 dBA standard at an estimated 25 to 30 proximate residential receptors. The temporary and intermittent construction noise impact is considered significant. These noise levels will tend to diminish as the use of heavy equipment in the early construction stages concludes, and will dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. No other significant localized construction-source noise impacts are projected.
Summary: Should the Project be approved, the Lead Agency is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging the Projects significant environmental impacts as summarized above. All other potential environmental effects of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant as substantiated within the Revised DEIR and accompanying Initial Study, or are reduced below levels of significance with application of mitigation measures identified in the Revised DEIR. Commentor statements and concerns regarding Project impacts to area residents, including school children, are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentor states that . . . the project wont create that many new jobs. Project job creation is discussed in the Revised DEIR: The Transfer Station will be staffed by an estimated 45 to 50 employees. Onsite personnel would include facility managers, administrative/clerical personnel, equipment operators, transfer floor laborers, transfer truck drivers, and maintenance workers (Revised DEIR Page 1-6, et al.). Project job creation as noted above is consistent with and supports the Project Objective to create additional employment opportunities for City and area residents (Revised DEIR Page 3-45, et al.). The commentors statements regarding job creation are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentor notes that there are 9 schools within a one-mile radius of the Project site and states that [school] children will be exposed to adverse truck emission and airborne risks from the station itself. While the commentor offers no supporting evidence or expert opinion supported by evidence that area school populations will be adversely affected by the Project, the Revised DEIR explicitly considers and addresses potential Project impacts at area schools. Please refer to Revised DEIR at Pages 1-12, 1-13, 1-17, 1-18, 1-23, 1-25, 1-35, 1-45, 2-11, 3-25, 4.3-2,
4.3-4, 4.3-80, 4.3-87, 4.3-90 through 4.3-93, 4.3-100, 4.3-102, 4.4-3, 4.4-7, 4.4-30, 4.5-1, 4.5-4, 4.5-6, 4.5-19, 4.5-24, 4.5-26, 4.5-34 through 4.5-36, 4.7-11, 5-65, Revised EIR Appendix K Responses (some 300 citations to area schools), et al. As substantiated in the Revised DEIR, with application of proposed mitigation, the Project will not result in localized or specific impacts to area schools. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decisionmakers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentor speculates that the Project will exceed capacity limitations and requirements stipulated under the Applicant-requested 1,500 tons per day Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP). As discussed in the Revised DEIR: The Project Applicant has requested a Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) to allow for acceptance of up to 1,500 tons of MSW per day (Revised DEIR Page 1-6, et al.). Capacity expansion beyond the requested 1,500 tons per day SWFP limitation cited in the Revised DEIR is not evaluated. The Lead Agency will determine the type and extent of any required supporting or subsequent environmental evaluation that may be required if such a future expansion is proposed. As with the current Project, the Lead Agency has the authority to approve or deny any future expansion should it be proposed. The commentors statements regarding potential future capacity expansion are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentor notes that environmental justice considerations are discussed in the Revised DEIR (Appendix H). The commentor erroneously interprets analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR regarding environmental justice concerns. In complete context, Revised DEIR Appendix H first notes that environmental justice considerations are not physical impacts to the environment and are not explicitly addressed under CEQA. Continuing, the Revised DEIR notes . . . [n]otwithstanding [the fact that environmental justice considerations are not addressed under CEQA], as a member Board overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)9 has included the recognition of the principles of environmental justice as an integral part of its review and permitting actions. Moreover, the analysis presented here is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project (Revised DEIR Appendix H, Page 1). The commentors concerns about the Projects potential disproportionate effects to minority populations are appropriately and fully addressed within the Appendix H discussion of environmental justice concerns. More specifically, as discussed at Page H-18: . . . [M]inority populations comprise more than 50 percent of the total population within all geographic areas of analysis (Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, and County), and all tiers of geographic areas would be considered Environmental Justice Communities. Any project with significant environmental impacts under CEQA would also have potential environmental justice concerns if located in the Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, or County. . . . Continuing, the Appendix H discussion notes: . . . With respect to the above potential environmental justice concerns, it is noted that significant impacts affecting the local environmental justice community are a product, at least in part, of the presence of non-conforming residential uses within an area planned and designated for industrial development. On-going transition of these non-conforming residential uses to industrial development, as envisioned under the City General Plan, would tend to alleviate impacts attributable to exposure of residences to proximate industrial uses. Notwithstanding, in the course of this transition, nonconforming residential uses located near existing or proposed industrial uses
9 The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has been reconstituted as the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
are subject to increased environmental effects and potential environmental justice concerns. It is also recognized that temporary construction impacts, such as those resulting from the Project, are typical and generally unavoidable for any development project located adjacent to residential uses. In this sense, these impacts are not Project-specific, and would likely occur to some degree under all development scenarios at the Project site due to the presence of proximate non-conforming sensitive receptors (Appendix H, Page H-19). As noted previously, while environmental justice is not a CEQA issue, the analysis of these concerns as presented in the Revised DEIR is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project. The commentors opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response FP1-3 The commentor states that the City of Pomona does have a significant trash problem. The commentor suggests the City not entertain the proposal of a commercial waste removal company whose primary objective is to maximize its profits. The commentor suggests that a a problem of such enormity is best addressed through the city inviting the citizenry and the citys business and people-centered institutions to determine what the solution ought to be and then contract with trash businesses on our own terms. The commentor does not raise environmental issues, or otherwise comment on the Revised DEIR. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
First Presbyterian Church 401 North Gibbs Street Pomona, CA 91767 Letter #2 Dated March 7, 2011 Response FP2-1 The commentor states general concerns regarding the Project noting concerns for the [First Presbyterian Church] church and congregation. Environmental concerns raised by the commentor are addressed within these responses. Other statements and concerns which are beyond the scope of the Revised DEIR are forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration. The commentor summarizes general aspects of the Project, notes the Projects proposed location and recognizes the Citys environmental review/public comment processes for the Project. The commentor states that comments provided are under the official capacity as the Session (governing body) of First Presbyterian Church. The commentors summary of the Project and its proposed location are materially correct. Please refer also to the detailed Project Description provided at revised DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description. Commentor statements regarding the Project Environmental Impact Report and public review/comment process are materially correct. The commentors official capacity as Session (governing body) of the First Presbyterian Church is recognized. Responses to environmental concerns identified subsequently by the commentor are presented here. Please refer also to previous First Presbyterian Church comments (dated April 22, 2010) and responses to those comments provided at Appendix K to the Revised DEIR. Unless otherwise noted herein, information presented in the Revised DEIR is consistent with, and is not substantively revised from, information presented in the March 2010 Draft EIR. Pagination citations have been amended where applicable. Please refer also to previous responses provided to First Presbyterian Church comments included at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Response FP2-2 The commentor notes that 51 percent of the [First Presbyterian Church] congregation live within one mile of the Project site, and that their children attend one of eight public schools within that radius. The commentor reiterates concerns regarding consequences of the operation of this transfer station on the health and life of more than one-half of our parishioners. Commentor statements regarding parish demographics are recognized and assumed correct. With regard to the consequences of the operation of this transfer station on the health and life of area residents, as required under CEQA, the Revised DEIR discloses the Projects significant environmental impacts. A summary of these impacts is provided at Revised DEIR Page 1-25, as excerpted below. Traffic and Circulation Intersection Impacts Pending completion of required interchange improvements, Project-related traffic impacts at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71 are determined to be significant. Air Quality Construction LST Exceedances For localized emissions, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, construction source emissions will exceed applicable SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for PM10 (24-hour concentrations) at receptors located 60 meters or nearer and emissions of PM 2.5 (24-hour concentrations) at receptors located 30 meters or nearer from the construction activity. This impact is significant. Cancer Risks Threshold Exceedances Even with the application of all feasible mitigation, Project-related DPMsource cancer risk significance thresholds (SCAQMD threshold for lifetime residential exposure) will be exceeded at two (2) residential receptors
adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street). This is considered a significant impact of the Project. No other receptors (whether residential, worker or schools) are subject to potential cancer risk threshold exceedances. As the two (2) affected non-conforming residential uses transition to industrial uses per the City General Plan, Project-related cancer risk exceedances would be alleviated. Regional Thresholds Exceedances Even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, long-term operational source emissions will exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold for NOx only. Noise Construction Noise Noise generated by Project construction activities will temporarily and intermittently exceed the Citys 65 dBA standard at an estimated 25 to 30 proximate residential receptors. The temporary and intermittent construction noise impact is considered significant. These noise levels will tend to diminish as the use of heavy equipment in the early construction stages concludes, and will dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. Re: Traffic Impacts - As indicated above, pending completion of on-going and programmed improvements at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71, Projectrelated traffic impacts at this intersection only are determined to be significant. No other significant traffic impacts are projected. Re: Air Quality Impacts - As indicated above, persons residing within 60 meters of the Project site could be temporarily and intermittently significantly affected by constructionsource PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) exceedances. These impacts will diminish as the use of heavy equipment and site grading activities in the early construction stages concludes, and will dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. No other significant localized construction-source air quality impacts are projected.
As indicated above, Project-related DPM-source cancer risk significance thresholds (SCAQMD threshold for lifetime residential exposure) will be exceeded at two (2) residential receptors adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street). No other significant localized DPM-source air quality impacts are projected. It is also noted that in response to commentor concerns, and consistent with mitigation refinements intended to be achieved through the CEQA and EIR review processes, additional mitigation is proposed that would act to further reduce Project-related DPM emissions. More specifically, additional/revised mitigation is proposed [MM 4.3.21 (A)mended and MM 4.3.22(A), below+ that would ensure future year (2020) CNG-only access restrictions for all transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles served by the Project. 10, 11 MM 4.3.21 (A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks and all Applicantcontrolled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). MM 4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling of DPM-source cancer risks resulting from application of proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A) in combination with other DPM emissions mitigation currently proposed in the Revised DEIR (See Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.17 through 4.3.20) has been conducted as one component of this Final EIR (please refer to HRA Addendum included at Final EIR Appendix A). Results of the HRA Addendum indicate that with the stipulated conversion of diesel-fueled vehicles to CNG
vehicles described herein, the Year 2020 maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially affected receptor would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. More specifically, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street), the mitigated cancer risk would be 3.98 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 0.52 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore be less than the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. The HRA Addendum results indicate further, that under no circumstance would area schools be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially significant non-cancer risks. Please refer also to detailed HRA modeling results presented at Final EIR Appendix A. Notwithstanding these findings, this Final EIR conservatively maintains previous conclusions regarding potential Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risks. That is, for the purposes of disclosure, and to maintain the conservative analysis construct employed to date, Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risk exposures at the residences located at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street are considered to be significant until the Year 2020. No other locations would experience potentially adverse elevated DPMsource cancer risk exposures (or non-cancer risk exposures) resulting from Project operations or activities. Please refer also to related discussions of DPM emissions impacts and proposed additional/revised mitigation presented at Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. Re: Noise Impacts - As indicated above, noise generated by Project construction activities will temporarily and intermittently exceed the Citys 65 dBA standard at an estimated 25 to 30 proximate residential receptors. The temporary and intermittent construction noise impact is considered significant. These noise levels will tend to diminish as the use of heavy equipment in the early construction stages concludes, and will dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. No other significant localized construction-source noise impacts are projected.
Summary: Should the Project be approved, the Lead Agency is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging the Projects significant environmental impacts as summarized above. All other potential environmental effects of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant as substantiated within the Revised DEIR and accompanying Initial Study, or are reduced below levels of significance with application of mitigation measures identified in the Revised DEIR. Commentor statements and concerns regarding Project impacts to area residents, including school children, are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentor states that . . . the project wont create that many new jobs. Project job creation is discussed in the Revised DEIR: The Transfer Station will be staffed by an estimated 45 to 50 employees. Onsite personnel would include facility managers, administrative/clerical personnel, equipment operators, transfer floor laborers, transfer truck drivers, and maintenance workers (Revised DEIR Page 1-6, et al.) Project job creation as noted is consistent with and supports the project Objective to create additional employment opportunities for City and area residents (Revised DEIR Page 345, et al.). The commentors statements regarding job creation are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentor notes that there are 9 schools within a one-mile radius of the Project site12 and states that [school] children will be exposed to adverse truck emission and airborne risks from the station itself. While the commentor offers no supporting evidence or expert opinion supported by evidence that area school populations will be adversely affected by the Project, the Revised
12
In point of fact, the Revised DEIR notes and considers ten (10) schools within a one-mile radius of the Project. Please refer to Revised DEIR Page 4.3-90, et al.
DEIR explicitly considers and addresses potential Project impacts at area schools. Please refer to Revised DEIR at Pages 1-12, 1-13, 1-17, 1-18, 1-23, 1-25, 1-35, 1-45, 2-11, 3-25, 4.3-2, 4.3-4, 4.3-80, 4.3-87, 4.3-90 through 4.3-93, 4.3-100, 4.3-102, 4.4-3, 4.4-7, 4.4-30, 4.5-1, 4.5-4, 4.5-6, 4.5-19, 4.5-24, 4.5-26, 4.5-34 through 4.5-36, 4.7-11, 5-65, Revised EIR Appendix K Responses (some 300 citations to area schools), et al. As substantiated in the Revised DEIR, with application of proposed mitigation the Project will not result in localized or specific impacts to area schools. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decisionmakers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentor speculates that the Project will exceed capacity limitations and requirements stipulated under the Applicant-requested 1,500 tons per day Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP). As discussed in the Revised DEIR: The Project Applicant has requested a Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) to allow for acceptance of up to 1,500 tons of MSW per day (Revised DEIR Page 1-6, et al.). Capacity expansion beyond the requested 1,500 tons per day SWFP limitation cited in the Revised DEIR is not evaluated. The Lead Agency will determine the type and extent of any required supporting or subsequent environmental evaluation that may be required if such a future expansion is proposed. As with the current Project, the Lead Agency has the authority to approve or deny any future expansion should it be proposed. The commentors statements regarding potential future capacity expansion are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentor notes that environmental justice considerations are discussed in the Revised DEIR (Appendix H). The commentor erroneously interprets analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR regarding environmental justice concerns. In complete context, Revised DEIR Appendix H first notes that environmental justice considerations are not physical impacts to the environment and are not explicitly addressed under CEQA. Continuing, the Revised DEIR notes . . . [n]otwithstanding [the fact that environmental justice considerations are not addressed under CEQA], as a member Board
overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)13 has included the recognition of the principles of environmental justice as an integral part of its review and permitting actions. Moreover, the analysis presented here is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project (Revised DEIR Appendix H, Page 1). The commentors concerns about the Projects potential disproportionate effects to minority populations are appropriately and fully addressed within the Appendix H discussion of environmental justice concerns. More specifically, as discussed at Page H-18: . . . [M]inority populations comprise more than 50 percent of the total population within all geographic areas of analysis (Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, and County), and all tiers of geographic areas would be considered Environmental Justice Communities. Any project with significant environmental impacts under CEQA would also have potential environmental justice concerns if located in the Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, or County. . . . Continuing, the Appendix H discussion notes: . . . With respect to the above potential environmental justice concerns, it is noted that significant impacts affecting the local environmental justice community are a product, at least in part, of the presence of non-conforming residential uses within an area planned and designated for industrial development. On-going transition of these non-conforming residential uses to industrial development, as envisioned under the City General Plan, would tend to alleviate impacts attributable to exposure of residences to proximate industrial uses. Notwithstanding, in the course of this transition, nonconforming residential uses located near existing or proposed industrial uses
are subject to increased environmental effects and potential environmental justice concerns. It is also recognized that temporary construction impacts, such as those resulting from the Project, are typical and generally unavoidable for any development project located adjacent to residential uses. In this sense, these impacts are not Project-specific, and would likely occur to some degree under all development scenarios at the Project site due to the presence of proximate non-conforming sensitive receptors (Appendix H, Page H-19). As noted previously, while environmental justice is not a CEQA issue, the analysis of these concerns as presented in the Revised DEIR is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project. The commentors opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response FP2-3 The commentor notes that that the City of Pomona does have a trash issue. The commentor suggests the City not entertain the proposal of a commercial waste removal company whose primary objective is to maximize its profits. The commentor suggests that an issue of this significance is best addressed through the city inviting the citizenry and the citys business and people-centered institutions to determine what the solution ought to be, and then contract with trash businesses on the citys (and the peoples) own terms. The commentor does not raise environmental issues, or otherwise comment on the Draft EIR. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
One LA Pomona Valley Cluster 1545 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 328 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Letter Dated March 4, 2011 Response ONE-1 The commentors express disapproval of the Project. The commentors request that the City of Pomona deny the Project. The commentors do not raise environmental issues or otherwise provide comments on the Draft EIR. No response is provided in this regard. The commentors expression of disapproval, and request that the Project be denied are forwarded to the decision-makers. Subsequent to introductory remarks, the commentors state objections to the Project (Objections). Responses to the commentors Objections are provided herein. As set forth below, the Objections misrepresent the Project and its potential environmental impacts. Each of the Objections is reproduced below, along with a response to such Objection. Response ONE-2 The commentors state concerns regarding the Projects potential to create long-term and wide-spread regional air pollution issues, citing the Projects exceedance of SCAQMD regional operational threshold for NOx. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, consistent with SCAQMD methodology, certain significant regional air quality impacts are projected to result from the Project. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-77, et al., exceedance of SCAQMD NOx regional thresholds only). Notwithstanding, and contrary to the commentors statement that the Project would create long-term and wide-spread regional air pollution issues, the Project would actually tend to benefit the region by allowing waste materials to be transported more efficiently.
That is, as explained in the DEIR, transfer stations such as that proposed under the Project allow franchise trash collection vehicles and self-haulers to avoid long trips to remote landfills. This approach can provide an efficient means to transport waste to area-wide landfills and also can create positive benefits to area-wide traffic and air quality. In these regards, the underlying goals of the Project are to enhance waste management services within the City and region, stabilize rising solid waste collection costs, and reduce environmental impacts otherwise associated with waste handling and disposal (See Revised DEIR, Page 1-1, emphasis added). Accordingly, from a regional perspective, because the Project will result in the more efficient management of municipal solid waste and will reduce the number of long haul trips to landfills, it is likely that the Project will contribute to an overall reduction in VMT [vehicle miles travelled] within the Air Basin, with correlating beneficial effects on regional emissions of diesel particulate, as well as NOx. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-96.) Further, regulatory efforts by the CARB and EPA to date have incrementally reduced NOx emissions. As noted in the DEIR, *t+he amount of NOx emissions from vehicle sources has been reduced dramatically over the past years and is expected to further decline as clean vehicle and fuel technologies improve. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-124.) Nonetheless, as noted previously, NOx emissions from operational activities are considered significant, because the NOx emissions related to the Project will exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance for NOx. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-77.) However, as stated in the Revised DEIR, *w+hile operational emissions will be generated in excess of SCAQMDs regional threshold criteria for NOx, it is unlikely that a significant impact will occur as these emissions are already accounted for in the AQMP [Air Quality Management Plan] since the proposed Project is consistent with the adopted land use intensity and zoning. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-56.) Moreover, the Project is in compliance with SCAQMDs attainment plans [and] complies with all feasible mitigation measures to reduce NOx emissions. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-124.)
Accordingly, the Revised DEIR does not support the claim that the Project will create long-term and wide-spread regional air pollution issues, let alone result in the health impacts the commentors imply may result from the Project. Response ONE-3 The commentors note that there are nine (9) schools within a one-mile radius of the Project site,
14
and offer an opinion that the Project-related exceedance of SCAQMD regional
thresholds for NOx would result in increased health risks at area schools. The commentors statements erroneously imply that the Project presents a health risk to the schools within one mile of the Project site. While the DEIR identified the Projects projected operational NOx emissions as being potentially significant on a regional basis, such emissions will not have any localized impact on schools in the general vicinity of the Project. (Revised DEIR, Pages 1-25, 4.3-123.) As indicated in Appendix H to the Revised DEIR, in concluding operational NOx emissions from the Project are not a potential environmental justice concern, such emissions would affect all population segments within the encompassing regional air basin and to the approximately same degree, and would therefore not result in disproportionate effects to persons in the vicinity of the Project. And as discussed above, the Project can be expected to result in a net benefit to regional air quality, by facilitating more efficient management of municipal solid waste and reducing VMT. (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-96.) With regard to cancer risk, the DEIR indicates that under all exposure scenarios (70-year, 30-year, 9-year) potential health risks to off-site workers and schools in the area will not exceed applicable SCAQMD threshold criteria. (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-2.) Moreover, while the DEIR indicates the construction phase of the Project has the potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5, this is true only for receptors located 60 meters or nearer from the construction activity, with respect to PM10, and 30 meters or nearer with respect to PM2.5. (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-70.)
14
In point of fact, the Revised DEIR considers and evaluates potential air quality impacts at ten (10) schools/school facilities within an approximate one-mile radius of the Project site. Please refer to Revised DEIR Page 4.3-90.
Since the closest school to the Project is approximately mile away, no schools will be impacted by any localized air pollution impacts from the Project. (Revised DEIR, Pages 112, 4.3-123.) Response ONE-4 The commentors express concern for the potential health risks affecting the two residences nearest the Project site, citing the risk of cancer and hearing loss as their main concerns. The commentors statements misrepresent and incorrectly state the risk of cancer created by the Project. While it is true that the SCAQMD cancer risk incidence threshold will be exceeded with respect to two (and only two) residences nearest the Project site, the cancer risk with mitigation is only 45.10 in one million at 1415 East Ninth Street and 11.59 in one million at 1295 East Ninth Street (not 56.70/million and 45.10/million, as stated by the commentors). Moreover, this increased risk is based on the conservative assumption that a person living at the affected residences will be continuously exposed to the potentially harmful emissions 24 hours a day for 365 days a year for 70 years. (See Revised DEIR, Pages 4.3-92 to 4.3-94.) As discussed in the Revised DEIR, real world risk exposures attributable to the Project are far less, since *i+ndividuals are typically not stationary at any given outdoor location, and a portion of each 24-hour cycle is spent indoors. In addition, individuals and families at a given location for 70 or even 30 years would be considered the exception rather than the norm. . . . the EPA recommends a central tendency estimate of 9 years for residency at a given location, and a high-end estimate of 30 years for residency time. And the assumption that anyone might live at one of the two potentially affected residences for 70 years is even more unlikely given that the Citys General Plan calls for such nonconforming residential uses to be transitioned to industrial uses. (See Revised DEIR, Pages 4.1-4 to 4.1-5.) Under a shorter, 9-year exposure scenario representative of area residency patterns, potential DPM-source cancer risk thresholds would not be exceeded at any location within the Study Area. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-2)
Furthermore, the Revised DEIR did not factor in several required mitigation measures in calculating cancer risk attributable to the Project. Specifically, in an effort to be as conservative as possible, the Revised DEIR did not calculate or assume an emission reduction based on the planned future conversion of the truck fleet using the station from diesel to CNG, or emission reductions expected from measures designed to reduce truck idling time. (See Revised DEIR, Pages 4.3-100, 4.3-102.) Anticipated fleet conversion from diesel fuels to CNG (or other clean fuel sources) pursuant to proposed Mitigation Measures 4.3.21 and 4.3.22 will further reduce potential Project-related DPM-source cancer risks. Future fleet conversion in combination with other mitigation measures would reduce the maximum residential cancer risk exposure to 16.44 per million, which would affect only one (1) residence (1415 East Ninth Street) within the Study Area. (See Revised DEIR, Page 103.) Thus, while persons living at the two residences closest to the Project may experience an increased cancer risk exposure under the conservative assumptions used in the EIR, the claim that they would be subject to very high levels of risk for cancer is simply not accurate. Please note further, that in response to commentor concerns, and consistent with mitigation refinements intended to be achieved through the CEQA and EIR review processes, additional mitigation is proposed that would act to further reduce Project-related DPM emissions. More specifically, additional/revised mitigation is proposed [MM 4.3.21 (A)mended and MM 4.3.22(A), below+ that would ensure future year (2020) CNG-only access restrictions for all transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles served by the Project. 15, 16 MM 4.3.21 (A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks and all Applicantcontrolled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies).
15
The Year 2020 timeframe implementation schedule proposed here is consistent with, and parallels EPA/CARB tiered emissions reductions goals for heavy-duty trucks.
16
MM 4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling of DPM-source cancer risks resulting from application of proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A) in combination with other DPM emissions mitigation currently proposed in the Revised DEIR (Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.17 through 4.3.20) has been conducted as one component of this Final EIR (please refer to HRA Addendum included at Final EIR Appendix A). Results of the HRA Addendum indicate that with the stipulated conversion of diesel-fueled vehicles to CNG vehicles described herein, the Year 2020 maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially affected receptor would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. More specifically, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street), the mitigated cancer risk would be 3.98 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 0.52 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore be less than the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. The HRA Addendum results indicate further, that under no circumstance would area schools be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially significant non-cancer risks. Please refer also to detailed HRA modeling results presented at Final EIR Appendix A. Notwithstanding these findings, this Final EIR conservatively maintains previous conclusions regarding potential Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risks. That is, for the purposes of disclosure, and to maintain the conservative analysis construct employed to date, Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risk exposures at the residences located at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street are considered to be significant until the Year 2020. No other locations would experience potentially adverse elevated DPMsource cancer risk exposures (or non-cancer risk exposures) resulting from Project operations or activities. Please refer also to related discussions of DPM emissions impacts
and proposed additional/revised mitigation presented at Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. The commentors statements regarding noise exposure and potential hearing loss similarly misrepresent the Revised DEIR analysis and incorrectly interpret information provided. That is the Revised DEIR does not support the claim that people living near the Project are at a risk of hearing loss. While the Revised DEIR states that hearing loss may begin to occur at 75 dBA, it indicates a risk of hearing loss at that level only where there is prolonged exposure. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.4-7.) Project construction noise will be temporary and intermittent, and, with mitigation, would exceed 75 dBA at its peak. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.4-35.) Thus, the commentors claim that the Project will expose any residents to a very high level*s+ of risk for . . . hearing loss is not supportable. Response ONE-5 The commentors express concerns about the Projects potential disproportionate effects to minority populations, and associated Environmental Justice (EJ) concerns. Notwithstanding the fact that Environmental Impact Reports are not required to examine potential environmental justice impacts, the Revised DEIR included an appendix discussing these issues in detail. As discussed therein, all feasible mitigation measures have been implemented in order to avoid or reduce its *the Projects+ environmental impacts and thereby reduce potential environmental justice (EJ) concerns. (See Appendix H, Page H18.) Recognizing EJ concerns is not a warning as misstated by the commentors. The commentors further misstate and incorrectly characterize the Project impacts as a specific burden to minorities and low-income households, and erroneously present findings of Appendix H out of context. In complete context, Revised DEIR Appendix H first notes that environmental justice considerations are not physical impacts to the environment and are not explicitly addressed under CEQA. Notwithstanding, as a member Board overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has included the recognition of the principles of environmental justice as
an integral part of its review and permitting actions. Moreover, the analysis presented here is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project (Revised DEIR Appendix H, Page 1). At Page H-17, the Revised DEIR discussion of environmental justice considerations notes that there is a potential for the Project to result in disproportionate impacts to minority populations. However, low-income populations within the affected area comprise less than 50 percent of the total population. Based on EPA guidance, lowincome status is not a determining environmental justice parameter. As further discussed at Page H-18: . . . [a]s indicated, minority populations comprise more than 50 percent of the total population within all geographic areas of analysis (Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, and County), and all tiers of geographic areas would be considered Environmental Justice Communities. Any project with significant environmental impacts under CEQA would also have potential environmental justice concerns if located in the Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, or County. The Appendix H discussion continues: With respect to the above potential environmental justice concerns, it is noted that significant impacts affecting the local environmental justice community are a product, at least in part, of the presence of non-conforming residential uses within an area planned and designated for industrial development. Ongoing transition of these non-conforming residential uses to industrial development, as envisioned under the City General Plan, would tend to alleviate impacts attributable to exposure of residences to proximate industrial uses. Notwithstanding, in the course of this transition, nonconforming residential uses located near existing or proposed industrial uses are subject to increased environmental effects and potential environmental justice concerns.
It is also recognized that temporary construction impacts, such as those resulting from the Project [construction equipment noise, fugitive dust (PM) emissions] are typical and generally unavoidable for any development project located adjacent to residential uses. In this sense, these impacts are not Project-specific, and would likely occur to some degree under all development scenarios at the Project site due to the presence of proximate non-conforming sensitive receptors (Appendix H, Page H-19). It is noted further that the Revised DEIR analysis of construction impacts conservatively reflects a maximum potential impact scenario that could occur in the initial stages of construction, and assumes concurrent use of heavy equipment at the Project boundaries. Subsequent to this initial stage of construction, as the demands for heavy equipment decrease and construction activities focus around the main structures in the central project area, construction noise and construction emissions received at off-site locations would typically diminish. Operational impacts are similarly based on conservative maximum potential impact scenarios. That is, the Revised DEIRs finding that the inhabitants of only two (2) residences could potentially be exposed to increased cancer risk is based on conservative assumptions, including that individuals will remain at those locations for many decades. (See Revised DEIR, Pages 4.1-4 to 4.1-5.) Anticipated fleet conversion from diesel fuels to CNG (or other clean fuel sources) pursuant to proposed Mitigation Measures 4.3.21 (A) and 4.3.22 (A) presented below would, by 2020, reduce all Project DPM-source cancer risks to levels that are less-than-significant. Please refer also to the HRA Addendum included at Final EIR Appendix A. Moreover, under General Plan Buildout conditions (approximately 2030), the existing nonconforming residential uses within the industrial zone encompassing the Project site are anticipated to transition to industrial development thus removing potential environmental justice concerns. (See Appendix H, Page H-19.) Also important, in evaluating environmental justice concerns, is the fact that minority and low-income communities, including those residing near the Project site, have been given
the opportunity for meaningful participation in the decision-making process related to the Project. Public outreach was conducted in all communities affected by the Project, including public meetings, notice of which was provided in both English and Spanish. (Appendix H, Page H-20.) As noted further, there has been sufficient and meaningful involvement of all potential stakeholders, including minority and low-income communities throughout the decision-making process. (Appendix H, Page H-20.) Additionally, the commentors are concerned with the potential for the City to be burdened with extensive negative environmental impacts, so that other communities dont have to process their own trash. Significant environmental impacts resulting from the Project are disclosed in the Revised DEIR. The commentors opinions regarding, and characterization of these impacts are forwarded to the decision-makers. It is also noted however, that effective areawide collection and transport of MSW via transfer facilities such as that proposed by the Project minimize haul distances and act to reduce areawide or regional impacts through reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). New MSW transfer facilities, such as proposed under the Project, also reflect and incorporate contemporary energy efficient industrial designs and operational programs and respond to current regulatory requirements. Response ONE-6 The commentors express concerns regarding Project-related traffic impacts; specifically, citing concerns regarding the successful completion of the SR-71 at Mission Boulevard Interchange Improvement project prior to the Project opening. The commentors also offer their concerned opinion regarding the Projects impact on additional traffic, pollution, noise, road conditions, and quality of life in the City. The only potentially significant traffic impact, after mitigation, identified in the Revised DEIR is the fact that the Project will add trips to an intersection (SR-71 at Mission Boulevard) that is currently operating at an unacceptable level. As repeatedly noted in the Revised DEIR, however, improvements that would eliminate this impact are approved, funded, and currently under construction by Caltrans. (Revised DEIR, Pages 4.2-60
[emphasis added], 4.2-61, 4.2-63.) As explained in the Revised DEIR, Project-related traffic impacts at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71 are considered significant because while it is foreseeable that the funded and planned improvements to SR-71 and Mission Boulevard will be completed prior to the Project being fully operational . . . timely completion of these improvements cannot be definitively assured. (Revised DEIR, Page 4.2-63.) Accordingly, any significant traffic impact from the Project will be temporary and will be alleviated by improvements already under construction. The Revised DEIR does not support the commentors claim that the Project will negatively impact traffic on Mission Boulevard. To the contrary, it indicates that all studied segments of Mission will continue to operate at the highest level of service (LOS A) with the Project. (Revised DEIR, Pages 4.2-46, 4.2-53 to 4.2-54.) Furthermore, the traffic analysis in the DEIR was intentionally highly conservative and likely overstates the traffic impacts of the proposed project. In addition, even though the proposed project will reduce the number of long hauls to area landfills by municipal trash truck, no net credit was taken for the reduction in trips that will likely result from the Project. (Revised DEIR, Page 4.2-29.) There is no demonstrated or substantiated evidence of potential damage to area roadways should the Project be implemented. Moreover, all roadway improvements proposed by the Project will conform to City engineering standards, thereby reducing future maintenance responsibilities for these improvements. The Project will also contribute fees and tax revenues to the City that may be directed to the repair and maintenance of area roads. The commentors generalized statements and opinions regarding quality of life do not raise specific environmental issues, nor allow for specific response. These statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Response ONE-7 The commentors offer the opinion that the 45-50 jobs created by the Project is not a lot of jobs and that they are not safe jobs. Additionally, they state that even if this site offered a lot of jobs (which it doesnt), the health risks outweigh the economic benefits.
As noted by the commentors, the Project is expected to result in the creation of 45 to 50 new jobs. Although there is no guarantee that all of these jobs will go to Pomona residents, the expectation is that such jobs will be filled by such residents, based on the fact that the skills necessary for such jobs are not unique or highly specialized, and given the Citys high unemployment rate. (Revised DEIR, Pages 5-61 to 5-62.) Further, the commentors claim that these are not safe jobs is baseless, and is not supported by evidence or expert opinion supported by fact. All Project operations will be subject to broad and encompassing government safety regulations established under Cal/OSHA and CalRecycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board, CIWMB). (DEIR Pages 3-46 to 3-47; Labor Code 6309.) Thus, there is absolutely no basis for the commentors claim that future employees of the Project will not be safe. Further, as discussed at the Responses provided herein, the commentors claim that these jobs will come at the expense of the health of the community is not supported by analysis and conclusions of the Revised DEIR. Response ONE-8 The commentors express their concern regarding potential PM10 and PM2.5 threshold exceedances and potential health effects on sensitive populations in the area. While the Revised DEIR indicates the construction phase of the Project has the potential to contribute to or cause localized exceedances of air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5, this is true only for receptors located 60 meters or less from the construction activity, with respect to PM10, and 30 meters or less with respect to PM2.5. (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-70.) Significantly, and in contrast to what the commentors imply, the Revised DEIR explains that because these exceedances will be intermittent and temporary, they will not result in any health impacts. Application of Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.12 will reduce all construction-source air pollutant emissions, including PM10 and PM2.5 emissions to the extent feasible. The Project will also comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and will employ Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) to lessen the impact. Additionally, and importantly, the calculated exceedances of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur temporarily and intermittently during site preparation and grading processes, and would not substantively affect any receptors at distances greater than 60 meters (for PM10 emissions) or 30 meters (for PM2.5 emissions) from the emissions source. . . . Moreover, in that construction-source PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are shortterm and intermittent they will not result in any chronic or long-term health risks or impacts. In this latter regard, health risks analyses are based on longterm exposure (i.e., typically many decades), and as such there are no projected long-term health risks associated with short-term PM10 and PM2.5 emissions generated by construction activities (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-71, emphasis added). Response ONE-9 The commentors express their concern regarding the accountability of the Project in implementing and adhering to the proposed mitigation measures. The commentors incorrectly imply that there is no mechanism for holding the Project accountable for implementing the various mitigation measures set forth in the Revised DEIR. In reality, the law requires that the City ensure such mitigation measures are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (Pub. Resources Code 21081.6(b).) Moreover, the City is required to adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures, at the time of project approval. (Pub. Resources. Code 21081.6(a).) Thus, mitigation measures are not empty promises but enforceable obligations. Notwithstanding that fact, in certain instances the Revised DEIR conservatively did not factor in mitigation measures in calculating the Projects potential impacts. For example, in calculating cancer risk, the Revised DEIR conservatively did not calculate or assume an emission reduction based on the planned future conversion of the truck fleet using the
station from diesel to CNG. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-102.) Likewise, while the Revised DEIR includes required mitigation measures designed to reduce truck idling time, such measures were not reflected in the Revised DEIRs emission calculations. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-102.) Response ONE-10 The commentors speculate on potential future capacity expansion of the Project and the related potential for additional impacts resulting from such an expansion. The Revised DEIR clearly indicates that the operational capacity of the proposed transfer station will be a maximum of 1,500 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day and that the Project applicant is seeking permitting to process to up to 1,500 tons per day of solid waste. (See Revised DEIR, Pages 1, 3-32.) In order to establish a likely maximum impact scenario, the EIR analysis [thus] assumes the transfer station facility will operate at the proposed maximum permitted capacity of 1,500 tons per day. (See Revised DEIR, Page 332.) There is nothing in the Revised DEIR that suggests the proposed facility will be capable of, or requests, processing greater volumes of waste, as speculated by the commentors. Moreover, even assuming that the Project capacity could be increased at some future point, such expansion would be subject to discretionary governmental approvals (See Revised DEIR, Pages 5-43 to 5-44), and thus require additional environmental review. Accordingly, the insinuation that the Lead Agency or Project Applicant is attempting to avoid full environmental review, or disguise or diminish true plans for, and/or scope of the Project is baseless. To the contrary, the Lead Agency and Applicant have, through public scoping processes, circulation of the Draft EIR, voluntary recirculation of the Revised DEIR, and the good faith reasoned responses provided here, demonstrated full compliance with CEQA analysis and disclosure mandates. Response ONE-11 The commentors summarize a portion of the alternatives analysis considered in the Revised DEIR, and state that the only way the company can make money is to put our health at risk.
The commentors misrepresent and misinterpret the analysis of alternatives presented in the Revised DEIR. More specifically, the analysis of the Reduced Intensity Alternative presented in the Revised DEIR demonstrates that there is no feasible Reduced Intensity Alternative that would completely avoid significant air quality impacts while achieving the basic Project Objectives rather than indicating, as stated by the commenters, that the only way the company can make money is to put our health at risk. Moreover, as discussed previously in these responses, NOx regional threshold exceedances do not equate to health risks, as erroneously concluded by the commentors. Further, the identified potential health risks resulting from the Project (exceedance of the SCAQMD lifetime residential cancer risk exposure at two non-conforming residences) reflect the conservative assumptions used in the DEIR, including that a person living at the affected residence will be exposed to the potentially harmful emissions 24 hours a day for 365 days a year for 70 years. Under this conservative scenario, the maximum cancer risk exposure is approximately 4 times higher than the SCAQMD threshold. (Revised DEIR, Pages 4.3-92 to 4.3-94, 5-39.) As discussed, above, it is very unlikely that the assumed scenarios would actually occur in the real world. Under a shorter, 9-year exposure scenario representative of area residency patterns, potential DPM-source cancer risk thresholds would not be exceeded at any location within the Study Area. (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-2.) Furthermore, the DEIR did not factor in several required mitigation measures in calculating cancer risk attributable to the Project. Specifically, in an effort to be as conservative as possible, the DEIR did not calculate or assume an emission reduction based on the planned future conversion of the truck fleet using the station from diesel to CNG, or emission reductions expected from measures designed to reduce truck idling time. (Revised DEIR, Pages 4.3-100, 4.3-102.) Further, as noted previously in these discussions, in response to commentor concerns, amended mitigation measures [4.3.21(A) and 4.3.22 (A)] are proposed that would act to further reduce Project-related DPM emissions through additional and accelerated conversion of diesel vehicles to use of CNG. This would act to further reduce potential health risks of concern to the commentors. To summarize, consistent with CEQA requirements, the Revised Draft EIR considers potential alternatives to the Project that would reduce the Projects significant impacts
while achieving the basic Project Objectives. A Reduced Intensity Alternative that would completely avoid significant air quality impacts is not feasible. Exceedance of NOx emissions regional thresholds does not equate to significant health risks. Modeling of Project operational DPM emissions pursuant to conservative SCAQMD protocols indicates that SCAQMD lifetime residential cancer exposure risks would be exceeded at the two (2) non-conforming residential uses located closest and adjacent to the Project site. In order to be as protective of human health as possible, the approach taken in the DEIR is extremely conservative and consistently errs on the side of overstating potential impacts to health. Moreover, the DEIR requires the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures to reduce these risks, including the use of an alternative stack design and restricted operational hours. (Revised DEIR, Pages 4.3-98 to 4.3-99.) Amended mitigation measures incorporated in this Final EIR would act to further reduce any Project-related DPM health risks, such that on or before the Year 2020, these risks would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. Lastly, as provided for under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080, subd. (e) (2) below, the commentors statements alone are not considered substantial evidence of health risks and/or Lead Agency or Applicant intent, motivation, or objectives: (2) Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, [or]evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous . . . The commentors statement that the only way the company can make money is to put our health at risk is considered to fall within the context of argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, *or+evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous and is forwarded to the decision-makers. Response ONE-12 The commentors summarize statements and opinions provided previously. Please refer to Responses ONE-1 through ONE-11.
Commercial Door Company 1374 East Ninth Street Pomona, CA 91766 Letter Dated February 3, 2011 Response CD-1 The commentor states points of opposition to the Project. The commentor lists reasons for opposition to the Project. Responses to specific comments/issues identified by the commentor are presented here. Please refer also to similar previous Commercial Door Company comments (dated May 5, 2010) and responses to those comments provided at Appendix K to the Revised DEIR. Unless otherwise noted herein, information presented in the Revised DEIR is consistent with, and is not substantively revised from, information presented in the March 2010 Draft EIR. Pagination citations haven been amended where applicable. Please refer also to previous responses provided to Commercial Door Company included at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Response CD-2 The commentor states concerns that the project may adversely affect area property values. The commentor states that he has already lost value due to the recycling center being next door. The commentors statements and concerns regarding potential effects of the Project on area property values are recognized, but as discussed here, are beyond the scope of the Revised DEIR. That is, the focal concern of CEQA is potentially significant physical impacts to the environment [emphasis added]. Economic impacts (including potential impacts to area property values) with no associated or causal physical impacts are not within the purview of CEQA or the Revised DEIR.
(a) Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic or social changes. The intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes. [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15131 subd. (a)]. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080, subd. (e), below, the commentors statements alone are not considered substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on area property values: e) (1) For the purposes of this section and this division, substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. (2) Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. There is no demonstrated or substantiated evidence of a potential decline in area property values should the Project be implemented. Similarly, there is no demonstrated or substantiated potential physical impact (direct or indirect) due to a potential decline in area property values, should such a decline occur. Absent substantiation, the commentors statements in these regards (as well as other opinions provided) are considered speculative and are forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
The Revised DEIR analysis appropriately focuses on potential physical impacts to the area as a whole and the welfare of all persons residing there. Please refer also to responses to these issues provided at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Response CD-3 The commentor states that the Project will accept up to 150 truckloads or more [of trash] per day. The quantity of 150 truckloads [of trash] per day noted by the commentor is not cited in the Revised DEIR, and is imprecise in determining potential traffic impacts and related vehicular source noise and air quality impacts. Project trip generation is discussed in detail within the Revised DEIR Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (Revised DEIR Appendix B) and is summarized at Revised DEIR Section 4.2.7.2 Project Trip Generation. Employing applicable passenger car equivalence (PCE) ratios, the Project would generate approximately 2,078 total daily trips (PCE). This total includes trips from self-haul trucks, collections trucks, transfer trucks, and employees. The commentor states that trash will come from all over. With regard to populations and areas served by the Project, the commentors statement that trash will come from all over is inaccurate. As discussed in the Revised DEIR . . . *i+t is anticipated that various commercial waste haulers and private self-haulers would use the Project facilities. The service area for the proposed transfer station generally falls within an approximate six-mile radius of the site. Private and public haulers within this radius will have the opportunity to use the proposed facility(Revised DEIR, Page 3-5). Contrary to the commentors assertions otherwise, certain potential environmental benefits resulting from the Project stem from its service area (extending beyond the City limits), and consolidation of areawide waste management activities. That is, as discussed in the Revised DEIR . . . it is anticipated that by centralizing and consolidating waste collection management services, the Project could act to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the region, with associated reductions in regional traffic congestion and the generation of
traffic-related air pollutants. By reducing trip lengths for trash collection/trash hauling vehicles, the Project could also act to reduce the quantity and types of air pollutant emissions, storm water pollutants, and/or other contaminants that might otherwise be generated or released by trash collection vehicles as they travel along area roads (Revised DEIR, Page 3-1). The commentor provides opinions on potential traffic, noise, air pollution and odor impacts of the Project . . . Traffic will increase tremendously . . . throughout the streets of Pomona. The traffic, noise and diesel smoke and smell of these large trucks will impact the air quality throughout Pomona. The trip generation estimates noted previously were employed in related Revised DEIR assessments of the Projects potential traffic impacts (See Revised DEIR at Section 4.2, Traffic and Circualtion and Revised DEIR Appendix B, Traffic Impact Analysis); vehicular source air quality impacts (See Revised DEIR at Section 4.3, Air Quality; and Revised DEIR Appendix C, Air Quality Impact Analyses); and vehicular source noise impacts (See Revised DEIR at Section 4.4, Noise; and Revised DEIR Appendix D, Noise Impact Analysis). Representative Revised DEIR traffic, air quality, and noise discussions are presented below. TRAFFIC Project-related traffic impacts are presented at Revised DEIR Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation, and the detailed Project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is presented at Revised DEIR Appendix B. The Revised DEIR concludes that significant Level of Service (LOS) impacts are projected under Opening Year Conditions (2011) at Mission Boulevard/SR-71: . . . However, although construction of the required improvements at the intersection of Mission Boulevard at SR-71 would successfully relieve the existing LOS F conditions at this intersection, and mitigate Project-related impacts, timely and successful completion of the improvements cannot be assured prior to Project opening and is outside the control of the City of Pomona. As such, there are no feasible mitigation measures that will, with certainty, reduce the Projects potential traffic impacts during the Opening
Year and Opening Year Cumulative scenarios. Pending completion of required interchange improvements, Project-related traffic impacts at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71 are determined to be significant. These improvements are fully funded and are currently under construction and completion of these improvements is anticipated in 2011. If these improvements are completed before the Project is operational, the identified impacts at Mission Boulevard and SR-71 will be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level . . . (Revised DEIR, Page 4.2-2). Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging Project-specific and cumulatively significant LOS impacts at Mission Boulevard at SR-71. All other potential Project-related and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are substantiated to be less-than-significant or are reduced to levels that are less-thansignificant pursuant to the Revised DEIR mitigation measures. Within the Revised DEIR, it is further recognized that Project-related traffic could, as a secondary or indirect impact, result in increased air pollutants and vehicular noise along area roadway corridors, which in turn could affect land uses adjacent to the utilized corridors. These potential impacts are also evaluated in the Revised DEIR, and are substantiated to be less-than-significant. Specifically, heavy transfer trucks will access the Project site via designated truck routes (Reservoir Street, Mission Boulevard, and east 9th Street, all of which currently convey heavy truck traffic. Project traffic (transfer trucks) distribution is illustrated in TIA Exhibit 5-1. Smaller collection trucks and self-haul trucks are assumed to access the Project site via the most expedient routes, and will travel along all classes of City roads, as is the current condition. Please refer to TIA Exhibit 5-2. Based on the Project trip distribution, air quality and noise analyses were conducted to determine whether potentially significant noise and/or air quality impacts affecting roadway corridor land uses would result from Project traffic.
More specifically, as substantiated in the Revised DEIR, Project traffic (including heavy truck traffic) will not result in potentially significant noise impacts affecting roadway corridor land uses. . . . Project-related vehicular source noise will increase ambient CNEL conditions by, at most, 2.3 dBA, which would not be perceptible, and therefore would not represent a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise. Nor would Project-related vehicular source noise result in a transitional exceedance in noise levels from below 60 dBA CNEL to above 60 dBA CNEL. The potential for Project vehicular source noise to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project is therefore less-than-significant . . . (Revised DEIR, Page 4.4-41). With regard to air quality impacts generated by Project traffic along area roads, regionally significant NOx emissions impacts would result as disclosed in the Revised DEIR and discussed here. Locally significant air quality impacts would be limited to DPM-source cancer risk threshold exceedances affecting the two (2) residences adjacent to the Project site. At all other locations, localized air quality impacts resulting from Project operations would be less-than-significant. In this regard, the Project Operational Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis arguably considers potential worst case exposure by evaluating pollutant concentrations at the Project site, which include pollutant emissions generated by all vehicles within the site in combination with emissions generated by stationary sources. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, these emissions concentrations would not exceed applicable LST thresholds. For operational activity, the total site area of 10.5 acres was utilized as the emission source. In order to model worst-case conditions, the highest daily peak emissions resulting from operational activity was utilized. Table 4.3-15 presents the results of the Project operational LST analysis, indicating unmitigated conditions. As shown, results of the analysis indicate that longterm operational emissions will not exceed localized emissions thresholds
established by the SCAQMD. Other operational mitigation measures presented herein would act to further reduce already less-than-significant potential operational LST impacts. (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-79). In comparison, pollutant emission concentrations generated by dispersed Project vehicles traveling along area roads would be substantively reduced. These emissions in total would likely be further reduced as waste collection and transfer vehicles transition from use of diesel fuels to CNG. AIR QUALITY As also disclosed in the Revised DEIR (see below), Project operational source pollutant emissions resulting from vehicular sources will exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx. With the exception of calculated NOx regional threshold exceedances, all operational source pollutant emissions are less than-significant, or can be reduced to levels that are less than-significant. . . . Further, even after application of all feasible operational mitigation, the Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project will result in operational emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) that will exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. . . (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-2). With specific regard to the calculated exceedance of NOx regional thresholds, NOx emissions associated with Project operations are primarily tailpipe emissions which are largely beyond the control of the Applicant. Over time, these emissions will be reduced through improved engine technologies and tailpipe emissions controls. In any case, Project operational source NOx emissions are reduced to the extent feasible through the Revised DEIR mitigation measures and compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules: . . . NOx is a byproduct of fuel combustion and the primary source of NOx emissions from the Project are a result of tail pipe emissions from vehicles accessing the site. Neither the Project Applicant nor the City has any regulatory control over tail pipe emissions from individual sources. Rather,
vehicle tail pipe source emissions are regulated by CARB and USEPA. The amount of NOx emissions from vehicle sources has been reduced dramatically over the past years and is expected to further decline as clean vehicle and fuel technologies improve . . . The Project implements all feasible mitigation measures and complies with all applicable SCAQMD Rules directed toward reduction of NOx emissions . . . (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-78). The Revised DEIR notes further that operational LSTs (including LSTs for NOx) would not be exceeded, and that the Projects operational emissions would not exceed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS): . . . Under Project Buildout, operational activities will not exceed the operational LSTs, and in so doing will not violate the CAAQS. While operational emissions will be generated in excess of SCAQMDs regional threshold criteria for NOx, it is unlikely that a significant impact will occur as these emissions are already accounted for in the AQMP since the proposed Project is consistent with the adopted land use intensity and zoning (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-56). The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) noted above, not SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds, represent and establish air quality safety threshold conditions. The CAAQS recognize non-attainment conditions and account for ambient air pollutant levels, and then establish threshold pollutant emissions concentration levels/exposure times that provide an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health and welfare. With regard to Project contributions of NOx emissions as an ozone precursor, as discussed in the Revised DEIR, the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) as a whole is a non-attainment area for ozone. (See Revised DEIR Page 4.3-16.) Thus, all development projects within the Basin that generate NOx emissions (essentially all development within the Basin) would to some degree, contribute to existing ozone non-attainment conditions.
Areawide ozone impacts and programs/strategies to reduce ozone levels are addressed within the Basins 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP). More specifically, the purpose of the 2007 AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive program that will result in compliance with federal and state air quality planning requirements for ozone and PM2.5. On September 27, 2007, the CARB Board adopted the 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan as part of the State Strategy for the 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP). Additionally, the 2007 AQMP has been submitted to the U.S. EPA for approval; no timeline on the approval is available at this time. The 2007 AQMP programs and strategies act to address effects of ozone within the Basin, including effects of NOx generated as a precursor to ozone. The air quality conditions reflected in the 2007 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the 2007 AQMP has assumed that development associated with General Plans will be realized in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG. SCAG in turn develops population projections based on information provided by its member governmental agencies (such as the City of Pomona). SCAG population projections reflect buildout of the City of Pomona pursuant to the Citys adopted General Plan, and emissions resulting from the City General Plan buildout are represented accordingly within the 2007 AQMP. The Project is consistent with the scope of development assumed under the City General Plan, and is therefore reflected in SCAG growth projections, and related assumptions and conditions presented in the 2007 AQMP. Thus, while Project operational NOx emissions would exceed SCAQMDs regional threshold criteria for NOx and therefore contribute to areawide ozone levels, these emissions are already accounted for and addressed in the 2007 AQMP. The Project is also considered to be otherwise consistent with the 2007 AQMP (See Revised DEIR, Pages 4.3-53 through 4.3-56). As noted above, the 2007 AQMP is the adopted areawide plan addressing control and reduction of ozone emissions within the Basin, and the Projects consistency with the 2007 AQMP supports these ozone control and reduction measures. Ultimately, emissions reductions achieved through the AQMP would improve Basin air quality conditions and incrementally reduce associated Basin-wide health concerns.
It is also noted that the SCAQMD has not established localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for ozone. However, the fact that localized NOx emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs indicates the Projects localized NOx contributions to ozone formation would not be significant. As also disclosed in the Revised DEIR (see below), Project operations will generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions that will result in localized exceedance of the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold (10 per million population). Additionally, even after application of all feasible mitigation, Project operational diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions will result in exceedance of the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold (10 per million population) at two (2) residential receptors (1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street), located respectively, westerly and easterly adjacent of the Project site. This exceedance would occur under modeled 70-year and 30-year exposure scenarios. Potential increased cancer risk incidence at all other receptors would not exceed applicable SCAQMD threshold criteria. Under a shorter, 9year exposure scenario representative of area residency patterns, potential DPM-source cancer risk thresholds would not be exceeded at any location within the Study Area. Further, under all exposure scenarios (70-year, 30year, 9-year) potential health risks to off-site workers and schools in the area will not exceed applicable SCAQMD threshold criteria (Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-2). Cumulatively significant DPM emissions impacts would also be localized and limited to the above-noted two (2) residential receptors at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street. (See Revised DEIR, Page 5-16.) It is also noted that in response to commentor concerns, and consistent with mitigation refinements intended to be achieved through the CEQA and EIR review processes, additional mitigation is proposed that would act to further reduce Project-related DPM emissions. More specifically, additional/revised mitigation is proposed [MM 4.3.21
(A)mended and MM 4.3.22(A), below+ that would ensure future year (2020) CNG-only access restrictions for all transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles served by the Project. 17, 18 MM 4.3.21 (A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks and all Applicantcontrolled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). MM 4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling of DPM-source cancer risks resulting from application of proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A) in combination with other DPM emissions mitigation currently proposed in the Revised DEIR (See Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.17 through 4.3.20) has been conducted as one component of this Final EIR (please refer to HRA Addendum included at Final EIR Appendix A). Results of the HRA Addendum indicate that with the stipulated conversion of diesel-fueled vehicles to CNG vehicles described herein, the Year 2020 maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially affected receptor would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. More specifically, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street), the mitigated cancer risk would be 3.98 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 0.52 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore be less than the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million.
The HRA Addendum results indicate further, that under no circumstance would area schools be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially significant non-cancer risks. Please refer also to detailed HRA modeling results presented at Final EIR Appendix A. Notwithstanding these findings, this Final EIR conservatively maintains previous conclusions regarding potential Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risks. That is, for the purposes of disclosure, and to maintain the conservative analysis construct employed to date, Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risk exposures at the residences located at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street are considered to be significant until the Year 2020. No other locations would experience potentially adverse elevated DPMsource cancer risk exposures (or non-cancer risk exposures) resulting from Project operations or activities. Please refer also to related discussions of DPM emissions impacts and proposed additional/revised mitigation presented at Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging significant Project-specific, and cumulative localized DPM emissions impacts. Diesel odor concerns cited by the commentor may occur along roadways carrying heavy truck traffic. However, these odors are transient and rapidly dispersed by area winds and by the movements of the source vehicles. As a means of reducing/eliminating diesel emissions and associated odors, the commercial solid waste collection fleet accessing the Project will transition from diesel-powered to natural gas-powered vehicles. Please refer to Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.16 [4.3.21], 4.3.17 [4.3.22] listed previously. Any residual odors generated by transient diesel vehicles may be perceptible. However, such odors would not persist nor constitute objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and would therefore be considered less-than-significant.
NOISE As discussed in the Revised DEIR, vehicular source noise generated by Project operations would not adversely affect any area land uses: . . . Project-related vehicular source noise will increase ambient CNEL conditions by, at most, 2.3 dBA, which would not be perceptible, and therefore would not represent a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise. Nor would Project-related vehicular source noise result in a transitional exceedance in noise levels from below 60 dBA CNEL to above 60 dBA CNEL. The potential for Project vehicular source noise to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project is therefore less-than-significant (Revised DEIR, Page 4.4-41). Similarly, as mitigated, noise generated by Project stationary/area sources would not adversely affect any area land uses: . . . Based on the potential for substantial increases in nighttime noise levels at 1415 9th Street, an analysis was completed to determine what, if any, operational noise reductions could be achieved by limiting the Project operational hours during noise-sensitive nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). In this regard, other operational hour limitations imposed through Project Air Quality Mitigation Measure 4.3.12 restrict the Project operations to the hours of 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Assuming these same limitations are applied in the noise analysis, only operations occurring within the 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM hour would be governed by the City of Pomona nighttime noise limits. [Draft EIR] Table 4.4-14 provides the results of modeling for potential noise impacts during the 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM hour (Revised DEIR, Page 4.447). . . . [Draft EIR] Table 4.4-14 indicates that during the hour of 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM, inclusive of Project operational/area source noise, noise levels at the nearest residential receptors will range from 58.4 to 61.4 dBA Leq; and that
Project operational/area source noise contributions will range from 0.0 to 1.4 dBA Leq. Incremental Project operational/area source noise levels during the single affected nighttime hour (6:00 AM to 7:00 AM) will be less than 3.0 dBA, and would therefore be less-than-significant (Revised DEIR, Page 4.4-48). The commentors statements regarding the Projects potential traffic, noise, air pollution, and odor impacts are forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration. Response CD-4 The commentor speculates that . . . odor, insects and rats related with this type of facility will increase, leaving the surrounding property owners subject to dealing with them. Potential odor impacts of the Project are addressed at Revised DEIR Section 4.3, Air Quality (Revised DEIR at Pages 4.3-102 through 4.3-106), and within Appendix F to the Air Quality Impact Analysis (included at Revised DEIR Appendix C). The concluding summary provided at Revised DEIR Page 4.3-112 is excerpted below. Odor impact Mitigation Measure 4.3.18 [4.3.23 as revised] has been clarified/amended pursuant to recommendations provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in their review of the March 2010 Draft EIR. Summary Based on air sampling and analysis conducted at the existing Grand Central Transfer Station, as translated and applied to the Project, unmitigated odors generated by the Project are not anticipated to exceed applicable odor thresholds under any conditions except potential short-term emergency conditions. Mandated compliance with SCAQMD Rule 410 and the approval and implementation of the OIMP ensure that impacts related to odors under all conditions (including any potential emergency conditions) are less-thansignificant. Level of Significance: As noted, mandated compliance with SCAQMD Rule 410 and the approval and implementation of the OIMP ensure that impacts
related to odors under all conditions (including any potential emergency conditions) are less-than-significant. The following Mitigation Measures 4.3.23 through 4.3.26 are proposed to ensure timely monitored implementation of the odor-minimizing measures discussed above, which will ensure compliance with OIMP/AOMP requirements and performance standards. Mitigation Measures: 4.3.23 The Project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 410 and the SCAQMDapproved Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP). In support of Rule 410/OIMP compliance, the main transfer station building shall incorporate an overhead water misting system designed for dust suppression and odor mitigation over the entire tipping floor area, transfer tunnel area and areas as may be specified by SCAQMD pursuant to the approved OIMP. The misting system shall inject and mix an odordestroying compound (AIR8-AQUA Oil or similar compound) to eliminate odors emanating from materials on the tipping floor. Nozzles shall be positioned around the access doors, above the loading pits, and at other points based on manufacturer specifications and recommendations and as provided for in the OIMP. All dust/odor control systems shall employ Best Available Technologies (BATs). The system shall be designed, implemented and operated so that odors are effectively neutralized within the Project site. 4.3.24 Roof-mounted exhaust fans to be located in the main transfer station building shall be designed to draw fresh air in through the building doors and openings, over the transfer floor, and discharge it through the roof. 4.3.25 The primary method of odor control employed by the proposed Project will be to restrict waste dumping, sorting, and processing to inside the building. Cleaning the inside of the transfer building and equipment at the end of each day with a mechanical sweeper, hand-brooming, and wipe down will also mitigate odors. Per state regulations, waste shall not be stored on the site for more than 48 hours.
4.3.26 The Project shall obtain approval of the proposed draft OIMP as set forth in the EIR technical Appendices (Revised Draft EIR Appendix G, Operational Programs), and as also submitted to the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and the City of Pomona. As approved, the OIMP shall include design features that comply with Appendix A of SCAQMD Rule 410. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less-Than-Significant. As indicated, with the application of mitigation, potential odor impacts of the Project are less-than-significant. Potential vector impacts (rodents, insects, birds) are addressed through mandated compliance with Department of Resources and Recycling (CalRecycle) [formerly California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)] Regulations as presented at Revised DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, and excerpted here: Vector and Pest Control CIWMB [CalRecycle] Regulations require adequate steps to control or prevent the propagation, harborage and attraction of flies, rodents, or other vectors, and animals, and to minimize bird attraction. (14 CCR 17410.4.) The Project incorporates the following design elements in a prepared Vector Control Plan and CIWMB requirements and performance standards, providing for pest and vector control: The transfer station operations will be conducted within an enclosed building, thereby minimizing the propagation or attraction of pests (insects, rodents) and other animals or vectors; The transfer station will be cleaned daily of loose materials and litter; and
Maximum storage time and volume of salvage material will conform with CIWMB [CalRecycle] and City of Pomona permit requirements, minimizing potential attraction or presence of pests or nuisances. To minimize the potential for rodents, birds, and insects, waste will be loaded into trailers on a first-in, first-out basis. Rodent traps will be set, and spraying for insect control will be implemented as needed (Revised DEIR, Page 3-37). Please refer also to related supporting discussions presented at Revised DEIR Pages 3-39 through 3-42, and Revised DEIR Section 4.5, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, Page 4.5-31. Compliance with existing CIWMB [CalRecycle] Regulations reduces potential vector impacts to levels that are less-than-significant. The commentors statements regarding potential odor/vector impacts are forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration. Response CD-5 The commentor speculates on potential future capacity expansion of the Project. Capacity expansion beyond the requested 1,500 tons per day CIWMB [CalRecycle] permitting cited in the Revised DEIR Project Description is not evaluated in the Revised DEIR. The Lead Agency will determine the type and extent of any required supporting or subsequent environmental evaluation that may be required if such a future expansion is proposed. As with the current Project, the Lead Agency will ultimately approve or deny any future expansion should it be proposed. Further, the proposed facility is not over-sized as suggested by the commentor. The proposed facility was designed to accommodate the completion of required activities in a closed space. Such activities include the operation of equipment to segregate trash dumped on the tipping floor, with enough room to ensure that equipment can operate safely alongside workers, and to ensure an efficient trash transfer capability whereby trash can be
pushed into the loading opening in the floor to awaiting trash transfer trucks. In order to accommodate these activities, a 1,500 tons per day trash transfer operation requires the amount of space provided for in the Project design. Enclosure of these activities realized through the Project design acts to reduce potential environmental effects such as noise and air pollution. The commentors statements regarding potential future capacity expansion are forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration. Response CD-6 The commentor provides concluding remarks stating that the City would be better served if the Project were located elsewhere. The commentor provides opinions on traffic, aesthetic, noise, air quality and hazards aspects of the Project. Location of the Project is considered appropriate based on consistency/compatibility with existing and proposed land uses, as discussed at Revised DEIR Section 4.1, Land Use: As noted previously in this Section, industrial uses proposed by the Project are allowed under the Project sites current General Plan Land Use designation, General Manufacturing. Further, uses proposed by the Project are conditionally permitted under the sites current M-2 zoning designation. Adjacent properties are similarly designated General Manufacturing under the City General Plan, are zoned M-2 and are either developed with industrial uses or are allowed to be developed with such uses. As such, the Project does not require nor propose a change in General Plan or zoning designations; and properties adjacent to the Project site area are either currently developed with uses similar to the Project, or allow for development of similar uses (Revised DEIR, Page 4.1-18). Further, potential alternative sites for the Project are evaluated at Revised DEIR Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, and none of the Alternative Sites would substantively reduce the Projects significant environmental impacts while feasibly allowing for
implementation of the Project and attainment of the basic Project Objectives. That is, as discussed in the Revised DEIR, any potential Alternative Site should be evaluated based on its potential to reduce or minimize potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. However, this is not the sole criterion employed in evaluating a potential Alternative Site or Sites. An Alternative Site is also evaluated based on the feasibility of achieving basic Project Objectives at its particular location. The State Legislature has defined feasible, for purposes of CEQA review, as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) notes that An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. As further discussed in the Revised DEIR, Alternative Sites considered for analysis were distilled from the list of sites deemed potentially feasible by the Citys Ad Hoc Solid Waste Study Committee (formation of Committee approved by the Pomona City Council in 1999). Of the sites listed by the Committee, most were of insufficient acreage to accommodate the Project (less than 10 acres) and were not further considered on this basis. Six (6) of the sites, however, conformed to basic feasibility criteria: +/- 10 acres; rectangular configuration; compatible with existing and proposed land uses; proximate access to local roadway systems; and, available or anticipated utilities infrastructure. These six sites were preliminarily evaluated through review of aerial photographs and site inspections. On the basis of preliminary evaluation, development of the Project on five (5) of the sites was determined to be infeasible and/or not capable of materially reducing the Projects environmental impacts. One of these six (6) sites (2205 Mount Vernon Avenue) is further evaluated in the Revised DEIR, and development of the Project on it is also ultimately determined to be infeasible, and not capable of materially reducing impacts resulting from the Project. Within the context of feasibility, location of the Project at another site, as recommended by the commentor, would require availability of another site that is approximately 10 acres and rectangular; is located in a designated industrial area; has proximate acceptable access; is compatible with existing and proposed land uses; is provided available or anticipated utilities infrastructure; would achieve the basic Project Objectives; and would not result in new environmental impacts, nor increase the severity of environmental impacts otherwise
occurring under the Project. Such a site was not identified by the Citys Ad Hoc Solid Waste Study Committee. Nor is any such site available wherein the Project could be accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. The Revised DEIR evaluation of potential Alternative Sites is, therefore, adequate and fulfills the requirements established under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, subd. (f) (2). The commentors opinions regarding the Projects potential traffic, noise and air quality impacts are addressed in the Revised DEIR as cited previously in these responses. Please refer to Responses CD-1 through CD-5. Additional opinions regarding generalized aesthetic and hazards issues are also expressed by the commentor. These, too, are addressed in the Revised DEIR (see below). Aesthetics No scenic or otherwise visually important or valuable resources exist within the Project site and the Project will have no discernible effect on off-site designated resources. However, the Project Initial Study acknowledges that construction of the industrial uses proposed by the Project will substantially alter visual perception of the subject site and vicinity when compared to the sites current, underutilized condition. The Project site currently contains limited development consisting of a temporary building; limited areas of ornamental landscaping; asphalt, concrete pads, walkways and gutters; various utilities fixtures; and fencing. The majority of these would be razed and replaced with the structures proposed by the Project (please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, for conceptual illustrations). Development within the Project area is subject to the site development standards established under the Citys existing M-2 (General Industrial) zoning designation, including requirements for setbacks, landscape buffers, walls and fencing which, in combination, will serve to screen views of the Project site as seen from adjacent properties and roadways.
Moreover, the Project is subject to additional standards, including site development requirements, such as may be identified under the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) required for the Project. Through its development review, building permit review, certificate of occupancy, and CUP compliance review processes, the City assures and promotes visually acceptable and compatible development. Development proposed under the Project will introduce new sources of light to the Project site including parking lot, building accent and security lighting. Illuminated signs will also be used throughout the Project site. Compliance with existing lighting standards and any specific lighting standards that may be stipulated under the Projects CUP will ensure that any potential light and glare impacts remain at a less-than-significant level. As supported by the preceding, the Project will have less-than-significant impacts for the following aesthetic considerations: Substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista; Substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; Substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and Creation of a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect the day or nighttime views in the area (Revised DEIR, Pages 1-7, 1-8). Revised DEIR Section 4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and extensive technical information provided in the Revised DEIR Appendices (e.g., Appendix C, Air Quality Impact Analyses, Health Risk Assessment; Appendix I Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessments) describe and evaluate potential hazards/hazardous materials impacts of the Project. As discussed and disclosed in the Revised DEIR:
Even with the application of all feasible mitigation, Project-related DPMsource cancer risk significance thresholds (SCAQMD threshold for lifetime residential exposure) will be exceeded at two (2) residential receptors adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street). This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project. No other receptors (whether residential, worker or schools) are subject to potential cancer risk threshold exceedances. As the two (2) affected nonconforming residential uses transition to industrial uses per the City General Plan, Project-related cancer risk exceedances would be alleviated (Revised DEIR, Page 1-25). All other potential hazards/hazardous material impacts resulting from or caused by the Project are less-than-significant, or are mitigated to levels that are less-than-significant. The commentors statements and opinions regarding (re)location of the Project and its traffic, aesthetic, noise, air quality and hazards aspects are forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration.
Leonard Baleon 2106 Marquette Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #1 Dated February 18, 2011 Response LB1-1 The commentor states support for the Project, citing an opportunity for new business and increased jobs for the City of Pomona. The commentors statements will be forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration. Response LB1-2 The commentor cites criteria from the Citys Ad Hoc Solid Waste Study Committee which was formed in 1999. The commentor also expresses opinions regarding the service area of the proposed Project. The Revised DEIR notes that *t+he service area for the proposed transfer station generally falls within an approximate six-mile radius of the site. Private and public haulers within this radius will have the opportunity to use the proposed facility. (Revised DEIR, Page 3-5). Response LB1-3 In the interest of accuracy, it is noted that the commentors statement that the Project has received a Gold LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certification is premature. A preliminary evaluation and identification of the Projects LEED certification attributes and requirements is provided at Revised DEIR Appendix J; however, actual LEED certification is customarily awarded upon a projects completion. The commentors opinions in support of the proposed Project are forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration.
Leonard Baleon 2106 Marquette Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #2 Dated February 18, 2011 Response LB2-1 through LB2-3 The comments in this letter appear to duplicate those of the preceding letter (identified in this Final EIR as LB1), which was addressed to the City of Pomona Planning Commission. Accordingly, please refer to the preceding responses LB1-1 through LB1-3.
Anayansi Balmaceda 1675 S. Reservoir Street Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #1 Received March 10, 2011 Response AB1-1 In general, the commentor provides support for the Project, citing its potential economic and employment benefits. The commentor does not identify any environmental concerns or concerns with the Revised DEIR analysis and its findings. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers.
Anayansi Balmaceda 1675 S. Reservoir Street Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #2 Received March 10, 2011 Response AB2-1 Commentor statements reiterate and paraphrase statements provided in correspondence received March 10, 2011, addressed to the City of Pomona Planning Department (See Anayansi Balmaceda Letter #1). Please refer to previous Response AB1-1.
Joe Bauman 2190 Marquette Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #1 Dated March 7, 2011 Response JB1-1 The commentor provides support for the Project, citing an increase in jobs and revenue for the City of Pomona. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Response JB1-2 The commentor offers an opinion that the Project is well designed and meets independent criteria. The commentors opinion is forwarded to the decision-makers. Response JB1-3 The commentor notes the Project consistency with existing zoning. The commentor offers an opinion that the Project should be given serious consideration and then approved for the greater good. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers.
Joe Bauman 2190 Marquette Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #2 Dated March 7, 2011 Responses JB2-1 through JB2-3 Commentor statements reiterate and paraphrase statements provided in correspondence dated March 7, 2011, addressed to the City of Pomona Planning Department (See Joe Bauman Letter #1). Please refer to previous Responses JB1-1 through JB1-3.
Elizabeth Butcher and Angela Rodriguez 2210 Marquette Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #1 Dated March 8, 2011 Response EBAR1-1 The commentors state support for the Project, citing an opportunity for new business and increased jobs for the City of Pomona. The commentors statements are forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration. Response EBAR1-2 The commentors note that the Project is the type of development that many cities now have to consider given the fact that landfills are reaching capacity, and confirm the Projects consistency with existing zoning. Response EBAR1-3 The commentors opinions regarding the Citys existing and planned industrial uses are forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration.
Elizabeth Butcher and Angela Rodriguez 2210 Marquette Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #2 Dated March 8, 2011 Responses EBAR2-1 through EBAR2-3 Commentors statements reiterate and paraphrase statements provided in correspondence dated March 8, 2011, addressed to the City of Pomona Planning Department (See Elizabeth Butcher and Angela Rodriguez Letter #1). Please refer to previous Responses EBAR1-1 through EBAR1-3.
Tony Cerda 240 E. 1st Street Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #1 Dated March 7, 2011 Response TC1-1 The commentor states support for the Project, citing an increase in jobs and revenue for the City of Pomona. The commentors statements are forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration. Response TC1-2 The commentor states an opinion that the Project is a well-designed modern facility and notes the Projects consistency with existing zoning. The commentor also references an independent study which suggested the Project site as an appropriate location for the proposed Project; however, the source of this study is not substantiated by the commentor. Response TC1-3 The commentor requests that the Lead Agency consider and approve the proposed Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project. The commentors statements are forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration.
Tony Cerda 240 E. 1st Street Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #2 Dated March 7, 2011 Responses TC2-1 through TC2-3 Commentor statements reiterate and paraphrase statements provided in correspondence dated March 7, 2011, addressed to the City of Pomona Planning Department (See Tony Cerda Letter #1). Please refer to previous Responses TC1-1 through TC1-3.
ZCJC1-1
ZCJC1-2
ZCJC1-3
ZCJC1-4
Zennie Cummings and Johnnie Clark 2189 Marquette Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #1 Dated March 7, 2011 Response ZCJC1-1 The commentors state their residency in the City of Pomona and express support for the Project. The commentors cite Project job creation and revenues as basis for support. Job creation and economic growth noted by the commentors are consistent with the Project Objective to *f+oster economic growth and create additional employment opportunities for City and area residents (Revised DEIR, Page 3-45). Commentor statements of support are forwarded to the decision-makers. Response ZCJC1-2 The commentors offer their concerned opinion regarding the roads, traffic conditions, and streetlights in the surrounding area. The commentors suggest that the Project will contribute fees and tax revenues to the City that may be used in the repair and maintenance of roads. Response ZCJC1-3 The commentors speculate on the motivation of some council candidates during the last City election. The commentors state the opinion that, despite the council candidates portrayal of the Project, the commentors feel that the Project is an environmentally sound project, as evidenced by its LEED Gold Certification. In the interest of accuracy, it is noted that the commentors statement that the Project has received a LEED [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design] Gold Certification is premature. A preliminary evaluation and identification of the Projects LEED certification attributes and requirements is provided at Revised DEIR Appendix J; however, actual LEED certification is customarily awarded upon a projects completion. The commentors opinions in support of the proposed Project are forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration.
Response ZCJC1-4 The commentors restate their support to approve the Project. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers.
Zennie Cummings and Johnnie Clark 2189 Marquette Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Letter #2 Dated March 7, 2011 Responses ZCJC2-1 through ZCJC2-4 Commentor statements reiterate and paraphrase statements provided in correspondence dated March 7, 2011, addressed to the City of Pomona Planning Department (See Zennie Cummings and Johnnie Clark Letter #1). Please refer to previous Responses ZCJC1-1 through ZCJC1-3.
Lisa Engdahl 770 W. 7th Street Pomona, CA 91766 Letter Dated March 11, 2011 Response LE-1 The commentor states opposition to the Project. The commentor states concern for the health of her daughter, and air quality impacts and traffic impacts affecting the community. The commentor states concern for the reputation of the City of Pomona. Commentor opposition to the Project is noted and no further response is required in this regard. Commentor concern for the health of children, and concern for air quality and traffic impacts affecting the community are acknowledged. The commentor does not identify specific health, air quality or traffic concerns. It is difficult to provide on-point responses to the generalized concerns expressed by the commentor. As a general response, the Revised DEIR presents extensive discussion and analysis of potential health risks resulting from the Project (Revised DEIR at Pages 4.3-85 through 4.3106; Revised DEIR Appendix C, Air Quality Impact Analyses). With application of mitigation, two (2) residences (both of which are non-conforming residential uses in an industrial area) are subject to cancer risk exposures exceeding applicable SCAQMD thresholds. No other health risks and no potentially significant health risks to children are projected.19 Air quality impacts are discussed at Revised DEIR Section 4.3, Air Quality; with technical supporting studies provided at Revised DEIR Appendix C, Air Quality Impact Analyses. Significant air quality impacts of the Project are summarized at Revised DEIR Page 1-25. These include: temporary exceedance of PM10/PM2.5 localized significance thresholds (LSTs) during construction; cancer risk exposures exceeding applicable SCAQMD thresholds at two (2) residences; and exceedance of SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx. Pending completion of required interchange improvements,
19 Please refer also to proposed additional/revised mitigation of DPM emissions impacts discussed at Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections.
significant Project-related traffic impacts are conservatively assumed to occur at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71. No other significant traffic impacts are projected. Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging the Project-specific and cumulatively significant impacts. The reputation of the City is not a physical impact to the environment, and is not evaluated under CEQA. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Please refer also to extensive discussions/responses to these same issues presented at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Response LE-2 The commentors appreciation for the professional manner of her interactions with City staff, specifically Ms. Judy Kollar, is both acknowledged and appreciated. Response LE-3 The commentor states concerns regarding Project-related cancer risk threshold exceedances, exceedance of SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx, Project-related traffic impacts, and Project-related noise impacts. The commentor offers an opinion that . . . it is unacceptable for the city to move forward on a project that exceeds SCAQMDs regional threshold by over three times, making us more susceptible to asthma and other respiratory illness. The commentor notes that there are ten (10) schools within a one-mile radius of the Project site, and offers an opinion that the Project-related exceedance of SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx would result in increased health risks at area schools. Cancer risk threshold exceedances affecting two non-conforming residential uses are discussed in the Revised DEIR and at Response 1, above. Project-related air quality impacts are discussed in the Revised DEIR and at Response 1, above. Significant Project-related noise impacts are summarized at Revised DEIR Page 1-25: Noise generated by Project construction activities will temporarily and intermittently exceed the Citys 65 dBA standard . . . With application of mitigation, the Project will not result in or cause any significant long-term noise impacts.
Potential air quality impacts affecting sensitive receptors, including the ten schools cited by the commentor, are discussed at length in the Revised DEIR (please refer to Revised DEIR Pages 4.3-78 through 4.3-106. Area school uses would be affected by Project-related NOx regional threshold exceedances to the same extent as would other land uses in the South Coast Air Basin. These exceedances would not, however, constitute a health hazard under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS/CAAQS), and would not directly result in adverse effects at area schools. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Please refer also to extensive discussions/responses to these same issues presented at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Response LE-4 The commentor states disagreement with the Project location within the City of Pomona. The commentor offers an opinion that it is inequitable to expect us to process other cities trash and suffer the environmental consequences. The commentor does not identify specific concerns regarding physical environmental impacts of the Project. It is difficult to provide on-point responses to the generalized concerns expressed by the commentor. As a general response to location of the Project within the City, the Project location is consistent with and supports the Project Objectives (Revised DEIR Pages 3-44, 3-45). Potential relocation of the Project at Alternative Sites within the City is considered and evaluated at Revised DEIR Pages 5-32 through 5-38. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, no demonstrable reduction in environmental impacts would be achieved through relocation of the Project. The Lead Agency has no jurisdictional authority to suggest, propose, or evaluate location of the Project at a site outside of the City. The commentors opinion regarding inequitable location of the Project within the City is forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Please refer also to extensive discussions/responses to these same issues presented at Revised DEIR Appendix K.
Response LE-5 The commentor notes that environmental justice considerations are discussed at Revised DEIR Appendix H. The commentor erroneously presents findings of Appendix H out of context. In complete context, Revised DEIR Appendix H first notes that environmental justice considerations are not physical impacts to the environment and are not explicitly addressed under CEQA. Notwithstanding, as a member Board overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has included the recognition of the principles of environmental justice as an integral part of its review and permitting actions. Moreover, the analysis presented here is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project (Revised DEIR Appendix H, Page 1). At Page H-17, the Revised DEIR discussion of environmental justice considerations notes that there is a potential for the Project to result in disproportionate impacts to minority populations. However, low-income populations within the affected area comprise less than 50 percent of the total population. Based on EPA guidance, lowincome status is not a determining environmental justice parameter. As further discussed at Page H-18: . . . [a]s indicated, minority populations comprise more than 50 percent of the total population within all geographic areas of analysis (Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, and County), and all tiers of geographic areas would be considered Environmental Justice Communities. Any project with significant environmental impacts under CEQA would also have potential environmental justice concerns if located in the Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, or County. Continuing, the Appendix H discussion notes: With respect to the above potential environmental justice concerns, it is noted that significant impacts affecting the local environmental justice community
are a product, at least in part, of the presence of non-conforming residential uses within an area planned and designated for industrial development. Ongoing transition of these non-conforming residential uses to industrial development, as envisioned under the City General Plan, would tend to alleviate impacts attributable to exposure of residences to proximate industrial uses. Notwithstanding, in the course of this transition, nonconforming residential uses located near existing or proposed industrial uses are subject to increased environmental effects and potential environmental justice concerns. It is also recognized that temporary construction impacts, such as those resulting from the Project, are typical and generally unavoidable for any development project located adjacent to residential uses. In this sense, these impacts are not Project-specific, and would likely occur to some degree under all development scenarios at the Project site due to the presence of proximate non-conforming sensitive receptors (Appendix H, Page H-19). As noted previously, while environmental justice is not a CEQA issue, the analysis of these concerns presented in the Revised DEIR is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project. The commentors opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response LE-6 The commentor states: While it is important for this city to effectively manage its garbage processing needs, decisions on this matter should be made at the initiative of the local government and with widespread community participation, not in response to a profit-seeking corporations proposal. The commentor does not identify environmental concerns or concerns with the Revised DEIR analysis and its findings. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decisionmakers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Response LE-7 The commentor urges the planning commission to deny this bid and do what is best for Pomona. The commentor states: [g]arbage processing is not the kind of development we want, and trash is not what we want this city to be known for. The commentor does not identify environmental concerns or concerns with the Revised DEIR analysis and its findings. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decisionmakers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Adrienne Garcia 1623 Redbud Place Pomona, CA 91766 Letter Dated March 11, 2011 Response AG-1 The commentor provides support for the Project, citing new business opportunities for the City of Pomona. Commentor support is noted and the commentors statements are forwarded to decision-makers. Response AG-2 The commentor cites job creation and consistency with the existing industrial zoning as reasons for support of the Project. The commentor suggests that the Project should be given serious consideration and then approved for the greater good. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Response AG-3 The commentor states an opinion that, despite certain City Council candidates portrayal of the Project, she feels the Project is well designed and meets independent criteria. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers.
P. Scott Harmon, C. P. A. 19 Cottontail Drive Pomona, CA 91766 Letter Dated March 12, 2011 Response PSH-1 The commentor recognizes the Pomona Valley Waste Transfer Station Project (Project), proposed on the 1300 block of [East] Ninth Street [in the City of Pomona]. Commentor recognition of the Project is noted. Please refer to Revised DEIR for detailed description of the Project. As noted by the commentor, the Project site is located within the 1300 block of East Ninth Street within the City of Pomona. More specifically, as noted in the Revised DEIR, the Project site is located at 1371 East 9th Street (Revised DEIR, Page 1-2, et al.). Response PSH-2 The commentor states disapproval of the Project. The commentor notes employment opportunities created by the Project. The commentor states that if creation of additional employment opportunities . . . is the only consideration you may as well zone Holt Avenue for legal prostitution. The commentor misstates potential diesel risks resulting from the Project. Commentor disapproval of the Project is noted. Employment opportunities (approximately 45 to 50 jobs) created by the Project are identified in the Revised DEIR (Revised DEIR, Page 1-6, et al.). Job creation is not the sole Objective of the Project.
Project Objectives are identified in the Revised DEIR: 3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Applicant has established the following primary Project Objectives: Manage municipal solid waste in an efficient and cost-effective manner consistent with the States AB 939 mandates; Provide a minimum 20-year waste transfer capacity to the region to accommodate future growth and increased total waste generation; Enhance customer service and stabilize rising solid waste collection costs; Minimize haul distances for collection trucks by providing locally-available solid waste transfer and material recovery operations; Provide a facility that maximizes solid waste management efficiencies while concurrently reducing potential environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, land use, traffic, air quality, water quality, noise, visual, and odor impacts; Establish a waste transfer facility with proximate rail access in anticipation of potential future regional or inter-regional rail-oriented waste hauling operations; and Foster economic growth and create additional employment opportunities for City and area residents (Revised DEIR Pages 3-44, 3-45, et al.). Project diesel emissions will result in calculated exceedance of SCAQMD cancer risks thresholds at the two (2) non-conforming residential uses located adjacent to the Project site.
Cancer Risks Threshold Exceedances Even with the application of all feasible mitigation, Project-related DPMsource cancer risk significance thresholds (SCAQMD threshold for lifetime residential exposure) will be exceeded at two (2) residential receptors adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street). This is considered a significant impact of the Project. No other receptors (whether residential, worker or schools) are subject to potential cancer risk threshold exceedances. As the two (2) affected non-conforming residential uses transition to industrial uses per the City General Plan, Project-related cancer risk exceedances would be alleviated (Revised DEIR, Page 1-25).20 Commentor statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response PSH-3 The commentor offers opinions about the Project and the Projects implications for the reputation of the City. The Citys reputation is not a physical impact to the environment within the scope of CEQA. Commentor opinions regarding the City and the Citys reputation are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response PSH-4 The commentor reiterates objection to the Project. The commentors stated objection to the Project is forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Thomas Hsieh Pomona Resident and Business Executive CEO of SplinterRock, Inc. 445 North Garey Avenue, Suite #2 Pomona, CA 91766 Letter Dated March 9, 2011 Response TH-1 The commentor states that, along with leaders of the One LA Pomona Cluster, he disapproves of the Project. The commentor states that the City should deny the Project with prejudice. The commentor does not raise environmental concerns or comment on analysis or findings of the Revised DEIR. Commentor statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response TH-2 The commentor lists reasons for objections to the Project. Commentor objections/concerns are addressed in the following responses. The commentor misstates and misinterprets significance findings of the Revised DEIR that Project NOx emissions will exceed applicable SCAQMD Regional Thresholds. More specifically, contrary to commentor statements, exceedance of SCAQMD regional thresholds does not translate to danger and/or significant health risks. Effects of NOx cited in the Revised DEIR and referenced by the commentor, are those that could be expected under prolonged exposure to high concentrations such as could occur if Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for NOx concentrations would be exceeded. These are the standards (not the SCAQMD regional thresholds) that establish applicable health parameters. See also Revised DEIR at Page 4.3-20:
4.3.4.3 Ambient Air Quality Standards The [Clean Air Act] CAA established national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both the State of California and the federal government have established healthbased AAQS for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10 , PM2.5), and lead. Relevant state and federal criteria pollutant standards, and potential health and other physical effects attributable to exceedance of concentration standards for each pollutant are presented at Table 4.3-3. To evaluate potential compliance with/exceedance of applicable AAQS, localized operational emissions concentrations are evaluated against applicable SCAQMD localized significance thresholds, which in turn are based on the AAQS. As substantiated in the Revised DEIR, Project operations will not generate NOx emissions that would exceed applicable localized significance thresholds, nor violate applicable AAQS. (See Revised DEIR at Pages 4.3-78, 4.3-79.) As summarized above, while the Revised DEIR has concluded operational NOx emissions will exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds, this conclusion does not translate to danger or significant health impacts. The commentor cites current personal health concerns and expresses concern for [the health] of his children and other children in the City of Pomona. As summarized above, and discussed in detail in the Revised DEIR, Project NOx emissions will not create or result in significant health impacts. Statements regarding the commentors
personal health concerns and concerns regarding the health of children are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response TH-3 As summarized by the commentor, and discussed in the Revised DEIR: Even after application of mitigation, Project construction activities are projected to temporarily and intermittently exceed applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for fugitive dust (PM10/PM2.5) emissions. (See Revised DEIR at Pages 4.3-70, 4.3-71.) However, as stated on page 4.3-71 of the Revised DEIR, application of Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.12 will reduce all construction-source air pollution emissions, including PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, to the extent feasible. The Project will also comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and will employ Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce the impact. Further and importantly, as discussed in the Revised DEIR, the calculated exceedances of PM10 and PM2.5 would occur temporarily and intermittently during site preparation and grading processes, and would not affect any receptors aside from those illustrated at Figure 4.3-1 of the Revised DEIR. These uses include adjacent industrial occupancies, and limited (fewer than 10) residential occupancies which exist as non-conforming uses within an industrial district. It is noted further that in the case of the subject site, PM 10/PM2.5 LST exceedances would likely be the case under any development scenario. This point is illustrated and substantiated by the discussion of air quality impacts presented under the consideration of a Light Industrial Alternative for the Project site (Revised DEIR Pages 5-10, 5-51). Under the considered Light Industrial Alternative, currently permitted or conditionally permitted light industrial uses would be constructed at the Project site. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, even under this Alternative, construction-source emissions of PM10/PM2.5 would exceed applicable SCAQMD LSTs. This is due to the fact that the subject site is bounded on all sides by receptor land uses, including non-conforming residential uses. Under any
development scenario, grading and heavy equipment activities at the edges of the subject site will unavoidably generate certain fugitive dust emissions (PM10/PM2.5) that would affect adjacent off-site land uses. The commentor, as with statements regarding NOx emissions above, notes potential health effects of exposure to PM10/PM2.5 at high concentrations and for prolonged constant periods. In the case of the Project, because construction-source PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are shortterm and intermittent, such emissions will not result in any chronic or long-term health risks of impacts to human beings. (See Revised DEIR at Page 4.3-71) Thus, while the Revised DEIR has concluded that short term impacts related to PM10 and PM2.5 as a result of construction activities will result in significant and unavoidable impacts, this conclusion does not translate to health impacts. That is, health consequences from PM 10 and PM 2.5 manifest themselves after prolonged and constant exposure periods, as opposed to the intermittent and short-term exposures resulting from Project construction activities. Response TH-4 The commentor misstates and misinterprets analysis and conclusions of the Revised DEIR regarding DPM-source emissions impacts and construction-source noise impacts. Regarding increased DPM-source cancer risk exposure, even with application of mitigation DPM-source cancer risks are projected to exceed applicable SCAQMD cancer risk thresholds at the two (2) closest residential uses, located adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street).21 (See Revised DEIR, Figure 4.3-2) These conclusions are based on the Project Health Risk Assessment (HRA, Revised DEIR Appendix C), and associated dispersion modeling of DPM emissions which were prepared consistent with applicable SCAQMD methodologies and protocols. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, the Project HRA demonstrates that with application of proposed mitigation, significant DPM-source cancer risks would not extend beyond the noted two (2) residential uses. The applicable significance threshold is a cancer risk incidence of greater than ten (10)
21 At the nearest residential use located southerly of the Project site, across 9 th Street, the cancer risk is estimated at 8.47/million which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10.0/million.
persons per one million population (10/million). At the two (2) significantly affected residences (1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street), mitigated cancer risks are estimated at 11.59/million and 45.10/million respectively22 [not 56.70/million and 45.10/million as stated by the commentor]. At area schools, unmitigated and mitigated cancer risks levels would not exceed the applicable threshold (10/million) and as discussed in the Revised DEIR would not even exceed one (1)/ million. It is further noted that the Projects proposed DPM emissions mitigation measures incorporate applicable recommendations and input provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in their review of the Project and March 2010 Draft EIR. The SCAQMD is a Responsible Agency in the CEQA EIR process whose responsibilities include, but are not limited to, air quality oversight of CEQA projects. As part of its oversight responsibilities, SCAQMD provides recommendations for mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts. As noted, applicable recommendations provided by SCAQMD have been incorporated in the Revised DEIR DPM emissions mitigation measures. As summarized above and discussed in detail in the Revised DEIR and supporting technical analyses, the potential risks from DPM emissions are mitigated to the extent feasible at Project opening. Notwithstanding, the two (2) residences located closest and adjacent to the Project site (both of which are non-conforming uses in an industriallydesignated land use) would experience DPM-source cancer risks exceeding applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Future transition of vehicles from use of diesel to CNG (as proposed under Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.21, 4.3.22) would reduce cancer risks such that only one (1) residence located closest to the Project site would experience DPM-source cancer risks exceeding applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Ultimately, as vicinity nonconforming residential uses transition to industrial uses (such transition should reasonably occur with the 30-year General Plan Buildout scenario, and well before conclusion of the assumed 70-year DPM exposure period), all potential DPM-source cancer risks resulting from the Project would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. It is also explicitly noted that in all instances and under all circumstances, Project-related DPM-source risks at
22 See Revised DEIR at Page 4.3-92, et al.
area schools are less-than-significant.
Lastly, and significantly, it should again be
emphasized that the DEIR and Revised DEIR analyses in total are constructed to be conservative, thereby establishing potential maximum impact scenarios. It is also noted that in response to commentor concerns, and consistent with mitigation refinements intended to be achieved through the CEQA and EIR review processes, additional mitigation is proposed that would act to further reduce Project-related DPM emissions. More specifically, additional/revised mitigation is proposed [MM 4.3.21 (A)mended and MM 4.3.22(A), below+ that would ensure future year (2020) CNG-only access restrictions for all transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles served by the Project. 23, 24 MM 4.3.21 (A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks and all Applicantcontrolled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). MM 4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling of DPM-source cancer risks resulting from application of proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A) in combination with other DPM emissions mitigation currently proposed in the Revised DEIR (See Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.17 through 4.3.20) has been conducted as one component of this Final EIR (please refer to HRA Addendum included at Final EIR Appendix A). Results of the HRA Addendum indicate that with the stipulated conversion of diesel-fueled vehicles to CNG vehicles described herein, the maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially affected receptor would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant.
More specifically, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street), the mitigated cancer risk would be 3.98 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 0.52 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore be less than the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. The HRA Addendum results indicate further, that under no circumstance would area schools be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially significant non-cancer risks. Please refer also to detailed HRA modeling results presented at Final EIR Appendix A. Notwithstanding these findings, this Final EIR conservatively maintains previous conclusions regarding potential Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risks. That is, for the purposes of disclosure, and to maintain the conservative analysis construct employed to date, Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risk exposures at the residences located at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street are considered to be significant until the Year 2020. No other locations would experience potentially adverse elevated DPMsource cancer risk exposures (or non-cancer risk exposures) resulting from Project operations or activities. Please refer also to related discussions of DPM emissions impacts and proposed additional/revised mitigation presented at Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging significant Project-specific, and cumulative localized DPM emissions impacts. With regard to noise impacts, the Revised DEIRs conservative analysis of temporary and intermittent noise resulting from Project construction activities indicates that residential exterior noise ordinance standards (65 dBA) could be exceeded. In this regard, the analysis takes into account non-conforming residential uses that exist with the industrial zone encompassing the Project site. The commentor misstates that Project construction-source noise would exceed standards for the industrial zone. That is, within codified permissible
hours, noise from construction activities is exempt from ordinance provisions, except as received at residential properties. Please refer to Noise Ordinance Sec. 18-305. Exemptions, as excerpted below: Sec. 18-305. Exemptions The following activities shall be exempted from this article: (3) Noise sources associated with or vibration created by construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided such activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday, and provided the noise level created by such activities do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dB(A) plus the limits specified in section 18-311(b) as measured on residential property [emphasis added] and any vibration created does not endanger the public health, welfare and safety. Project construction activities are limited by code to the hours noted above, and the Project will comply with all code requirements regarding limitations on construction activities. As such, Project construction-source noise received at industrial properties is not subject to code limitations. The commentor, as with statements regarding air pollutant emissions above, notes potential health effects of exposure to noise at high levels and for prolonged constant periods. In the case of the Project, because construction-source noise is short-term and intermittent, such noise will not result in any chronic or long-term health risks of impacts to human beings. Thus, while the Revised DEIR has concluded that short term impacts related to noise as a result of construction activities will result in significant and unavoidable impacts, this conclusion does not translate to chronic or long-term health impacts. That is, health consequences from noise manifest themselves after prolonged and constant exposure periods, as opposed to the intermittent and short-term exposures resulting from Project construction activities. Moreover, the conservatively modeled maximum noise exposure
assumes heavy equipment operating under maximum power at the Project perimeter boundaries. Representative of the majority of noise generated by construction activities are the modeled results (Revised DEIR Tables 4.4-6 through 4.4-8) wherein the received noise levels would more typically range from 62.9 dBA to 67.4 dBA. The Revised DEIR incorporates mitigation that would reduce construction-source noise levels and its effects to the extent feasible. (See Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.4.1 through 4.4.6.) Lastly, it is noted that irrespective of the development scenario proposed at the subject site, construction-source noise would likely be considered significant based on the proximity of sensitive receptors. (See Revised DEIR Section 5.2, Alternatives Analysis, Subsection 5.2.2.4, Comparative Noise Impacts, Pages 5-52, 5-53.) The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response TH-5 The commentor misstates and misrepresents the Revised DEIR discussion of Environmental Justice considerations. In complete context, Revised DEIR Appendix H first notes that environmental justice considerations are not physical impacts to the environment and are not explicitly addressed under CEQA. Notwithstanding, as a member Board overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)25 has included the recognition of the principles of environmental justice as an integral part of its review and permitting actions. Moreover, the analysis presented here is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project (Revised DEIR Appendix H, Page 1).
The commentors concerns about the Projects potential disproportionate effects to minority populations are also appropriately and fully addressed within the Appendix H discussion of environmental justice concerns. More specifically, as discussed at Page H-18: . . . [M]inority populations comprise more than 50 percent of the total population within all geographic areas of analysis (Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, and County), and all tiers of geographic areas would be considered Environmental Justice Communities. Any project with significant environmental impacts under CEQA would also have potential environmental justice concerns if located in the Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, or County. . . . Continuing, the Appendix H discussion notes: . . . With respect to the above potential environmental justice concerns, it is noted that significant impacts affecting the local environmental justice community are a product, at least in part, of the presence of non-conforming residential uses within an area planned and designated for industrial development. On-going transition of these non-conforming residential uses to industrial development, as envisioned under the City General Plan, would tend to alleviate impacts attributable to exposure of residences to proximate industrial uses. Notwithstanding, in the course of this transition, nonconforming residential uses located near existing or proposed industrial uses are subject to increased environmental effects and potential environmental justice concerns. It is also recognized that temporary construction impacts, such as those resulting from the Project, are typical and generally unavoidable for any development project located adjacent to residential uses. In this sense, these impacts are not Project-specific, and would likely occur to some degree under all development scenarios at the Project site due to the presence of proximate non-conforming sensitive receptors (Appendix H, Page H-19).
As noted previously, while environmental justice is not a CEQA issue, the analysis of these concerns as presented in the Revised DEIR is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project. The commentors opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response TH-6 The commentor expresses concerns regarding Project-related traffic impacts. The Revised DEIR discusses potential Project traffic impacts, as summarized below. Project-related traffic impacts are presented at Revised DEIR Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation, and the detailed Project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is presented at Revised DEIR Appendix B. The Revised DEIR concludes that significant Level of Service (LOS) impacts are projected under Opening Year Conditions (2011) at Mission Boulevard/SR-71: . . . However, although construction of the required improvements at the intersection of Mission Boulevard at SR-71 would successfully relieve the existing LOS F conditions at this intersection, and mitigate Project-related impacts, timely and successful completion of the improvements cannot be assured prior to Project opening and is outside the control of the City of Pomona. As such, there are no feasible mitigation measures that will, with certainty, reduce the Projects potential traffic impacts during the Opening Year and Opening Year Cumulative scenarios. Pending completion of required interchange improvements, Project-related traffic impacts at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71 are determined to be significant. These improvements are fully funded and are currently under construction and completion of these improvements is anticipated in 2011. If these improvements are completed before the Project is operational, the identified impacts at Mission Boulevard and SR-71 will be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level . . . (Revised DEIR, Page 4.2-2).
Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging Project-specific and cumulatively significant LOS impacts at Mission Boulevard at SR-71. All other potential Project-related and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are substantiated to be less-than-significant or are reduced to levels that are less-thansignificant pursuant to the Revised DEIR mitigation measures. The commentors opinions and statements regarding traffic and its potential effects on the quality of life are forwarded to the decision-makers. Response TH-7 The commentor expresses concerns regarding Project job creation. Project job creation is discussed in the Revised DEIR: The Transfer Station will be staffed by an estimated 45 to 50 employees. Onsite personnel would include facility managers, administrative/clerical personnel, equipment operators, transfer floor laborers, transfer truck drivers, and maintenance workers (Revised DEIR Page 1-6, et al.) Project job creation as noted is consistent with and supports the Project Objective to create additional employment opportunities for City and area residents (Revised DEIR Page 3-45, et al.). The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Response TH-8 The commentor notes that there are 9 schools within a one-mile radius of the Project site and expresses concern that children will be exposed to Project NOx emissions, resulting in significant health risks. The commentor offers no supporting evidence or expert opinion supported by evidence that area school populations or children will be adversely affected by the Project. To the contrary, the Revised DEIR explicitly considers and addresses potential Project impacts at area schools. Please refer to Revised DEIR at Pages 1-12, 1-13, 1-17, 1-18, 1-23, 1-25, 1-35, 145, 2-11, 3-25, 4.3-2, 4.3-4, 4.3-80, 4.3-87, 4.3-90 through 4.3-93, 4.3-100, 4.3-102, 4.4-3, 4.4-7, 4.4-30, 4.5-1, 4.5-4, 4.5-6, 4.5-19, 4.5-24, 4.5-26, 4.5-34 through 4.5-36, 4.7-11, 5-65, Revised EIR Appendix K Responses (some 300 citations to area schools), et al. As substantiated in the Revised DEIR, with application of proposed mitigation the Project will not result in localized or specific impacts to area schools. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response TH-9 The commentor speculates that mitigation proposed in the Revised DEIR (and reproduced within the Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program, FEIR Section 4.0) will not be implemented/enforced, resulting in unmitigated Project impacts. The commentor offers no substantial evidence or expert opinion supported by evidence that would indicate that the EIR mitigation measures will not be implemented/enforced. Public Resources Code Section 21082.2 provides that substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. The statute further provides that argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative . . . is not substantial evidence. To facilitate implementation, enforce, and monitor EIR mitigation measures, the Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP, Final EIR Section 4.0) has been prepared consistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. Mitigation monitoring and responsibilities are specifically discussed in the Project MMP: Mitigation Monitoring and Responsibilities As the Lead Agency, the City of Pomona is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the proposed Project. The City will monitor and report on all mitigation activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented at different stages of development throughout the Project area. combination thereof. If during the course of Project implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified herein cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall be immediately informed, and the City will then inform any affected responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will then determine if modification to the Project is required and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate (Final EIR Section 4.0, Page 4-2). The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response TH-10 The commentor speculates that the Project will exceed capacity limitations and requirements stipulated under the Applicant-requested 1,500 tons per day Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP). As discussed in the Revised DEIR: The Project Applicant has requested a Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) to allow for acceptance of up to 1,500 tons of MSW per day (Revised DEIR Page 1-6, et al.). Capacity expansion beyond the requested 1,500 tons per day SWFP limitation cited in the Revised DEIR is not evaluated. The Lead Agency will
In this regard, the responsibilities for
implementation have been assigned to the Applicant, Contractor, or a
determine the type and extent of any required supporting or subsequent environmental evaluation that may be required if such a future expansion is proposed. As with the current Project, the Lead Agency will ultimately approve or deny a future expansion should it be proposed. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response TH-11 The commentor excerpts and misinterprets selected text from the EIR Alternatives Analysis (Reduced Operational Capacity Alternative). As noted in the Revised DEIR, the Reduced Operational Capacity Alternative is considered infeasible and is therefore not further evaluated. Infeasibility of the Reduced Operational Capacity Alternative is based on the substantial reduction in scope and operating capacity that would be required in order to achieve applicable SCAQMD operational emissions thresholds. This does not mean however (as the commentor asserts) that the only way the company can make money is to put our health at risk, but rather, that the Alternative is determined to be infeasible and need not be further evaluated. More specifically, as discussed in the Revised DEIR, the reduction in scope considered under the Reduced Operational Capacity Alternative is not economically feasible, and would represent something materially different than the Project proposed by the Applicant and considered in the Revised DEIR. (See Revised DEIR pages 5-39, 5-40). To clarify further, the State Resources Agency, the State Agency charged with implementing CEQAs regulatory scheme, has defined feasible, for purposes of CEQA review, as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, [emphasis added] environmental, social, and technological factors. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) provides further that An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. Moreover, the resultant reduction in scope under the Reduced Operational Capacity Alternative is materially a no build condition,
Results and
and effectively precludes attainment of the basic Project Objectives. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 states that an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain the basic Project Objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the proposal. The Reduced Operational Capacity Alternative would not achieve the basic Project Objectives, another indicator of its infeasibility. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response TH-12 The commentor summarizes previous remarks and provides opinions and personal perspectives regarding business and employment profiles. The commentor requests that the city of Pomona permanently deny this land use permit. Regarding commentor summary statements, please refer to Responses TH-1 through TH11. No additional environmental issues are identified. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Results and
Johnny Hwang 950 West 12th Street, Unit A Pomona, CA 91766 Letter Dated March 13, 2011 Response JH-1 The commentor expresses generalized concern regarding the Project. The commentor states: I believe that soliciting for the business of trash is absolutely the wrong direction that our city should take. The commentor raises no environmental issues, nor provides comments on the Revised DEIR. Commentor general concerns and statements regarding the Project are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response JH-2 The commentor expresses concerns regarding project-related traffic and ground level pollution. Potential project traffic impacts are extensively discussed at Revised DEIR Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation and within the detailed Traffic Impact Analysis provided at Revised DEIR Appendix B. The Revised DEIR concludes that significant Level of Service (LOS) impacts are projected under Opening Year Conditions (2011) at Mission Boulevard/SR-71: . . . However, although construction of the required improvements at the intersection of Mission Boulevard at SR-71 would successfully relieve the existing LOS F conditions at this intersection, and mitigate Project-related impacts, timely and successful completion of the improvements cannot be assured prior to Project opening and is outside the control of the City of Pomona. As such, there are no feasible mitigation measures that will, with certainty, reduce the Projects potential traffic impacts during the Opening Year and Opening Year Cumulative scenarios. Pending completion of required interchange improvements, Project-related traffic impacts at the
intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71 are determined to be significant. These improvements are fully funded and are currently under construction and completion of these improvements is anticipated in 2011. If these improvements are completed before the Project is operational, the identified impacts at Mission Boulevard and SR- 71 will be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level . . . (Revised DEIR Page 4.2-2). All other potential traffic and circulation impacts are substantiated to be less-thansignificant or are reduced to levels that are less-than-significant pursuant to the Revised DEIR mitigation measures. Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging the Projects significant traffic impacts. Ground-level pollution concerns expressed by the commentor are interpreted to mean potential air pollution impacts of the Project. These too are addressed in detail in the Revised DEIR. Please refer to Revised DEIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, and the detailed air quality analyses (Air Quality Study, Global Climate Change Analysis, and Health Risk Assessment) presented at Revised DEIR Appendix C. As disclosed in the Revised DEIR, the Project is anticipated to result in certain significant air quality impacts, which are summarized at Revised DEIR Page 1-25: Air Quality Construction LST Exceedances For localized emissions, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, construction source emissions will exceed applicable SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for PM10 (24-hour concentrations) at receptors located 60 meters or nearer and emissions of PM 2.5 (24-hour concentrations) at receptors located 30 meters or nearer from the construction activity. This impact is significant.
Cancer Risks Threshold Exceedances Even with the application of all feasible mitigation, Project-related DPMsource cancer risk significance thresholds (SCAQMD threshold for lifetime residential exposure) will be exceeded at two (2) residential receptors adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street). This is considered a significant impact of the Project. No other receptors (whether residential, worker or schools) are subject to potential cancer risk threshold exceedances. As the two (2) affected non-conforming residential uses transition to industrial uses per the City General Plan, Project-related cancer risk exceedances would be alleviated.26 Regional Thresholds Exceedances Even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, long-term operational source emissions will exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold for NOx only. All other potential air quality impacts are substantiated to be less-than-significant or are reduced to levels that are less-than-significant pursuant to the Revised DEIR mitigation measures. Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging the Projects significant traffic impacts. It is further noted that environmental concerns identified above (and subsequently) by the commentor are addressed in the previous responses to comments provided at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Unless otherwise noted herein, information presented in the Revised DEIR is consistent with, and is not substantively revised from, information presented in the March 2010 Draft EIR. Pagination citations have been amended where applicable. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
The commentor states concern regarding *the Projects potential effects on+ the Citys reputation. The commentor states: . . . by having this transfer station [the Project] we will be known as the garbage city. The Citys reputation is not a physical impact to the environment within the scope of CEQA. Commentor concerns and statements regarding the Citys reputation and its characterization are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentor speculates on potential future increase in size of the transfer station. The Project as defined in the Revised DEIR (please refer to Revised DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description) is the topic of the environmental analysis, and is the project under consideration by the Lead Agency. The Revised DEIR does not consider, nor evaluate an expansion of the Project (either physical or operational). Should such future expansion be proposed, the Lead Agency will determine the scope and content of any subsequent environmental evaluation (a 300 percent expansion such as is speculated by the commentor would likely trigger additional EIR context analyses). The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response JH-3 The commentor indicates that his assessed property value has declined since 2007, and speculates on potential future declining assessed property valuations in the City, if the City developed the reputation as the areas garbage city. The commentor raises no environmental issues, nor provides comments on the Revised DEIR. The commentors statements and concerns regarding potential effects of the Project on area property values are recognized, but as discussed here, are beyond the scope of the Revised DEIR. That is, the focal concern of CEQA is potentially significant physical impacts to the environment [emphasis added]. Economic impacts (including potential impacts to area property values) with no associated or causal physical impacts are not within the purview of CEQA or the EIR.
(a) Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic or social changes. The intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes. [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15131 subd. (a)]. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080, subd. (e), below, the commentors statements alone are not considered substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on area property values: (e) (1) For the purposes of this section and this division, substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. (2) Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. There is no demonstrated or substantiated evidence of a potential decline in area property values should the Project be implemented. Similarly, there is no demonstrated or substantiated potential physical impact (direct or indirect) due to a potential decline in area property values, should such a decline occur. Absent substantiation, the commentors statements in these regards (as well as other opinions provided) are considered speculative and are forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration. Lastly, even if there were a potential for some real or perceived impact on area property values, the Citys determination through the adopted General Plan and zoning ordinance that the Project uses are permitted or conditionally permitted at the proposed site is
tantamount to recognizing this phenomenon. The Revised DEIR analysis appropriately focuses on potential physical impacts to the area as a whole and the welfare of all persons residing there. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response JH-4 The commentor suggests continuing development of medical educational and medical services facilities in the City. The commentor states: . . . why should we pursue something that will only further ruin the reputation of the City. The commentor raises no environmental issues, nor provides comments on the Revised DEIR. Commentor suggestions for continuing development of medical educational and medical services facilities in the City, and statements regarding the Citys reputation are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response JH-5 The commentor requests reconsideration of . . . this action approving the installation of this waste transfer station. To clarify, no approval actions are realized or implied through the preparation of the Revised DEIR. As noted at revised DEIR Page 2-1: An EIR is an informational document intended to inform decision-makers and the general public of potentially significant environmental impacts of a Project. An EIR also identifies possible ways to preclude or minimize these potentially significant impacts (referred to as mitigation) and describes reasonable alternatives to the Project that may also reduce or avoid significant impacts. Having the authority to take action on the Project, the City of Pomona will consider the information in this EIR in their evaluations of the proposal. The findings and conclusions of the EIR regarding environmental impacts do not control the Citys discretion to approve, deny, or modify the Project, but instead are presented as information to aid the decision-making process.
Commentor statements regarding approval/denial of the Project are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Karen Hwang 950 West 12th Street, Unit A Pomona, CA 91766 Letter Dated March 11, 2011 Response KH-1 The commentor restates opposition to the Project and reiterates concerns and statements provided previously (please refer to Revised DEIR Appendix K, correspondence from Karen Hwang dated May 2, 2010) regarding Project environmental impacts under the topics of traffic, air quality, and potential impacts to area schools. Detailed responses to previous comments and concerns are provided at Revised EIR Appendix K. Results and conclusions regarding the Projects significant environmental impacts are not substantively amended or altered based on information and clarification presented in the Revised DEIR. Responses to comments and statements provided previously by the commentor are not substantively amended or altered based on information and clarification provided in the Revised DEIR. For ease of reference, significant traffic, air quality, and noise impacts resulting from the Project are summarized below: Traffic and Circulation Intersection Impacts Pending completion of required interchange improvements, Project-related traffic impacts at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71 are determined to be significant. Air Quality Construction LST Exceedances For localized emissions, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, construction source emissions will exceed applicable SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for PM10 (24-hour concentrations) at
receptors located 60 meters or nearer and emissions of PM2.5 (24-hour concentrations) at receptors located 30 meters or nearer from the construction activity. This impact is significant. Cancer Risks Threshold Exceedances Even with the application of all feasible mitigation, Project-related DPMsource cancer risk significance thresholds (SCAQMD threshold for lifetime residential exposure) will be exceeded at two (2) residential receptors adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street). This is considered a significant impact of the Project. No other receptors (whether residential, worker or schools) are subject to potential cancer risk threshold exceedances. As the two (2) affected non-conforming residential uses transition to industrial uses per the City General Plan, Project-related cancer risk exceedances would be alleviated. Regional Thresholds Exceedances Even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, long-term operational source emissions will exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold for NOx only. Noise Construction Noise Noise generated by Project construction activities will temporarily and intermittently exceed the Citys 65 dBA standard at an estimated 25 to 30 proximate residential receptors. The temporary and intermittent construction noise impact is considered significant. These noise levels will tend to diminish as the use of heavy equipment in the early construction stages concludes, and will dissipate entirely at the end of construction activities. (Revised DEIR, Page 1-25.)
The commentor notes that there are 9 schools within a one-mile radius of the Project site27 and states that all of these children are put at risk not only by the pollution, but 610 more trucks traveling down the streets every day. The commentor offers no supporting evidence or expert opinion supported by evidence that area school populations will be adversely affected by the Project. In contrast, the Revised DEIR explicitly considers and addresses potential Project impacts at area schools. Please refer to Revised DEIR at Pages 1-12, 1-13, 1-17, 1-18, 1-23, 1-25, 1-35, 1-45, 2-11, 3-25, 4.3-2, 4.3-4, 4.3-80, 4.3-87, 4.3-90 through 4.3-93, 4.3-100, 4.3-102, 4.4-3, 4.4-7, 4.4-30, 4.5-1, 4.5-4, 4.5-6, 4.5-19, 4.5-24, 4.5-26, 4.5-34 through 4.5-36, 4.7-11, 5-65, Revised EIR Appendix K Responses (some 300 citations to area schools), et al. As substantiated in the Revised DEIR, with application of proposed mitigation, the Project will not result in localized or specific impacts to area schools. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response KH-2 The commentor states: Simply put, these mitigation measures they propose in their revised EIR are simply not good enough. The commentor misinterprets the purposes of significance thresholds and meaning of significant impacts. The commentor incorrectly states that health and safety are not of concern to the Lead Agency and Applicant. The commentor misinterprets and provides out of context remarks regarding environmental justice considerations. Mitigation is applied in instances where impacts are determined to be potentially significant. To this end, the Revised DEIR incorporates additional and expanded mitigation suggested by the Lead Agency and commenting Responsible Agencies. Please refer for example, to additional information and new or revised air quality mitigation measures incorporated in the Revised DEIR as suggested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District:
27
In point of fact, the Revised DEIR notes and considers ten (10) schools within a one-mile radius of the Project. Please refer to Revised DEIR Page 4.3-90, et al.
4.3 Air Quality Pursuant to comments received from SCAQMD, the following revisions have been incorporated at Revised Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality. Correlating revisions appear in the Project Air Quality Impact Analysis presented at Revised Draft EIR Appendix C. Previous EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.16 and 4.3.17 [4.3.21 and 4.3.22 as revised] are amended to reflect full and accelerated implementation of highefficiency diesel particulate traps. Previous EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3.14 [4.3.19] is amended to limit on-site truck idling. Discussion of the vertical stack design to be implemented pursuant to previous Mitigation Measure 4.3.13 [4.3.18] has been clarified and expanded. Clarification of methodology and information employed in the Project odor impact analysis is provided. Previous EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3.18 [4.3.23] is expanded paralleling requirements of the Project odor impact analysis. Calculation/notation errors noted by SCAQMD have been corrected. Additional description and clarification of vehicle trip lengths employed in the air quality modeling have been provided. Construction-source emissions mitigation measures are revised consistent with SCAQMD direction. Other feasible and applicable construction-source emissions mitigation measures suggested by SCAQMD have been incorporated.
The EIR text is amended to note that demolition/construction within the Project site will be accomplished pursuant to applicable provisions of AQMD Rule 1166 Volatile Organic Compound Emission from Decontamination of Soil (Revised DEIR Preface, Pages 8-9). In addition to the above revisions/amendments identified in the Revised DEIR, this Final EIR proposes further refinement/expansion of mitigation measures. More specifically, in response to commentor concerns, and consistent with mitigation refinements intended to be achieved through the CEQA and EIR review processes, additional mitigation is proposed that would act to further reduce Project-related DPM emissions. More specifically, additional/revised mitigation is proposed [MM 4.3.21 (A)mended and MM 4.3.22(A), below+ that would ensure future year (2020) CNG-only access restrictions for all transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles served by the Project. 28, 29 MM 4.3.21 (A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks and all Applicantcontrolled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). MM 4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling of DPM-source cancer risks resulting from application of proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A) in combination with other DPM emissions mitigation currently proposed in the Revised DEIR (See Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.17 through 4.3.20) has been conducted as one component of this Final EIR (please refer to HRA Addendum included at Final EIR Appendix A). Results of the HRA
28
29
Addendum indicate that with the stipulated conversion of diesel-fueled vehicles to CNG vehicles described herein, the maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially affected receptor would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. That is, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street), the mitigated cancer risk would be 3.98 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 0.52 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore be less than the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. The HRA Addendum results indicate further, that under no circumstance would area schools be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially significant non-cancer risks. Please refer also to detailed HRA modeling results presented at Final EIR Appendix A. Notwithstanding these findings, this Final EIR conservatively maintains previous conclusions regarding potential Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risks. That is, for the purposes of disclosure, and to maintain the conservative analysis construct employed to date, Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risk exposures at the residences located at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street are considered to be significant until the Year 2020. No other locations would experience potentially adverse elevated DPMsource cancer risk exposures (or non-cancer risk exposures) resulting from Project operations or activities. Please refer also to related discussions of DPM emissions impacts and proposed additional/revised mitigation presented at Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging significant Project-specific, and cumulative localized DPM emissions impacts.
With regard to significance thresholds and significant impacts, please refer to the discussion at Revised DEIR Page 2-4: CEQA requires that the EIR only address significant adverse impacts. The CEQA Guidelines suggest thresholds or standards which define the significance of various types of impacts. The CEQA Guidelines also state that the significance of impacts should be considered in relation to their severity and probability of occurrence. However, ultimately, the determination of the significance of impacts is at the discretion of the lead agency. The identification of significant impacts in the EIR does not prevent an agency from approving a project. A project may be approved if the lead agency determines that impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated below a level of significance and if the agency determines that there are important overriding considerations, such as social and economic benefits, which are sufficient to justify approval of the considered project. Identification of a potentially significant impact does not necessarily mean or lead to the conclusion that health or safety impacts will result, but rather indicates that mitigation should be applied. If after application of mitigation, residual significant impacts persist, preparation of an EIR is required. In instances where the Pomona Valley Transfer Station Projects significant impacts are health and/or safety related (i.e., increased cancer risk exposure at the two (2) non-conforming residential occupancies located adjacent to the Project site), these impacts have been identified. With regard to environmental justice considerations, in complete context, Revised DEIR Appendix H first notes that environmental justice considerations are not physical impacts to the environment and are not explicitly addressed under CEQA. Notwithstanding, as a member Board overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)30 has included the recognition of the principles of environmental justice as an integral part of its review and permitting
actions. Moreover, the analysis presented here is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project (Revised DEIR Appendix H, Page 1). The commentors concerns about the Projects potential disproportionate effects to minority populations are appropriately and fully addressed within the Appendix H discussion of environmental justice concerns. More specifically, as discussed at Page H-18: . . . [M]inority populations comprise more than 50 percent of the total population within all geographic areas of analysis (Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, and County), and all tiers of geographic areas would be considered Environmental Justice Communities. Any project with significant environmental impacts under CEQA would also have potential environmental justice concerns if located in the Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, or County. . . . Continuing, the Appendix H discussion notes: . . . With respect to the above potential environmental justice concerns, it is noted that significant impacts affecting the local environmental justice community are a product, at least in part, of the presence of non-conforming residential uses within an area planned and designated for industrial development. On-going transition of these non-conforming residential uses to industrial development, as envisioned under the City General Plan, would tend to alleviate impacts attributable to exposure of residences to proximate industrial uses. Notwithstanding, in the course of this transition, nonconforming residential uses located near existing or proposed industrial uses are subject to increased environmental effects and potential environmental justice concerns. It is also recognized that temporary construction impacts, such as those resulting from the Project, are typical and generally unavoidable for any
development project located adjacent to residential uses. In this sense, these impacts are not Project-specific, and would likely occur to some degree under all development scenarios at the Project site due to the presence of proximate non-conforming sensitive receptors (Appendix H, Page H-19). As noted previously, while environmental justice is not a CEQA issue, the analysis of these concerns as presented in the Revised DEIR is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project. The commentors opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Response KH-3 The commentor states concern regarding [the Projects potential effects on+ the Citys reputation and potential characterization as a dumping ground. The Citys reputation is not a physical impact to the environment within the scope of CEQA. Commentor concerns and statements regarding the Citys reputation and its characterization are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected. The commentor speculates on potential future increase in size of the transfer station. The Project as defined in the Revised DEIR (please refer to Revised DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description) is the topic of the environmental analysis, and is the project under consideration by the Lead Agency. The Revised DEIR does not consider, nor evaluate an expansion of the Project (either physical or operational). Should such future expansion be proposed, the Lead Agency will determine the scope and content of any subsequent environmental evaluation (a 300 percent expansion such as is speculated by the commentor would likely trigger additional EIR context analyses). The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Response KH-4 The commentor restates opposition to the Project, and urges its denial. Commentor statements of objection to, and requested denial of, the Project are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Maria Jimenez 2436 Marquette Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Letter Dated March 8, 2011 Response MJ-1 The commentor states opposition to the Project. The commentor states concern for the health of children, and air quality impacts and traffic impacts affecting the community. The commentor states concern for the reputation of the City of Pomona. Commentor opposition to the Project is noted, no further response is required in this regard. Commentor concern for the health of children, and concern for air quality and traffic impacts affecting the community are acknowledged. The commentor does not identify specific health, air quality or traffic concerns. It is difficult to provide on-point responses to the generalized concerns expressed by the commentor. As a general response, the Revised DEIR presents extensive discussion and analysis of potential health risks resulting from the Project (Revised DEIR at Pages 4.3-85 through 4.3106; Revised DEIR Appendix C, Air Quality Impact Analyses). With application of mitigation, two (2) residences (both of which are non-conforming residential uses in an industrial area) are subject to cancer risk exposures exceeding applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds.31 No other health risks; and no potentially significant health risks to children are projected. Air quality impacts are discussed at Revised DEIR Section 4.3, Air Quality; with technical supporting studies provided at Revised DEIR Appendix C, Air Quality Impact Analyses. Significant air quality impacts of the Project area summarized at Revised DEIR Page 1-25. These include: temporary exceedance of PM10/PM2.5 localized significance thresholds (LSTs) during construction; cancer risk exposures exceeding applicable SCAQMD thresholds at two (2) residences; and exceedance of SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx. Pending completion
of required interchange improvements, significant Project-related traffic impacts are conservatively assumed to occur at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71. No other significant traffic impacts are projected. Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging the Projectspecific and cumulatively significant impacts. The reputation of the City is not a physical impact to the environment, and is not evaluated under CEQA. Results and conclusions of the Draft EIR are not affected. Please refer also to extensive discussions/responses to these same issues presented at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Response MJ-2 The commentor states concerns regarding Project-related cancer risk threshold exceedances, exceedance of SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx, Project-related traffic impacts, and Project-related noise impacts. The commentor offers an opinion that . . . it is unacceptable for the city to move forward on a project that exceeds SCAQMDs regional threshold by over three times, making us more susceptible to asthma and other respiratory illness. The commentor notes that there are nine (9) schools within a one-mile radius of the Project site, and offers an opinion that the Project-related exceedance of SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx would result in increased health risks at area schools. The Revised DEIR acknowledges and discloses Project-related exceedances of SCAQMD regional thresholds for operational NOx emissions. However, contrary to the commentors opinion, this conclusion does not translate to significant health impacts. In this regard, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), not SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds, represent and establish air quality safety threshold conditions. The CAAQS recognize nonattainment conditions and account for ambient air pollutant levels, and then establish threshold pollutant emissions concentration levels/exposure times that provide an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health and welfare. Moreover, neither the Lead Agency, nor the SCAQMD has established a health threshold for regional NOx emissions. As such, there is no established determinant allowing for a conclusion that a given projects regional emissions would be considered a significant
health impact under CEQA. Further, the SCAQMD, the Responsible Agency for air quality issues and air quality concerns has not otherwise indicated or commented that the Project regional NOx emissions constitute a health concern. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, the Projects operational emissions (including NOx emissions) would not exceed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS): *u+nder Project Buildout, operational activities *emissions+ will not exceed the operational LSTs, and in so doing will not violate the CAAQS (Revised Draft EIR, Page 4.3-56). Thus, although the Projects operational NOx emissions would exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds, operational NOx emissions would not exceed standards established under the CAAQS, and would not constitute a potential health hazard/health risk. Similarly, cumulatively significant impacts associated with NOx regional threshold exceedances are not considered a health hazard/health risk. In this regard, the LST analysis considers background NOx pollutant levels to which the Project NOx emissions are added, thus establishing the cumulative condition. The Project LST analysis indicates that cumulatively, Project NOx emissions in addition to background pollutant levels would not exceed applicable CAAQS, and therefore would not constitute a potential NOx health hazard/health risk. Moreover, the Project is consistent with the scope of development assumed under the City General Plan, and is therefore reflected in Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth projections, and related assumptions and air quality conditions presented in the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Thus, while Project operational NOx emissions would exceed of SCAQMDs regional threshold criteria for NOx, these emissions are already accounted for and addressed in the 2007 AQMP. The Project is also considered to be otherwise consistent with the 2007 AQMP (See Revised DEIR, Pages 4.3-53 through 4.3-56). Ultimately, emissions reductions achieved through the AQMP would improve Basin air quality conditions and incrementally reduce associated basin-wide health concerns.
Lastly, as discussed in the Revised EIR, NOx is a byproduct of fuel combustion and the primary source of NOx emissions from the Project are a result of tail pipe emissions from vehicles accessing the site. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-78, et al.). Neither the Project Applicant nor the City has any regulatory control over tail pipe emissions from individual sources. Rather, vehicle tail pipe source emissions are regulated by CARB and USEPA. The amount of NOx emissions from vehicle sources has been reduced dramatically over the past years and is expected to further decline as clean vehicle and fuel technologies improve. In addition, the Project implements all feasible mitigation measures and complies with all applicable SCAQMD Rules directed toward reduction of NOx emissions. Cancer risk threshold affecting two non-conforming residential uses are discussed in the Revised DEIR and at Response 1, above. Project-related air quality impacts are discussed in the Revised DEIR and at Response 1, above. Significant Project-related noise impacts are summarized at Revised DEIR Page 1-25: Noise generated by Project construction activities will temporarily and intermittently exceed the Citys 65 dBA standard . . . With application of mitigation, the Project will not result in or cause any significant long-term noise impacts. Potential air quality impacts affecting sensitive receptors, including the nine (9) schools cited by the commentor32 are discussed at length in the Revised DEIR (please refer to Revised DEIR Pages 4.3-78 through 4.3-106). Area school uses would be affected by Projectrelated NOx regional threshold exceedances to the same extent as would other land uses in the South Coast Air Basin. These exceedances would not, however, constitute a health hazard under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS/CAAQS), and would not directly result in adverse effects at area schools. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Please refer also to extensive discussions/responses to these same issues presented at Revised DEIR Appendix K.
32 In point of fact, the Revised DEIR considers and evaluates potential air quality impacts at ten (10) schools/school facilities within an approximate one-mile radius of the Project site. Please refer to Revised DEIR Page 4.3-90.
Response MJ-3 The commentor states disagreement with the Project location within the City of Pomona. The commentor offers an opinion that it is inequitable to expect us to process their [neighboring cities without transfer stations] trash and suffer the environmental consequences. The commentor does not identify specific concerns regarding physical environmental impacts of the Project. As a general response to location of the Project within the City, the Project location is consistent with and supports the Project Objectives (Revised DEIR Pages 3-44, 3-45). Potential relocation of the Project at Alternative Sites within the City is considered and evaluated at Revised DEIR Pages 5-32 through 5-38. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, no demonstrable reduction in environmental impacts would be achieved through relocation of the Project. The Lead Agency has no jurisdictional authority to suggest, propose, or evaluate location of the Project at a site outside of the City. The commentors opinion regarding inequitable location of the Project within the City is forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Draft EIR are not affected. Please refer also to extensive discussions/responses to these same issues presented at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Response MJ-4 The commentor notes that environmental justice considerations are discussed at Revised DEIR Appendix H. The commentor erroneously presents findings of Appendix H out of context. In complete context, Revised DEIR Appendix H first notes that environmental justice considerations are not physical impacts to the environment and are not explicitly addressed under CEQA. Notwithstanding, as a member Board overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has included the recognition of the principles of environmental justice as an integral part of its review and permitting actions. Moreover, the analysis presented here is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project (Revised DEIR Appendix H, Page 1). At Page H-17, the Revised DEIR discussion of environmental justice considerations notes that there is a potential for the Project to result in disproportionate
impacts to minority populations. However, low-income populations within the affected area comprise less than 50 percent of the total population. Based on EPA guidance, lowincome status is not a determining environmental justice parameter. As further discussed at Page H-18: . . . [a]s indicated, minority populations comprise more than 50 percent of the total population within all geographic areas of analysis (Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, and County), and all tiers of geographic areas would be considered Environmental Justice Communities. Any project with significant environmental impacts under CEQA would also have potential environmental justice concerns if located in the Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, or County. Continuing, the Appendix H discussion notes: With respect to the above potential environmental justice concerns, it is noted that significant impacts affecting the local environmental justice community are a product, at least in part, of the presence of non-conforming residential uses within an area planned and designated for industrial development. Ongoing transition of these non-conforming residential uses to industrial development, as envisioned under the City General Plan, would tend to alleviate impacts attributable to exposure of residences to proximate industrial uses. Notwithstanding, in the course of this transition, nonconforming residential uses located near existing or proposed industrial uses are subject to increased environmental effects and potential environmental justice concerns. It is also recognized that temporary construction impacts, such as those resulting from the Project, are typical and generally unavoidable for any development project located adjacent to residential uses. In this sense, these impacts are not Project-specific, and would likely occur to some degree under all development scenarios at the Project site due to the presence of proximate non-conforming sensitive receptors (Appendix H, Page H-19).
As noted previously, while environmental justice is not a CEQA issue, the analysis of these concerns presented in the Revised DEIR is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project. The commentors opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response MJ-5 The commentor states: While it is important for this region to effectively manage its garbage processing needs, decisions on this matter should be made at the initiative of the local government and with widespread community participation, not in response to a profit-seeking corporations proposal. The commentor does not identify environmental concerns or concerns with the Revised DEIR analysis and its findings. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decisionmakers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response MJ-6 The commentor urges the planning commission to deny this bid and do what is best for Pomona. The commentor states: [g]arbage processing is not the kind of development we want, and trash is not what we want this city to be known for. Our health and quality of life are not up for sale to the highest bidder. The commentor does not identify environmental concerns or concerns with the Revised DEIR analysis and its findings. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decisionmakers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Richard L. Milhorn Email address: rlmilhorn@hotmail.com Telephone (559) 251-3128 Letter Dated March 9, 2011 Response RM-1 The commentors description of his experience and qualifications are noted. No further response is required. Response RM-2 The commentors generally positive assessment of the Revised DEIR is noted. Responses to the commentors specific concerns are provided in the following paragraphs. Response RM-3 The commentors concerns in regard to the use of alternative fuels in Project equipment are acknowledged. In response, it should be noted that the use of Tier IV diesel off-road engine standards in onsite front end loaders during Project operations is supported by the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff in their letter dated May 7, 2009 (Revised Draft EIR Appendix K, page 32). The use of the most efficient technologies available to reduce emissions from onsite equipment is addressed in the Revised DEIRs Project Description, which states All off-road equipment will employ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Tier III or superior diesel off-road engine technologies, acting to reduce emissions generated by on-site equipment operations. (Revised DEIR, page 3-17). However, in order to ensure adequate monitoring and enforcement of this requirement, the following text has been added to Mitigation Measure 4.3.14: Mitigation Measure 4.3.14 Waste dumping, sorting/handling, and loading of waste into transfer trailers shall be restricted to inside the transfer building. All off-road equipment used in association with the Project shall employ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Tier III or superior diesel off-road
engine technologies, to reduce emissions generated by on-site equipment operations. This revision to Mitigation Measure 4.3.14 is reflected in the Project Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Final EIR Section 4.0), and in Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. Response RM-4 The commentor correctly notes that Mitigation Measures 4.3.21 and 4.3.22 address the conversion of transfer trucks from diesel fuel to compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel. The commercial fleet referenced in Mitigation Measures 4.3.21 and 4.3.22 would be comprised of public and private haulers utilizing the proposed transfer station. On page 4.3-96, the Revised DEIR states, it is noted that Applicant-controlled trash collection vehicles accessing the Project site are fueled by natural gas, which do not emit diesel particulate, and are less carbon intensive as compared to regular diesel fuel. 33 Response RM-5 In order to ensure adequate monitoring and enforcement of operational activities that would result in the emissions of diesel particulates, the following text has been added to Mitigation Measure 4.3.19: Mitigation Measure 4.3.19 Throughout Project operations, an operational relations officer/ community liaison, appointed by the Applicant, shall be retained on-site. In coordination and cooperation with the City and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the operational relations officer/ community liaison shall monitor any concerns related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, including but not limited to restricted access for non-CNG trucks, and enforcement of on-site idling limitations. In addition, Ssign(s) with the following language or similar shall be installed at the Project entrance, along internal truck routes, at/within unloading areas, and at all parking areas:
MAXIMUM FIVE (5) MINUTE ON-SITE IDLING OF TRUCK ENGINES TO BE PERMITTED IN DESIGNATED AREAS ONLY. VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO PENALTIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF CONTRACT/RESTRICTED FACILITY ACCESS. The sign(s) shall not be less than twenty-four (24) inches square. This revision to Mitigation Measure 4.3.19 is reflected in the Project Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Final EIR Section 4.0), and in Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. Response RM-6 The commentors concerns in regard to the Projects potential health risks are acknowledged. In regard to the two (2) existing residences that are forecast to be within the Projects area of significant impact, it may be noted that these properties are not owned by or under the control of the Project Applicant. Further, the Citys General Plan recognizes that sporadic non-conforming residential uses exist within manufacturing/ industrial designations. (Pomona General Plan, pp. 35-37.) At the same time, the Citys General Plan contains policies that encourage the transition of non-conforming residential uses to industrial uses and also promote industrial development within industrially-designated General Plan Land Use and zoning districts. (Pomona General Plan, pp. 27; 28; 38.) In regard to the potential health risks identified by the Projects Revised DEIR, it can be reasonably argued that over the 30-year and/or 70 year timeframes used to assess potential impacts, the two (2) currently affected non-conforming single-family residences would transition to conforming industrial uses, thereby alleviating potential cancer risk exposure concerns. Moreover, modeling of potential increased cancer risks as presented in the Revised DEIR is considered to represent a conservative estimate of real-world conditions. That is, pursuant to the adopted SCAQMD methodologies, calculated DPM-source cancer risks are
predicated on extended 70-year/30-year exposure scenarios. Both the 70-year and 30-year cancer risk assessments considered in the Revised DEIR represent estimates of theoretic DPM-source cancer risks, and are based on the assumption that a person is exposed to the emission source 24 hours a day for 365 days a year for the entire length of the assumed exposure period. Individuals are typically not stationary at any given outdoor location, and a portion of each 24-hour cycle is spent indoors. In addition, individuals and families residing at a given location for 70 or even 30 years would be considered the exception, rather than the norm. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has indicated that based on studies prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA recommends a central tendency estimate of nine (9) years for residency at a given location, and a high-end estimate of 30 years for residency time. Thus, the methodologies used to determine cancer risk (e.g., the assumption of a 24hour exposure for a 30 or 70 year period) represent a maximum theoretic cancer risk, and are not intended to account for or represent DPM exposures based on residency and occupancy tendencies. For these reasons, and considering that the Project Applicant does not own or control the existing residences located adjacent to the Project site, vacation of these residences is not proposed as part of the Projects implementation. As noted in the Revised DEIRs discussion of alternatives that were considered and rejected, Project operations would need to be reduced by approximately 74 percent (a ratio of 55/207.83) to achieve the SCAQMD operational threshold for NOx, and by approximately 78 percent (a ratio of 10/45.1) to achieve the SCAQMDs cancer risk exposure threshold. (Revised DEIR, page 5-40.) A redesign of the Project at such a significant reduction in scope would be infeasible. Further, reduction of the Projects scope to this degree would not permit the fulfillment of community and Project objectives, primarily, to manage municipal solid waste in an efficient and cost-effective manner consistent with the States AB 939 mandates; and to provide a minimum 20-year waste transfer capacity to the region to accommodate future growth and correlating increases in City-wide waste generation. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15002 (a)), one of the basic purposes of CEQA is to inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities. The Revised DEIR has identified the
potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment. The commentors opinions regarding the Projects identified significant health risk exposures will be forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration.
Al Solis Mission Recycling Letter Dated February 28, 2011 Response AS-1 The commentor identifies himself as a stakeholder and business owner in the City of Pomona. The commentor requests that the City support and approve the Project and related EIR, citing the Projects potential employment and tax revenue benefits. Commentor support of the Project is noted and no further response is required in this regard. Response AS-2 The commentor states that the Revised Draft EIR is highly conservative and likely overstates project impacts. Additionally, the DEIR is also comprehensive and fully discloses to the public all of the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the project and imposes reasonable mitigation. Commentor approval of the Revised DEIR is noted and no further response is required in this regard. Response AS-3 The commentor feels the proposed location of the Project is preferred and notes the industrial zoning of the site. The commentor further states that denying the Project would be to ignore its [the Citys] fundamental obligation of stimulating the economy of the City. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers.
Sara Stephens 1147 W. 11th Street Pomona, CA 91766 Letter Dated March 11, 2011 Response SS-1 The commentor states opposition to the Project, citing threshold exceedances for regional NOx emissions, cancer risk, noise, and particulate emissions during construction, and traffic impacts as the basis for her objections. Commentor opposition to the Project is noted and commentor statements regarding the Project are forwarded to the decision-makers. Response SS-2 The commentor misstates and misinterprets significance findings of the Revised DEIR that Project NOx emissions will exceed applicable SCAQMD Regional Thresholds. Effects of NOx cited in the Revised DEIR and referenced by the commentor, are those that could be expected under prolonged exposure to high concentrations such as could occur if Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for NOx concentrations would be exceeded. These are the standards (not the SCAQMD regional thresholds) that establish applicable health parameters. See also Revised DEIR at Page 4.3-20: 4.3.4.3 Ambient Air Quality Standards The [Clean Air Act] CAA established national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both
the State of California and the federal government have established healthbased AAQS for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10 , PM2.5), and lead. Relevant state and federal criteria pollutant standards, and potential health and other physical effects attributable to exceedance of concentration standards for each pollutant are presented at Table 4.3-3. To evaluate potential compliance with/exceedance of applicable AAQS, localized operational emissions concentrations are evaluated against applicable SCAQMD localized significance thresholds, which in turn are based on the AAQS. As substantiated in the Revised DEIR, Project operations will not generate NOx emissions that would exceed applicable localized significance thresholds, nor violate applicable AAQS. (See Revised DEIR at Pages 4.3-78, 4.3-79.) As summarized above, while the Revised DEIR has concluded operational NOx emissions will exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds, this conclusion does not translate to significant health impacts. Regarding increased DPM-source cancer risk exposure, DPM-source cancer risks are projected to exceed applicable SCAQMD cancer risk thresholds at the two (2) closest residential uses located adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street).34 (See Revised DEIR, Figure 4.3-2.) These conclusions are based on the Project Health Risk Assessment (HRA, Revised DEIR Appendix C) and associated dispersion modeling of DPM emissions which were prepared consistent with applicable SCAQMD methodologies and protocols. As discussed in the Revised DEIR, the Project HRA demonstrates that with application of proposed mitigation, significant DPM-source cancer risks would not extend beyond the noted two (2) residential uses. The applicable significance threshold is a cancer risk incidence of greater than ten (10) persons per one million population (10/million). At the two (2) significantly affected residences (1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street), mitigated cancer risks are estimated at 11.59/million and 45.10/million respectively.35 At area schools, unmitigated and mitigated cancer risks levels
34 At the nearest residential use located southerly of the Project site, across 9 th Street, the cancer risk is estimated at 8.47/million which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10.0/million. 35 See Revised DEIR at Page 4.3-92, et al.
would not exceed the applicable threshold (10/million) and as discussed in the Revised DEIR would not even exceed one (1)/million. As summarized above and discussed in detail in the Revised DEIR and supporting technical analyses, the potential risks from DPM emissions are mitigated to the extent feasible at Project opening. Notwithstanding, the two (2) residences located closest and adjacent to the Project site (both of which are non-conforming uses in an industrially-designated land use district) would experience DPM-source cancer risks exceeding applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Future transition of vehicles from use of diesel to CNG (as proposed under Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.21, 4.3.22) would reduce cancer risks such that only one (1) residence located closest to the Project site would experience DPM-source cancer risks exceeding applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Ultimately, as vicinity non-conforming residential uses transition to industrial uses (such transition should reasonably occur with the 30-year General Plan Buildout scenario, and well before conclusion of the assumed 70year DPM exposure period), all potential DPM-source cancer risks resulting from the Project would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. It is also explicitly noted that in all instances and under all circumstances, Project-related DPM-source risks at area schools are less-than-significant. Lastly, and significantly, it should again be emphasized that the DEIR and Revised DEIR analyses in total are constructed to be conservative, thereby establishing potential maximum impact scenarios. Should the Project be approved, the Lead Agency is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging the Projects significant DPM-source cancer risk impacts at the two (2) residences located adjacent to the Project site as summarized above. As substantiated in the Revised DEIR and summarized herein, the Project will not result in or cause potentially significant DPM-source emissions impacts at area schools. Results and conclusion of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response SS-3 The commentor is correct in stating that environmental justice considerations are discussed at Revised DEIR Appendix H. The commentor erroneously presents findings of Appendix H out of context.
In complete context, Revised DEIR Appendix H first notes that environmental justice considerations are not physical impacts to the environment and are not explicitly addressed under CEQA. Notwithstanding, as a member Board overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has included the recognition of the principles of environmental justice as an integral part of its review and permitting actions. Moreover, the analysis presented here is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project (Revised DEIR Appendix H, Page 1). At Page H-17, the Revised DEIR discussion of environmental justice considerations notes that there is a potential for the Project to result in disproportionate impacts to minority populations. However, low-income populations within the affected area comprise less than 50 percent of the total population. Based on EPA guidance, low-income status is not a determining environmental justice parameter. As further discussed at Page H-18: . . . [a]s indicated, minority populations comprise more than 50 percent of the total population within all geographic areas of analysis (Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, and County), and all tiers of geographic areas would be considered Environmental Justice Communities. Any project with significant environmental impacts under CEQA would also have potential environmental justice concerns if located in the Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, or County. Continuing, the Appendix H discussion notes: With respect to the above potential environmental justice concerns, it is noted that significant impacts affecting the local environmental justice community are a product, at least in part, of the presence of non-conforming residential uses within an area planned and designated for industrial development. Ongoing transition of these non-conforming residential uses to industrial development, as envisioned under the City General Plan, would tend to alleviate impacts attributable to exposure of residences to proximate industrial uses. Notwithstanding, in the course of this transition, nonPomona Valley Transfer Station Project Final EIR - SCH No. 2009051126 Comments and Responses Page 3-261
conforming residential uses located near existing or proposed industrial uses are subject to increased environmental effects and potential environmental justice concerns. It is also recognized that temporary construction impacts, such as those resulting from the Project, are typical and generally unavoidable for any development project located adjacent to residential uses. In this sense, these impacts are not Project-specific, and would likely occur to some degree under all development scenarios at the Project site due to the presence of proximate non-conforming sensitive receptors (Appendix H, Page H-19). As noted previously, while environmental justice is not a CEQA issue, the analysis of these concerns presented in the Revised DEIR is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project. The commentors opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised Draft EIR are not affected. Response SS-4 The commentor expresses concern for a family living in the Project area, citing general health concerns, vectors, and pollution as the basis for her concern. The commentor asks the City to keep families like these in mind when making their decision regarding the Project. The commentor does not identify specific health concerns. It is difficult to provide on-point responses to the generalized concerns expressed by the commentor. Notwithstanding, commentor concern for potential impacts affecting the health of the area residents are acknowledged and are forwarded to the decision-makers. Response SS-5 The commentor expresses concern regarding the proposed facility size. In particular, the commentor offers opinions on the appropriate scope of waste transfer facilities within the City of Pomona. The Project and waste transfer activity scope evaluated in the Revised DEIR is consistent with that proposed by the Project Applicant. More specifically, the 1500
tons per day operating limitation of the Project is based on the waste acceptance capacity as defined and considered in the Revised DEIR, and as stipulated under the Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) requested by the Applicant. The commentor restates their concerns for the health of the area residents. Please refer to preceding Response SS-4. Additionally, the commentor is concerned with the potential for the Citys reputation as a garbage processing hub, while the cities around us save money and avoid these risks by sending their trash to us. The Citys reputation is not a physical impact to the environment within the scope of CEQA. Commentor concerns and statements regarding the Citys reputation and its characterization are forwarded to the decisionmakers. Results and findings of the Revised Draft EIR are not affected. Response SS-6 The commentor speculates on potential future capacity expansion of the Project. Capacity expansion beyond the requested 1,500 tons per day CIWMB [CalRecycle] permitting cited in the Revised DEIR Project Description is not evaluated in the Revised DEIR. The Lead Agency will determine the type and extent of any required supporting or subsequent environmental evaluation that may be required if such a future expansion is proposed. As with the current Project, the Lead Agency will ultimately approve or deny any future expansion should it be proposed. The commentors statements regarding potential future capacity expansion are forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration. Response SS-7 The commentor does not identify environmental concerns or concerns with the Revised DEIR analysis and its findings. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decisionmakers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Belinda White 1539 Evans Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Letter Dated March 14, 2011 Response BW-1 The commentor states her status as a voting citizen of Pomona and her opposition to the Project. The commentor does not identify specific reasons for her opposition. Nor does the commentor cite CEQA or environmental concerns. Commentor opposition to the Project is noted and commentor statements are forwarded to the decision-makers.
John and Lynette Whitney Letter Dated March 13, 2011 Response JLW-1 The commentors state disapproval of the Project. The commentors state residency in the City of Pomona. The commentors state they have two young boys. The commentors offer an opinion that the Project is not in the best interest of the City. The commentors express concerns with the Draft EIR and Revised DEIR. The commentors do not identify environmental concerns. Commentor statements and opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers Response JLW-2 The commentors express general concerns regarding significant residual impacts resulting from the Project. The commentors restate concerns that Project operational NOx emissions will exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. (See Lynnette Whitney Comments and Responses, and John Whitney Comments and Responses, Revised DEIR Appendix K). The commentor notes that should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging Project-specific and [cumulatively] significant operational source NOx emissions impacts. As discussed and disclosed in the Revised DEIR . . . [e]ven after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, long-term operational source emissions will exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold for NOx only (Revised DEIR Page 1-25, et al.). As noted by the commentor, should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging Project-specific and [cumulatively] significant operational source NOx emissions impacts.
Response JLW-3 The commentors state concerns regarding Project diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, and DPM-source exceedance of SCAQMD cancer risk thresholds at two (2) residential uses. DPM-source exceedance of SCAQMD cancer risk thresholds are adequately and appropriately discussed and disclosed in the Revised DEIR, as excerpted below: . . . [e]ven with the application of all feasible mitigation, Project-related DPM-source cancer risk significance thresholds (SCAQMD threshold for lifetime residential exposure) will be exceeded at two (2) residential receptors adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street). This is considered a significant impact of the Project. No other receptors (whether residential, worker or schools) are subject to potential cancer risk threshold exceedances. As the two (2) affected non-conforming residential uses transition to industrial uses per the City General Plan, Project-related cancer risk exceedances would be alleviated (Revised DEIR Page 1-25, et al.).
As indicated above, Project-related DPM-source cancer risk significance thresholds (SCAQMD threshold for lifetime residential exposure) will be exceeded at two (2) residential receptors adjacent to the Project site (residences at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street). No other significant localized DPM-source air quality impacts are projected. As noted by the commentor, should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging significant Project-specific, and cumulative localized DPM emissions impacts. It is further noted that in response to commentor concerns, and consistent with mitigation refinements intended to be achieved through the CEQA and EIR review processes, additional mitigation is proposed that would act to further reduce Project-related DPM emissions. More specifically, additional/revised mitigation is proposed [MM 4.3.21 (A)mended and MM 4.3.22(A), below] that would ensure future year (2020) CNG-only
access restrictions for all transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles served by the Project. 36, 37 MM 4.3.21 (A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks and all Applicantcontrolled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). MM 4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling of DPM-source cancer risks resulting from application of proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A), in combination with other DPM emissions mitigation currently proposed in the Revised DEIR (See Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.17 through 4.3.20) has been conducted as one component of this Final EIR. Detailed modeling results are presented within the HRA Addendum included at Final EIR Appendix A. Results of the HRA Addendum indicate that with the stipulated conversion of diesel-fueled vehicles to CNG vehicles required pursuant to MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A), by the Year 2020 the maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially affected receptor would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. More specifically, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street), the mitigated cancer risk would be 3.98 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 0.52 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore be less than the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million.
36
37
The HRA Addendum results indicate further, that under no circumstance would area schools be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially significant non-cancer risks. Please refer also to detailed HRA modeling results presented at Final EIR Appendix A. Notwithstanding these findings, this Final EIR conservatively maintains previous conclusions regarding potential Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risks. That is, for the purposes of disclosure, and to maintain the conservative analysis construct employed to date, Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risk exposures at the residences located at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street are considered to be significant during the approximate ten year period following the opening of the Project. No other locations would experience potentially adverse elevated DPM-source cancer risk exposures (or noncancer risk exposures) resulting from Project operations or activities. Please refer also to related discussions of DPM emissions impacts and proposed additional/revised mitigation presented at Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections. Response JLW-4 The commentors incorrectly state: there [are] at least three significant areas of risk for public health and the environment [inferred from the commentors statements as]: (1) Project operational NOx emissions regional threshold exceedance; (2) Project-generated NOx as an ozone precursor, and (3) Project-generated DPM-source emissions] which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order for the project to pass. The commentors incorrectly equate significant environmental impacts as defined under CEQA with significant risks and/or significant health concerns. Significant environmental impacts resulting from the Project are summarized at Revised DEIR Page 1-25. These impacts are defined as significant under CEQA in that even after application of mitigation, impacts would exceed applicable thresholds. This does not mean, however, that these impacts translate to significant risk or health concerns. Of the concerns noted by the commentor, increased DPM-source cancer risks at two (2) residential uses resulting from the Project would be considered an identifiable health concern, and is discussed and disclosed as such in the Revised DEIR (See Revised DEIR
Section 4.3, Air Quality, Pages 4.3-86 through 4.3-106; Appendix C, HRA Analysis). Please refer also to Response JLW-2.
This is not the case however for Project-related exceedances of SCAQMD regional thresholds for operational NOx emissions. In this regard, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), not SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds, represent and establish air quality safety threshold conditions. The CAAQS recognize non-attainment conditions and account for ambient air pollutant levels, and then establish threshold pollutant emissions concentration levels/exposure times that provide an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health and welfare. Moreover, neither the Lead Agency, nor the SCAQMD has established a health threshold for regional NOx emissions. As such, there is no established determinant allowing for a conclusion that a given projects regional emissions would be considered a significant health impact under CEQA. The fact that the commentor believes there is an identifiable causal health impact from Project NOx emissions does not make it so. Further, the SCAQMD, the Responsible Agency for air quality issues and air quality concerns has not indicated or commented that the Project regional NOx emissions constitute a health concern.
As discussed in the Revised DEIR, the Projects operational emissions (including NOx emissions) would not exceed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS): *u+nder Project Buildout, operational activities [emissions] will not exceed the operational LSTs, and in so doing will not violate the CAAQS (Revised Draft EIR, Page 4.3-56). Thus, although the Projects operational NOx emissions would exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds, operational NOx emissions would not exceed standards established under the CAAQS, and would not constitute a potential health hazard/health risk.
Similarly, cumulatively significant impacts associated with NOx regional threshold exceedances are not considered a health hazard/health risk. In this regard, the LST analysis considers background NOx pollutant levels to which the Project NOx emissions are added, thus establishing the cumulative condition. The Project LST analysis indicates that cumulatively, Project NOx emissions in addition to background pollutant levels would not exceed applicable CAAQS, and therefore would not constitute a potential NOx health hazard/health risk.
With regard to Project contributions of NOx emissions as an ozone precursor, as discussed in the Revised DEIR, the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) as a whole is a non-attainment area for ozone. (See Revised DEIR Page 4.3-16). Thus, all development projects within the Basin that generate NOx emissions (essentially all development within the Basin) would to some degree, contribute to existing ozone non-attainment conditions. Areawide ozone impacts and programs/strategies to reduce ozone levels are addressed within the Basins 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP). More specifically, the purpose of the 2007 AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive program that will result in compliance with federal and state air quality planning requirements for ozone and PM2.5. On September 27, 2007, the CARB Board adopted the 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan as part of the State Strategy for the 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP). Additionally, the 2007 AQMP has been submitted to the U.S. EPA for approval; no timeline on the approval is available at this time. The 2007 AQMP programs and strategies act to address effects of ozone within the Basin, including effects of NOx generated as a precursor to ozone.
The air quality conditions reflected in the 2007 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the 2007 AQMP has assumed that development associated with general plans will be realized in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG. SCAG in turn develops population projections based on information provided by its member governmental agencies (such as the City of Pomona). SCAG population projections reflect buildout of the City of Pomona pursuant to the Citys adopted General
Plan, and emissions resulting from the City General Plan buildout are represented accordingly within the 2007 AQMP. The Project is consistent with the scope of development assumed under the City General Plan, and is therefore reflected in SCAG growth projections, and related assumptions and conditions presented in the 2007 AQMP. Thus, while Project operational NOx emissions would exceed SCAQMDs regional threshold criteria for NOx and therefore contribute to areawide ozone levels, these emissions are already accounted for and addressed in the 2007 AQMP. The Project is also considered to be otherwise consistent with the 2007 AQMP (See Revised DEIR, Pages 4.3-53 through 4.3-56). As noted above, the 2007 AQMP is the adopted areawide plan addressing control and reduction of ozone emissions within the Basin, and the Projects consistency with the 2007 AQMP supports these ozone control and reduction measures. Ultimately, emissions reductions achieved through the AQMP would improve Basin air quality conditions and incrementally reduce associated basin-wide health concerns. It is also noted that the SCAQMD has not established localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for ozone. However, the fact that localized NOx emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs, indicates the Projects localized NOx contributions to ozone formation would not be significant.
Lastly, as discussed in the Revised DEIR, NOx is a byproduct of fuel combustion and the primary source of NOx emissions from the Project are a result of tail pipe emissions from vehicles accessing the site. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-78, et al.). Neither the Project Applicant nor the City has any regulatory control over tail pipe emissions from individual sources. Rather, vehicle tail pipe source emissions are regulated by CARB and USEPA. The amount of NOx emissions from vehicle sources has been reduced dramatically over the past years and is expected to further decline as clean vehicle and fuel technologies improve. In addition, the Project implements all feasible mitigation measures and complies with all applicable SCAQMD Rules directed toward reduction of NOx emissions.
Response JLW-5 The commentors speculate that Project-related traffic will cause road damage. The commentors ask: Will the City be required to pay for the damage caused by this project? The commentor offers no evidence or expert opinion supported by evidence that Project traffic will cause road damage. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080, subd. (e), below, the commentors statements alone are not considered substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the physical condition of area roadways: e) (1) For the purposes of this section and this division, substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. (2) Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. There is no demonstrated or substantiated evidence of potential damage to area roadways should the Project be implemented. Moreover, all roadway improvements proposed by the Project will conform to City engineering standards, thereby reducing potential future maintenance responsibilities for these improvements. Maintenance and repair of area roads are funded by federal, state, and local tax revenues. The Project will also contribute fees and tax revenues to the City that may be directed to the repair and maintenance of area roads. Response JLW-6 The commentors recognize mitigation measures included in the Revised DEIR and request additional information regarding mitigation implementation and enforcement. Section 4.0 of this Final EIR incorporates all proposed mitigation measures within the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) identifies measures
incorporated in the Project which reduce its potential environmental effects; the entities responsible for implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures; and the appropriate timing for implementation of mitigation measures. As described at CEQA Guidelines 15097, this MMP employs both reporting on, and monitoring of, Project mitigation measures. The objectives of the MMP are to: Assign responsibility for, and ensure proper implementation of mitigation measures; Assign responsibility for, and provide for monitoring and reporting of compliance with mitigation measures; Provide the mechanism to identify areas of noncompliance and need for enforcement action before irreversible environmental damage occurs. As the Lead Agency, the City of Pomona is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the proposed Project. The City will monitor and report on all mitigation activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented at different stages of development throughout the Project area. In this regard, the responsibilities for implementation have been assigned to the Applicant, Contractor, or a combination thereof. If during the course of Project implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified herein cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall be immediately informed, and the City will then inform any affected responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will then determine if modification to the Project is required and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate. Mitigation monitoring and reporting procedures incorporated in the Project are presented at Final EIR Section 4.2. Specific mitigation measures incorporated in the Project, mitigation timing, and implementation and reporting/monitoring responsibilities are presented at Final EIR Section 4.0, Table 4.2-1. In addition, to the extent the Project is proposed with various design features, the Project Conditions of Approval will require the implementation of all such design features.
Conditions of Approval are tied to various permitting/development actions and are enforced by the City. Response JLW-7 The commentors speculate on potential future expansion of the Project and related potential for additional or different impacts resulting from such an expansion. Please refer to Response JLW-5 for CEQA direction addressing response to speculation. Capacity expansion beyond the requested 1,500 tons per day CIWMB [CalRecycle] permitting cited in the EIR Project Description is not evaluated in the Revised DEIR. The Lead Agency will determine the type and extent of any required supporting or subsequent environmental evaluation that may be required if such a future expansion is proposed. As with the current Project, the Lead Agency will ultimately approve or deny a future expansion should it be proposed. Further, the proposed facility is not over-sized as suggested by the commentors. The proposed facility was designed to accommodate the completion of required activities in a closed space. Such activities include the operation of equipment to segregate trash dumped on the tipping floor with enough room to ensure that equipment can operate safely alongside workers, and to ensure an efficient trash transfer capability whereby trash can be pushed into the loading opening in the floor to awaiting trash transfer trucks. In order to accommodate these activities, a 1,500 tons per day trash transfer operation requires the amount of space provided for in the Project design. Enclosure of these activities realized through the Project design acts to reduce potential environmental effects such as noise and air pollution. The commentors statements regarding potential future capacity expansion are forwarded to the decision-makers.
Response JLW-8 The commentors state an opinion that the Project will not be an asset to the City and express concern regarding the Projects potential to hurt the Citys image. The commentors restate general health concerns. The commentors opinion(s) regarding the Project are forwarded to the decision-makers. Absent potential blight impacts, the Citys image is not a physical environmental consideration and is not addressed under CEQA. There is no evidence or indication the Project would cause or result in physical blight. Rather, the Project would develop underutilized vacant property that in its current state could be considered blighted and is targeted for redevelopment by the Citys Redevelopment Plan for industrial uses such as those proposed by the Project. Thus, according to the Citys Redevelopment Plan, the Project will eliminate blight. Potential health risks resulting from the Project (exceedance of SCAQMD cancer risk thresholds at two residential uses) are summarized at Responses JLW-2 and JLW-3, and discussed in detail in the Revised DEIR (See Revised DEIR at Pages 4.3-85 through 4.3-106, et al.) Please refer also to the Project HRA included at Revised DEIR Appendix C; and the HRA Addendum included at Appendix A to this Final EIR.
ALCOTT ANNEX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENT LETTERS Thirty-four (34) students of Alcott Annex Elementary School wrote letters in opposition to the Project. The comments contain general concerns about the Project and do not refer to specific information presented within the Revised DEIR. Nevertheless, responses to these general concerns are provided following the list of student commentors. The letters themselves are included at FEIR Appendix B.
ALCOTT ANNEX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Letters Dated March 10, 2011 The following table summarizes the primary concerns expressed by the student commentors.
Student Commentor Erick Aldrete Brenda Alvarez Environmental Concern(s) Odors Proximity of Project to School Odors Vectors Community Reputation Karla Carrillo Air Quality Traffic Community Reputation Health Effects Financial Considerations Vectors Alan Casteneda Natalie Castaneda Jillian Cordova Odors Health Effects Proximity of Project to School Odors Traffic Noise Health Effects Vectors Angel Cortes Health Effects Community Quality and Reputation Odors Noise Marvin Delgado Jordan Fitzhugh Air Quality Health Effects Health Effects Financial Considerations Odors Vectors Noise
Student Commentor Sylvia Flores
Environmental Concern(s) Health Effects Financial Considerations Odors
Decidoro Gomez
Proximity of Project to School Odors Vectors Health Effects Financial Considerations
Fernando Hernandez
Health Effects Proximity of Project to School Odors
Kimberly Hernandez
Health Effects Odors Proximity of Project to School
Jesus Herrera
Proximity of Project to School Health Effects General Environmental/Pollution Concern Odors Vectors
Ashley Juarez
Air Quality Health Effects Odors Financial Considerations Vectors
Briana Juarez
Proximity of Project to School Health Effects Financial Considerations Odors
Jorge Lamas April Llamas
Proximity of Project to School Health Effects Health Effects Financial Considerations Odors Vectors
Dariela Garcia Lopez
General Environmental/Pollution Concern Health Effects Financial Considerations Odors Vectors
Student Commentor Eduardo Mendez Daniel Mendoza
Environmental Concern(s) Community Reputation Odors Proximity of Project to School Odors Health Effects
Devanh Munoz
Health Effects Air Quality Water Quality Odors Financial Considerations Community Reputation
Bernice Pena Arianna Ramirez
Health Effects Community Quality Community Quality Vectors Odors Health Effects
Sandro Reyes, Jr.
Health Effects Odors Financial Considerations Noise Vectors
Fernando Rios
Health Effects Vectors Odors
Ahluna Zoe Sanchez
Health Effects Financial Considerations Proximity of Project to School Vectors Odors
Franchesca Sanchez
Odors Health Effects Financial Considerations
Marlene Sanchez
Health Effects Financial Considerations Vectors Community Quality Proximity of Project to School
Student Commentor Persephany Sanchez
Environmental Concern(s) Financial Considerations Vectors Proximity of Project to School/Home Health Effects Odors
Enet Tovilla
Proximity of Project to School Odors Health Effects Financial Considerations Community Reputation
Tyler Watanabe
Proximity of Project to School Health Effects Vectors
Brandon (last name not provided) Ernesto (last name not provided)
Financial Considerations Proximity of Project to School Health Effects
Since the majority of the student letters focus on similar issues, responses to each topical concern are presented in the following discussions. A few students voiced concern regarding general environmental/pollution impacts; however, absent specific identification of physical environmental concerns, further response has not been undertaken. In addition to the concerns identified above, each student also provided opinions regarding potential Project impacts, and many urged the City to deny the Project. While response to these comments is outside the scope of CEQA, the commentors statements are provided to the decision-makers. Air Quality Impacts Overview The majority of the commenting students expressed concern about the air quality impacts of the Project and the potential health effects that could result. The Revised DEIR uses a number of different analyses to judge whether the Project would result in significant air quality effects. These techniques include measuring the Projects contribution to pollutant
levels addressed by regional air quality standards and conducting a Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Analysis. The Revised DEIR also evaluates and addresses the potential for Project diesel emissions to contribute significantly to increased cancer risks within the Study Area. The methodology and thresholds used to determine whether a significant effect occurs are provided by the SCAQMD. Neither the modeling techniques or thresholds are absolutes; they only provide a yardstick to measure the impacts of the Project, and suggest what measures should be taken to reduce these impacts. In summary, the analysis within the Revised DEIR shows that the Project operationalsource air pollutant emissions would exceed regional air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and that Project construction-source emission would exceed applicable LST standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Additionally, dispersion modeling of Project-related diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions indicates that SCAQMD lifetime exposure residential cancer risk thresholds would be exceeded at the two (2) residences located closest to, and adjacent to the Project site. More specifically, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street) the mitigated cancer risk would be 45.10 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 11.59 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. The Revised DEIR indicates further, that under no circumstance, would any other land uses (including area schools) be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially significant noncancer risks. It also noted that solid waste collection and consolidation activities of the proposed transfer station would, on a regional basis, act to reduce the total vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for the purposes of collecting and disposing of solid waste. In this regard, the VMT reductions and associated vehicle emissions reductions attributable to the Project would likely provide a net benefit to regional air quality.
Construction-Source Emissions Impacts Temporary, intermittent and localized PM10/PM2.5 emissions impacts (see below) are identified as significant impacts within the Revised DEIR. All other Project constructionsource emissions impacts are less-than-significant, or are reduced to levels that are lessthan-significant through application of the Revised DEIR mitigation measures. The Revised DEIR analysis does however indicate that construction-source emissions could result in LST exceedances for PM10 emissions (at distances of up to 60 meters from the Project perimeter), and for PM2.5 emissions (at distances of up to 30 meters from the Project perimeter). Beyond the 30 and 60 meter distances, there are no potentially significant PM10/PM2.5 emissions impacts. The closest school is located approximately 800 meters from the Project, and therefore will not be adversely affected by PM10/PM2.5 emissions impacts during Project construction. Operational-Source Emissions Impacts NOx Emissions-Regional Threshold Exceedances Only Exceedance of NOx emissions thresholds (regional threshold exceedances only), and exceedance of SCAQMD cancer risk thresholds at two (2) residences are identified as significant impacts resulting from Project operations within the Revised DEIR. All other Project operational-source emissions impacts are less-than-significant, or are reduced to levels that are less-than-significant through application of the Revised DEIR mitigation measures. With specific regard to the Projects operational NOx regional threshold exceedance, it is again noted that NOx is a byproduct of fuel combustion in engines, and is released through vehicle tailpipes. (See Revised DEIR, Page 4.3-78, et al.). Neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Pomona has regulatory control over tailpipe emissions from vehicle exhaust. Rather, these source emissions are regulated by the California Air Resources Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. As noted in the Revised DEIR, due to regulatory requirements and improved vehicle emissions technologies, NOx emissions from vehicles have diminished over the past years, and are expected to further decline as clean vehicle and fuel technologies improve. The Project has implemented all feasible
mitigation measures that are available to reduce NOx emissions. As previously noted, the NOx emission threshold exceedances indicate that mitigation measures should be applied to the Project; not that specific health (e.g., an increased incidence of asthma) or other environmental damage will occur. SCAQMD Cancer Risk Threshold Exceedances As also discussed in the Revised DEIR, with application of mitigation, cancer risk thresholds would be exceeded at the two (2) residential uses located closest, and adjacent to the Project site. At the maximum impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street) the mitigated cancer risk would be 45.10 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 11.59 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. In response to commentor concerns, and consistent with mitigation refinements intended to be achieved through the CEQA and EIR review processes, additional mitigation is proposed that would act to further reduce Project-related DPM emissions. More specifically, additional/revised mitigation is proposed [MM 4.3.21 (A)mended and MM 4.3.22(A), below+ that would ensure future year (2020) CNG-only access restrictions for all transfer trucks and commercial trash collection vehicles served by the Project. 38, 39 MM 4.3.21 (A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks and all Applicantcontrolled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies).
38 The Year 2020 timeframe implementation schedule proposed here is consistent with, and parallels EPA/CARB tiered emissions reductions goals for heavy-duty trucks. 39 Proposed MM 4.3.21(A) and MM 4.3.22(A) would replace/supercede MM 4.3.21 and 4.3.22 currently reflected in the Revised DEIR.
MM 4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling of DPM-source cancer risks resulting from application of proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A) in combination with other DPM emissions mitigation currently proposed in the Revised DEIR (See Revised DEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.17 through 4.3.20) has been conducted as one component of this Final EIR (please refer to HRA Addendum included at Final EIR Appendix A). Results of the HRA Addendum indicate that with the stipulated conversion of diesel-fueled vehicles to CNG vehicles described herein, the maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially affected receptor would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. More specifically, at the maximally impacted residential receptor location (1415 East Ninth Street), the mitigated cancer risk would be 3.98 per million. The residential use experiencing the second highest exposure is located at 1295 East Ninth Street, where the mitigated cancer risk would be 0.52 per million. At both locations, the mitigated cancer risk would therefore be less than the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 per million. The HRA Addendum results indicate further, that under no circumstance would area schools be significantly affected by DPM emissions, nor would DPM emissions result in any potentially significant non-cancer risks. Please refer also to detailed HRA modeling results presented at Final EIR Appendix A. Notwithstanding these findings, this Final EIR conservatively maintains previous conclusions regarding potential Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risks. That is, for the purposes of disclosure, and to maintain the conservative analysis construct employed to date, Project-related and cumulative DPM-source cancer risk exposures at the residences located at 1295 and 1415 East Ninth Street are considered to be significant until the Year 2020. No other locations would experience potentially adverse elevated DPMsource cancer risk exposures (or non-cancer risk exposures) resulting from Project operations or activities. Please refer also to related discussions of DPM emissions impacts and proposed additional/revised mitigation presented at Final EIR Section 2.0, Revisions and Errata Corrections.
Noise Temporary, intermittent, and localized construction-source noise impacts (see below) are identified as significant impacts within the Revised DEIR. All other Project noise impacts (construction and operational) are less-than-significant, or are reduced to levels that are less-than-significant through application of the Revised DEIR mitigation measures. In order to illustrate the extent of potential construction source noise impacts, Figure 4.4-4 is presented in the Revised DEIR. Figure 4.4-4 graphically portrays a 65 dBA contour line, beyond which received noise levels would not exceed applicable noise standards established by the City. A potential maximum construction-source noise scenario was considered in establishing this line, and assumes heavy equipment operating at the Projects boundaries, and unobstructed line-of-sight between noise source and receptors. Within a real world context, noise levels at receptors would be attenuated (lessened) due to intervening structures and physical separation from the Project site. No school uses exist or are proposed within the area subject to temporary intermittent construction source noise levels of 65 dBA or greater. Odors Many of the commenting students expressed concerns regarding potential odors which they feel will be generated on-site. As presented within Section 4.3, Air Quality of the Revised DEIR (page 4.3-107), an Odor Impact Assessment was conducted. Based on the air sampling and analysis conducted at a similar facility, odors generated by the Project are not anticipated to exceed applicable odor thresholds. As detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description of the Revised DEIR, the Project includes the development and implementation of a comprehensive Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP) pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 410 and the Alternative Odor Management Plan (AOMP) program established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB, which has been reconstituted as CalRecycle). The Project is designed to be fully enclosed and contains an overhead misting system. The misting system will consist of a network of water pipes and nozzles, suspended from the ceiling covering more than two-thirds of the transfer station/tipping floor area, with
additional nozzles at the transfer station buildings entrance/exit doors. In its basic application, the misting system will emit a fine mist that will entrap airborne dust and settle it to the transfer station floor where it can be mechanically removed by sweeping/vacuuming. As an enhancement, an odor-destroying chemical will be injected into the misting system to eliminate odor-producing bacteria. Roof-mounted exhaust fans will further reduce and control dust and odor by drawing in clean air from building openings, while filtering and discharging air from the tipping floor. With the incorporation of these features (required by Mitigation Measures 4.3.23 through 4.3.26), the Project will not create a significant impact with respect to odors. Proximity of Project to School/Home The students concerns regarding the location of the Project within the context of other area land uses are addressed within the responses to air quality, health risk, noise, odors, traffic and vector concerns provided within this response. Quality and Reputation of Community While clearly of concern to City residents and leaders, the Projects potential to affect the quality and/or reputation of the City is not evaluated within the Revised DEIR since this issue does not involve a physical impact to the environment. The students concerns in this regard are provided to the decision-makers. Traffic With specific regard to potential traffic impacts during school pick-up and drop-off times, the Project does not propose uses or activities that would adversely affect school uses. The closest school (Washington Elementary) is approximately 0.5 miles from the Project site, and is separated from the Project site by intervening railroad tracks, the existing City street network, and numerous buildings. The Project does not propose or require the routing of traffic in a way that would lead to conflicts with school activities, including but not limited to student pick-up and drop-off. Heavy trucks accessing the Project site will travel along existing designated truck routes. Other vehicles will likely access the Project site via the most expedient means. All vehicle
operators would be required by law to observe school zone speed limits and school crossing restrictions. Because the Project will not cause or result in any potentially significant localized traffic impacts, potential traffic impacts along roads serving area schools would also be less-than-significant. Vectors (Pests) Many of the students expressed concern regarding nuisance pests, specifically rats, mice, cockroaches, and flies. As presented in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (page 4.5-31) of the Revised DEIR: A traditional source of concern with MSW [municipal solid waste] transfer facilities is the attraction the waste may have for insects, rodents, and other potential scavengers that could be a source of nuisance and/or disease transmission (collectively called vectors). Insects and rodents (most commonly rats or mice) are pests that are routinely attracted to or associated with MSW. Insects, such as domestic flies common to Southern California, are potential vectors primarily through indirect transmission of disease to objects, which are then contacted or used by humans. Rats are generally known as intermediate carriers of vectors, particularly fleas that carry a variety of infectious diseases afflicting man. However, rats can also directly infect humans through contaminated saliva injected by a bite. Infectious agents may be also be transmitted mechanically through contact with rat excrement. Similar concerns arise with mice. Hazards and nuisance associated with vectors are addressed consistent with California Code of Regulations Title 14 requirements as summarized within the (Draft) Transfer Processing Report included at Revised Draft EIR Appendix G. More specifically, potential health hazards associated with vectors and pests will be minimized through compliance with State Minimum Standards relating to transfer stations, Title 14, Section 17406.1 et seq. To these ends, vectors will [be] minimized by moving MSW out on a first-in/first-out basis in a timely manner, and through limiting the holding
time for waste at the facility (not to exceed 48-hours). If loaded trucks need to be staged overnight, these parking areas will be inspected and cleaned daily with a power wet/dry sweeping system. A pest control company will regularly inspect the site, setting rodent traps and spraying for insect control as needed. Based on the Projects planned controls and compliance with existing regulations, no potentially significant impacts would occur with regard to vectors. Water Quality Project drainage controls/storm water management provisions are summarized at Revised DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description: Drainage Controls/Storm Water Management The Project is required to obtain an Industrial Storm Water General Permit. The Industrial Storm Water General Permit is an NPDES permit that regulates discharges associated with a range of industrial activities, including waste handling facilities such as the Project. The General Industrial Permit requires the implementation of management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT) economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The General Industrial Permit also requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an associated water quality monitoring plan. Through the SWPPP, sources of pollutants are to be identified and the means to manage the sources to reduce storm water pollution are described. The SWPPP has two major objectives: (1) to help identify the sources of pollution that affect the quality of industrial storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges; and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or prevent pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges. (Fact Sheet for Order 97-03-DWQ, p. IX.) The SWPPP must contain a compliance activity schedule, a description of industrial activities and pollutant sources, descriptions of BMPs, drawings,
maps, and relevant copies or references of parts of other plans. (Order 9703-DWQ, p. 12.) The SWPPP shall be revised whenever appropriate and shall be readily available for review by facility employees or Regional Water Board inspectors. (Id.) The General Industrial Permit requires that an annual report be submitted each July 1. (Order 97-03-DWQ, p. 35.) Incidental wastewater resulting from floor cleanup activities will be vacuumed up and discharged to a three-stage industrial wastewater clarifier(s), then, under permit, into the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts sewer system. (See also 14 CCR 14407.3 [requiring drainage controls].) (Revised DEIR at Pages 3-36, 3-37.) In combination, the above measures act to reduce Project-related water quality impacts to levels that are less-than-significant. Please refer also to related discussions presented at Revised DEIR Section 4.6, Hydrology/Water Quality.
Form Letter Letters Dated March 10, 2011 Form letters in opposition to the Project were received from local residents, church parishioners, parents and students of vicinity schools, resident senior citizens, and a local exercise group. These letters are presented at Final EIR Appendix B, and responses are provided below. Some of the letters were written in Spanish, therefore a Spanish translation of these following responses is provided as well. Response FL-1 The commentor states opposition to the Project. The commentor states concern for the health of children, and notes concern for air quality impacts and traffic impacts affecting the community. The commentor states concern for the reputation of the City of Pomona. Commentor opposition to the Project is noted, and is forwarded to the decision-makers. Commentor concern for the health of children, and concern for air quality and traffic impacts affecting the community are acknowledged. The commentor does not identify specific health, air quality, or traffic concerns. Although on-point responses to these generalized concerns expressed by the commentor cannot be provided, a more general response based on the content of the January 2011 Revised DEIR is presented below. As a general response, the Revised DEIR presents extensive discussion and analysis of potential health risks resulting from the Project (Revised DEIR at Pages 4.3-85 through 4.3106; Revised DEIR Appendix C, Air Quality Impact Analyses). With application of mitigation, two (2) residences (both of which are non-conforming residential uses in an industrial area) are subject to cancer risk exposures exceeding applicable SCAQMD thresholds. No other health risks are projected. Air quality impacts are discussed at Revised DEIR Section 4.3, Air Quality. Supporting technical air quality studies are provided at Revised DEIR Appendix C, Air Quality Impact Analyses. Significant air quality impacts of the Project are summarized at Revised DEIR
Page 1-25. These include: temporary exceedance of PM10/PM2.5 localized significance thresholds (LSTs) during construction; cancer risk exposures exceeding applicable SCAQMD thresholds at two (2) residences; and exceedance of SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx. Pending completion of required interchange improvements, significant Project-related traffic impacts are conservatively assumed to occur at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and SR-71. No other significant traffic impacts are projected. Should the Project be approved, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging Project-specific and cumulatively significant impacts. The reputation of the City is not a physical impact to the environment, and is not evaluated under CEQA. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Please refer also to extensive discussions/responses to these same issues presented at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Response FL-2 The commentor states concerns regarding Project-related cancer risk threshold exceedances; exceedance of SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx; Project-related traffic impacts; and Project-related noise impacts. The commentor offers an opinion that . . . it is unacceptable for the city to move forward on a project that exceeds SCAQMDs regional threshold by over three times, making us more susceptible to asthma and other respiratory illness. The commentor notes that there are nine (9) schools within a one-mile radius of the Project site, and offers an opinion that the Project-related exceedance of SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx would result in increased health risks at area schools. Exceedance of SCAQMD cancer risk thresholds affecting two (2) non-conforming residential uses are discussed in the Revised DEIR and at Response FL-1, above. Projectrelated air quality and traffic impacts are discussed in the Revised DEIR and at Response FL-1, above.
Significant Project-related noise impacts are summarized at Revised DEIR Page 1-25: Noise generated by Project construction activities will temporarily and intermittently exceed the Citys 65 dBA standard . . . With application of mitigation, the Project will not result in or cause any significant long-term noise impacts. Potential air quality impacts affecting sensitive receptors, including the nine (9) schools cited by the commentor40 are discussed at length in the Revised DEIR (please refer to Revised DEIR Pages 4.3-78 through 4.3-106). Area school uses would be affected by Projectrelated NOx regional threshold exceedances to the same extent as would other land uses in the South Coast Air Basin. These exceedances would not, however, constitute a health hazard under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS/CAAQS), and would not directly result in adverse effects at area schools. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Please refer also to extensive discussions/responses to these same issues presented at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Response FL-3 The commentor states disagreement with the Project location within the City of Pomona. The commentor offers an opinion that it is inequitable to expect us to process their trash and suffer the environmental consequences. The commentor does not identify specific concerns regarding physical environmental impacts of the Project. Although it is difficult to provide on-point responses to the generalized concerns expressed by the commentor, the general response provided below addresses issues related to Project location. The Project location is consistent with and supports the Project Objectives (Revised DEIR Pages 3-44, 3-45). Potential relocation of the Project at Alternative Sites within the City is considered and evaluated at Revised DEIR Pages 5-32 through 5-38. As discussed in the
40 In point of fact, the Revised DEIR considers and evaluates potential air quality impacts at ten (10) schools/school facilities within an approximate one-mile radius of the Project site. Please refer to Revised DEIR Page 4.3-90.
Revised DEIR, no demonstrable reduction in environmental impacts would be achieved through relocation of the Project. The Lead Agency has no jurisdictional authority to suggest, propose, or evaluate location of the Project at a site outside of the City. The commentors opinion regarding inequitable location of the Project within the City is forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Please refer also to extensive discussions/responses to these same issues presented at Revised DEIR Appendix K. Response FL-4 The commentor notes that environmental justice considerations are discussed at Revised DEIR Appendix H. The commentor [citing poverty (low-income) and minority statistics and relevant EPA guidance out of context] erroneously interprets analysis and findings of Appendix H. In complete context, Revised DEIR Appendix H first notes that environmental justice considerations are not physical impacts to the environment and are not explicitly addressed under CEQA. Notwithstanding, as a member Board overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)41 has included the recognition of the principles of environmental justice as an integral part of its review and permitting actions. Moreover, the analysis presented here is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project (Revised DEIR Appendix H, Page 1). With regard to the commentors concerns about the Projects potential disproportionate effects to low-income populations, at Page H-17, the Revised DEIR discussion of environmental justice considerations notes that there is a potential for the Project to result in disproportionate impacts to minority populations. However, low-income populations within the affected area comprise less than 50 percent of the total population. Based on EPA guidance, lowincome status is not a determining environmental justice parameter (emphasis added).
The commentors concerns about the Projects potential disproportionate effects to minority populations are also appropriately and fully addressed within the Appendix H discussion of environmental justice concerns. More specifically, as discussed at Page H-18: . . . [M]inority populations comprise more than 50 percent of the total population within all geographic areas of analysis (Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, and County), and all tiers of geographic areas would be considered Environmental Justice Communities. Any project with significant environmental impacts under CEQA would also have potential environmental justice concerns if located in the Project Site Census Block, Study Area Census Tracts, City, or County. . . . Continuing, the Appendix H discussion notes: . . . With respect to the above potential environmental justice concerns, it is noted that significant impacts affecting the local environmental justice community are a product, at least in part, of the presence of non-conforming residential uses within an area planned and designated for industrial development. On-going transition of these non-conforming residential uses to industrial development, as envisioned under the City General Plan, would tend to alleviate impacts attributable to exposure of residences to proximate industrial uses. Notwithstanding, in the course of this transition, nonconforming residential uses located near existing or proposed industrial uses are subject to increased environmental effects and potential environmental justice concerns. It is also recognized that temporary construction impacts, such as those resulting from the Project, are typical and generally unavoidable for any development project located adjacent to residential uses. In this sense, these impacts are not Project-specific, and would likely occur to some degree under all development scenarios at the Project site due to the presence of proximate non-conforming sensitive receptors (Appendix H, Page H-19).
As noted previously, while environmental justice is not a CEQA issue, the analysis of these concerns as presented in the Revised DEIR is intended to provide all review agencies and decision-makers with information addressing potential environmental justice implications of the Project. The commentors opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response FL-5 The commentor states: While it is important for this region to effectively manage its garbage processing needs, decisions on this matter should be made at the initiative of the local government and with widespread community participation, not in response to a profit-seeking corporations proposal. The commentor does not identify environmental concerns or concerns with the Revised DEIR analysis and its findings. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decisionmakers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected. Response FL-6 The commentor urges the planning commission to deny this bid and do what is best for Pomona. The commentor states: [g]arbage processing is not the kind of development we want, and trash is not what we want this city to be known for. Our health and quality of life are not up for sale to the highest bidder. The commentor does not identify environmental concerns or concerns with the Revised DEIR analysis and its findings. The commentors statements are forwarded to the decisionmakers. Results and conclusions of the Revised DEIR are not affected.
Form Letter (Spanish Translation) Letters Dated March 10, 2011 Carta modelo respuesta-1 El comentador expresa su oposicin al Proyecto. El comentador expresa su preocupacin por la salud de los nios, y manifiesta su inquietud acerca de los impactos en la calidad del aire y en el trfico que afectarn a la comunidad. El comentador expresa su preocupacin por la reputacin de la Ciudad de Pomona. Se toma nota de la oposicin del comentador, y la misma ser remitida a los encargados de tomar las decisiones. Es reconocida la preocupacin del comentador sobre la salud de los nios, y su inquietud por los impactos en la calidad del aire y en el trfico que afectarn a la comunidad. El comentador no identifica en forma especfica dichas preocupaciones sobre la salud, los impactos en la calidad del aire o del trfico. Si bien no se puede ofrecer una respuesta puntual a las inquietudes que expresa el comentador, a continuacin se ofrece una respuesta ms general en base al contenido del Informe de Impacto Ambiental Preliminar Revisado (DEIR Revisado) en enero de 2011. Como respuesta general, el informe DEIR Revisado presenta un debate y anlisis extenso de los posibles riesgos para la salud que pueden surgir del Proyecto (DEIR Revisado, pgina 4.3-85 hasta 4.3-106; DEIR Revisado, Anexo C, Anlisis del Impacto en la Calidad del Aire). Con la aplicacin de las medidas atenuantes (mitigaciones), dos (2) viviendas (que no cumplen con el uso residencial en una zona industrial) estn sujetas a la exposicin de riesgo de cncer, excediendo los umbrales aplicables de SCAQMD. otros riesgos de salud. Los impactos en la calidad del aire se debaten en el DEIR Revisado, Seccin 4.3, Calidad del Aire. El informe DEIR Revisado, Anexo C, Anlisis de Impacto en la Calidad del Aire se proporcionan estudios tcnicos de apoyo sobre la calidad del aire. Los impactos significativos en la calidad del aire del Proyecto estn resumidos en el informe DEIR Revisado, pginas 1-25. Los mismos incluyen: excedencia temporal en los umbrales
No se proyectan
significantes localizados en PM10/PM2.5 (LSTs) durante la construccin; exposicin al riesgo de cncer que excede los umbrales aplicables (2) viviendas; y excedencia en los umbrales regionales de SCAQMD para el NOx. Mientras se terminan las mejoras de intercambio solicitadas, se prevn impactos significantes en el trfico relacionados con el Proyecto en la interseccin de Mission Boulevard y SR-71. No se proyectan otros impactos significantes en el trfico. Si se aprueba el Proyecto, la Ciudad deber adoptar una Declaracin de Consideraciones Predominantes, reconociendo los impactos significantes especficos y acumulativos del Proyecto. La reputacin de la Ciudad no es un impacto fsico en el medio ambiente, y no es evaluado por CEQA. Los resultados y conclusiones del DEIR Revisado no se ven afectados. Tambin, srvase consultar los debates y respuestas extensas a estos mismos temas, presentados en el Anexo K del DEIR Revisado. Carta modelo respuesta-2 El comentador expresa su preocupacin respecto a la excedencia del umbral de riesgo de cncer relacionado con el Proyecto; excedencia de los umbrales regionales de SCAQMD para el NOx; impactos en el trfico relacionados con el Proyecto e impactos de ruido relacionados con el Proyecto. El comentador ofrece la siguiente opinin: . . es inaceptable que la ciudad contine con un proyecto que excede y triplica el umbral regional de SCAQMD, hacindonos m{s susceptibles al asma y a otras enfermedades respiratorias El comentador menciona que hay nueve (9) escuelas dentro de un radio de una milla del lugar del Proyecto, y manifiesta su opinin acerca de que la excedencia del umbral regional de SCAQMD para el NOx, relacionada con el proyecto, resultara en un mayor riesgo para la salud en la zona escolar.
La excedencia en los umbrales de riesgo de cncer de SCAQMD, que afectan a dos (2) viviendas que no cumplen con el uso residencial, se menciona en el DEIR Revisado y en la Respuesta 1 de arriba. Los impactos en la calidad del aire, relacionados con el Proyecto, se mencionan en el DEIR Revisado y en la Respuesta 1 de arriba. Los impactos en el trfico, relacionados con el Proyecto, se mencionan en el DEIR Revisado y en la Respuesta 1 de arriba. Los impactos de ruido significantes, relacionados con el Proyecto, se resumen en el DEIR Revisado en las pginas 1-25: El ruido generado por las actividades de construccin del Proyecto, exceder{n de forma temporal e intermitente la norma de 65 dBA de la Ciudad. . . Con la aplicacin de las medidas atenuantes, el Proyecto no resultar en o causar impactos de ruido significantes y de largo plazo. Los posibles impactos en la calidad del aire que afectan a receptores sensibles, incluyendo las nueve escuelas citadas por el comentador42, son tratados extensivamente en el DEIR Revisado (srvase consultar las pginas 4.3-78 a 4.3-106 del DEIR Revisado). Las reas escolares seran afectadas por la excedencia del umbral regional del NOx, relacionada con el Proyecto, de la misma manera en que otros usos del suelo en la Cuenca de Aire de la Costa Sur. Sin embargo, dichas excedencias no constituiran un peligro para la salud, en conformidad con las Normas Nacionales de Calidad del Aire Ambiental o las Normas de Calidad del Aire Ambiental de California (NAAQS/CAAQS), y no resultara directamente en efectos adversos en la zona escolar. Los resultados y conclusiones del DEIR Revisado no se ven afectados. Tambin, srvase consultar los debates/respuestas extensas a estos mismos temas, presentados en el Anexo K del DEIR Revisado.
42 De hecho, el DEIR Revisado considera y evala los posibles impactos sobre la calidad del aire en diez (10) escuelas/instalaciones escolares dentro de un radio de aproximadamente una milla del sitio del Proyecto. Srvase consultar la pgina 4.3-90 del DEIR Revisado.
Carta modelo respuesta-3 El comentador manifiesta su desacuerdo con la ubicacin del Proyecto dentro de la Ciudad de Pomona. El comentador ofrece su opinin: es injusto esperar que nosotros procesemos la basura y suframos las consecuencias ambientales. El comentador no identifica en forma especfica las preocupaciones sobre los impactos fsicos ambientales del Proyecto. Si bien es difcil ofrecer respuestas puntuales a las preocupaciones generales manifestadas por el comentador, la respuesta general que se ofrece a continuacin, aborda los temas relacionados con la ubicacin del Proyecto. La ubicacin del proyecto se ajusta a y avala los Objetivos del Proyecto (DEIR Revisado, pginas 3-44, 3-45). La posible reubicacin del Proyecto en sitios alternativos dentro de la Ciudad, se considera y evala en el DEIR Revisado, pginas 5-32 a 5-38. Como se debati en el DEIR Revisado, no se lograra una reduccin demostrable en los impactos ambientales mediante la reubicacin del Proyecto. La Agencia Lder no tiene jurisdiccin para sugerir, proponer o evaluar una ubicacin del Proyecto en un sitio fuera de la Ciudad. La opinin del comentador con respecto a la ubicacin injusta del Proyecto dentro de la Ciudad ser enviada a los encargados de tomar las decisiones. Los resultados y conclusiones del DEIR Revisado no se ven afectados. Tambin, srvase consultar los debates/respuestas extensas a estos mismos temas, presentados en el Anexo K del DEIR Revisado. Carta modelo respuesta-4 El comentador tiene en cuenta que las consideraciones de la justicia ambiental se abordan en el Anexo H del DEIR Revisado. El comentador [citando la pobreza (bajos ingresos) y las estadsticas de las minoras y las instrucciones relevantes de EPA fuera de contexto], interpreta de forma errnea los anlisis y hallazgos del Anexo H. En el contexto completo, el Anexo H del DEIR Revisado, primero hace referencia a que las consideraciones de la justicia ambiental no son impactos fsicos para el medio ambiente y no son abordadas explcitamente bajo CEQA. No obstante, como miembro de la Junta que
supervisa la Agencia de Proteccin Ambiental de California (Cal EPA), la Junta de Manejo Integral de Residuos de California (CIWMB)43, ha incluido el reconocimiento de los principios de justicia ambiental como parte integral de su revisin y acciones permitidas. Adems, el anlisis que se presenta aqu, tiene como objeto ofrecer informacin a todas las agencias de revisin y a los encargados de tomar las decisiones sobre las posibles implicaciones de la justicia ambiental del Proyecto (DEIR Revisado, Anexo H, p{gina 1). Con respecto a las preocupaciones del comentador sobre los posibles efectos desproporcionados del Proyecto sobre las poblaciones de bajos recursos, en la pgina H-17, el debate sobre las consideraciones de justicia ambiental en el DEIR Revisado indica que existe la posibilidad de que el Proyecto resulte en impactos desproporcionados en las poblaciones minoritarias. Sin embargo, las poblaciones de bajos ingresos dentro de las reas afectadas abarcan menos del 50 por ciento de la poblacin total. En base a las instrucciones EPA, la condicin de bajos ingresos no es un parmetro determinante de justicia ambiental (nfasis aadido). Las inquietudes del comentador sobre los posibles efectos desproporcionados del Proyecto sobre las poblaciones minoritarias, tambin se abordan adecuada y completamente dentro del debate sobre justicia ambiental en el Anexo H. Ms especficamente, en la pgina H-18: . . . La poblacin minoritaria abarca ms del 50 por ciento de la poblacin total dentro de todas las reas geogrficas del anlisis (Bloque Censal de la Ubicacin del Proyecto, Distritos Censales del rea de Estudio, la Ciudad y el Condado), y todos los niveles de las reas geogrficas seran consideradas Comunidades de Justicia Ambiental. Cualquier proyecto con impactos ambientales significativos bajo CEQA, tambin tendran posibles inquietudes sobre la justicia ambiental si estn ubicados en el Bloque Censal de la Ubicacin del Proyecto, Distritos Censales del rea de Estudio, la Ciudad y el Condado, . . .
43 La Junta de Manejo Integral de Residuos de California (CIWMB) ha sido reconstituida como el Departamento de Reciclaje y Recuperacin de Recursos de California (CalRecycle).
Asimismo, el Anexo H menciona que: . . . Con respecto a las posibles inquietudes de justicia ambiental arriba mencionadas, se manifiesta que los impactos significantes que afectan a la comunidad de justicia ambiental local son producto, al menos en parte, de la presencia de usos que no cumplen con el uso residencial dentro de un rea planificada y designada para el desarrollo industrial. La transicin continua de dichos usos que no cumplen con los usos residenciales al desarrollo industrial, como se visualiza en el Plan General de la Ciudad, aliviara los impactos que se atribuyen a la exposicin de las viviendas a los usos industriales aproximados. No obstante, en el curso de dicha transicin, los usos que no cumplen con el uso residencial ubicados cerca de usos industriales existentes o propuestos estn sujetos a mayores efectos ambientales e inquietudes sobre posible justicia ambiental. Tambin se reconoce que los impactos temporales debido a la construccin, tales como los que resultan del Proyecto, son tpicos y generalmente nos se pueden evitar en ningn proyecto de desarrollo ubicado en adyacencia de usos residenciales. En tal sentido, dichos impactos no son especficos al Proyecto, y probablemente ocurriran hasta cierto grado en todos los casos de desarrollo en el sitio del Proyecto debido a la presencia de receptores sensibles, prximos y que no se ajustan (Anexo H, pgina H-19). Como se ha indicado anteriormente, si bien la justicia ambiental no es un tema del CEQA, el anlisis de dichas preocupaciones se presenta en el DEIR Revisado con el objeto de ofrecer informacin a todas las agencias de revisin y a los encargados de tomar las decisiones sobre las posibles implicaciones de la justicia ambiental del Proyecto. Las opiniones del comentador son enviadas a los encargados de tomar las decisiones. Los resultados y conclusiones del DEIR Revisado no se ven afectados.
Carta modelo respuesta-5 El comentador manifiesta: Si bien es importante para la regin administrar eficazmente el procesamiento de la basura, las decisiones sobre este tema deben ser realizadas por el gobierno local y con la amplia participacin de la comunidad, no en respuesta a una propuesta corporativa con fines de lucro. El comentador no identifica inquietudes ambientales o inquietudes relacionadas con el anlisis y los hallazgos del DEIR Revisado. Las opiniones del comentador son enviadas a los encargados de tomar las decisiones. Los resultados y conclusiones del DEIR Revisado no se ven afectados. Carta modelo respuesta-6 El comentador insta a la comisin de planeamiento a denegar la licitacin y hacer lo que es mejor para Pomona. El comentador manifiesta: El procesamiento de basura no es la clase de desarrollo que queremos, y no queremos que esta ciudad sea conocida por la basura. Nuestra salud y calidad de vida no est{n a la venta al mejor postor. El comentador no identifica inquietudes ambientales o inquietudes relacionadas con el anlisis y los hallazgos del DEIR Revisado. Las opiniones del comentador son enviadas a los encargados de tomar las decisiones. Los resultados y conclusiones del DEIR Revisado no se ven afectados.
Opposition Petition Petition Received March 14, 2011 Response OP-1 Petition signatories express opposition to the Project. The petition states: Hundreds of trucks carrying trash from many cities will bring additional pollution that can only have a negative impact on the health of our families. Petition signers expressed opposition to the Project is forwarded to the decision-makers. The petition language states general concerns regarding health issues but does not identify specific Revised DEIR or CEQA issues. These general statements of concern are also forwarded to the decision-makers. Please refer also to comprehensive analysis of potential Project-related environmental impacts presented in the Revised Draft EIR, and responses to comments on the Draft EIR presented herein.
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

4.1 INTRODUCTION
To ensure that the mitigation measures contained in this EIR are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been developed pursuant to State law. This Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) identifies measures incorporated in the Project which reduce its potential environmental effects; the entities responsible for implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures; and the appropriate timing for implementation of mitigation measures. As described at CEQA Guidelines 15097, this MMP employs both reporting on, and monitoring of, Project mitigation measures. The objectives of the MMP are to: Assign responsibility for, and ensure proper implementation of mitigation measures; Assign responsibility for, and provide for monitoring and reporting of compliance with mitigation measures; Provide the mechanism to identify areas of noncompliance and need for enforcement action before irreversible environmental damage occurs. Mitigation monitoring and reporting procedures incorporated in the Project are presented in the following Section 4.2. Specific mitigation measures incorporated in the Project, mitigation timing, and implementation and reporting/monitoring responsibilities are presented within this Section at Table 4.2-1.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan Page 4-1
8 2011 Applied Planning, Inc.
4.2
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
Mitigation Monitoring and Responsibilities As the Lead Agency, the City of Pomona is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the proposed Project. The City will monitor and report on all mitigation activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented at different stages of development throughout the Project area. a combination thereof. If during the course of Project implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified herein cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall be immediately informed, and the City will then inform any affected responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will then determine if modification to the Project is required and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate. In this regard, the responsibilities for implementation have been assigned to the Applicant, Contractor, or
Table 4.2-1 Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measures Traffic and Circulation 4.2.1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the Project site, the Project Applicant shall contribute fees, as defined by Project Conditions of Approval, toward a signal modification for northbound right-turn overlap phasing at the intersection of Reservoir Street at Holt Avenue. The City shall ensure that such improvements are completed prior to that time at which the LOS is projected to otherwise fail. 4.2.2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the Project site, the Project Applicant shall contribute fees, as defined by Project Conditions of Approval, toward the addition of a westbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Indian Hill Boulevard at Holt Avenue. The City shall ensure that such improvements are completed prior to that time at which the LOS is projected to otherwise fail. Air Quality 4.3.1 Per SCAQMD guidelines, in order to limit fugitive dust emissions, all clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds, as instantaneous gusts, exceed 25 mph. Correlating notations shall be incorporated in all Project plans, specifications and contract documents prior to issuance of first development permit. Applicant and contractor(s) City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division, SCAQMD City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going monitoring by Applicant construction liaison officer; and City/SCAQMD response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. Prior to issuance of first building permit Applicant City of Pomona City shall verify receipt of Planning Division, fees before issuance of first City of Pomona building permit Engineering Division Traffic Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
Prior to issuance of first building permit
Applicant
City of Pomona City shall verify receipt of Planning Division, fees before issuance of first City of Pomona building permit Engineering Division Traffic
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.2 The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads Correlating notations and disturbed areas within the Project site are watered at least three shall be incorporated in times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of all Project plans, disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in specifications and the mid-morning, mid-afternoon, and after work is done for the day. contract documents prior to issuance of first development permit. Applicant and contractor(s) City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division, SCAQMD City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going monitoring by Applicant construction liaison officer; and City/SCAQMD response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going monitoring by Applicant construction liaison officer; and City/SCAQMD response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
4.3.3 The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive dust.
Correlating notations shall be incorporated in all Project plans, specifications and contract documents prior to issuance of first development permit.
Applicant and contactor(s)
City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division, SCAQMD
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.4 In order to reduce localized Project impacts to sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity during construction, construction equipment staging areas shall be located at least 300-feet away from sensitive receptors. Correlating notations shall be incorporated in all Project plans, specifications and contract documents prior to issuance of first development permit. Applicant and contractor(s) City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division, SCAQMD City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going monitoring by Applicant construction liaison officer; and City/SCAQMD response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going monitoring by Applicant construction liaison officer; and City/SCAQMD response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
4.3.5 Contractors shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators until permanent power is established.
Applicant and contractor(s)
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.6 Project heavy-duty construction equipment shall use alternative clean fuels, such as low sulfur diesel or compressed natural gas with oxidation catalysts or particulate traps. Correlating notations shall be incorporated in all Project plans, specifications and contract documents prior to issuance of first development permit. Applicant and contractor(s) City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division, SCAQMD City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going monitoring by Applicant construction liaison officer; and City/SCAQMD response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going monitoring by Applicant construction liaison officer; and City response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
4.3.7 The Applicant shall use Zero-Volatile Organic Correlating notations Compounds paints, coatings, and solvents with a VOC content shall be incorporated in lower than required under Rule 1113 (not to exceed 150 all Project plans, grams/liter; 1.25 pounds/gallon). Assuming a maximum VOC specifications and content of 1.1 pounds per gallon, application of VOC-containing contract documents prior paints, coatings, and solvents shall not exceed 65 gallons per day. to issuance of first High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications of paints, development permit. coatings, and solvents shall be consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113. Alternatively, the Applicant shall use materials that do not require painting or are pre-painted.
City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.8 Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles exit the construction site onto paved roads. Alternatively, any trucks or equipment leaving the site shall be washed before each trip. Mitigation Timing Correlating notations shall be incorporated in all Project plans, specifications and contract documents prior to issuance of first development permit. Implementation Entity Applicant and contractor(s) Monitoring/ Reporting Entity City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division Monitoring/Reporting Frequency City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going monitoring by Applicant construction liaison officer; and City response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going monitoring by Applicant construction liaison officer; and City/SCAQMD response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities.
4.3.9 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered.
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.10 Adjacent public paved roads shall be swept at the end of each day if soil is evident. Use of water sweepers employing reclaimed water is recommended if such sweepers are available. Mitigation Timing Correlating notations shall be incorporated in all Project plans, specifications and contract documents prior to issuance of first development permit. Implementation Entity Applicant and contractor(s) Monitoring/ Reporting Entity City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division, SCAQMD Monitoring/Reporting Frequency City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going monitoring by Applicant construction liaison officer; and City/SCAQMD response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going monitoring by Applicant construction liaison officer; and City/SCAQMD response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities.
4.3.11 Non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied (according to manufacturers' specifications) to any inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
Mitigation Measures Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Applicant Monitoring/ Reporting Entity City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division Monitoring/Reporting Frequency City to verify officer/community liaison appointment, and obtain relevant contact information prior to issuance of first development permit.
Air Quality 4.3.12 Throughout Project construction, a construction relations Applicant to appoint officer/community liaison, appointed by the Applicant, shall be construction relations retained on-site. In coordination and cooperation with the City, the officer/community liaison construction relations officer/community liaison shall respond to prior to issuance of first any concerns related to PMlO (fugitive dust) generation or other development permit, and construction-related air quality issues. provide City with construction relations officer/community liaison contact information. 4.3.13 The truck access gates on the Project site shall be posted Prior to issuance of first with signs which state: Certificate of Occupancy Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use; Diesel delivery trucks servicing the project shall not idle for more than 5 minutes on-site; and Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB shall be posted to report violations. 4.3.14 Waste dumping, sorting/handling, and loading of waste Correlating notations into transfer trailers shall be restricted to inside the transfer shall be incorporated in building. All off-road equipment used in association with the all Project plans, Project shall employ South Coast Air Quality Management specifications and District (SCAQMD) Tier III or superior diesel off-road engine contract documents prior technologies, to reduce emissions generated by on-site equipment to issuance of first operations. building permit.
Applicant
City of Pomona Planning Division
City shall verify required signage installation before issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy.
Applicant
City of Pomona Planning Division, SCAQMD, CalRecycle
City to verify required notations before issuance of first building permit. SCAQMD to verify prior to OIMP approval. CalRecycle to verify prior to issuance of SWFP. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project operations.
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.15 The main tipping floor, including the contractor drop area, Correlating notations and all its equipment shall be cleaned at the end of each day by a shall be incorporated in mechanical sweeper, hand-brooming, wipe-down, or other means to all Project plans, remove dust and dirt debris. In no case shall dust or debris result in specifications and or cause: contract documents prior (1) safety hazards due to obscured visibility; to issuance of first (2) irritation of the eyes; building permit. (3) hampered breathing; or (4) migration of dust off-site. Please refer also to the Project Draft Transfer/Processing Report (Revised DEIR Appendix G), item 6.4 Dust Control. Applicant City of Pomona Planning Division, SCAQMD, CalRecycle City to verify required notations before issuance of first building permit. SCAQMD to verify prior to OIMP approval. CalRecycle to verify prior to issuance of SWFP. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project operations. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
4.3.16 On-site emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) due Correlating notations to traffic on paved surfaces will be reduced by daily vacuum shall be incorporated in sweeping by an SCAQMD-certified vacuum sweeper. Leaf-blowers all Project plans, or equivalent equipment shall not be used to remove dust from specifications and roadways and asphalt at the facility. contract documents prior to issuance of first building permit.
Applicant
City to verify required notations before issuance of first building permit. SCAQMD to verify prior to OIMP approval. CalRecycle to verify prior to issuance of SWFP. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project operations.
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.17 The transfer station hours of operation for MSW Correlating notations acceptance and transfer shall not exceed 12 hours per day, shall be incorporated in occurring between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Maintenance all Project plans, activities may occur 24 hours per day, seven days per week except specifications and as limited by existing ordinances, regulations, or other restrictions contract documents prior imposed by the City. to issuance of first building permit. Applicant City of Pomona Planning Division, SCAQMD, CalRecycle City to verify required notations before issuance of first building permit. SCAQMD to verify prior to OIMP approval. CalRecycle to verify prior to issuance of SWFP. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project operations. City to verify required notations before issuance of first building permit. SCAQMD to verify prior to OIMP approval. CalRecycle to verify prior to issuance of SWFP. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project operations. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
4.3.18 The Project transfer station building shall incorporate the Correlating notations unrestricted flow, alternative vertical stack design concept shall be incorporated in summarized herein, and as presented in greater detail within the all Project plans, Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Project. specifications and The Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment is presented at EIR contract documents prior Appendix C. to issuance of first building permit.
Applicant
City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division, SCAQMD, CalRecycle
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.19 Throughout Project operations, an operational relations Correlating notations officer/community liaison, appointed by the Applicant, shall be shall be incorporated in retained on-site. In coordination and cooperation with the City and all Project plans, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the operational specifications and relations officer/community liaison shall monitor any concerns contract documents prior related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, including but to issuance of first not limited to restricted access for non-CNG trucks when/as building permit. applicable, and enforcement of on-site idling limitations. In addition, sign(s) with the following language or similar shall be installed at the Project entrance, along internal truck routes, at/within unloading areas, and at all parking areas: MAXIMUM FIVE (5) MINUTE ON-SITE IDLING OF TRUCK ENGINES TO BE PERMITTED IN DESIGNATED AREAS ONLY. VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO PENALTIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF CONTRACT/RESTRICTED FACILITY ACCESS. The sign(s) shall not be less than twenty-four (24) inches square. 4.3.20 The final site plan shall provide sufficient on-site stacking Correlating design shall length to ensure that vehicles do not queue onto adjacent public be reflected in the Project roadways. site plan prior to Final Site Plan Approval Applicant City of Pomona Planning Division City to verify stacking length adequacy prior to Final Site Plan Approval Applicant City of Pomona Planning Division, SCAQMD, CalRecycle City to verify required notations before issuance of first building permit. SCAQMD to verify prior to OIMP approval. CalRecycle to verify prior to issuance of SWFP. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project operations. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.21(A): At Project opening, all transfer trucks, and all Applicant-controlled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies). Correlating notations shall be incorporated in all Project plans, specifications and contract documents prior to issuance of first building permit. Applicant City of Pomona Planning Division City to verify required notations before issuance of first building permit. Thereafter, Applicant operational liaison required to ensure appropriate controlled access to the Project. On-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project operations. City to verify required notations before issuance of first building permit. Thereafter, Applicant operational liaison required to ensure appropriate controlled access to the Project. On-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project operations. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
4.3.22(A): On or before January 2, 2020, all transfer trucks and all commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies).
Correlating notations shall be incorporated in all Project plans, specifications and contract documents prior to issuance of first building permit.
Applicant
City of Pomona Planning Division
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.23 The Project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 410 and Correlating notations the SCAQMD-approved Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP). shall be incorporated in In support of Rule 410/OIMP compliance, the main transfer station all Project plans, building shall incorporate an overhead water misting system specifications and designed for dust suppression and odor mitigation over the entire contract documents prior tipping floor area, transfer tunnel area and areas as may be specified to issuance of first by SCAQMD pursuant to the approved OIMP. The misting building permit. system shall inject and mix an odor-destroying compound (AIR8AQUA Oil or similar compound) to eliminate odors emanating from materials on the tipping floor. Nozzles shall be positioned around the access doors, above the loading pits, and at other points based on manufacturer specifications and recommendations and as provided for in the OIMP. All dust/odor control systems shall employ Best Available Technologies (BATs). The system shall be designed, implemented and operated so that odors are effectively neutralized within the Project site. 4.3.24 Roof-mounted exhaust fans to be located in the main transfer station building shall be designed to draw fresh air in through the building doors and openings, over the transfer floor, and discharge it through the roof. Correlating design specifications and features shall be incorporated in Project building plans, prior to issuance of first building permit. Applicant City of Pomona City to verify required Planning Division, notations before issuance of SCAQMD, CalRecycle first building permit. SCAQMD to verify prior to OIMP approval. CalRecycle to verify prior to issuance of SWFP. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project operations. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
Applicant
City to verify required design specifications and features before issuance of first building permit. SCAQMD to verify prior to OIMP approval. CalRecycle to verify prior to issuance of SWFP.
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.25 The primary method of odor control employed by the Correlating notations proposed Project will be to restrict waste dumping, sorting, and shall be incorporated in processing to inside the building. Cleaning the inside of the all Project plans, transfer building and equipment at the end of each day with a specifications and mechanical sweeper, hand-brooming, and wipe down will also contract documents prior mitigate odors. Per state regulations, waste shall not be stored on to issuance of first the site for more than 48 hours. building permit. Applicant City of Pomona City to verify required Planning Division, notations before issuance of SCAQMD, CalRecycle first building permit. SCAQMD to verify prior to OIMP approval. CalRecycle to verify prior to issuance of SWFP. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project operations. City of Pomona Planning Division, SCAQMD, LEA City to verify OIMP approval before issuance of first building permit Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
4.3.26 The Project shall obtain approval of the proposed draft OIMP as set forth in the EIR Technical Appendices (EIR Appendix G, Operational Programs), and as also submitted to the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and the City of Pomona. As approved, the OIMP shall include design features that comply with Appendix A of SCAQMD Rule 410. 4.3.27 Buildings shall exceed California Title 24 Energy Efficiency performance standards by a minimum of 20 percent for water heating and space heating and cooling. As deemed acceptable by the City of Pomona, any combination of the following design features may be used to fulfill this mitigation measure provided that the total increase in efficiency meets or exceeds 20 percent.
Applicant
Applicant
City to verify Title 24 enhanced compliance (minimum 20 percent increased energy efficiency beyond incumbent Title 24 requirements) before issuance of first building permit.
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.27 (contd) To the extent that they are compatible with landscaping guidelines established by the City of Pomona, shadeproducing trees, particularly those that shade paved surfaces such as streets and parking lots and buildings, shall be planted at the Project site. Paint and surface color palette for the Project shall emphasize light and off-white colors which will reflect heat away from the buildings. All buildings shall be designed to accommodate renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaic solar electricity systems, appropriate to their architectural design. To reduce energy demand associated with potable water conveyance, the Project shall implement the following: Landscaping palette emphasizing drought tolerant plants; Use of water-efficient irrigation techniques; and U.S. EPA Certified WaterSense labeled or equivalent faucets, high-efficiency toilets (HETs), and waterconserving shower heads. Install solar or tankless hot water heaters, and energyefficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Create water-efficient landscapes, including the installation of water-efficient irrigation systems and devices and the use of reclaimed water. Buildings shall be designed to be water-efficient, including the installation of water-efficient fixtures and appliances. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
Mitigation Measures Air Quality 4.3.27 (contd) Construction and demolition waste, including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard, shall be reused and/or recycled. Education and publicity shall be provided regarding reducing waste, available recycling services, and water conservation. Noise 4.4.1 Notice of proposed construction activities shall be mailed to Notice content, mailing owners and occupants of all developed land uses abutting or list, and verified delivery adjacent to the Project site. Notice shall include a preliminary of notice required prior Project construction activities schedule, thereby allowing for to issuance of first scheduling or rescheduling of off-site activities that may be affected development permit by Project construction noise. 4.4.2 Construction contractor(s) shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. Correlating notations shall be incorporated in all Project plans, specifications and contract documents prior to issuance of first development permit. Applicant City of Pomona Planning Division City to review and approve notice content and mailing list, and verify delivery of notice prior to issuance of first development permit. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities.
Mitigation Measures Noise 4.4.3 The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging Correlating notations areas and fixed/stationary construction activities in areas that will shall be incorporated in create the greatest distance between construction-related noise all Project plans, sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during specifications and all project construction. The construction contractor shall place all contract documents prior stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed to issuance of first away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. development permit. 4.4.4 The construction contractor shall limit haul truck Correlating notations deliveries, including but not limited to transport of heavy shall be incorporated in equipment to the Project site, soil import/export, and building all Project plans, materials deliveries, to the same hours specified for construction specifications and activities. Proposed haul routes shall be delineated by the Project contract documents prior Applicant, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to to issuance of first issuance of the first development permit. development permit. Applicant and contractor(s) City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division, City of Pomona Engineering Division - Traffic
Mitigation Measures Noise 4.4.5 For the duration of Project demolition, site preparation, and Correlating notations grading activities, a temporary noise barrier of 3/4-inch plywood, a shall be incorporated in minimum of six-feet high, and containing no gaps greater than 1/8all Project plans, inch, shall be installed along portions of the Project's easterly, specifications and westerly and southerly boundaries. Anticipated line-of-sight noise contract documents prior attenuation resulting from this or similar barrier with a Sound to issuance of first Transmission Class rating of STC 30 or greater is 5 dBA. Alternative development permit. measures (e.g., temporary sound curtains) providing equivalent noise attenuation may be employed if approved by the City. Proposed location of the plywood (or alternative) barrier would be at the approximate locations of the permanent six-foot high perimeter block walls that will be implemented by the Project, as indicated at Figure 4.4-4. Final dimensions and location of this barrier shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first development permit. 4.4.6 In order to minimize the effects of building/facilities Correlating notations construction noise received at nearby residential uses, the Project's shall be incorporated in exterior and interior screen walls as portrayed on the Project Site all Project plans, Plan Concept and indicated at Figure 4.4-4 shall be constructed in specifications and the first increment of development, or at the earliest feasible date. contract documents prior to issuance of first development permit. Applicant and contractor(s) City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit.
Mitigation Measures Noise 4.4.7 The transfer station hours of operation for MSW Correlating notations acceptance and transfer shall not exceed 12 hours per day, shall be incorporated in occurring between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Maintenance all Project plans, activities may occur 24 hours per day, seven days per week except specifications and as limited by existing ordinances, regulations, or other restrictions contract documents prior imposed by the City. to issuance of first development permit. 4.4.8 Heavy construction equipment operations (equipment and Correlating notations activities capable of producing groundborne vibration levels of 87 shall be incorporated in VdB or greater) are prohibited within 38 feet of the Project's all Project plans, easterly property line. This requirement may be waived if the specifications and developer provides, and the City accepts, substantiating analysis contract documents prior demonstrating that vibration levels received at the closest occupied to issuance of first land use will not exceed 82 VdB. development permit. Hazards/Hazardous Materials 4.5.1 If during implementation of the Project, soil Correlating notations contamination is suspected, construction in the affected area shall shall be incorporated in stop pending determination of the extent and character of all Project plans, contamination (or lack thereof). Suspected soils shall be tested at a specifications and certified laboratory approved by the Department of Health Services contract documents prior (DHS). Excavation, transport, and disposal of any soils determined to issuance of first to be contaminated shall be in accordance with the rules and development permit. regulations of the following agencies: City of Pomona; Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) - Los Angeles County Fire Department; Applicant City of Pomona Planning Division, CalRecycle, LEA City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project operational activities. City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Thereafter, on-going City response to any community concerns regarding Project construction activities. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
City of Pomona Planning Division, Building & Safety Division
City of Pomona Planning Division, CUPA
City to verify required notations before issuance of first development permit. Verification of compliance with CUPA requirements if/as applicable throughout Project construction.
Mitigation Measures Hazards/Hazardous Materials 4.5.1 (contd) California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL-EPA); California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CAL-OSHA); United States Department of Transportation (USDOT); and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Under the California Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material Management Regulatory Program, (Chapter 6.11, Division 20, Section 25404 of the Health and Safety Code), hazards/hazardous materials management is addressed locally through the Certified Unified Program Agency. The primary CUPA for the City of Pomona is the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Hydrology/Water Quality 4.6.1 The City of Pomona requires a Notification of Intent (NOI) and compliance with all applicable general permits. Each industrial discharger, discharger associated with construction activity, or other discharger described in any general stormwater permit addressing such discharges as may be adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), or the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall provide Notice of Intent, comply with, and undertake all other activities required by any general stormwater permit applicable to such discharges (Pomona Code of Ordinances, Subpart A, Chapter 18, Article X Stormwater Management, Division 3 Discharge Regulations and Requirements, Section 18-495 Reduction of pollutants in stormwater). Prior to issuance of first development permit Applicant City of Pomona City to verify NOI and Planning Division, compliance with all general City of Pomona permits before issuance of Engineering Division - first development permit. Environmental Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
Mitigation Measures Hydrology/Water Quality 4.6.2 The Project Applicant shall obtain environmental clearance from the City of Pomona prior to receiving any grading or building permits. The County of Los Angeles Municipal Stormwater (MS4) Permit does not allow the City of Pomona to issue permits until such time as the Project has obtained environmental clearance. 4.6.3 As required by the SWRCB and in compliance with the City of Pomona requirements for environmental clearance, the Project developer shall file a NOI with the State of California to comply with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit. Before issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), in compliance with the applicable ordinances and regulations of the City of Pomona, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and the SWRCB. The Construction SWPPP shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for control of pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction-related activities, which will be designed to address the following: water erosion control, sediment control, offsite tracking control, wind erosion control, non-stormwater management control, and waste management and materials pollution control. Prior to issuance of first development permit Applicant City of Pomona City to verify environmental Planning Division, clearance before issuance of City of Pomona first development permit. Engineering Division Environmental Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
Prior to issuance of first development permit
Applicant
City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Building & Safety Division, City of Pomona Engineering Division Environmental
City to verify approved SWPPP before issuance of first development permit.
Mitigation Measures Hydrology/Water Quality 4.6.4 The Project Applicant shall develop a Project-specific SUSMP in compliance with the City-required SUSMP and Municipal Stormwater Permit. Prior to issuance of first development permit Applicant City of Pomona Planning Division, City of Pomona Engineering Division Environmental City to verify approved SUSMP before issuance of first development permit. SUSMP incorporates compliance actions to be verified by City periodically over the life of the Project. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
4.6.5 The Project Applicant shall obtain an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit from LACSD, and comply with its requirement.
Prior to issuance of first development permit
Applicant
City of Pomona City to verify approved Planning Division, Industrial Waste Discharge City of Pomona (IWDP) Permit before Engineering Division issuance of first Environmental, development permit. IWDP LACSD incorporates periodic compliance actions to be verified by LACSD and City periodically over the life of the Project.
Mitigation Measures Public Services 4.7.1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit a hydraulic analysis that demonstrates adequate fire flow and domestic water supply, pursuant to the requirements of the City of Pomona Water & Wastewater Operations Division. Improvements that may be necessary to ensure adequate water supply to the Project site, as identified by the hydraulic study, shall be incorporated into the Project design and constructed by the Project Applicant, to the satisfaction of the City of Pomona. Prior to issuance of first building permit Applicant City of Pomona Water Before issuance of first & Wastewater building permit, hydraulic Operations Division analysis to be reviewed and approved by the City of Pomona Water & Wastewater Operations Division. Before issuance of first building permit, improvements that may be necessary to ensure adequate water supply to the Project site, as identified by the hydraulic study, shall be incorporated into the Project design and constructed by the Project Applicant, to the satisfaction of the City of Pomona. City of Pomona Planning Division On-going monitoring, protection and preservation activities as required under MM 4.8.1 throughout Project excavation and grading activities. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
Cultural Resources 4.8.1 A qualified professional archaeological monitor (Project The Applicant shall hire Archaeological Monitor) shall conduct full-time monitoring of site and field a City-approved excavation and grading activities. A qualified archaeological Archaeological Monitor monitor is defined as meeting the Secretary of the Interior prior to issuance of first Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology. The Project development permit Archaeological Monitor shall be equipped to salvage and record the location of archaeological and/or other cultural resources as they Applicant
Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources 4.8.1 (contd) may be unearthed to avoid construction delays. The Project Archaeological Monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens or finds and to allow the preparation of recovered resources to a point of identification. With the exception of significant Native American resources that would be returned to a Tribe, all recovered resources shall then be curated in an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable archaeological/ historic resource storage. A report of findings shall also be prepared by the Project Archaeological Monitor, and shall include an itemized inventory of any specimens recovered. The report and confirmation of curation of any recovered resources from an accredited museum repository shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to historic or prehistoric resources. If disturbed resources are required to be collected and preserved, the Applicant shall be required to participate financially up to the limits imposed by Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. 4.8.2 Should as-yet-unidentified paleontological resources be The Applicant shall hire encountered in the course of Project development, construction and field a City-approved activities will be halted, allowing for identification, cataloguing, Archaeological Monitor and as applicable, protection and preservation of resources by a prior to issuance of first qualified paleontologist. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an development permit individual with an M.S. or a Ph. D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques. Applicant City of Pomona Planning Division On-going monitoring, protection and preservation activities as required under MM 4.8.2 throughout Project excavation and grading activities. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency
Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources A paleontological monitor may be retained to perform the on-site monitoring in place of the qualified paleontologist. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials and who is working under the supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Mitigation Timing Implementation Entity Monitoring/ Reporting Entity Monitoring/Reporting Frequency

Pomona Trash Final EIR

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pomona Trash Final EIR

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project State Clearinghouse Number: 2009051126

Table of Contents Page i

4.2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ......................................................................................... 4-3

Table of Contents Page ii

State Agencies (5 Letters) County Agencies (3 Letters) City Agencies (1 Letter)

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Opposition Petition (123 Signatures)

Form letter totals do not reflect duplicate letters received.

Introduction Page 1-2

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Introduction Page 1-3

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Introduction Page 1-4

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Introduction Page 1-5

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Responsible and Trustee Agency Discretionary Actions, Permits, and Consultation

Introduction Page 1-6

2.0 REVISIONS AND ERRATA CORRECTIONS

2.0 REVISIONS AND ERRATA CORRECTIONS

Revisions and Errata Corrections Page 2-1

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Revisions and Errata Corrections Page 2-4

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Revisions and Errata Corrections Page 2-5

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Revisions and Errata Corrections Page 2-7

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Revisions and Errata Corrections Page 2-12

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Revisions and Errata Corrections Page 2-13

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Revisions and Errata Corrections Page 2-14

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Revisions and Errata Corrections Page 2-16

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Table 3-1 Revised DEIR Commentors

County Agencies (3 Letters)

City Agencies (1 Letter)

Local Agencies (1 Letter)

Local Businesses and Organizations (5 Letters)

Individuals (24 Letters)

Comments and Responses Page 3-2

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Table 3-1 Revised DEIR Commentors

2/28/11 3/11/11 3/14/11 3/13/11

Comments and Responses Page 3-3

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Table 3-1 Revised DEIR Commentors

Comments and Responses Page 3-4

2011 Applied Planning, Inc.

Table 3-1 Revised DEIR Commentors