Coalition For A Safe Environment 1601 N. Wilmington Blvd. Ste. B, Wilmington, California 90744

jnm4ej@yahoo.com cfase @ att.net 310-704-1265

July  6,  2015  Garrett  Damrath,  Chief  Environmental  Planner  Division  of  Environmental  Planning  State  of  California  Department  of  Transportation,  District  7  100  S.  Main  St,  MS-­‐16A  Los  Angeles,  CA  90012  (213)  897-­‐0357    Re:   Public  Comments  for  the  Draft  EIR  SR710  North  Study-­‐Proposed  Tunnel  Alternatives,  and     Cost  Benefit  Analyses:  CFASE  Identified  EIR  &  Project  Issues,  Errors,  Omissions,  and     Inadequacies      The  Coalition  For  A  Safe  Environment  (CFASE)  et  al  wishes  to  submit  our  public  comments,  vote  to  not  approve  the  BNSF-­‐Southern  California  International  Gateway  Project,  and  not  certify  the  Final  Environmental  Impact  Report  (FEIR)  for  the  following  reasons:   The  CEQA  Guidelines  states  that  the  analysis  of  a  proposed  project  shall  discuss  “...changes  induced  in  population  distribution,  population  concentration,  the  human  Use  of  land  (including  commercial  and  residential  development)  ...  analyze  any  significant  environmental  effects  the  project  might  cause  by  bringing  development  and  people  into  the  area  affected.”  6.1-­‐1  

1. Did  not  identify,  assess  &  mitigate  future  changes,  increases  &  negative  impacts  on  City/EJ  

Community  residents  &  fails  to  comply  with  CEQA,  California  Health  &  Safety  Codes  ,  Title  VI  and  California  Government  Code  Section  11135:  

 

a. The  Project  induced  traffic  expansion,  congestion,  environmental  impacts,  public  health  impacts  along  cities/EJ  Communities  leading  to,  exiting,  bordering  and  near  the  project.    

b. Environmental  Justice  Communities  c. Low  income  and  minority  residents  d. Specific  Ethnic  populations  e. Multi-­‐Ethnic  populations  f. Non-­‐English  speaking  populations  g. Children  sensitive  receptors  h. Senior  citizen  sensitive  receptors  i. Pregnant  woman  &  prenatal  sensitive  receptors  j. Physically  &  mentally  handicapped  populations  k. Title  VI  protected  classes  

   

2. Did  not  identify,  assess  &  mitigate  future  changes,  increases  &  negative  impacts  on  EJ  Community  residents  quality  of  life  &  socio-­‐economics:  

 

a. Loss  of  future  EJ  Community  low  income  and  minority    &  senior  housing  building  land  b. Loss  of  future  EJ  Community  parks  &  recreational  land  c. Loss  of  future  EJ  Community  retail  &commercial  land  d. Loss  of  future  EJ  Community  public  building  land  e. Loss  &  decrease  of  future  EJ  Community  public  services  which  are  diverted  to  support  direct  &  

indirect  Caltrans  emergencies  f. Increase  of  taxes,  assessments,  city/county  fees,  tolls,  bonds  disproportionate  impact  on  low  

income  and  minority  EJ  Communities  to  support  direct  &  indirect  Caltrans  expansion  &  services  g. Loss  of  property  values  h. Increased  litter  &  blight    

3. References  to  city  plans,  programs  &  local  land  uses  in  the  DEIR  &  SR710  North  Study  failed  to  identify  conflicts,  increased  public  costs  &  local  government  agency  costs:  

 

a. Although  the  DEIR  &  SR710  North  Study  states  that  Metro  and  Caltrans  have  no  authority  to  require  a  General  Plan  amendment,  a  significant  unavoidable  impact  would  remain  until  the  General  Plans  are  amended,  it  also  does  not  state  the  project  cannot  be  approved  until  every  impacted  city  approves  multiple  amendments  at  their  own  cost.        Some  amendments  might  even  require  their  own  EIR.  

b. Failed  to  disclose  that  references  to  being  compatible  or  relevant  does  not  mean  that  the  North  Study  is  in  absolute  compliance,  conforming  to  or  in  support  of  existing  city  plans  &  land  uses.  

c. Failed  to  disclose,  identify,  assess  &  mitigate  negative  impacts  to  local  city  &  EJ  Communities  if  North  Study  is  approved.  

d. Failed  to  disclose,  identify,  assess  &  mitigate  negative  direct  &  indirect  costs  to  local  city  &  EJ  Communities  if  North  Study  is  approved.  

e. Failed  to  disclose  the  specific  type  &  number  of  inconsistencies,  negative  public  impacts  &  public  costs  for  cities  to  amend  their  General  Plans,  Community  Plans,  Ordinances,  Zoning  &  Q  Conditions.  

f. Failed  to  disclose  that  Caltrans  will  not  reimburse  cities  for  costs  to  amend  their  General  Plans,  Community  Plans,  Ordinances,  Zoning  &  Q  Conditions.  

g. Failed  to  disclose  in  detail  at-­‐grade  &  elevated  proposed  changes,  which  impact  land  use  impacts  and  inconsistencies  with  local  jurisdiction  plans  and  programs.    

h. Failed  to  disclose  that  its  strategies  to  increase  the  availability  of  public  and  private  transit  and  encourage  transit  use  through  improving  bus  services,  stations,  and  connections  cannot  be  accomplished  in  the  majority  of  city  locations  due  to  no  available  land  for  expansion  and  increased  public  use  accommodation.      Caltrans  has  no  proposed  budget  to  give  to  cities  to  purchase  additional  land.  

i. The  draft  EIR  is  out  dated  &  failed  to  disclose  that  some  cities  have  adopted  or  proposing  new  significant  changes  in  General  Plans,  Community  Plans,  Ordinances,  and  Zoning  &  Q  Conditions.    Example:  City  of  Los  Angeles:    

• City   of   Los   Angeles   General   Plan   for   Environmental   Justice:   Transportation   Element.   ,  “Assure   the   fair   and   equitable   treatment   of   people   of   all   races,   cultures,   incomes   and  education   levels   with   respect   to   the   development   and   implementation   of   citywide  

transportation   policies   and   programs,   including   affirmative   efforts   to   inform   and   involve  environmental   groups,   especially   environmental   justice   groups,   in   the   planning   and  monitoring  process  through  notification  and  two-­‐way  communication.”  Adopted  1999.      

• City  of  Los  Angeles  General  Plan  Air  Quality  Element.    Adopted  1999.    

Goal  1  –  Good  air  quality  and  mobility  in  an  environment  of  continued  population  growth  and  healthy  economic  structure.  

 

Goal  4  –  Minimal  impact  of  exiting  land  use  patterns  and  future  land  use  development  on  air  quality  by  addressing  the  relationship  between  land  use,  transportation,  and  air  quality.  

 

Goal  5  –  Energy  efficiency  through  land  use  and  transportation  planning,  the  use  of  renewable  resources  and  less  polluting  fuels  and  the  implementation  of  conservation  measures  including  passive  methods  such  as  site  orientation  and  tree  planting.  

 

Goal  6  –  Citizen  Awareness  of  the  linkages  between  personal  behavior  and  air  pollution,  and  participation  in  efforts  to  reduce  are  pollution.    

• City  of  Los  Angeles  General  Plan  Noise  Element.  Adopted  1999    

Goal  -­‐  A  city  where  noise  does  not  reduce  the  quality  of  urban  life.    

Objective  2  (Non-­‐airport)  Reduce  or  eliminate  non-­‐airport  related  intrusive  noise,  especially  relative  to  noise  sensitive  uses.    

Objective  3  (Land  Use  Development)  Reduce  or  eliminate  noise  impacts  associated  with  proposed  development  of  land  and  changes  in  land  use.    

• City  of  Los  Angeles  General  Plan  Objective  2  Mitigate  the  impacts  of  traffic  growth,  reduce  congestion,   and   improve   air   quality   by   implementing   a   comprehensive   program   of  multimodal   strategies   that   encompass   physical   and   operational   improvements   as  well   as  demand  management.  Adopted  1999.    

• Mobility  Plan  2035  -­‐  City’s  transportation  plan  that  lays  the  policy  foundation  to  create  safe  streets  that  accommodate  all  modes  and  users,  including  improving  access  for  transit  users,  pedestrians,  cyclists  and  drivers.  Adopted  2015.  

 

• Plan  For  a  Healthy  Los  Angeles  -­‐  A  new  public  health  initiative  to  create  communities  where  the  healthiest  choice  is  the  easiest  choice,  so  that  residents  have  the  opportunity  to  thrive.    The  plan  includes  a  focus  on  healthy  food  access,  park  space,  public  safety  and  educational  and  workforce  opportunities.  Adopted  2015.  

 •  A   comprehensive   update   of   the   City’s   1946   Zoning   code   in   order   to   create   livable  

communities,   encourage   sustainable   development   and   foster   economic   vitality.   Adopted  2015  

 

• Clean  Up  Green  Up  (CUGU)  Pending  Ordinance  Proposal        

4. EIR  is  Out  Dated  &  Failed  to  disclose  relatively  new  City  of  Los  Angeles  related  community  noise  studies  relevant  &  applicable  to  SR710  North  Study  impacted  communities  

 

Los  Angeles  -­‐  Harbor  Community  Benefit  Foundation  Wilmington  Noise  Studies.    

Report  #1:     Noise  Measurement  Report  -­‐  Wilmington  School  &  Residence  Sound           Attenuation  Program  -­‐  September  2012  -­‐  Harbor  Community  Benefit         Foundation    

Report  #  2   Criteria  and  Prioritization  Recommendations  Report  -­‐  Wilmington  School  &  Residence  Sound  Attenuation  Program  -­‐  June  2013  2012  -­‐  Harbor    Community  Benefit  Foundation  

 

Report  #  3   Noise  Contour  Development  Methodology  Report  -­‐  Wilmington  School  &       Residence  Sound  Attenuation  Program  -­‐  December  2013  2012  -­‐  Harbor       Community  Benefit  Foundation    

Report  #  4   Property  Inventory  and  Mitigation  Recommendations  Report  -­‐         Wilmington  School  &  Residence  Sound  Attenuation  Program  -­‐  October  

 2013  -­‐  Harbor  Community  Benefit  Foundation    

5. EIR  &  SR710  North  Study  and  proposed  Tunnel  Alternatives  failed  to  show  evidence  that  its  proposed  strategies  in  the  Land  Use  Plan  Consistency  Analysis  have  been  successful  in  the  past,  in  similar  projects  &  includes  no  contingency  plan  or  budget  for  failures  to  comply  or  accomplish  in  the  future    

a. No  evidence  of  higher  vehicle  occupancy  b. No  evidence  of  reduce  peak-­‐hour  trips  c. No  evidence  of  reduced  use  of  motor  vehicles  d. No  evidence  of  increased  ridesharing  e. No  evidence  of  increased  public  transit  use  f. No  evidence  of  past  reduction  in  air  pollution  by  increasing  the  availability  &  efficiency  of  

multiple  modes  of  transportation  based  on  improved  pedestrian,  bicycle  and  bus  facilities  g. No  evidence  of  past  increase  efficiency  and  capacity  for  all  transportation  modes  with  lower  

capital  cost  investments  and/or  lower  potential  impacts,  including  regional  air  quality.  h. No  evidence  of  past  successful  maximize  the  efficiency  of  the  existing  transportation  system  

by  improving  capacity  and  reducing  congestion.  i. No  evidence  of  reduction  in  traffic  noise.  j. Failed  to  disclose  that  it  will  provide  no  funding  to  any  city  to  support  it  proposed  strategies.  

 6. Failure  to  include  feasible  &  cost  effective  project  sustainable  design  &  construction    

 a. There  are  now  available  Zero  Emission  Electric  and  Near  Zero  Emission  Cement  Trucks,  

Bobcat  Cement  Delivery  Trucks,  Excavation  Equipment,  other  industry  related  vehicles  and  equipment  that  Caltrans  and  Metro  can  incorporate  into  the  new  SR710  North  Transportation  Corridor  construction  project  that  were  not  identified  as  potential  air  emissions  and  noise  mitigation  strategies.    The  DEIR  misleads  the  public  and  elected  officials  of  its  reference  to  compliance  with  the  South  Coast  Air  Quality  Management  District  requirements  which  only  has  emissions  control  and  release  rule  requirements  and  does  not  

have  anything  to  do  with  requiring  Zero  Emissions  or  Near  Zero  Emission  Vehicles  and  Equipment  on  construction  projects.  

 b. Project  does  not  include  a  comprehensive  Sustainable  Construction  Policy  

 1.0 Sustainable  Construction  Policy  

1.1 Sustainable  Policy  1.2 Public  Interest  Responsibility  1.3 Public  Safety  &  Health  Responsibility  1.4 Sustainable  Goals  1.5 Sustainable  Objectives  1.6 Sustainability  Steering  Committee  1.7 Sustainability  Policy  &  Guidelines  Staff  Training  Program  1.8 Public  &  Environmental  Justice  Community  Public  Relations  

 

2.0 Green  Architecture  &  Sustainable  Design    

2.1 Green  Standards  for  New  Construction      

2.1.1 Design  With  Lowest  Total  Life-­‐Cycle  Cost  2.1.2 Design  With  Minimum  Utility  Infrastructure  Costs  2.1.3 Minimum  Aesthetic  Impacts  2.1.4 Minimizing  Design  For  Actual  Space  Needed  2.1.5 Minimizing  Design  &  Construction  Costs  2.1.6 Maximum  Artistic  Appearance    2.1.7 Maximum  Solar  Energy/Alternative  Energy  2.1.8 Minimum  Heat  Island  Effect  Generation  2.1.9 Light  Pollution  Reduction  2.1.10 Minimize  Internal  Acoustic  Noise  2.1.11 Maximize  Ambient  Noise  Reduction  2.1.12 Minimize  Runoff  &  Erosion  2.1.13 Minimize  Hazardous  &  Toxic  Thermal  Insulation  2.1.14 Low  Maintenance  2.1.15 Traffic  Congestion  2.1.16 Earthquake  2.1.17 Cascading  Event  Danger  Prevention  

 2.2 Green  Standards  For  Operation  &  Maintenance  of  Buildings,  Facilities,  

Infrastructure  &  Equipment    

2.3 Green  Landscaping    

2.3.1 Maximum  Green  Landscaping  2.3.2 Green  Walkways  2.3.3 Ecosystem  Sustainability  2.3.4 Watershed  Sustainability  

 

3.0 Positive  ROI  Efficiency    

3.1.1 Energy  Star  Efficiency  3.1.2 Water  Efficiency    3.1.3 Natural  Gas  Efficiency  

 

4.0 Sound  Proofing    

4.1.1 Minimize  all  ambient  noise  impacts  4.1.2 Public  Noise  Impact  Mitigation  must  be  STC  65  Rating  or  above  4.1.3 Project  must  comply  with  the  World  Health  Organization  Community  

Noise  Guidelines.    City  ordinances  do  not  meet  current  medical,  science,  technology  standards  &  recommendations.      

5.0     Zero  &  Near  Emissions  Technologies    

      5.1   #  1  priority  is  the  use  of  zero  emissions  construction  &  operating             equipment         5.2   #  2  priority  is  the  use  of  near-­‐zero  emissions  construction  &  

Operating  equipment    

6.0     Green  &  Socially  Responsible  Procurement    

6.1     Local  Manufacturers/Suppliers/Made  in  USA  6.2     Local  Equity  Contractors/Subcontractors  &  Workforce  Diversity  6.3     Social  Equity-­‐Small/Minority/Women  Business  Contractors         WBE/WBE  6.4     Bulk  Product  Price  Discount  Purchases  &  Price  Lock-­‐In  

 6.5     Social  Responsible  Purchasing  -­‐  Minimum  Credit  Financing  

 

7.0     Green  Products  &  Materials    

7.1     Reclaimed/Remanufactured  Products  &  Materials  7.2     Recycled  Composite  Products  &  Materials  7.3     Recyclable  Products  &  Materials  7.4     Zero/Near  Zero  VOC  Products  &  Materials  7.5     Non-­‐Greenhouse/HFC  Gas  Products  &  Materials  7.6     Non-­‐Toxic  Products  &  Materials  7.7     Non-­‐Allergenic  Products  &  Materials  7.8     Biodegradable  Products  &  Materials  7.9     Compostable  Products  &  Materials  7.10     Non-­‐Chlorine  Bleached  Products  &  Materials  7.11     Non-­‐Flammable/Combustible/Explosive  7.12     Non-­‐Chemical  Leaching  7.13     Non-­‐Radioactive  7.14     Non-­‐Heat  Absorbent  &  Radiating    7.15     Water  Proof/Resistant  &  Moisture  Proof/Resistant  7.16     Rust  Proof/Resistant  7.17     Durable  Long  Lasting  &  Extended  Warranty  7.18     Low  Carbon  Footprint  

 

        7.18.1   Concrete/Cement  

        7.18.2   Asphalt    

8.0     Construction  Guidelines    

      8.1   ECO  Planning  Staging  Areas         8.2   Minimum  ECO  Impacts  To  Neighboring  Areas      

9.     Resource  Conservation    

      “Preserving  the  earth’s  resources  for  future  generations.”    

10.   Waste  Management    

10.1   Minimum  Waste  Land  Disposal  10.2   Maximum  recycling  

 

11.     Integrated  Pest  Management      

7. The  EIR  &  Tunnel  Alternatives  conclude  that  Impact  to  EJ  Populations  would  not  result  in  adverse  impacts  that  are  more  severe  or  greater  in  magnitude  than  Non-­‐EJ  Populations  when  in  fact  they  will  have  more  negative  socio-­‐economic  impacts  

 

a. EJ  Populations  are  the  majority  of  low  income  and  minority  populations  affected  and  cannot  afford  mandatory  toll  lanes.  

b. EJ  Populations  are  the  majority  of  low  income  and  minority  populations  and  cannot  afford  increased  city,  county,  state  taxes  due  to  Caltrans  projects,  long  term  maintenance  &  future  replacement  costs.  

c. EJ  Populations  are  the  majority  of  low  income  and  minority  populations  and  cannot  afford  extra  health  care  services  &  costs  due  to  any  project  health  impacts  on  sensitive  receptor  populations  &  protected  classes.      

d. EJ  Populations  are  the  majority  of  low  income  and  minority  populations  and  cannot  afford  delays  in  emergency  care,  which  are  compounded  when  there  are  diversions  of  public  &  private  emergency  response  services  to  Caltrans  projects,  freeways,  highways,  bridges  and  public  streets.  

e. EJ  Populations  are  the  majority  of  low  income  and  minority  populations  and  cannot  afford  increased  public  transit  fares  or  tolls  imposed  or  caused  by  the  Caltrans  Project  and  its  proposed  mitigation  measures.  

f. EJ  Populations  are  the  majority  of  low  income  and  minority  populations  are  more  dependent  on  public  transportation  to  go  to  doctor  appointments  and  family  care  services  who  will  miss  appointments  due  to  delays  in  construction  and  future  traffic  congestion  from  the  proposed  Tunnel  Alternatives  and  its  proposed  mitigation  measures.  

g. EJ  Populations  are  the  majority  of  low  income  and  minority  populations  are  more  dependent  on  public  transportation  to  get  to  their  jobs  who  will  be  impacted  due  to  project  construction  and  traffic  congestion  from  the  Caltrans  Project,  local  city/county  transportation  infrastructure  proposed  changes  and  its  proposed  mitigation  measures.  

h. EJ  Populations  are  the  majority  of  low  income  and  minority  populations  with  large  families  of  children,  with  more  disabilities  and  elderly  who  walk  and  take  public  transportation  who  

will  have  increased  safety  risks  due  to  project  construction  and  traffic  congestion  from  the  Caltrans  Project,  local  city/county  transportation  infrastructure  proposed  changes  and  its  proposed  mitigation  measures.  

i. EJ  Populations  will  experience  less  public  services  and  longer  service  times  and  higher  fees  due  to  cities  and  the  county  diverting  funds  to  support  the  long  term  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  Caltrans  Project,  local  city/county  transportation  infrastructure  proposed  changes  and  its  proposed  mitigation  measures.  

j. The  EIR  and  SR710  North  Study  conclusions  and  assumptions  that  EJ  Community  businesses  will  not  be  impacted  due  to  other  available  land  properties  nearby  where  they  can  be  relocated  is  not  correct.    Other  properties  may  have  higher  rental/lease  costs,  higher  purchase  costs,  higher  utilities  relocation  costs,  higher  risk  to  theft,  higher  risk  to  possible  gang  locations,  lower  police  service  area  and  higher  insurance  rates.      May  not  have  public  transportation  on  the  corner,  may  not  have  sidewalks  and  adequate  public  parking  and  may  have  zoning  restrictions.    May  not  be  cleaner,  may  have  higher  blight  nearby  and  no  aesthetic  visual  pleasing  surrounding  neighborhoods.    Customers  and  clients  may  not  have  private  transportation  to  get  to  the  new  location  because  they  walk  or  take  public  transportation  as  assumed  and  stated.  

k. EJ  Populations  and  communities  who  are  the  most  negatively  socio-­‐economically  impacted  by  the  project  have  no  assurances  or  guarantees  that  they  will  be  the  first  hired  or  subcontracted  to  work  on  the  project  and  its  future  maintenance.    

l. The  EIR  and  SR710  North  Study  did  not  assess  impacts  to  EJ  Communities  within  10  miles  bordering  and  near  the  South  Portal  Area  and  North  Portal  Area  where  congestion  would  be  at  the  highest  and  building  up  to.  

 

8. The  EIR  &  Tunnel  Alternatives  did  not  include  a  Health  Impact  Assessment,  Public  Health  Survey  &  the  CalEPA/OEHHA  CalEnviroScreen  to  determine  the  public  health  status  &  impacts  of  the  project  &  establish  a  Public  Health  Baseline    

a. Caltrans  failed  to  include  the  California  Environmental  Protection  Agency  (CalEPA)-­‐  Office  of  Environmental  Health  Hazard  Assessment  (OEHHA)  California  Communities  Environmental  Health  Screening  Tool:  CalEnviroScreen  as  a  screening  methodology  that  can  be  used  to  help  identify  California  communities  that  are  disproportionately  burdened  by  multiple  sources  of  pollution.  

b. Caltrans  failed  to  include  the  use  of  a  Health  Impact  Assessment  (HIA),  which  is  a  more  comprehensive  Public  Health  Assessment  Tool  as  compared  to  a  Health  Risk  Assessment  (HRA).  

c. Caltrans  failed  to  include  the  use  of  a  Public  Health  Survey  (PHS)  as  part  of  a  Health  Impact  Assessment  (HIA),  which  is  a  more  comprehensive  Public  Health  Assessment  Tool  as  compared  to  a  Health  Risk  Assessment  (HRA).      An  HRA  basically  only  tells  you  how  many  people  might  die  of  cancer  over  70  years  as  a  result  of  the  project  and  contains  no  local  project  impact  population  public  health  data.      An  HIA  and  PHS  provides  a  comprehensive  Public  Health  Baseline  (PHB)  for  which  to  determine  the  current  public  health  of  a  specific  project  area  and  EJ  Community  population  and  allows  the  accurate  determination  of  appropriate  mitigation  for  short  term  and  long  term  project  public  health  impacts.  

d. Caltrans   &   the   HRA   can   provide   no   accurate   information   of   the   number   of   SR710  Transportation   Corridor   Residents,   Sensitive   Receptors   and   Title   VI   Protected   Classes  

afflicted  with   Asthma,   Bronchitis,   Sinusitis,   Emphysema,   COPD,   Lung   cancer   or   any   other  health  problem.        

e. Caltrans  &   the  HRA   can  provide  no   accurate   information  on   the   severity   of   public   health  problems,  the  length  of  time  afflicted,  loss  of  income,  cost  of  health  care  or  the  availability  of  necessary  health  care  services,  medicines  or  equipment.    An  HIA  could  also  disclose  the  loss  of  state  funds  a  negative  community  socio-­‐economic  impact  for  local  public  schools  due  to  missed  schools  days,  thus  impacting  the  quality  of  education  and  services  of  children.    

f. Caltrans  &  the  HRA  can  provide  no  accurate  information  on  the  number  of  people  who  have  died   from   COPD,   an   Acute   Asthma   Attach   or   other   respiratory   disease,   blood   disease   or  other  medical  health  condition.  

g. Caltrans   &   the   HRA   can   provide   no   accurate   information   on   the   cumulative   impact   of  multiple  health  problems  and  socio-­‐economic  impacts  to  residents.          

 

9. The  EIR  &  Tunnel  Alternatives  did  not  include  a  requirement  for  compliance  to  CARB  &  SCAQM  land  use  guidelines  

 

a. Cal/EPA   California   Air   Resources   Board:   Air  Quality  &   Land  Use  Handbook:   A   Community  Health  Perspective  -­‐  April  2005    

b. South   Coast   Air   Quality   Management   District:   Guidance   Document   for   Addressing   Air  Quality  Issues  in  General  Plans  and  Local  Planning  -­‐  May  6,  2005  

 

10. The  EIR  &  Tunnel  Alternatives  did  not  include  a  mitigation  requirement  to  use  Zero  Emission  Electric  Buses  

 

There  are  now  available  Zero  Emission  Electric  60’  Articulated  Buses  that  Metro  can  incorporate  into  its  fleet  that  could  use  the  new  SR710  North  Transportation  Corridor  but  were  not  identified  as  potential  mitigation.  

     Coalition  For  A  Safe  Environment  Mission  Statement  is  -­‐  To  protect,  promote,  preserve  and  restore  our  Mother  Earth’s  delicate  ecology,  environment,  natural  resources  and  wildlife.      To  attain  Environmental  Justice  in  international  trade  marine  ports,  goods  movement  transportation  corridors,  petroleum  and  energy  industry  communities.          CFASE  has  members  in  over  25  cities  in  Los  Angeles  County  and  many  which  border  the  SR710  transportation  corridor  and  project  area.          Respectfully  Submitted,  

 

Jesse  N.  Marquez  Executive  Director    Mizi  Sphak  Executive  Director  Action  Now    Drew  Wood  Executive  Director  California  Kids  IAQ    Ricardo  Pulido  Executive  Director  Community  Dreams  

 Roger  Kintz      

 http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eir-­‐eis/hearings/150415_Boards_Final.pdf    http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eir-­‐eis/SR%20710%20No.%20Study%20Draft%20EIR_EIS%20Vol%20I%20Rpt.pdf    http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eir-­‐eis/