SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The SJVAPCD requested in its comments on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR that"[m]itigation measures must be included in the EIR that reduce the emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and PM-10 to the maximum extent feasible." Specifically, the District"strongly recommends that the project applicant... implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the amount of ozone precursors that will result from the buildout of this project" In this letter, the District provided a list of potential mitigation measures and emphasized that"the list is not meant to be all inclusive, and the District encourages new innovative ideas." (SJVAPCD 01/0342, p. 2; emphasis added.) The Draft EIR for the most part ignored the District's request as well as the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR concluded that emissions of ROG and NOx from Project operation are significant. (Draft EIR, Impact 4.6.2, pp. 4.6-21 -4.6-24.) However, rather than identifying and evaluating feasible mitigation, as it is obligated to do under CEQA, the Draft EIR claims with no support or analysis that operation of new equipment satisfies it mitigation obligation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-24.)The Draft EIR - further declines any further mitigation for the much larger cumulatively significant eons cont. impacts, citing back to the single project Mitigation Measure 4.6.2,which relies only on the use of new equipment. (Draft EIR, p. 6-11.) This mitigation measure is insufficient to mitigate both Project and cumulative impacts for several reasons. First, the use of new equipment must be explicitly required as mitigation rather than just being"proposed" by the Applicant. This assumed proposal to use only new equipment is contradicted by the anticipated move of older equipment from the Applicant's Tracy aggregate plant (Draft EIR, p. 3-7.) Further, Mitigation Measure 4.6.4 (p. 4.6-28) substantially conflicts with Mitigation Measure 4.6.2 (p. 4.6-24) because it allows the option of either using new equipment or retrofitting its fleet of excavators, on-site haul trucks, and front-end loaders with catalyzed DPM filters to minimize DPM emissions. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-28.) Catalyzed DPM filters remove ROG and some NOx and, thus, are applicable as mitigation for Impact 4.6.2. We note that catalyzed DPM filters can be used on new equipment. Thus, this measure should be revised to require both new equipment and catalyzed DPM filters. Second, the use of new equipment is claimed to provide the"best available — operating efficiency."(Draft EIR, p. 4.6-24.) The relevant inquiry should be the amount of emission reductions that can be achieved relative to the significance 92 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,Re:Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Impact Report for RMC Pacific Materials-Quarry Excavation,January 23, 2003. 32