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

Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project Table of Contents

Final EIR - SCH No. 2009051126 Page i

Table of Contents

Section Page

1.0 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

2.0 Revisions and Errata Corrections .............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Text Revisions .................................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 Comments and Responses .......................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting ........................................................... 4-2

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 Table of Contents

Final EIR - SCH No. 2009051126 Page ii

List of Tables

Table Page

3-1 Revised Draft EIR Commentors .................................................................................. 3-2

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project Introduction

Final EIR - SCH No. 2009051126 Page 1-1

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 Project’s 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)

© 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.

1 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 PROJECT SUMMARY

The following information is summarized from the Project Description in the Revised

DEIR. For additional detail in regard to Project characteristics and Project-related

improvements, along with analyses of the Project’s 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 Assessor’s 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 State’s 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

Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project 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).




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




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 Project’s 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 diesel-

powered 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 CNG-

powered 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.

1 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.

2 The year 2020 timeframe implementation schedule proposed here is consistent with, and parallels

EPA/CARB tiered emissions reductions goals for heavy-duty trucks.




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 DPM-

source 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


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

3 Only private/individual haulers would be exempt from access requirements specifying CNG-powered

(or emission equivalent) vehicles.




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.


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 Applicant-

controlled 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:


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.


Additionally, in response to review comments and correspondence received, the

Revised Draft EIR’s 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

minutes on-site; and

• Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB shall be

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.

• 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 water-conserving shower heads.

• Install solar or tankless hot water heaters, and energy-efficient 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.




• 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

green waste and adequate recycling containers shall be located in public areas.

• Education and publicity shall be provided regarding reducing waste,

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 EIR’s

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


Hazards/Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures are amended as follows. Results


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

(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.




2.2.4 Text Revisions to Revised DEIR Section 4.6, Hydrology/Water Quality


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. 18-

495. 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 District’s

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). The following

excerpted text at Revised DEIR Page 4.7-20 et al. is amended accordingly:

The LACSD’s 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.





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 non-

conforming 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.


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.


3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project 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.




Table 3-1

Revised DEIR Commentors

Commentor

Acronym

Assigned

Correspondence

Date

State Agencies (5 Letters)

State Clearinghouse SCH 3/15/11

Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle Letter 1) CAL1 3/14/11

Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle Letter 2) CAL2 4/30/10

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona POLY 3/11/11

California Department of Transportation, District 7 DOT 3/10/11

County Agencies (3 Letters)

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County CSD 3/11/11

Los Angeles County Fire Department LAFD 4/7/11

Los Angeles County Fire Fighters Local 1014 FFL 2/25/11

City Agencies (1 Letter)

City of Montclair COM 2/1/11

Local Agencies (1 Letter)

Pomona Unified School District PUSD 3/14/11

Utilities (1 Letter)

Southern California Gas Company GAS 2/15/11

Local Businesses and Organizations (5 Letters)

Speidel & Associates, Inc. SA 3/10/11

First Presbyterian Church (Letter 1) FP1 2/26/11

First Presbyterian Church (Letter 2) FP2 3/7/11

One LA Pomona Valley Cluster ONE 3/4/11

Commercial Door Company, Inc. CD 2/3/11

Individuals (24 Letters)

Leonard Baleon (2 identical letters, sent to City and Planning Commission) LB 2/18/11

Anayansi Balmaceda (2 identical letters, sent to City and Planning

Commission)

AB 3/10/11

Joe Bauman (2 identical letters, sent to City and Planning Commission) JB 3/7/11

Elizabeth Butcher and Angela Rodriguez (2 identical letters, sent to City and

Planning Commission)

EBAR 3/8/11

Tony Cerda (2 identical letters, sent to City and Planning Commission) TC 3/7/11

Zennie Cummings and Johnnie Clark (2 identical letters, sent to City and

Planning Commission)

ZCJC 3/7/11

Lisa A. Engdahl LE 3/11/11

Adrienne Garcia AG 3/11/11

P. Scott Harmon PSH 3/12/11

Thomas Hsieh TH 3/9/11

Johnny Hwang JH 3/13/11

Karen Hwang KH 3/11/11

Maria Jimenez MJ 3/8/11

Richard Milhorn RM 3/9/11




Table 3-1


Individuals (cont’d)

Al Solis AS 2/28/11

Sara Stephens SS 3/11/11

Belinda White BW 3/14/11

John and Lynnette Whitney JLW 3/13/11

Alcott Annex Elementary Students (34 Letters; Letters are included at FEIR Appendix B)

Erick Aldrete April Llamas

Brenda Alvarez Dariela Garcia Lopez

Karla Carrillo Eduardo Mendez

Alan Casteneda Daniel Mendoza

Natalie Casteneda Devann Munoz

Jillian Cordova Bernice Pena

Angel Cortes Arianna Ramirez

Marvin Delgado Sandro Reyes, Jr.

Jordan Fitzhugh Fernando Rios

Sylvia Flores Ahluna Sanchez

Decidoro Gomez Franchesca Sanchez

Fernando Hernandez Marlene Sanchez

Kimberly Hernandez Persephany Sanchez

Jesus Herrera Enet Tovilla

Ashley Juarez Tyler Watanabe

Briana Juarez Brandon (last name not provided)

Jorge Lamas Ernesto (last name not provided)

Form Letters1

General Public (182 Letters; Letters are included at FEIR Appendix B)

Carmen Vicuna Paula Rodriguez Anthony De La Cruz Sal Sevilla

Rayvon Estes Eduardo Avila Ubaldo Escamilla Christina Caraballo

Lorna Vergara Vanessa Nguyen Virginia Ontiveros Jesse Hernandez

Diana Luna Edwin Estrada Brian Taylor Teresa Murillo

Angela Cervantes Yonson Godina Veronica McKelvey Luis Villa

Jose Ramirez Abraham Ojeda Henry Mollet Cecilia Garcia

Adrienne Taylor Jorge Lira Iran Vergara Ryan Simms

Maria Flores Jessica Velasquez Omar Marroquin Michael Baltierra

Rita Meraz Celso Jimenez Marlen Sanchez Brenda Ortiz

Alma Acosta Azquillahs Muteti Sonia Ibarra VanAnh Nguyen

Mary Sanchez Morgan Brown Benjamin Margolis Jeff Johannsen

Zuri Villalpando Angie Castanon Alejandra Jimenez Leticia Gabriel

Sandra Villarreal Tyra Weis Meg Johannsen Trina Minero

Elizabeth Curiel Angie Nash Anne Jacobs Marnee Randle

Elizabeth Olalde Rosalinda Camarillo Amanda Llorente Emma Velasco

Lina Guel Andriana Hernandez Bree Hsieh Ramona Hernandez




Table 3-1


Form Letters1

General Public (cont’d.)

Melissa Hernandez Ana Rivera Miguel Albino Laura Gonzalez

Carina Perez Tim Campbell Maria Kurtek Gustavo Rodriguez

Rosa Verduzco Joanna Rojas Carlos Aguirre Esther Gochez

Leslie Garcia Nelson Andino Juan Hurtado Jose Trujillo

Marisol Rangel Maritza Andino Cynthia Urquizo Maria Carrillo

Pilar Alanis Itzayana Martinez Ana Saucedo Catalina Carrillo

Martha Salcedo Andy Padilla Jasmin Navarrete Eric Granados

Carmen Leal Larry Miranda Jose Sanchez Jose Gonzalez

Alma Ortiz Vishra Patel Brayan Reyes Aurora Velarde

Ana Villatoro Rajendra Patel Joseluis Magallon Maria Castro

Elsa Ruiz Mansi Patel Peter Alarcio Perla Castro

Juana Marin Karen Domingues Aide Gutierrez Esmeralda Castro

Maria Solobzano Meliza Gandara Silvester Ramirez Engracia Castro

Sandra Lopez Viviana Casteneda Gissel Tostado Asaf Rodriguez

Semonal Washington Elvis Dominguez Celeste Torres John Rodriguez

Yolanda Ortega Steven Colorado Jenny Salinas Bertha Hernandez

Roberto Carrera Gustavo Michel Jose Sanchez Cecilia Avalos

Luis Lopez Andrea Acevedo Maria Ramirez Leticia Lopez-Bentacourt

Jose Pacheco Alysa Sibrian Felipe Ramirez II Cassandra Gonzalez

Ruth Saldana Manuel Dimas Jorge Ramirez Ana Franco

Alberto Garcia Joseph Morabido Josue Sanchez Mayra Cruz

Kristen Villa Luz Carrillo Veronica Ramirez Thomas McPheeters IV

Natalie Diaz Gloria Raygoza Michael Ramirez Efrain Huertas

Jason Renfro II Zenaida Leyva Carolyn Dominguez Ronald Pound

Karla Diaz Adela Sanchez German Guardado Chester Tadeja

Jose Lemus Curtis Wayne Turman Iris Guardado Manela Barju

Ana Mendez Mary Turman Rosemarie Zelaya Tom Caraballo

Lizette Monrroy Linda Peete German Zelaya Rebeca Amezcua

Juan Morales Lourdes Gonzalez Michelle Zelaya

Uriel Reza Emily Luttnill Ana Sevilla

St. Madeleine and First Presbyterian Staff and Parishioners (136 Letters; Letters are included at FEIR

Appendix B)

Carmen Martinez Virginia Hill Alejandro Pena Ninfa Arriaga

Adriana Beltran Esthela Clarke Socorro Rodriguez David Rodriquez

Yvonne Bricens Leslie Hill Victor Fuentes Jorge Angulo

Adrian Benitez Maria Gonzalez Jorge Torres Juana Martinez

Adriana Benitez Linda DeBerry Pedro Diaz Guadalupe Jacinto

Isidoro Barron Filander Franco Luz Sanchez Carmelita Angulo

Alfred Vera Maria Lopez Oscar Molina Marcario Angulo




Table 3-1


Form Letters1

St. Madeleine and First Presbyterian Staff and Parishioners (cont’d.)

Ernie Garcia Jose Martinez Irene Acosta Jorge Angulo, Jr.

Vanessa Franco Juan Aguilera Pedro Vargas Lupe Perez

Wayne Noble Elvira Aguilera Maria Vargas Diana Fletes

Manuel Valarde Rita Martinez Oscar Ramirez Nancy Thorbourn

Jennie Perez Ana Aguilera Eva Guerrero Jaime Fletes

Teresa Hernandez Daniel Salcedo Omar Montes de Oca Gloria Heredia

Jose Hernandez Celia Salcedo Anahi Monte de Oca Maria Fletes

Hillary Reyes Victoria Isidoro Pedro Vargas Blanca Guzman

Ashley Reyes Adriana Salcedo Paola Elias Manuel Guzman

Mayra Chavez Mario Guzman Rafael Almeria Manuela Romero

Hermenegildo Garcia Jose Oclaro Edna Chavez Linda Gonzales

Diana Rodriguez Maria Ortega Carlos Montes de Oca Carolyn Cianciolo

Adrian Lopez Alicia Claro Martina Montes de Oca Cecilia Munoz

Roxanne Maniquis Isabel Salcedo Miguel Moreno Heriberto Heredia

Maria Phillips Maria Rodriguez Ana Delgado Patricia Chapman

Virginia Carrasco Everardo Tovar Daisy Gonzalez Mike Suarez

Juana Diaz Adriana Garcia Haiden Esquivel Dolores Castro

Fidensia Elkins Vincentia Duffy Maria Chavez Frank Ebiner

Roger Elkins Guillermo Rocha Gustavo Contreras Robert Moran

Carlos Hernandez Maria Contreras Arturo Gomez Gliorer Guerrero

Ramona Hernandez Norma Botelho Lorena Rafael Rosie Aguirre

Jackie Flores Maria Villalobos Alma Gomez Marlene Linthicum

Martha Landeros Martha Thacker Rosa Rangel Milton Lyles

Philip LaFarge Manuel Rodriguez Tereso Peralto Carole Lyles

Lydia Lopez Margaret Velarde Reyna Franco Mario Molina

Martin Landeros Helen Uceda Jaime (last name not provided) Tumasa Qugada

Maxine LaFarge Bladimiro Gudino Irineo Rodriguez Gustavo Contresa

Washington Park Senior Adult Services (33 Letters; Letters are included at FEIR Appendix B)

Maria Rodriguez Nelly Vargas Jacinto Benitz Bonnie Johnson

Ofelia Ruano Roberto Hernandez Rachel Torres Betty Rayford

Socorro Castellanos Maria Victoria Portillo Margaret Hunter Maria Luisa Alcota

Araceli Jimenez Juana Vasquez Amelia Gonzalez Consuelo Perez

Filemon Sanchez Daniel Meza Luz Maria Cervantes Hermila Rueda

Donitila Franco Manuela Meza Maria Lara Laura Lopez

Anita Raybon Gloria Garate Antonia Garcia

Maria Bonilla Francisco Flores Maria Crazo

Mary Whitehead Delia Avedano Aurora Narvaez




Table 3-1


Form Letters1

Jaycee Park Exercise Class (16 Letters; Letters are included at FEIR Appendix B)

Elvia Cortez Maria Carrillo Maria Salcedo Lourdes Montiel

Marisela Tapia Maria Ibarra Arcelia Flores Maria Rodriquez

Alma Ortiz Virginia Marquez Teresa Loma Margarita Jacobo

Gloria Lopez Glora Lobos Maria Bustos 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 Miguel Ramos Damiana Aldana Dennis McKelvey

Maria Gomez Antonio Hurtado Leanor Gonzalez Veronica McKelvey

Veronica Hernandez Adriana Sanabria Rosa Nunez Manuel Dortha

Daniela Nevarez Lizbeth Rodriguez Shawn Nash Jesse Magana

Vitalina Vasquez Roberto Perez Na Young Song Francisco Tamayo

Grio Trejo Laura Chavez David Joyce Jessenia Carrera

Canddaria Campos Victor Sican Kevin Howard Marvelia Pacheco

Bernardino Estrada Michael Santos Andrew Lin Celia Gomez

Laura Infante Eloise Arrington Michael Lipp Jessica Escamilla

Melissa Hostetler Zaide Reyes John Royer Jose Escamilla

Rosa Perez Francisco Corona Gabe Guerrero Mario Cos

Nely Perez Berenice Limon Brian Scrivens Elizabeth Becerra

Rocio Gonzalez Max Castro Daniel Becerri Theodore Mugerian

Beatriz Tamayo Abdiel Hernandez Olga Jaimes Julio Ortega

Jose Ortuno Kiana Duran Dorothy Mann Juan Rodriguez

Lilia Escarcega Emily Perez Maria Rodriguez Dorothy Kim

Nely Franco Lazaro Cardenas Maria Bello Pedro Gonzalez

Diana Luna Andrea Enriquez Salvador Silva Susan Villa

Jesus Dimas Andres Serrato Maria Vergara Helen Estrada-Merritt

Elizabeth Alameda Nayeli Torres Estela Salazar Charles Gelsinger

Blanca Hernandez De

Lira

Wendy Rosales Maria Villanueva Rosaura Jimenez-Mireles

Laura Pizano Ana Hernandez SanJuana Porras Janice Sedig

Monica Martinez Aaron Adame Azucena Manreal Corinne McIntire

Maritza Vasquez Christian Nunez Jorge Villalpando Bob Dupaquier

Silvia Palauos Guadalupe Casteneda Guadalupe Silva Maria Dolores Zendejas




Table 3-1


Form Letters1

Parents, teachers, and students…: (cont’d.)

Tracy Jorensen Catheryn Fernandez Carlos Francisco Aragoa

Lopez

Karen Vance

Knicole Nelson Oliver Lopez Maria De La Cruz Plascenda Polly Tam Chan

Roberta Mindiola Clarissa Contreras Maria Garcia Yolanda Gonzalez

Trina Long Alec Bacon Ramona Hernandez Maria Rubalcaua

Adrianna Perez Scott Simms Maria Salcedo Ernesto Leon

Lorraine Monroy Jorge Medina Maria Saenz Noemi Guzman

Loretta Vasquez Daisy Verduzco Chris Myers Joana Gonzalez

Angel Vivor Paulo Rojas Roxana Molina Veronica Mendoza

Melisa Inzunza Julia Campos Maria Dortha Selene Munoz

Amanda Romo Jocelyn Richard Xochilt Moreno Julio Limon

Islene Leon Cesar Jimenez Ubaldo Escamilla Eduardo Rangel

Elisa Fox Abel Zarate Emila Ponce Alejandro Pena

Maryanne Villarosa Jailene Herrera Martin Ponce Magdalena Orozco

Cindy Yuen Xena Perez-Angeles Rose Ponce Jose Miguel Prado

Rosa Miranda-Zimmer Brandy Perez Mona Lisa Guzman Jesus Arambula

Jonathan Kraus Suzette David Sonia Ramirez Vanessa Correa

W. Sapson J. Avila Erica Rodriguez Victor Sanabria

Ruben Esparza Edgar Estrada Rosa Ramirez Brayan Hernandez

Gabriela Camargo Jason Orta Maria Santana Jose Alex Prado

Maria Esparza Roy Lopez Carmen Santana Yolanda Sandoval

Paz Herrera Carlos Magin Frank Guzman Gloria Ruiz

Elba Perez Jose Rodriguez Teresa Acosta Alan Martinez

Emma Ramos Laura Le Jose Guadalupe Perez Ricardo Sandoval

Lorraine Monroy Arlene Sandoval Carmen Perez Nadia Castillo

Marisol Serrano Louis Acevedo Maria De la Luz Martinez Danilo Garay

Elizeth Moreno Chinara Wilson Patricia Santellan Victor Lua

Sabina Gamino Claritza Ramirez Maria Uceda Gregory Cain

Daisy Aceves Jesus Moreno Veronica Sedano Jazmin Bravo

Maria Ledesma Jessica Contreras Thelma Jimenez Maritza Aguirre

Laura Ramirez Sandy Carrasco Martin Espinoza Myrka Salcedo

Fredy Ramos Alexandra Duarte Belinda White Marisol Ruiz

Felix Perez Joel Ramirez Susan Wentz Maria Ortega

Claudia Ortega Jennifer Argueta Teresa Turman Adolfo Quintana

Ana Cabrera Manuel Magin Bernice Walker Edith Solis

Elizabeth Martinez Magan Vergara Alba Escobar Maria Castro

Armando Mancinas Steven Raynoso Tara Tavi Maria Sanchez

Jacquelyn Callison Jonathan Medrano Alvarez Carolina Brenda Arteaga

Ivan Sanchez Eli Cordova Esmerelda Andrade Ma. Luisa Lepe




Table 3-1


Form Letters1


Leticia Sanchez Adrian Avila Brianna Martinez Patricia Ortiz

Soledad Sapien Natalie Barrios Stephanie Espinoza Maria Trujillo

Iliana Molina Andrea Angulo Yolanda Sandoval Claudia Alonzo

Yeni Palacios Alan Flores Maria Salgado Elsa Martinez

Gabriela Esparza Jazmine Meza Manuel Flores Ana Lopez

Nathan Jones Yesmin Torres Rocio De Los Santos Ana Zaragoza

Andrea Bautista Manuel Diaz Ernesto Castillo Maria Baez

Dhylva Metzler Cristal Leon Maria Chavez Susie Trujillo

Carmen Hernandez Adrian Nunez Diana Demara Aurelia Aguiar

Sharon Blake Byron Gonzalez Matilde Vega Maria Torres

Hector Martinez Guadalupe Dircio Anahi Montes de Oca Xitlali Rincon

Jessica Gonzalez Yanira Lopez Rosalinda Gonzalez Juan Barruto

Jesus Mora Mariarosa Ballesteros Maria Nunez Lisa Drake

David Jimenez Steven Flores Maria Martinez David Drake

Nancy Montoya Josh Ngo Sandra Saldana William Soriano

Rosalba Camayena Valeria Segura Floridalma Reyes Irma Manzano

Ysabele Santana Thuy-Vi Mai Lucy Gutierrez Antonio Renfro

Virginia Martinez Oziel Lopez Laura Huerta Wilber Soriano

Martina Rangel Katherine Duran Gloria Peraza Jessica Urquizo

Margarita Mejia Mike Ramirez Andrea Regalado Yolimar Magana

Mercedes Santos Nick Agnoletto Marta Rivas Ernesto Aldrete

Veroni Galiz Jose Reyes Rosalia Diaz Hyleen Renteria

Ivonne Lopez Rosa Murillo Adrian Martinez Reyna Velis

Damiana Partida Josue Garcia Urbano Resendiz Janet Vargas

Ricardo Galaviz Nicholas Muro Maria Soto Lilia Rodriguez

Christina Rodriguez Stephanie Saldana Adolfo Castro Reyna Chavez

Andriana Aguilar Nanette Alarcio Herman Molina Edgar Galeana

Margarita Hernandez Brianda Arriaga Miguel Carlos Michelle Romero

Cynthia Meraz Gabriel Valasquez Alfredo Felix Cesar Flores

Marisol Galaviz Mayra Quintero Jesus Adame Luis Lemus

Abigail Vega Billy Ibarra Tiana Molina Florentina Gutierrez

Brenda Soto Ana Guzman Noemi Rivera Karla Eusquiano

Elidio Arellano Dayana Ruiz Nibia Jimenez Daniel Contreras

Martha Ramirez Rodrigo Felix Delfina Buenrostro Anthony Loza

Virginia Martinez Nicole Mladosich Dolores Reyes Luis Benitez

Maria Canare Serafin Alvarez Guadalupe Castaneda Victor Bernal

Sara Garcia Jaqueline Medina Mukta Cham Pablo Andrade

Dalia Vasquez Jesus Arredondo Silvia Paredes Cynthia Ibarra

Leticia Dircio Alicia Rivera Elvira Salazar Grisol Ramirez




Table 3-1


Form Letters1


Nancy Martinez Daniel Magana Maricela Arredondo Alan Laureano

Gladys Murillo Jesus Ochoa Alejandro Martinez Juan Gutierrez

Pilar Maldonado Teresa Alvarado Maricela Delgado Cindy Becerra

Maria Pacheco Johan Guzman Maria Armas Veronica Martinez

Jesus Villalbazo Cynthia Cazares William Brogie Justin White

Rosalbo Gonzalez Henry Loya Alberto Lopez Denise Robles

Alicia Meda Rebecca Van Guilder Victoriano Chavez Fabian Arredondo

Norma Vega Werner Casteneda Esparanzo Orozco Samira Barco

Veronica Esquivel Christian Flores Maria Paco Cindy Gonzalez

Mary Peek Alejandro Rodriguez Francis Soto Natalie Varela

Maria Infante Alejandro Mota Anthony Saucedo Ana Elizabeth Arzola

Josefina Chacon Isidore Robles Elsa Frias Jose Araiza

Irma Sabalza Ramon Arambula Ana Miller Ariana Ayers

Gabriela Priego Daisy Roman Sonia Trejo Araceli Hernandez

Iris Rojas Lizzett Ramirez Jose Garcia Cynthia Guillen

Teresa Noyola Francisco Cruz Leonides Buenrostro Steven Harper

Maria Jimenez Steven Tinajero Rosa Cazares Janet Ortiz

Adriana Serrano Jose Ruiz Gisela Delgado Shellsey Ortega

Maria Medina William Leonard Sandra Reyes Gabriela Gurrola

Genesis Escareno Andres Castro Maria Carrasco Juan Castaneda

Maria Lira Jennifer Rodriguez Silvia Lopez Kristin Burgess

Rosa Escareno Eric Peraza Veronica Villarreal Diana Avitia

Sandra Ramirez Isidro Amador Maria Donis Vincent Mora

Laurentina Infante Hannah Barreras Alejandra Ayala Estefania Aldrete

Emely Garcia Arelys Ramirez Maria Aquilar Karla Lima

Erika Rivera Alicia McMullin Elena Pasillas Jennifer Noriega

Emilia Mendoza Veronica Estrada Maria Aguirre Gloria Andino

Ulysses Mladosich Angelina Gonzalez Maria Gonzalez Michael Hernandez

Joanna Villarreal Erika Duran Jose Torres Ashley Hedrick

Laura Rivera Juana Castro Lorena Bonilla Robyn Clark

DaSean Renfra Heather Peck Alicia Rodriguez Rosie Martinez

Abram Garcia Estela Ortega Agueda Guerrero Maria Rubalcava

Jessica Serrano Judith Rose Erick Castillo Eloy Amancio

Kassandra Medina Maria Zimdars Veronica Anguiano Ricardo Amancio

Brandon Vallejo Andy Marquez Ricardo Garcia Luz Ramirez

Zaid Martinez Elias Verduzco, Jr. Maria Reynel MaElena Valdovinos

Valentino Marrufo Blanca Castro Irma Artega Diana Zarazua

Israel Ceran Dalila Delgado Elvia Lopez Minerva Vences

Jaime Rojas Maria Tamayo Ana Lopez Ruben Yepizom




Table 3-1


Form Letters1


Francisco Lua Mariza Lopez Goycoolea Maria Uribe Brooke Hayashi

Jennifer Gomez Alba Calderon Gustavo Ramirez Raquel Galicia

Yaritza Leon Patrick Adongo Maria Banderas Grisada Mayana

Selena Chavez Cynthia Macedo Rosa Villarreal Andrea Buenrrostro

German Ramos Dinorah Rivera Dalia Bibiano Illegible

Julian Bravo Ivette De Casas Miriam Vargas Carolina Morales

Sirenna Dominguez Claudia Paz Rocha Patricia Gonzalez Ivette Corness

Christian Contreras Jilma Smith Seals Maria Rizo

Cathy Garcia Sonia Chavez Maria Guadalupe Puentes

Opposition Petition (123 Signatures, Petition is included at FEIR Appendix B)

Elvia Bernal Silia Orozco Socorro Vera Maricruz Hernandez

Luisa Porras Maria Hernandez Patricia Diaz Fernando Jimenez

Javier Bernal Celia Hernandez Socorro Moreno Maria Juache

Anaycly Alonso Maria Urenda Rosabla Avila Illegible

Rafael Reyes, Jr. Margarita Ordaz Ann Cruz Jessica Juache

Maricela Cruz Armando Morales Angelica Avila Cesario Jimenez

Onelia Cruz Luis Arellano Jose Avila Beatriz Jimenez

Eneida Vasquez Steve Beas Heliodoro Avila Duarte Angeleica Hernandez

Maria Diaz Maora Baigas Maria Sanchez Martha Cortez

Malori Lared Miguel Rodriguez Luis Acuna S Blanco

Roberta Vasquez Alicia Rodriguez Teresa Acuna Art Lemus

Emilia Aquayo Arnold Rodriguez Sanila Acuna Ana Fernandez

Roberto Aquago Louisa Moya Rosio Acuna Illegible

Roberto Aquago, Jr. Mon Sanchez Guadalupe Lopez Illegible

Abigail & David Hernandez Claudia Espinoza Carolina Villagomez Virginia Illegible

Maria Perez Adriana Mercado Illegible Richard Ramos

Margarita Arellano Michela Morales Illegible Victoria Ramos

Eva Alcala Mike Morales Illegible Juan Carlos Gutierrez

Alex Horta Urbano Margarito Illegible Jacqueline Bravo

R. Horta Karina Salazar Oscar Escobedo Juana Perez

Josefina Ortega Jaime Andrade Nancy Escobedo Rangel Jesus

Felix Villalobos Lauro Morales Enriqueta Escobedo Illegible

Rita Villalobos Lourdes Cortez Salvador Escobedo Illegible

Estela Agudo Francisca Saberanie Gerardo Renteria Illegible

Rosa Diaz Mario Carillo Janet Renteria Jen Gutierrez

Carlos Castellon Maria Orendain Daniel Tzec Lourdes Espinoza

Marcelino Campos Eluira Becerra Enrique Tzec Giovani Arvizu

Patricia Gonzalez Alejandro Angel Elia Hernandez Karla Arvizu

Jose Flores Angelina Becerra Nicole Hernandez Ruben Lopez

Maria Flores Emilio Becerra Christine Ortega Jared Moreno

Martin Saldana Carmen Vivanco Luis Hernandez 1 The number of form letters does not reflect duplicate/multiple letters received from the same commentor.




STATE OF CALIFORNIA

GOVERNOR’S 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 State-

assigned 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 CalRecycle’s 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-à-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 City’s and (state’s) 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 [email protected]; 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.

mailto:[email protected]




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 CalRecycle’s opportunity to review and comment on the March 2010

Draft EIR (EIR). CalRecycle notes that comments on the EIR are provided for the Lead

Agency’s 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 CalRecycle’s 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-à-vis the EIR Project Description are

compared below. Corrections and/or clarifications to the CalRecycle description of the Project

are noted.

CalRecycle Summary EIR Project Description

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 . . . .

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.

Project MSW sources as summarized by CalRecycle is

materially correct.

The facility will be permitted to operate twenty-four

(24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.

. . . 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-à-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 Project’s

localized PM10 and PM2.5 emissions concentrations, in combination with ambient PM

concentrations, and other PM10 and PM2.5 emissions generated by off‐site 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 Applicant-

controlled commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project

site shall be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent

technologies).


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.

1 The Year 2020 timeframe implementation schedule proposed here is consistent with and parallels


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


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.


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 (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 City’s 65 dBA exterior

residential noise standard at proximate residential receptors. This is a Project-

specific 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 agency’s 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. The

commentor requests these same operational limitations be reflected in the Transfer

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.




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 CalRecycle’s opportunity to review and comment on the March 2010

Revised Draft EIR.

The Lead Agency appreciates CalRecycle’s 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 CalRecycle’s 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 City’s and (state’s) 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 [email protected]; or

Martin Perez, telephone 951.782.4194, email to [email protected]; 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 commentor’s 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 Agency’s 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) Project’s 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-à-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 Project’s 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 City’s 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 commentor’s 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


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


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. Updated

information is incorporated where applicable as noted in these Responses. Results and


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 4.7-

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 District’s 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.

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 4.7-

20 et al. is amended accordingly, as follows:

The LACSD’s 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


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 District’s comments. District contact information is noted.




Los Angeles County Fire Department

1320 North Eastern Avenue


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.‛





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 Project’s development

plans are subject to further Fire Department review as part of the City’s 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 Project’s 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 (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.

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 less-

than-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 Pomona’s firefighters and paramedics. The commentor requests that the Lead

Agency approve the EIR.

Local 1014 representation of Pomona firefighters and paramedics is noted. The

commentor’s 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 Agency’s 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:










Preface, Page 2).













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 commentor’s 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 Project’s basic objectives, while demonstrably reducing the Project’s

significant environmental impacts.

The commentor summarizes requests to approve the EIR and Project.

The commentor’s 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


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 Staff’s 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 decision-

makers.




Office of the Superintendent of Schools

Pomona Unified School District

800 South Garey Avenue, P.O. Box 2900

Pomona, CA 91769


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

District’s 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 PUSD’s 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

Agency’s 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, PM10/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 long-

term 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 Project’s 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 Project’s 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 Project-

related 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.‛


Overriding Considerations acknowledging the Project’s 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 9th 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 Project’s 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 DPM-

source 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 4.3-

99).

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:


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.


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 Project’s 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 4.3-

101).

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 DEIR’s conservative scenario, only two (2) residences (both of which are non-

conforming 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 Applicant-



technologies).


commercial solid waste collection vehicles accessing the Project site shall

be powered by natural gas engines (or emission equivalent technologies).







vehicles identified herein, the Year 2020 maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any


4 The Year 2020 timeframe implementation schedule proposed here is consistent with, and parallels

























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, 70-

year/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 commentor’s 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


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-than-

significant. 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, 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-than-significant level (Revised DEIR, Page 4.2-2).

All other potential Project-related and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are less-

than-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 self-

haul 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 commentor’s 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

commentor’s 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 Project’s 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 CEQA’s 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 City’s 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 Project’s 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 City’s 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 City’s 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 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 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/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 City’s Ad Hoc Solid Waste Study Committee and does

not exist in the City based on an independent evaluation by the City’s EIR consultant and

City Planning Staff. Nor is any such site available wherein the Project could be


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




District’s concerns by stating that the EIR has fulfilled the requirements under the CEQA

Guidelines with respect to considering alternatives and that the City’s 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 commentor’s 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


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 SCGC’s 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


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 Agency’s 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:







Preface, Page 2).
















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 Project’s 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 City’s 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 City’s 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 decision-

makers.

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 commentor’s 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 Project’s proposed

location, and recognizes the City’s environmental review/public comment processes for the

Project. The commentor states that comments provided are under the official capacity as

First Presbyterian Church’s pastor.

General concerns regarding the Project are noted, as are the commentor’s concerns for the

welfare of parishioners and area residents. The commentor’s 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 commentor’s official capacity as the First Presbyterian

Church’s 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





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

Project’s 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 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 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.

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 City’s 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, Project-

related 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 construction-

source 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






the Project. 7, 8




technologies).






































Re: Noise Impacts - As indicated above, noise generated by Project construction activities

will temporarily and intermittently exceed the City’s 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 Project’s 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 won’t 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. On-

site 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 commentor’s 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 commentor’s statements are forwarded to the decision-

makers. 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 commentor’s 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 commentor’s concerns about the Project’s 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, non-

conforming 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


of the Project. The commentor’s opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results


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 city’s 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 commentor’s statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and





First Presbyterian Church

401 North Gibbs Street

Pomona, CA 91767


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 Project’s proposed

location and recognizes the City’s 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 commentor’s 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 commentor’s 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

Project’s significant environmental impacts. A summary of these impacts is provided at

Revised DEIR Page 1-25, as excerpted below.






Air Quality
























NOx only.

Noise

Construction Noise



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, Project-

related 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 construction-

source 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.







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






the Project. 10, 11




technologies).






































Re: Noise Impacts - As indicated above, noise generated by Project construction activities

will temporarily and intermittently exceed the City’s 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 Project’s 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 won’t create that many new jobs.‛





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 commentor’s statements regarding job creation are forwarded to the


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 commentor’s statements are forwarded to the decision-











Project, the Lead Agency has the authority to approve or deny any future expansion should

it be proposed. The commentor’s 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.



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


of the Project‛ (Revised DEIR Appendix H, Page 1).



























justice concerns.












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 city’s business and people-centered institutions to determine what the solution

ought to be, and then contract with trash businesses on the city’s (and the people’s) own

terms.‛

The commentor does not raise environmental issues, or otherwise comment on the Draft

EIR. The commentor’s statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and





One LA Pomona Valley Cluster

1545 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 328



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 Project’s potential to create ‚long-term and

wide-spread regional air pollution issues,‛ citing the Project’s 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 SCAQMD’s

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 SCAQMD’s

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 Project’s 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 ½ mile away, no schools will be

impacted by any localized air pollution impacts from the Project. (Revised DEIR, Pages 1-

12, 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 City’s General Plan calls for such non-

conforming 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






the Project. 15, 16




technologies).













emissions mitigation currently proposed in the Revised DEIR (Revised DEIR Mitigation




























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 Project’s 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 Project’s+ environmental impacts and

thereby reduce potential environmental justice (EJ) concerns.‛ (See Appendix H, Page H-

18.) 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.



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.

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. 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




justice concerns.





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


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 DEIR’s 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 non-

conforming 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 don’t

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 Project’s 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


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 doesn’t), 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 City’s 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 short-

term 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 long-

term 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 Project’s 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 DEIR’s 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 3-

32.) 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 ½ 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 Project’s 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 commentor’s 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


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 commentor’s 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 commentor’s 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 commentor’s

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 commentor’s 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 commentor’s 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 Project’s 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 Project’s 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-than-

significant level . . . (Revised DEIR, Page 4.2-2).


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-than-

significant 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.








above levels existing without the Project is therefore less-than-significant . . .


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 long-

term 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 Project’s 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 SCAQMD’s 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 Basin’s 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 City’s 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 SCAQMD’s 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 Project’s 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 Project’s 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, 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. Further, 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).

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









the Project. 17, 18




technologies).








































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:








above levels existing without the Project is therefore less-than-significant


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 4.4-

47).

. . . [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 commentor’s statements regarding the Project’s 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-than-

significant.

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 SCAQMD-

approved 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 odor-

destroying 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 commentor’s 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 commentor’s 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 site’s current General Plan Land Use

designation, ‚General Manufacturing.‛ Further, uses proposed by the Project

are conditionally permitted under the site’s 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 Project’s 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 City’s 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 Project’s

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 City’s Ad Hoc Solid

Waste Study Committee. Nor is any such site available wherein the Project could be


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 commentor’s opinions regarding the Project’s 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

site’s 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 City’s 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 Project’s 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:








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 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).

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 commentor’s statements and opinions regarding (re)location of the Project and its

traffic, aesthetic, noise, air quality and hazards aspects are forwarded to the decision-

makers for their consideration.




Leonard Baleon

2106 Marquette Avenue

Pomona, CA 91766


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 commentor’s statements will be forwarded to


Response LB1-2

The commentor cites criteria from the City’s 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 commentor’s 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 Project’s LEED certification

attributes and requirements is provided at Revised DEIR Appendix J; however, actual

LEED certification is customarily awarded upon a project’s completion. The commentor’s

opinions in support of the proposed Project are forwarded to decision-makers for their

consideration.




Leonard Baleon


Pomona, CA 91766


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 commentor’s 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


Pomona, CA 91766


Response JB1-1

The commentor provides support for the Project, citing an increase in jobs and revenue for

the City of Pomona. The commentor’s 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 commentor’s 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 commentor’s statements are forwarded to the decision-makers.




Joe Bauman


Pomona, CA 91766


Responses JB2-1 through JB2-3


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


Pomona, CA 91766


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


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 Project’s consistency

with existing zoning.

Response EBAR1-3

The commentors’ opinions regarding the City’s existing and planned industrial uses are

forwarded to decision-makers for their consideration.




Elizabeth Butcher and Angela Rodriguez


Pomona, CA 91766


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


Response TC1-1

The commentor states support for the Project, citing an increase in jobs and revenue for the

City of Pomona. The commentor’s 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 Project’s 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 commentor’s statements are forwarded to





Tony Cerda

240 E. 1st Street

Pomona, CA 91766


Responses TC2-1 through TC2-3


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


Pomona, CA 91766


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


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 Project’s LEED certification attributes and requirements is provided at

Revised DEIR Appendix J; however, actual LEED certification is customarily awarded upon

a project’s 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





Zennie Cummings and Johnnie Clark


Pomona, CA 91766


Responses ZCJC2-1 through ZCJC2-4


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


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 4.3-

106; 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 commentor’s 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 SCAQMD’s 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 City’s 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 commentor’s 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.














at Page H-18:






















justice concerns.








concerns presented in the Revised DEIR is intended to provide all review agencies and




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 corporation’s

proposal.‛

The commentor does not identify environmental concerns or concerns with the Revised

DEIR analysis and its findings. The commentor’s statements are forwarded to the decision-





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.‛







Adrienne Garcia

1623 Redbud Place

Pomona, CA 91766


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 commentor’s 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 commentor’s statements


Response AG-3

The commentor states an opinion that, despite certain City Council candidate’s portrayal of

the Project, she feels the Project is ‚well designed‛ and ‚meets independent criteria.‛ The

commentor’s statements are forwarded to the decision-makers.




P. Scott Harmon, C. P. A.

19 Cottontail Drive

Pomona, CA 91766


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 State’s 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 risk exceedances would be alleviated (Revised DEIR, Page 1-25).20

Commentor statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the


Response PSH-3

The commentor offers opinions about the Project and the Project’s implications for the

reputation of the City.

The City’s reputation is not a physical impact to the environment within the scope of

CEQA. Commentor opinions regarding the City and the City’s 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 commentor’s 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


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.


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 health-

based 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 commentor’s




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, PM10/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 short-

term 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 PM10 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 9th 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 Project’s 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 industrially-

designated 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 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 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






the Project. 23, 24




technologies).










vehicles described herein, the maximum potential cancer risk exposure at any potentially

affected receptor would be reduced to levels that are less-than-significant.

23 The Year 2020 timeframe implementation schedule proposed here is consistent with, and parallels EPA/CARB tiered emissions reductions goals for heavy-duty trucks. 24 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.

























emissions impacts.

With regard to noise impacts, the Revised DEIR’s 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 commentor’s 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.





Board (CIWMB)25 has included the recognition of the principles of environmental justice as




Appendix H, Page 1).







populations are also appropriately and fully addressed within the Appendix H discussion

of environmental justice concerns. More specifically, as discussed at Page H-18:



















justice concerns.













of the Project.

The commentor’s opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions


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:



existing LOS ‚F‛ conditions at this intersection, and mitigate Project-related











impacts at Mission Boulevard and SR-71 will be mitigated to a less-than-

significant level . . . (Revised DEIR, Page 4.2-2).





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-than-

significant pursuant to the Revised DEIR mitigation measures.

The commentor’s 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.





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.).






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, 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.



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. 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 (Final EIR Section 4.0,

Page 4-2).



Response TH-10













Project, the Lead Agency will ultimately approve or deny a future expansion should it be

proposed.

The commentor’s statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and


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 CEQA’s

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,




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 commentor’s statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and


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 TH-

11. No additional environmental issues are identified.

The commentors statements are forwarded to the decision-makers. Results and conclusions





Johnny Hwang

950 West 12th Street, Unit A

Pomona, CA 91766


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:



existing LOS ‘F’ conditions at this intersection, and mitigate Project-related














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 traffic and circulation 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.


Considerations acknowledging the Project’s 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




















cancer risk exceedances would be alleviated.26




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.


Considerations acknowledging the Project’s 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 Project’s potential effects on+ the City’s

reputation. The commentor states: ‚. . . by having this transfer station [the Project] we will be

known as the garbage city.‛


CEQA. Commentor concerns and statements regarding the City’s reputation and its

characterization are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the


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 commentor’s 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 area’s garbage city.‛


DEIR. The commentor’s 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 commentor’s 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







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 commentor’s

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 City’s 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.‛


DEIR. Commentor suggestions for continuing development of medical educational and

medical services facilities in the City, and statements regarding the City’s reputation are


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 City’s 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


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 Project’s 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:






Air Quality
























NOx only.

Noise

Construction Noise



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 commentor’s statements are forwarded to the


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 high-

efficiency 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




technologies).



















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.

















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

Project’s 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).






















justice concerns.













of the Project. The commentor’s opinions are forwarded to the decision-makers.

Response KH-3

The commentor states concern regarding [the Project’s potential effects on+ the City’s

reputation and potential characterization as a ‚dumping ground.‛


CEQA. Commentor concerns and statements regarding the City’s reputation and its

characterization are forwarded to the decision-makers. Analysis and findings of the


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 commentor’s statements are


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


Pomona, CA 91766


Response MJ-1


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.





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 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 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


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



commentor notes that there are nine (9) schools within a one-mile radius of the Project site,



The Revised DEIR acknowledges and discloses Project-related exceedances of SCAQMD

regional thresholds for operational NOx emissions. However, contrary to the commentor’s

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 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 project’s 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 Project’s 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 Project’s 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 SCAQMD’s 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 City’s 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 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.



DEIR Page 4.3-90.




Response MJ-3


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.‛


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

commentor’s 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


DEIR Appendix H. The commentor erroneously presents findings of Appendix H out of

context.

















at Page H-18:



















justice concerns.















Response MJ-5

The commentor states: ‚While it is important for this region to effectively manage its garbage



proposal.‛




Response MJ-6



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.‛







Richard L. Milhorn

Email address: [email protected]

Telephone (559) 251-3128


Response RM-1

The commentor’s description of his experience and qualifications are noted. No further

response is required.

Response RM-2

The commentor’s generally positive assessment of the Revised DEIR is noted. Responses to

the commentor’s specific concerns are provided in the following paragraphs.

Response RM-3

The commentor’s 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 DEIR’s

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:


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:


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.‛


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 commentor’s concerns in regard to the Project’s potential health risks are

acknowledged. In regard to the two (2) existing residences that are forecast to be within the

Project’s 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 City’s 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 City’s 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 Project’s 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 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. 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 Project’s implementation.

As noted in the Revised DEIR’s 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 SCAQMD’s 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 Project’s 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 State’s 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 commentor’s opinions

regarding the Project’s identified significant health risk exposures will be forwarded to





Al Solis

Mission Recycling


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 Project’s 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 City’s] fundamental obligation of stimulating the economy of the City.‛ The

commentor’s statements are forwarded to the decision-makers.




Sara Stephens

1147 W. 11th Street

Pomona, CA 91766


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 health-

based 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 9th 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 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 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.


Overriding Considerations acknowledging the Project’s 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.










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



















justice concerns.











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 City’s reputation as a ‚garbage processing hub, while the cities around us save money and

avoid these risks by sending their trash to us.‛ The City’s reputation is not a physical impact to

the environment within the scope of CEQA. Commentor concerns and statements

regarding the City’s reputation and its characterization are forwarded to the decision-

makers. 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.


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.


to the decision-makers for their consideration.

Response SS-7







Belinda White

1539 Evans Avenue

Pomona, CA 91766


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


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






cancer risk exceedances would be alleviated (Revised DEIR Page 1-25, et al.).




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




(A)mended and MM 4.3.22(A), below] that would ensure future year (2020) ‚CNG-only‛





the Project. 36, 37




technologies).





application of proposed MM 4.3.21 (A) and MM 4.3.22(A), in combination with other DPM


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






















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 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.‛

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 project’s 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 Project’s 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 Project’s 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 Basin’s 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 City’s 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 SCAQMD’s 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 Project’s 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 Project’s 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 commentor’s 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







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.


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.


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 Project’s potential to hurt the City’s image. The commentors

restate general health concerns.

The commentor’s opinion(s) regarding the Project are forwarded to the decision-makers.

Absent potential blight impacts, the City’s 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 City’s Redevelopment Plan for industrial uses such as

those proposed by the Project. Thus, according to the City’s 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 Environmental Concern(s)

Erick Aldrete Odors

Brenda Alvarez Proximity of Project to School

Odors

Vectors

Community Reputation

Karla Carrillo Air Quality

Traffic


Health Effects

Financial Considerations

Vectors

Alan Casteneda Odors

Natalie Castaneda Health Effects

Jillian Cordova Proximity of Project to School

Odors

Traffic

Noise

Health Effects

Vectors

Angel Cortes Health Effects

Community Quality and Reputation

Odors

Noise

Marvin Delgado Air Quality

Health Effects

Jordan Fitzhugh Health Effects


Odors

Vectors

Noise





Sylvia Flores Health Effects


Odors

Decidoro Gomez Proximity of Project to School

Odors

Vectors

Health Effects


Fernando Hernandez Health Effects

Proximity of Project to School

Odors

Kimberly Hernandez Health Effects

Odors


Jesus Herrera Proximity of Project to School

Health Effects

General Environmental/Pollution Concern

Odors

Vectors

Ashley Juarez Air Quality

Health Effects

Odors


Vectors

Briana Juarez Proximity of Project to School

Health Effects


Odors

Jorge Lamas Proximity of Project to School

Health Effects

April Llamas Health Effects


Odors

Vectors

Dariela Garcia Lopez General Environmental/Pollution Concern

Health Effects


Odors

Vectors





Eduardo Mendez Community Reputation

Odors

Daniel Mendoza Proximity of Project to School

Odors

Health Effects

Devanh Munoz Health Effects

Air Quality

Water Quality

Odors



Bernice Pena Health Effects

Community Quality

Arianna Ramirez Community Quality

Vectors

Odors

Health Effects

Sandro Reyes, Jr. Health Effects

Odors


Noise

Vectors

Fernando Rios Health Effects

Vectors

Odors

Ahluna Zoe Sanchez Health Effects



Vectors

Odors

Franchesca Sanchez Odors

Health Effects


Marlene Sanchez Health Effects


Vectors

Community Quality






Persephany Sanchez Financial Considerations

Vectors

Proximity of Project to School/Home

Health Effects

Odors

Enet Tovilla Proximity of Project to School

Odors

Health Effects



Tyler Watanabe Proximity of Project to School

Health Effects

Vectors

Brandon (last name not provided) Financial Considerations

Ernesto (last name not provided) 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 commentor’s 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 Project’s 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 operational-

source 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 non-

cancer 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 construction-

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.

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 Project’s 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


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




technologies).



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




















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
















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

Project’s 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 building’s 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 Project’s 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 Project’s 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 97-

03-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 District’s 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


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


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.





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.


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


Response FL-2


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



commentor notes that there are nine (9) schools within a one-mile radius of the Project site,



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. Project-

related 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 City’s 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 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


Response FL-3


The commentor offers an opinion that ‚it is inequitable to expect us to process their trash and

suffer the environmental consequences.‛


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



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 commentor’s 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


Response FL-4


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.





Board (CIWMB)41 has included the recognition of the principles of environmental justice as




Appendix H, Page 1).

With regard to the commentor’s concerns about the Project’s 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, low-

income status is not a determining environmental justice parameter‛ (emphasis added).







populations are also appropriately and fully addressed within the Appendix H discussion

of environmental justice concerns. More specifically, as discussed at Page H-18:



















justice concerns.















Response FL-5

The commentor states: ‚While it is important for this region to effectively manage its garbage



proposal.‛




Response FL-6



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.‛







Form Letter (Spanish Translation)


Carta modelo respuesta-1

El comentador expresa su oposición al Proyecto. El comentador expresa su preocupación

por la salud de los niños, y manifiesta su inquietud acerca de los impactos en la calidad del

aire y en el tráfico que afectarán a la comunidad. El comentador expresa su preocupación

por la reputación de la Ciudad de Pomona.

Se toma nota de la oposición del comentador, y la misma será remitida a los encargados de

tomar las decisiones. Es reconocida la preocupación del comentador sobre la salud de los

niños, y su inquietud por los impactos en la calidad del aire y en el tráfico que afectarán a la

comunidad. El comentador no identifica en forma específica dichas preocupaciones sobre

la salud, los impactos en la calidad del aire o del tráfico. Si bien no se puede ofrecer una

respuesta puntual a las inquietudes que expresa el comentador, a continuación se ofrece

una respuesta más 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 análisis extenso

de los posibles riesgos para la salud que pueden surgir del Proyecto (DEIR Revisado,

página 4.3-85 hasta 4.3-106; DEIR Revisado, Anexo C, Análisis del Impacto en la Calidad

del Aire). Con la aplicación de las medidas atenuantes (mitigaciones), dos (2) viviendas

(que no cumplen con el uso residencial en una zona industrial) están sujetas a la exposición

de riesgo de cáncer, excediendo los umbrales aplicables de SCAQMD. No se proyectan

otros riesgos de salud.

Los impactos en la calidad del aire se debaten en el DEIR Revisado, Sección 4.3, Calidad del

Aire. El informe DEIR Revisado, Anexo C, Análisis de Impacto en la Calidad del Aire se

proporcionan estudios técnicos de apoyo sobre la calidad del aire. Los impactos

significativos en la calidad del aire del Proyecto están resumidos en el informe DEIR

Revisado, páginas 1-25. Los mismos incluyen: excedencia temporal en los umbrales




significantes localizados en PM10/PM2.5 (LSTs) durante la construcción; exposición al riesgo

de cáncer 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 prevén impactos

significantes en el tráfico relacionados con el Proyecto en la intersección de Mission

Boulevard y SR-71. No se proyectan otros impactos significantes en el tráfico.

Si se aprueba el Proyecto, la Ciudad deberá adoptar una Declaración de Consideraciones

Predominantes, reconociendo los impactos significantes específicos y acumulativos del

Proyecto.

La reputación de la Ciudad no es un impacto físico en el medio ambiente, y no es evaluado

por CEQA.

Los resultados y conclusiones del DEIR Revisado no se ven afectados. También, sírvase

consultar los debates y respuestas extensas a estos mismos temas, presentados en el Anexo

K del DEIR Revisado.


El comentador expresa su preocupación respecto a la excedencia del umbral de riesgo de

cáncer relacionado con el Proyecto; excedencia de los umbrales regionales de SCAQMD

para el NOx; impactos en el tráfico relacionados con el Proyecto e impactos de ruido

relacionados con el Proyecto. El comentador ofrece la siguiente opinión: . . ‚es inaceptable

que la ciudad continúe con un proyecto que excede y triplica el umbral regional de SCAQMD,

haciéndonos 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 opinión acerca de que la excedencia del umbral regional de

SCAQMD para el NOx, relacionada con el proyecto, resultaría en un mayor riesgo para la

salud en la zona escolar.




La excedencia en los umbrales de riesgo de cáncer 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 tráfico,

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 páginas 1-25: ‚El ruido generado por las actividades de construcción del

Proyecto, exceder{n de forma temporal e intermitente la norma de 65 dBA de la Ciudad. . .‛

Con la aplicación de las medidas atenuantes, el Proyecto no resultará en o causará 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 (sírvase consultar las páginas 4.3-78 a 4.3-106 del DEIR Revisado). Las áreas

escolares serían 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 constituirían 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 resultaría directamente

en efectos adversos en la zona escolar.

Los resultados y conclusiones del DEIR Revisado no se ven afectados. También, sírvase

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 evalúa 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.

Sírvase consultar la página 4.3-90 del DEIR Revisado.





El comentador manifiesta su desacuerdo con la ubicación del Proyecto dentro de la Ciudad

de Pomona. El comentador ofrece su opinión: ‚es injusto esperar que nosotros procesemos

la basura y suframos las consecuencias ambientales.‛

El comentador no identifica en forma específica las preocupaciones sobre los impactos

físicos ambientales del Proyecto. Si bien es difícil ofrecer respuestas puntuales a las

preocupaciones generales manifestadas por el comentador, la respuesta general que se

ofrece a continuación, aborda los temas relacionados con la ubicación del Proyecto.

La ubicación del proyecto se ajusta a y avala los Objetivos del Proyecto (DEIR Revisado,

páginas 3-44, 3-45). La posible reubicación del Proyecto en sitios alternativos dentro de la

Ciudad, se considera y evalúa en el DEIR Revisado, páginas 5-32 a 5-38. Como se debatió

en el DEIR Revisado, no se lograría una reducción demostrable en los impactos ambientales

mediante la reubicación del Proyecto.

La Agencia Líder no tiene jurisdicción para sugerir, proponer o evaluar una ubicación del

Proyecto en un sitio fuera de la Ciudad. La opinión del comentador con respecto a la

ubicación injusta del Proyecto dentro de la Ciudad será enviada a los encargados de tomar

las decisiones. Los resultados y conclusiones del DEIR Revisado no se ven afectados.

También, sírvase consultar los debates/respuestas extensas a estos mismos temas,

presentados en el Anexo K del DEIR Revisado.


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

estadísticas de las minorías y las instrucciones relevantes de EPA fuera de contexto],

interpreta de forma errónea los análisis 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 físicos para el medio ambiente y

no son abordadas explícitamente bajo CEQA. No obstante, como miembro de la Junta que




supervisa la Agencia de Protección 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 revisión y acciones permitidas.

Además, el análisis que se presenta aquí, tiene como objeto ofrecer información a todas las

agencias de revisión 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 página 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 áreas

afectadas abarcan menos del 50 por ciento de la población total. En base a las instrucciones EPA, la

condición de bajos ingresos no es un parámetro determinante de justicia ambiental (énfasis

añadido).

Las inquietudes del comentador sobre los posibles efectos desproporcionados del Proyecto

sobre las poblaciones minoritarias, también se abordan adecuada y completamente dentro

del debate sobre justicia ambiental en el Anexo H. Más específicamente, en la página H-18:

. . . La población minoritaria abarca más del 50 por ciento de la población

total dentro de todas las áreas geográficas del análisis (Bloque Censal de la

Ubicación del Proyecto, Distritos Censales del Área de Estudio, la Ciudad y

el Condado), y todos los niveles de las áreas geográficas serían consideradas

Comunidades de Justicia Ambiental. Cualquier proyecto con impactos

ambientales significativos bajo CEQA, también tendrían posibles inquietudes

sobre la justicia ambiental si están ubicados en el Bloque Censal de la

Ubicación del Proyecto, Distritos Censales del Área 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 Recuperación 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 área

planificada y designada para el desarrollo industrial. La transición continua

de dichos usos que no cumplen con los usos residenciales al desarrollo

industrial, como se visualiza en el Plan General de la Ciudad, aliviaría los

impactos que se atribuyen a la exposición de las viviendas a los usos

industriales aproximados. No obstante, en el curso de dicha transición, los

usos que no cumplen con el uso residencial ubicados cerca de usos

industriales existentes o propuestos están sujetos a mayores efectos

ambientales e inquietudes sobre posible justicia ambiental.

También se reconoce que los impactos temporales debido a la construcción,

tales como los que resultan del Proyecto, son típicos y generalmente nos se

pueden evitar en ningún proyecto de desarrollo ubicado en adyacencia de

usos residenciales. En tal sentido, dichos impactos no son específicos al

Proyecto, y probablemente ocurrirían hasta cierto grado en todos los casos de

desarrollo en el sitio del Proyecto debido a la presencia de receptores

sensibles, próximos y que no se ajustan (Anexo H, página H-19).

Como se ha indicado anteriormente, si bien la justicia ambiental no es un tema del CEQA,

el análisis de dichas preocupaciones se presenta en el DEIR Revisado con el objeto de

ofrecer información a todas las agencias de revisión 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.





El comentador manifiesta: ‚Si bien es importante para la región administrar eficazmente el

procesamiento de la basura, las decisiones sobre este tema deben ser realizadas por el gobierno local y

con la amplia participación 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

análisis 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.


El comentador insta a ‚la comisión de planeamiento a denegar la licitación 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

análisis 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

Pomona Valley Transfer Station Project 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.

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. 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.




Table 4.2-1


Mitigation Monitoring Plan

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity

Monitoring/Reporting

Frequency


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.

Prior to issuance of first

building permit

Applicant City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Engineering Division -

Traffic

City shall verify receipt of

fees before issuance of first

building permit

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.


building permit


Planning Division,

City of Pomona


Traffic

City shall verify receipt of

fees before issuance of first

building permit

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.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Air Quality

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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division, SCAQMD







and City/SCAQMD




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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contactor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division, SCAQMD







and City/SCAQMD







Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division, SCAQMD







and City/SCAQMD




4.3.5 Contractors shall utilize existing power sources (e.g.,

power poles) or clean-fuel generators until permanent power is

established.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division, SCAQMD







and City/SCAQMD







Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division, SCAQMD







and City/SCAQMD




4.3.7 The Applicant shall use “Zero-Volatile Organic

Compounds” paints, coatings, and solvents with a VOC content

lower than required under Rule 1113 (not to exceed 150

grams/liter; 1.25 pounds/gallon). Assuming a maximum VOC

content of 1.1 pounds per gallon, application of VOC-containing

paints, coatings, and solvents shall not exceed 65 gallons per day.

High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications of paints,

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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division







and City response to any

community concerns

regarding Project





Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division







and City response to any

community concerns

regarding Project


4.3.9 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division, SCAQMD







and City/SCAQMD







Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division, SCAQMD







and City/SCAQMD




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).



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division, SCAQMD







and City/SCAQMD







Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Air Quality

4.3.12 Throughout Project construction, a construction relations officer/community liaison, appointed by the Applicant, shall be retained on-site. In coordination and cooperation with the City, the construction relations officer/community liaison shall respond to any concerns related to PMlO (fugitive dust) generation or other construction-related air quality issues.

Applicant to appoint

construction relations

officer/community liaison

prior to issuance of first

development permit, and

provide City with

construction relations


contact information.


Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division

City to verify


appointment, and obtain

relevant contact information


development permit.

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 minutes on-site; and Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and

CARB shall be posted to report violations.


Certificate of Occupancy


Planning Division

City shall verify required

signage installation before

issuance of first Certificate

of Occupancy.

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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



building permit.


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.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Air Quality

4.3.15 The main tipping floor, including the contractor drop area,

and all its equipment shall be cleaned at the end of each day by a

mechanical sweeper, hand-brooming, 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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



building permit.


Planning Division,

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.

4.3.16 On-site emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) due

to traffic on paved surfaces will be reduced by daily vacuum

sweeping by an SCAQMD-certified vacuum sweeper. Leaf-blowers

or equivalent equipment shall not be used to remove dust from

roadways and asphalt at the facility.



all Project plans,

specifications and



building permit.


Planning Division,

SCAQMD,

CalRecycle









community concerns

regarding Project

operations.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Air Quality

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 a.m. and 6 p.m. 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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



building permit.


Planning Division,

SCAQMD,

CalRecycle









community concerns

regarding Project

operations.

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 EIR

Appendix C.



all Project plans,

specifications and



building permit.


Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division, SCAQMD,

CalRecycle









community concerns

regarding Project

operations.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Air Quality

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, 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.”




all Project plans,

specifications and



building permit.


Planning Division,

SCAQMD,

CalRecycle









community concerns

regarding Project

operations.

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.

Correlating design shall

be reflected in the Project

site plan prior to Final

Site Plan Approval


Planning Division

City to verify stacking

length adequacy prior to

Final Site Plan Approval




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

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).



all Project plans,

specifications and



building permit.


Planning Division




Thereafter, Applicant

operational liaison required

to ensure appropriate

controlled access to the

Project. On-going City



operations.

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).



all Project plans,

specifications and



building permit.


Planning Division




Thereafter, Applicant

operational liaison required

to ensure appropriate

controlled access to the

Project. On-going City



operations.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Air Quality

4.3.23 The Project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 410 and

the SCAQMD-approved 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 odor-destroying 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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



building permit.


Planning Division,

SCAQMD, CalRecycle









community concerns

regarding Project

operations.

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,


building permit.


Planning Division,

SCAQMD, CalRecycle


design specifications and

features before issuance of





SWFP.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Air Quality

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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



building permit.


Planning Division,

SCAQMD, CalRecycle









community concerns

regarding Project

operations.

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.


building permit


Planning Division,

SCAQMD, LEA

City to verify OIMP

approval before issuance of

first building permit

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.


building permit


Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division

City to verify Title 24

enhanced compliance

(minimum 20 percent

increased energy efficiency

beyond incumbent Title 24

requirements) before

issuance of first building

permit.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Air Quality

4.3.27 (cont’d)

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.

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 water-

conserving shower heads.

Install solar or tankless hot water heaters, and energy-

efficient 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.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Air Quality

4.3.27 (cont’d)

• 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

owners and occupants of all developed land uses abutting or

adjacent to the Project site. Notice shall include a preliminary

Project construction activities schedule, thereby allowing for

scheduling or rescheduling of off-site activities that may be affected

by Project construction noise.

Notice content, mailing

list, and verified delivery

of notice required prior


development permit


Planning Division

City to review and approve

notice content and mailing

list, and verify delivery of

notice prior to issuance of


4.4.2 Construction contractor(s) shall equip all construction

equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained

mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division




Thereafter, on-going City







Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Noise

4.4.3 The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging

areas and fixed/stationary construction activities in areas that will

create the greatest distance between construction-related noise

sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during

all project construction. The construction contractor shall place all

stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed

away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division








4.4.4 The construction contractor shall limit haul truck

deliveries, including but not limited to transport of heavy

equipment to the Project site, soil import/export, and building

materials deliveries, to the same hours specified for construction

activities. Proposed haul routes shall be delineated by the Project

Applicant, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to

issuance of the first development permit.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division, City of

Pomona Engineering

Division - Traffic











Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Noise

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 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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division








4.4.6 In order to minimize the effects of building/facilities

construction noise received at nearby residential uses, the Project's

exterior and interior screen walls as portrayed on the Project Site

Plan Concept and indicated at Figure 4.4-4 shall be constructed in

the first increment of development, or at the earliest feasible date.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division







Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Noise

4.4.7 The transfer station hours of operation for MSW

acceptance and transfer shall not exceed 12 hours per day,

occurring between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. 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.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.


Planning Division,

CalRecycle, LEA







operational activities.

4.4.8 Heavy construction equipment operations (equipment and

activities capable of producing groundborne vibration levels of 87

VdB or greater) are prohibited within 38 feet of the Project's

easterly property line. This requirement may be waived if the

developer provides, and the City accepts, substantiating analysis

demonstrating that vibration levels received at the closest occupied

land use will not exceed 82 VdB.



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

Building & Safety

Division








Hazards/Hazardous Materials

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;



all Project plans,

specifications and



development permit.

Applicant and

contractor(s)

City of Pomona

Planning Division,

CUPA




Verification of compliance

with CUPA requirements

if/as applicable throughout

Project construction.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Hazards/Hazardous Materials

4.5.1 (cont’d) 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).


development permit


Planning Division,

City of Pomona


Environmental

City to verify NOI and

compliance with all general

permits before issuance of





Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency


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.


development permit


Planning Division,

City of Pomona


Environmental

City to verify environmental

clearance before issuance of


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.


development permit


Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Building & Safety

Division, City of

Pomona Engineering

Division -

Environmental

City to verify approved

SWPPP before issuance of





Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency


4.6.4 The Project Applicant shall develop a Project-specific

SUSMP in compliance with the City-required SUSMP and

Municipal Stormwater Permit.


development permit


Planning Division,

City of Pomona


Environmental


SUSMP before issuance of


SUSMP incorporates

compliance actions to be

verified by City periodically

over the life of the Project.

4.6.5 The Project Applicant shall obtain an Industrial Waste

Discharge Permit from LACSD, and comply with its requirement.


development permit


Planning Division,

City of Pomona

Engineering Division

– Environmental,

LACSD


Industrial Waste Discharge

(IWDP) Permit before

issuance of first

development permit. IWDP

incorporates periodic

compliance actions to be

verified by LACSD and City

periodically over the life of

the Project.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

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.


building permit

Applicant City of Pomona Water

& Wastewater

Operations Division

Before issuance of first

building permit, hydraulic

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.

Cultural Resources

4.8.1 A qualified professional archaeological monitor (Project

Archaeological Monitor) shall conduct full-time monitoring of site

excavation and grading activities. A qualified archaeological

monitor is defined as meeting the Secretary of the Interior

Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology. The Project

Archaeological Monitor shall be equipped to salvage and record the

location of archaeological and/or other cultural resources as they

The Applicant shall hire

and field a City-approved

Archaeological Monitor


development permit


Planning Division

On-going monitoring,

protection and preservation

activities as required under

MM 4.8.1 throughout

Project excavation and

grading activities.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

Cultural Resources

4.8.1 (cont’d)

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

encountered in the course of Project development, construction

activities will be halted, allowing for identification, cataloguing,

and as applicable, protection and preservation of resources by a

qualified paleontologist. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an

individual with an M.S. or a Ph. D. in paleontology or geology who

is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.

The Applicant shall hire

and field a City-approved

Archaeological Monitor


development permit


Planning Division

On-going monitoring,

protection and preservation

activities as required under

MM 4.8.2 throughout

Project excavation and

grading activities.




Table 4.2-1



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Timing

Implementation

Entity

Monitoring/

Reporting Entity


Frequency

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.

pomona trash final eir

Documents