28. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL WANG, DATED MAY 4, 2011.

Transcription

1

2 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 28. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL WANG, DATED MAY 4, Refer to Response Final June Response to Comments

3

4 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 29. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MIGUEL AYON, DATED MAY 4, Refer to Response Final June Response to Comments

5

6 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 30. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, DATED MAY 4, Refer to Response Final June Response to Comments

7

8 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 31. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM WILLIAM LEON, DATED MAY 4, Refer to Response Final June Response to Comments

9

10 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 32. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DAYSI HERNANDEZ, DATED MAY 5, This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. The City of Azusa decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Final June Response to Comments

11

12 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 33. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ERIK BUSTOS, DATED MAY 5, This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. The City of Azusa decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Final June Response to Comments

13

14 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 34. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM FRANK KEARNEY, DATED MAY 5, This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. The City of Azusa decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Final June Response to Comments

15

16 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 35. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JILL D. SCHWARZ, DATED MAY 5, This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. The City of Azusa decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Final June Response to Comments

17

18 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 36. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JOHN ESPINO, DATED MAY 5, Refer to Response 19-1 regarding a discussion of the project s adverse environmental impacts and why the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant health impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors. The intent of the Draft EIR, and CEQA process, is to inform the public of any adverse environmental impacts as a result of the proposed project. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts regarding Air Quality (specifically NO X ) and traffic impacts. This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. The City of Azusa decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Final June Response to Comments

19

20 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 37. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM KIRK OSBORNE, DATED MAY 5, Currently, trucks exit the project site via a driveway along Gladstone Street. Upon project implementation, all trucks would be required to access the project site via the existing Azusa Land Reclamation landfill entrance to the east. All trucks accessing the proposed project would be traveling along paved roadways. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not result in visible dust track out as a result of trucks accessing the site. Further, the proposed MRF activities would be conducted within an enclosed facility, whereas the existing former tire recycling facility occurred within an open structure and/or outdoors. The proposed project would be required to implement an Odor Minimization Plan (Mitigation Measure AQ-4) and standard practice for Waste Management includes maintaining a vector control company on-call in the event that vermin and/or insects are noted on-site. Air Quality emissions are less than significant with the exception of NO X and traffic-related impacts would be less than significant with implementation of recommended Mitigation Measures. However, as Mitigation Measures that include permit requirements from the City of Irwindale would not be able to be enforced by the City of Azusa, these traffic impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. As the project site consists of a tire recycling facility, and adjoining land uses include a landfill facility and industrial uses, the proposed project would be similar in nature to the surrounding uses and would not result in blight or urban decay due to the decline of property values. Further, the proposed project is not a dump, but rather a material recovery facility and transfer station. Final June Response to Comments

21

22 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 38. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MULTIPLE PARTIES (LETTER 38), DATED MAY 5, This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. The City of Azusa decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Final June Response to Comments

23

24 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 39. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM TERRY L. KUTLER, DATED MAY 5, This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. The City of Azusa decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Final June Response to Comments

25

26 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 40. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM WILLIAM HERNANDEZ, AUTO COLOR TECH., DATED MAY 5, This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. The City of Azusa decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Final June Response to Comments

27

28 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 41. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM EMMETT R. ALBERGOTTI, DATED MAY 6, This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. The City of Azusa decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Final June Response to Comments

29

30 Waste Management Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility Environmental Impact Report 42. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM KURT BAUM, DATED MAY 6, As discussed in the Draft EIR, traffic-related impacts would be less than significant with implementation of recommended Mitigation Measures. However, as Mitigation Measures that include permit requirements from the City of Irwindale would not be able to be enforced by the City of Azusa, these traffic impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. All of the project s truck traffic within retail areas of the City would be traveling along designated truck haul routes. These areas currently experience truck traffic, and project implementation would not result in a significant increase in truck traffic during peak hours of the day, as the majority of truck trips would occur after the work day. As the solid waste trucks are enclosed, significant impacts associated with trash spillage is not anticipated. Further, the project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to Air Quality emissions (with the exception of NO X ) and the project would be required to implement an Odor Minimization Plan (Mitigation Measure AQ-4). If the City of Azusa approves the project, the City shall be required to adopt findings of fact in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines for Air Quality emissions (pertaining to NO x ) and traffic impacts. Final June Response to Comments