last in salon is in existing operating landfill fell able to handle all the wastes that last operates at 25 percent of the permitted capacity with this project it will go up to 75 percent in terms of volume on permits will be required no expansion of that landfill is required to handle all the waste the only physical change the trucks will haul to a new facility we did an independent analysis air quality analysis and compared our clungsz with the 2012 negative declaration the last in salon county was approved in terms of ceqa it was done by way of a negative

debilitation by salon county found no- we compared our analyze and concluded no negative impact we conducted with the planning department and they concur with our analysis issue was appealed this is all in our packet i'm going to summarize so few we have written responses i can answer the questions in terms of key issues they'll claim adverse quality and methodology in our reliance on the bay area air quality thresholds was not appropriate they signed a glad at the scene report with significant air quality impacts and building we

used an improper baseline that we relied enrolling on the salon county in envelope we should have considered alternatives and didn't analysis the impacts in san francisco and our response packet we have delayed but briefly in terms of traffic the project will generate 50 trucks over a 24 day one truck every 25 minutes on the road highway 80 for the new route carries hundred vehicles the roads from highway to the landfill operate ab very good levels of service and this additional traffic open this project will have no impact no traffic impact on the existing traditions in terms of ever air quality the project will be - the impacts will be well below the threshold

we've used the standard methodical for all the ceqa documents and made assumptions about the air pollutions the trip from san francisco to salon the air baseline and the salon air baseline we sxhefrl assumed what if they end up in the same baseline they're still well below the impact the gladstone and several erroneous summaries about the length of the trip and the type of fuel and baseline we believe that this conclusion in apply to this project in terms of the by an

in terms of the baseline the exit condition is the solid waste hauled from san francisco to the location we looked at the change from the baseline to the proposed condition where waste is hauled to salon county that's the basis for the impacts in terms of the salon 2012 we performed our own analysis regarding alternatives alternatives are not analyzed in a negative debilitation when a project was no significant impact and in negative debilitations the correct documents sentencing ceqa didn't require an analysis no need for an alternative analysis in terms of the impacts in san francisco as i stated earlier there no physical change within san francisco without physical change there's no fact

within san francisco we did receive a couple of comment letters in the last couple of days one from david pill pal and the other from the appellant david pill peel we respond to in writing i submitted briefly i'll be brief this letter questions whether there's a conflict with the county and the number of truck trips into the future the change in the composition of truck fleets and the impacts from the idol and raised suggestions there's no conflict that the tsa all work is directed by the planning department staff the negative reflections are their judgment in terms of the truck trips a representative from the department of environment the project manager will address that we believe the 50 trick

trips is an appropriate number maybe an overestimate given the cities reduction during times of population growth over the last decade plus per regarding the fleet composition the fleet is expected to change but for the better with respect to air quality and emissions our analysis didn't make that assumption in order to be converter we assumed the fleet during the application from the fleet does change with the better air quality emissions the impacts will be reduced also keyes idol b will not have an impact we received and you should have received directly for the appellant two or three days ago we didn't have time to respond i'll be a little bit

longer to get the responses into the record that letter questions again, the baseline issue of when they analyzed the entire trip from san francisco to had a road i believe we didn't consider that whole trip that's not true it was considered and again, it compares that to the exist baseline the existing setting ceqa says the impacts come interest physical change change from the setting to the future conditions that's exactly with the negative deck analyze that is trucks hauling solid wastes in san francisco to al monday night in this is approved that will stop in the future the trucks will haul to had a road

the difference between what is happening and now in the future the basis for our impact analysis appellants claim in their letter the analysis shouldn't negative out the trips to alderman so as an example for air quality analysis if we follow that approach the air quality of hauls from san francisco to had a road should show as the emissions from the round trip to had a road in addition to the round trip to alderman that is wrong that's clearly wrong and not what ceqa instructions us in terms of the the number of trips the appellants building that will grow as the amount of solid wastes grogz grows and 50 trick is under the mark we assume the 50 truck trips is

commonwealth that is bans the 13 year trend of solid waste reductions with population growth appellant courts in their letter a long time the end of that 13 year trend and use inaccurate data and the budget sponsor will speak to that we he is transport - we building their forecast is not accurate and justified and the 50 trips reseem is a better number, in fact, it is conservative appellants speculate at the had a route facility a doubling of green waste with additional trips to and from that site due to a separate proposal for a digestion after that facility

that is undergo environmental review there's no proposal to increase the museum of green waste from that facility it will improve the handling facility the appellant letters asserts we relied on the negative deck for the accumulate analysis that's not correct there was a state program eir look at the digestion projects we've relied on that for information regarding the digestion impacts that is the best information and did our own analysis to come up with the cumulative analysis appellants building our negative deck should make finding with the green house gas reductions policies and strategies negative deck and our department uses a specific quantify standard that is support by the

bay area air quality management technical background study that is residence to this issue of whether this project meets the green house gas it will be below that threshold and therefore consistent it is consequent actively explains the city plans to improve the trick fleet with respect to air fleets that is in coping with the green house gas strategies the appellants letter says the governor's recent order orders the reduction of green house gas emissions to fovr percent over the 1990 levels that is an bliss goal and will

effect many destroys trout throughout the state the governor is trying to push the industry in better direction but this didn't make those sgoelz in second a significant impact the project meets all current ceqa thresholds for the impact appellant challenges our health segment excuse me. they state the negative deck used the wrong analysis they used a different model in our screening they assume the fleet grows by 7 additional trucks and came up with risk impacts in their claims and analysis are not correct the model that was used in the negative deck is an established accepted model for the air districts and form of the calculations in the appellants

letter appear to be in error by a large margin we have our air quality managed to represent cat their analysis oozed using the same model and approach and came up with a model different. the court: well below the threshold of significance since they didn't provide all the calculation and data our experts were not sure how they came up with their error but we're correct the analysis does not have a significant impact lastly the appellants claim an aspire way to dispose of the waste it didn't analysis the alternatives to the significant impacts of another alternative are not relevant to the accuracy of the project

whether open alternative has greater or lesser impact is not before you the issue before you today is whether or not the proposed project as significant impacts our initial study shows the project did not have significant impacts that's when we published the declaration we believe that not of the letters challenge or change our conclusions there's significant evidences that our document is the appropriate embodiment and in contrast the appellants misrepresented what the negative deck states and relied on assumption that are not relevant or incorrect and not made a fair argument the project has a significant impact so we have a draft motion before

you to uphold the negative debilitation i did 12krb9 a revised only to reflect too the last motion was sent to you a wagon you'll receive those two additional letters and respond both in letters and in writing also a reminder to the commission the only decision before you others this decision before you open this project is the ceqa determination there's the project significant you have no approval action over this project the approval action will fall to the department of environment and the board of supervisors before i conclude the presentation i want to point out literally as i was leaving the office i was handed another your quality report that finds fault

with our your quality analysis i've not had a chance to look at that i've handed it to our your quality xhaunlts u consultant if they have a chance to have an opinion they can speak during public comment i'd like to remind the commission our analysis was our air quality analysis was done by an expert within the e s a and reviewed by oar experts and peer reviewed by another team of experts and all concluded k xhithd concluded your analysis is the appropriate conclusions the two materials we've seen the glad at the scene report and the report and the letter we've found fault we believe they're in error and not accurate that concludes my

presentation. unless the commission has any comments we have representatives from the department of environment and the project sponsor and there are rechz from ecology as well as and available to answer questions if you have them. >> thank you. >> we may have questions later just to be clear calling the appellant. >> that's right the appellants team has 10 minutes for their presentation. >> thank you commissioner president fong and commissioner wu and fellow commissioners for this opportunity to address f you in our concerns the negative debilitations for hauling 5 millions tonlz of waste to the county i'm a foreman board of

supervisors member and o g we call it we've been around thirty years to preserve the urn wastelands we have an steven of battles i'm here to ask you are reject the legislation and ask for a plan we think that a project requiring moving six millions tons of waste is considered to have no significant environmental impact there is much illicit's to this diverse and you appear to hit the limits in san francisco's efforts to reduce green house gas emissions your making missing a great opportunity an analysis the scope of shipping

to had a road landfill shows a hidden resource to reduce green house gas pages 8 and 9 discuss the com posted operation ecology send out hundred plus loads to 3 different facilities including had a road i've visit it is well done and minimum overlook loaders and done on an asphalt lot many can be found in industrial sites in san francisco so everyone shifting the com possess will remove those truck trips reducing green house gas nothing is magic a lot of organics a little bit of water and some space all are available right here in san francisco and

that analysis has never been done tiled introduce our attorney to complete the appeal of this project we'll be available should the commission have any questions thank you. >> thank you commission i'm josh levine an attorney and represent the salon committee for organized growth. first, let's talk about what this project is it is to move 5 million tons of solid waste $70 million to salon county truck trip by truck trip over 15 years the question before this commission as mentioned by the gentleman is not whether or not this is a project that needs to be approved the question is this a project that is worthy and has an environmental impact sufficient to that a meaningful

environmental review should be decided before we deal with the waste whether there's a fair argument support by substantial evidences i believe the record shows in both the reports submit including one report there is an argument of the an impact on traffic and infrastructure and an impact on emissions such we shouldn't make this decision latin-american but with a full environment review there are a lot of points made in the go briefings that's been submitted i want to emphasis with respect to what the project is being look at i roll call disagree with the gentleman our calculations both count the

traffic and the route and the hay road route that's not true the collaborations is looking at the project as a whole rather than just be a few extra miles bus the salon county is addressing a 40 mile round trip there's a reason to look at that in the ceqa context they're not microsoft or tweak the contract here and have a slightly different variations but your replacing that with an entirely different proposal with a different landfill in a different couldn't and different transportation route and lengthy transportation route you've got to look at the whole thing in

order to determine whether or not this is having an impact, of course it is they calculate you'll have over 32 metric tons of co-2 added into the atmosphere this is may 18 report and that takes it well over the threshold but they want to look at the increment they've added 2 hundred trips and 6 hundred and 22 thousand miles added per year that is added truck mileage and they calculate that somehow will not have a significant impact we point out a fail flaw they've calculated based on a stable amount of wastes now san francisco is not stable

in its population it is growing we've had comments today from the director about additional affordable units on line i need he goes to the length of talk about the 14 thousand new handout and additional projects there's every indication the planning commission knows there's every indication more people now it is a nice hope that those more people will not create more wastes but as gone through in great detail the waste mechanisms that are currently in place have plat owed i don't have it for 2012 and intuitively so thankful gone forward and done a calculation bans what they project to be a reasonable

rate of population growth a reasonable rate of what they anticipate the waste stream will be and once you do that it is very clear we're going way beyond the thresholds i've mentioned we're looking at whether there's a fair argument an environmental impact the only analysis that is done by any expert that's been handed to the commission before this is take into account the potential population growth is it may 19th report mined they may hope a decrease in the amount of waste as you add people but there is been no, definitely a difference of opinion among interprets they

come forward with the experts that can calculate a different calculation for the growth that shows you a fundamental flaw that shows why y there is a fair agreement of a significant impact and the city has to take a look at f this and finally the major points we've talked about there is initiatives in order to reduce green house gas emissions it is very important thing we've got an executive order by josh governor jerry brown and legislation indicating that people not to take a look at it and get a reduction not take into consideration here rather in reduction as not limited to

by the planning department own experts this project will increase the amount of co-2 that is put into the atmosphere every year because you're taking an center 40 mile round trip with each garbage truck everyday and with going to translate to 6 thousand miles added green house gas emissions and that's got to be taking into account so for this reason it is improper for the committee and the city to do this without an environmental review and permanent negative debilitation is adopted >> okay. thank you. >> next project sponsor maybe someone from the department of environment good morning, commissioners

i'm jack as our coordinator with the department of the environment i'm representing the department on this project i want to address some concerns raised about disposal quantity and correct the record on a record submitted on this issue regards to the project and the negative analysis when you starter by saying we consider the number and tieflz e types of trucks analyzed in a negative deck to be conservative that's the 50 trick trips is more than enough for the duration of this project for two primary reasons number one the amount of wastes under the proposed krokt contract will not there with population as history has shown and will decrease over the term of the project with new

technologies and projects we're moving forward with in our effort to achieve zero waste by 2020 and beyond that will result in less waste and less truck trips the second is the types of trucks used will inching be more or less liquid gas filed trucks within two years the entire fleet will be all fewer emissions than the mixed use in the analysis so, now i'll elaborate the first reason why disposal will not increase i'd like to start by addressing some incorrect and misleading information that has resulted from a faulty analysis this this

somewhat report we received yesterday on that that report on page 5 they have the table they have a list of 2008, 2013, and the next column is total disposal from san francisco this column of total disposal will and the following column a ultimate this includes the disposal by other entities other than ecology and material outside of this contract not relevant to who is coasted under the proposed project which relevant is ecology disprobation officers this is in the second table those numbers are incorrect they include other tons at ultimate