Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/1993CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Mayor — Gall Ph 11 s EG. �Papen Mayor Pro Tem — Y Councilmen — John A. Forbing Councilrn8n — Gary H. Werner eD. MacBrideCouncilmen — p e w. City Council Chambers are located at: South Coast Air QUWdy, _WWt asftrtAuditorfum 21565 Ea C*OY Dri* MEETING DATE: February 9, 1993 Terrence L Belanger City Manager Adjourned Regular Meeting MEETING TIME: 7: o o p. m. Andrew V. Arczynski City Attorney Lynda Burgess City Clerk are ot#l. 1 .1tr t#t+� t tis Clerk at'1114. � dv.. b ideas our . C rand encourages you to do the same. The City of Diamond Bar uses RECYCLED Pape THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY SONES INTEERRCABLE FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 51, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISp. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Miller ROLL CALL: Councilmen MacBride, Forbing, Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Miller 2. PROPOSED MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY (MRF) BY THE CITY OF INDUSTRY - Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Industry has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a proposed 5,700 -ton per day material recovery and transfer station facility located on a 40 -acre parcel of land east of Grand Avenue and south of Valley Blvd. in the City of Industry, as well as other communities in the surrounding region, for the purpose of extracting all recyclable materials from the waste stream. The residual waste will then be transported by high volume transfer trucks for disposal at local landfills and/or loaded onto railcars and transported to remote disposal sites. The project, as proposed, will be developed in three phases and will consist of several functional areas which include: a transfer/ sorting building for the processing and storage of unprocessed solid waste; a curbside sorting area for the recovery of recycled materials; a processing area for woodwaste and source -separated yard waste; an intermodal rail transfer and storage area; and an administrative and maintenance area. Recommended Action: Receive public input and direct staff as necessary. 3. ANNOUYCE! mTs : 4. ADJOURMUM : / 0.' / D TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: Cu( d� Ti S� S" J��—" DATE: ADDRESS: Af� J (-SP /'"���'� i'� � PHONE:. ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: f,✓� LT`S %L 7 ,� `T S 72 / /� �, I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK 0 FROM: r, 1 ADDRESS: l .'� �laf� ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: DATE: -2/ q PHONE:_ . 09 z'' alt ffm I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. / i Signatur VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: El'r-1y") DATE: 09 -CL 19?3 ADDRESS: _ Z243S LRV Ce,,K RJ PHONE: D zr►��� as ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: M uk fZ F I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. ignature TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK I , DATE: - �S PHONE: %6 lb I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. r� Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: S `+�- �^x:' DATE: ADDRESS: PHONE: 8C—k -'114 ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Sig ature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL 'TO: CITY CLERK FROM: 1 DATE: 02 - ADDRESS: 4 AAS P (' PHONE: O ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: N6 I expect to address the Council on the name and address as written above. ie Council Minutes reflect my VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: DATE: PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature U� TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: 2 PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature F19 TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK u� DATE: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: M, E— PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: �(C'.Gli P -AU,(, L DATE: ADDRESS: 3/l N - illy 44 bo 3/4, PHONE: 86/-7-77V_ ORGANIZATION: (?o 41C.&12-v€61ZG-y AGENDA #/SUBJECT: -1 ryMC-�0/' IPWI&CIAt-1— 6E oi-6ru /�4Cil/4 1 expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. l oC (P-Ouu Signature D TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK G DATE: c1 q3 2�/ PHONE: gdci, 0661, Sd23 �-T-- I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. r � - Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: 1 �' S1c� �� 1 DATE: Q k C) -93 ADDRESS: � ��c� D 3\ DL - - PHONE: to 1 I kI ORGANIZATION:- PMAVkC� -) LY e�A��c`� AGENDA #/SUBJECT: expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Q, --„ Signatur VOLUNTARY REQUECT TO ADDRECC THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: L. A DATE: �' 3 ADDRESS: A 1 L.VE---X VALt.e=-Y -M. PHONE: ORGANIZATION: V A- e.Cc•!�1'ry'� AGENDA #/SUBJECT: &4/c - I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. #:.Cax QG UAW= BR INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CONnD1 W"& w DATE: February 5, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, city Manage�y SUBJECT: Technical Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Industry Material Recovery Facility Attached for your information and review, please find a draft report from the City's consultant, Ultrasystems Engineers & Constructors, Inc., on the proposed City of Industry Material Recovery Facility and corresponding Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Based on their technical evaluation, Ultrasystems has identified a number of technical deficiencies, as well as procedural errors in this document which raise serious doubts about its adequacy and may present a reasonable argument for the recirculation of the DEIR as required under Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code. Ultrasystems is scheduled to be at the February 9, 1993, meeting and will provide a brief presentation on their findings, as well as answer any questions you may have on the proposed project and corresponding environmental documentation. Should you have any questions or need additional clarification regarding this matter, please contact me at your earliest convenience. tb: It connanjl& TECM41CAL ANALYSIS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL EMPACT REPORT CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY`*FAcH.ITY SCH NO. 92061V73 These comments, which reflect the findings of a technical analysis of the Drat Environmental Impact Report for the ally of Industry Materials Recovery Facility (City of Industry, January S, 1993), are submitted in response to authority provided under Sections 15044 and 15209 of Title 14, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. This analysis has been conducted for the purpose of evaluating the technical adequacy of the above referenced. Dreg? Environmental Impact Report (DEM), including both its compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended (CEQA) and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines). To facilitate agency review of these comments and assist local efforts to incorporate these comments into the project's environmental review record, each of the following comments includes a page reference or other notation indicating the specific component or passage of the DMR addressed by that comment. In addition, "general comments' have been included under a single heading. Unlike other comments in this analysis, these observations are not specifically associated with individual components of the DEIR, but focus upon potential procedural deficiencies or technical inadequacies in that document. ° Recognizing the nature of the project, the project proponent(s) have a responsibility (as specified under Section 15124(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines) to provide sufficient information concerning the project's technical characteristics and principal engineering proposals to demonstrate both the feasibility of the project and facilitate subsequent environmental analysis. The processing of 4,700 tons per day (tpd) of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), including an additional 1,000 tpd transported to the project site for an off- site material recovery facility 043M, will require the capacity to process approximately 3.26 tons per minute (based upon a 24 hour day). The project description provided in the DEM does not clearly demonstrate the facility's capability to process this volume of MSW. Without a project description which illustrates the feasibility of the project's technicalleagineering aspects, it is not possible to assess the effectiveness of that process, the suitabfiky of the environmental controls and safety considerations and the potential environmratal impacts associated with the project's operation. Since the project description fails in its attempt to convey a clear understanding of the engineering process, the ability of the public to independently evaluate the project's environmental considerations is seriously diminished. Only through an understanding of 4MIMRF Analysis Page 1 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY the operational aspects of the project can its impacts be identified and the fail safe mechanisms evaluated. 0 The DER defines the City of Industry's waste generation rate at between 500 and 600 tpd on a five day basis (page 2-7, 11), equating to a weekly demand of only 2,500 to 3,000 tons. At full capacity, the facility could handle 34,200 tons of waste per week. Although the D= concludes that the remaining tonnage "is expected to be delivered directly from the participating Cities in the San Gabriel Valley" (page 2-7, 12), the DER neither quantifies the regional demand, discusses alternative options available to other municipalities (e. g. , other existing or proposed facilities which may compete with the proposed project for MSW) or documents other communities willingness to divert all or a portion of its waste stream to this facility. The representation that the City of Industry Material Recovery Facility MAW is responding to a regional need, as articulated in the Project's goals and objectives (page 2-5, 15), is not validated by any information which purports to quantify that demand or demonstrate the willingness (or economic feasibility) of other municipalities to utilize this facility. As a result, the DER should be amended to include a 500-600 tpd MRF as a project alternative and/or present additional information documenting the project proPonent(s) ability to attract a daily waste stream in excess of that localizes demand. While the diversion goals of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) provide the impetus for the project, the DER (page 2-7, 14) indicates that there is presently insufficient market demand to utilize the recovered materials. In the absence of that demand, whereby divertable waste materials are regimentally transported to alternative end users, all recyclable material will continue to end up in a sanitary landfill. As the capacity of a MRF increases, the project proponent(s) has an obligation to document the existence of a market demand capable of absorbing the materials which will be generated from that facility. In the absence of that existing market, the DEM should analyze alternative options available to the IMRF operator (including landfill disposal) and analyze AB 939 conformity should landfill disposal become a necessary operating alternative. In order to make the project operational and economically feasible, some form of public (financial) intervention is required (page 2-9, 11 and 2). The DER does not specify what form (or magnitude) that public support will take or the potential indirect impacts associated with the diversion of finite -public resources to this project. Absent from the DER is any discussion of the proposed operating agreement with the service provider(s), discussion of short-term and long-term costs to the community, application of redevelopment funds (if any) and discussion of public liability associated with the City's 46921MRF Analysis Page 2 0 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACH.J7Y retention of the project site (including recourse in the event of noncompliance or repeated environmental/safety violations). In order to understand the project's potential environmental impacts, additional disclosure of these economic considerations are necessary. The DEIR indicates (page 2-16, 13) that "approximately 141 employees" will be required "as the DdRF reaches design capacity." Since most of these positions will be labor intensive, it is assumed that many of these positions will be filled by primary wage- earners (head of household) and that salaries will limit the ability of employees to compete effectively in the housing marketplace. Based upon a limited inventory of affordable housing opportunities within the City, employees will be required to seek housing in other adjoining communities and/or commute from outlying areas. No discussion is offered in the DEM concerning either the indirect or potentially growth - inducing impacts associated with this labor force, including (but not limited to) impacts upon the region's affordable housing inventory and associated actions proposed by the City of Industry to expand housing opportunities to address community demands and regional fair share allocations, impacts upon affected school districts and any potential municipal obligations should redevelopment agency participation be proposed. The DER contains a number of unsupported conclusions which either lack the corresponding analysis from which those conclusions are derived or the engineering information to substantiate material provided in the text. To allow an independent review of the document, the ffiR should include a technical appendix incorporating a project - specific geotechnical analysis, hydrological study, biological survey and such other technical analyses (e. g. , Phase I environmental audit) as may be available to both determine applicable project impacts and verify the findings presented in the DEM. Based upon the need to augment the DEM to ensure both an accurate project description and to provide an adequate environmental analysis of the proposed action, "significant new information" will be required for inclusion into the environmental impact report. In accordance with Section 21092.1 of CEQA, "when significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092 and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report." Where the change to the "project" and/or the addition of new information is significant, the revised and recirculated ffit must be subjected to the same strict scrutiny as occurs during the preparation of the initial draft EIR so that the public a not denied an opportunity to fully evaluate the new data in making an informed judgment on the validity 46921MRF Analysis Page 3 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FAMNY of the conclusions that the public agency has drawn. As a result of the inclusion of that new information (including the need to augment the environmental analysis), recirculation of the DEM may be required in accordance with Section 21092.1 of the Public Resource Code. In accordance with Section 15020 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "each public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA and shall not rely on comments from other public agencies or private citizens as a substitute for work CEQA requires the lead agency to accomplish. For example, the lead agency shall not bw%ingly release a deficient doewnenu hoping that publle comments will correct defects in the document " (emphasis added). Under CEQA, the public and affected Responsible Agencies are to be presented with an EIR "prepared with asufficient degree of analysis to provide decision -makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of the [project's] environmental consequences" (Section 15151). The DEIR which has been submitted for public and agency review necessitates major revisions to both fulfill minimum standards of adequacy and facilitate informed decision-making in a manner consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 21082.2 of CEQA indicates that "the lead agency shall determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment basad on svbsumnttial evidence in the record" (emphasis added). The DEM's conclusions regarding the significance of specific project impacts is often conclusionary and not supported by reasoned analysis submitted for public review and independent verification. Referencing Section 15021(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines: "CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage when feasible. In regulating public or private activities, agencies are required to give major consideration to preventing environmental damage. A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment. " In accordance with these provisions, the City of Industry is mandated to seek solutions (i.e., altmrAves, mitigation measures) which will minimize project -induced impacts. Although mitigation measures identified in the DEIR will "substantially lessen" many of the project's environmental impacts, a number of topical issues and environmental impacts have not been adequately mitigated. As a result, the DEM is required to identify and evaluate project alternatives (e.g., alternative sites) which have the potential to either avoid identified impacts or minimize those effects to a level which is not significant. 46921MRF Analysis Page 4 CITY OF INDUSMY MWERTAL S RECOVERY FACURT In accordance with Section 15206 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project "shall be deemed to be of statewide, regional or areawide significance." Based upon that provision, the bead Agency is required to notify and consult with transportation planning agencies and public agencies which have transportation facilities in their jurisdiction which would be affected by the project and to provide those agencies with copies of environmental documents undertaken to analyze those projects. Although the DEUR (Appendix A) includes a Notice of Preparation (NOP) mailing list, a number of agencies required by statute to receive notice, have not been identified. Since the DEM concludes that a number of potentially significant adverse impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened as a result of mitigation measures included as part of the proposed project, it is incumbent upon the Lead Agency and other Responsible Agencies to develop a mechanism which will ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented as proposed. Should the proposed mechanism prove deficient or should other Responsible Agencies not adequately incorporate those measures into existing procedures (and monitor compliance), the impacts which have been assumed to be mitigated to levels of insignificance may, in fact, produce more significant effects than now anticipated (assuming the subsequent application of those measures). To provide the public with an opportunity to evaluate both the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures and the mechanisms) that will be implemented to ensure the incorporation of these measures into project design and/or operation, a draft mitigation reporting and monitoring program should be included in the DEIR, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21081.6. Section 15082(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that "the Lead Agency shall send to each Responsible Agency a Notice of Preparation stating that an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared. " Notification of the State Clearinghouse does not preempt the Lead Agency's obligation to independently notify each Responsible Agency in the manner prescribed by statute. The DEIR indicates that the California Department of Fish and Game (page 4.11-12,16) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (page 1-7, 11 and page 4.10-3, 12) both have permit obligations over this project. Although not acl—_ wkdgod in the DEIR, the United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers may also be required to issue a permit for the project (pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act). As indicated in Section 10 (Repot Authors; People and Organizations Consulted) and Appendix A (Mailing List for MRF NOP), none of the above referenced Responsible Agencies received copies of the Notice of Preparation or were consulted in the preparation of the DEIR. 46921MRF Analysis Page 5 CIIY OF 11VDUS7RYMA7ERI4LS RECOVERY FACILITY Similarly, the Lead Agency failed to notify Trustee Agencies as required by Section 15086(a)(2) of the State CBQA Guidelines and "transportation planning agencies" and "public agencies which have transportation facilities within their jurisdictions" as required under Section 21092.4 of the California Public Resources Code. In recognition of the above referenced failure of the Lead Agency to provide notification as required by statute, the Lead Agency has an obligation to ensure the public that adequate opportunities have been provided these agencies to comment upon the DEIR. Although not formally required under CEQA or the State CEQA Guidelines the DEIR should include a listing of those agencies or organization which were provided copies of that document. Only by reviewing the DEM mailing list can the public verify if the requirements of Section 15086(a) of the State CBQA Guideline have been satisfied. That statutory obligation requires that "the Lead Agency shall consult with and request comments on the draft BIR from: (1) Responsible Agencies; (2) Tntstee agencies with resources affected by the project; and (3) other State, federal and local agencies which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project." To ensure that the proposed project was adequately and accurately described in the Notice of Preparation and Notice of Compkdon, as required under Sections 15082(a) and 15085 of the State CEQA Guidelines, copies of these notices should be included in the DEIR to demonstrate continuity in the environmental review record. Page 1-2, 12. Although the DEIR is correct in identifying "a 25 percent diversion rate" as one of the stated goals of AB 939 (note the typographical error in the text), the document fails to mention that this goal increases to 50 percent by the year 2000. Throughout the DEIR, no phased analysis is provided evaluating the corresponding impacts (e.g., additional traffic associated with increased volumes of recovered materials) based upon both year 1994 and 2000 conditions. The DEIR should provide additional information discussing both operational changes and corresponding environmental impacts associated with these separate conditions. Page 2-19 11. The DEIR indicates that "the facility will be owned by the City of Industry, but operated by a professional solid waste management company." The DEIR neither discloses that the City is the project applicant or identifies the solid waste management company who will operate the IlKRF. Although the Initial Study (Appendix A) identifies the City of Industry as project proponent, the DEIR should clearly identify 4MiMRF Analysis Page 6 CITY OF INDUSTRY MA?ERUM RECOVERY FACILITY the applicant, disclose that the applicant is also the Lead Agency, discuss any potential conflicts associated with that dual relationship, disclose the management agency or company (if known) and discuss the role of the solid waste management agency (if any) in the design of the project and the presentation of information in the environmental analysis. C Page 2-1, 12 and 3. The DER defines the City of Industry's need for a material recovery facility as "500 to 600 tpd [tons per day].* The Proposed amity of the IMRF is, however, identified as 5,700 tpd. The large discrepancy between local demands and Projected capacity appear to relate to "the- inclusion" of 25 cities" which exist "within a realistic hauling distance of the project." Figure 2.0-1 (Vicinity Map) identifies the project site and includes 26 Cities (i.e., Industry and 25 Cities). Are these the Cities to be included? Have incorporated County areas been considered? Have these agencies or their waste haulers expressed a commitment to participate (i.e., transport solid waste to the IMM? Are other facilities (e.g., RAEL-CYCLE Material Recovery Facility located in the City of Commerce) competing for these community solid wastes? Are other existing or proposed material recovery facilities (MRF) located within shorter commuting distances? What defines a "realistic hauling distance" and, if isochronal, why does that travel distance/time not apply equally in all directions? What is the current status of "the proposal 4,000 tons/day Puente Hills MRF" (page 4.6-33, 14) and what impacts will its operations have upon the Do RF service area, projected MSW quantities and market demand for recovered materials? As indicated in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Puente Hills Waste Management Facility, a "material recovery and rail loading facility capable of processing 4,000 tons per day on a 6 day average (4,400 tpd maximum)" has been proposed at that site. Although a regional need for MRFs can be identified (pursuant to AB 939), no basis is provided to indicate why a 5,700 tpd facility is required at this location. Since the specification of facility capacity is the starting point for both the resulting project design and basis for all subsequent environmental analysis, adequate discussion is required to document this development assumption. No information has been provided to validate the need for a 5,700 tpd facility. Page 2-3f 13. Since "the City of Industry plans to build a full width, two lane access road to the site from Grand Avenue," the proposed right-of-way and identified improvements constitute a component of the project and need to be addressed in the DEIR. The exclusion of that area from the environmental analysis results m both an inadequate project description and precludes an evaluation of the potential impacts associated with that capital improvement (e.g., will additional right-of-way be required?). 46921MRF Analysis Page 7 CTIY OF INDUSTRY MWERUM RECOVERY FACILYIY Page 2-4, Figure 2.0-2. The level of detail presented in the site plan, as illustrated in Figure 2.0-2 (Site Plan), indicates that considerable effort was expended in the development of the project design. No discussion is, however, provided indicating to whom the design is attributable. Did the City design the project? Did the solid waste management agency which will be contracted to operate the facility prepare the design plan? The project designer should be identified, the relationship between the designer, the City and the solid waste management agency (if any) specified and the participation of any waste hauler, operator or service provider disclosed. Has the solid waste management agency been Preselected (if yes, define process) or will the contract be provided through competitive bid? ° Page 2-5, 14. The DEIR indicates that 40 -foot long containers loaded with MSW will be stored on-site "until there is a full train unit of 80 cars." Since each "milcar holds four 40 -foot containers," an estimated 352 full containers (and an undisclosed number Of empty containers) will be stockpiled within the DA" prior to off-site transport via railhaul "to one or more distant landfills." The capacity (in tonnage) of each container is neither identified nor the stomp requirements for the total inventory of containers indicated. Wiu railcars be loaded and stored on-site pending transport? Is adequate railspur capacity provided for both Southern Pacific and Union Pacific rail lines? How was adequate track length (i.e., 6,400 feet) determined? Fare 2-S and Page 2-6. The project objectives appear inconsistent. In the first objective, the DER reflects a regional objective to serve "participating cities [in] the San Gabriel Valley." The following goal reflects only a localized perspective (i.e., to satisfy the City of Industry's source reduction and recycling objectives). This internal conflict should be reconciled. If the project seeks to satisfy only the City's AB 939 goals, the size of the RARF should be reduced to 500-600 tpd (page 2-1, 12). Similarly, the Cities identify in Figure 2.0-1 (Vicinity Map) include communities which are not physically located within the San Gabriel Valley and which may be better served by alternative NWs. Page 2-7, 12. The DER indicates that "current plans anticipate receiving 1,000 tpd of the projected maximum capacity from a transfer station in another area of Southern California." Although this waste "is expected to have the recyclable materials removed Prior to Uansibtrkg to the IldRP," it is unclear whether this constitutes a condition for acceptance of these wastes. 171is assumption is contradicted by other information in the DEM which indicates that wastes will be received from "other transfer stations) without rail -haul capacity or without the equipment to separate recyclables" (page. 2-18, 13). Additionally, the source of these wastes and location of this existing transfer station(s) should be identified, including projected haul requirements, routes between facilities and 4MIMRF'ndysb Page 8 CITY OF MUSTRY AWERULS RECOVERY FACILITY safety controls to minimizelavoid acceptance of hazardous materials if no further sorting is anticipated to occur at the MW. Page 2-7, 14. While a MRF can be beneficial in the removal of recoverable materials from the waste stream, the ability to satisfy AB 939 objectives (i.e., 25 percent diversion by 1995; 50 percent diversion by the year 2000) is dependent upon the development of emerging markets for the recovered material. The DEIR infers that those markets do not presently exist ("markets will need to be expanded and developed to ensure that diverted waste materials are appropriately utilized"). In the absence of those end users, the goals of AB 939 and the objectives of the D4RF (see page 2-6, 11 and 2) will not be attained. The DEM should present market information which verifies the existence of those material users, discusses projected absorption rates relative to the DdW phasing plan and describes waste disposal scenarios should those markets not materialize. Page 2-8, Figure 2.0-3. The source of the table and the projected recovery rates should be provided. Additionally, the relationship between the "1,000 tpd of the projected maximum capacity from a transfer station in another area of Southern California" (page 2-7, 12) and the assumptions presented in Table 2.0-1 should be clarified, including assumptions on the projected tonnage of recovered materials from that off-site facility. In order to attain the recovery rates identified, what actions external to the project (e.g., curbside recycling) will be required? Page 2-9. The project description should be augmented to identify the size, height and/or area proposed for each of the buildings and exterior areas (e.g., storage areas) to be developed on-site (e.g., 124,450 square foot Material Processing and Transfer Building). The function of each building or area should be described and the operational characteristics (e.g., noise levels provided by mechanical equipment) delineated. All structural openings should be identified and there orientation delineated. In addition, if large service doors are to open (or remain open), information addressing conditions precedent to the opening of those service entrances should be specified. a page 2-99 12. Since "economic viability of the MW will depend on the City of Industry's ability to finance a facility that is competitively priced with other MRFs and landfills,some form of public financing or financial contribution is anticipated. The DEIR does not indicate the forms of public assistance (e.g., redevelopment funds, land write-down) presently being contemplated, the term of that contribution (e.g., annual, one-time only) or the potential impact/trade-off to other public programs, services or special districts resulting from the diversion of finite public funds to this enterprise. 46921MRF Analysis Page 9 Cl17 OF INDUSTRY MATF.RIAM RECOVERY FACiT.lIY 0 Is the DW within a redevelopment project arca and will tax increment financing be utilized to provide needed financial assistance? Should the projected revenue stream not materialize (e.g., lack of a market for recovered materials), what are the long-term economic implications to the City? ° Page 2-9, 14. The assumptions outlined in Table 2.0-1 (e.g., 2,022 tpd of commercial/industrial waste; 2,655 tpd of residential waste) differs from the assumptions presented in Figure 2.0-3 (e.g., 2,450 tpd of commerciallindustrial waste; 1,900 tpd of residential waste) and Table 2.0-2 (e.g., 2,450 tpd of commercial industrial waste; 2,225 tpd of residential waste). Similarly, the "recovery rate" identified in Table 2.0-1 (e.g., yard wastes), bears no relationship with the "assumptions about recovered materials" Presented in Table 2.0-2. These internal conflicts should be reconciled. Fags 2-10, kylam 2.0-3. The exhibit fails in its attempt to provide information concerning the on-site processing of solid waste. For example, no linkage is provided which indicates that "mixed waste" from the residential waste stream is processed to remove recoverable material. Additionally, the "waste in" does not equate with the "waste out." Revise to correct procedural and quantitative deficiencies. Page 2-13, 11. The quantity of recovered material (i.e., 1,850 tpd) differs from the assumptions presented in Table 2.0-1 (i.e., 1,540 tpd), Figure 2.0-3 (i.e., 1,673 tpd) and Table 2.0-2 (i.e., 1,673 tpd). Page 2-15, 14. The DEIR misrepresents the projected number of truck trips associated with the project. Since "a total of 827 trucks will access the site [daily] delivering waft," a comparable number of empty and/or loaded trucks will also exit the site. Assuming haul vehicles transporting waste material to the site will be the same vehicles departing with recyclable material, daily vehicle trips (excluding employee and other U*) will total 1,654 trlpslday. This figure is substantially greater than the 1,111 one- way vehicle trips referenced in the DEIR. Additionally, no linkage is provided with information prexated in the traffic analysis (page 4.5-30, 11) which indicates that "the site is anticipated to generate 7,302 daily PCE [passenger car equivalent] trips by the year 2000.0 ° Page 2-15, 16. The DEIR again errors in concluding that when railhaul is initiated, the number of truck trips will be reduced "by 167 one-way trips per day. " First, no rational is provided indicating how the projected 167 trips were derived. Secondly, all trucks (full) arriving at the site will also have to leave the site (empty or full). This under counting of truck trips results in an inaccurate analysis of project -related traffic impacts. 46921MRF Analysis Page 10 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY o Page 2-169 12. The DEIR indicates that 35 percent of all commercW/indust W waste will be "delivered in roll -off boxes." The document further states that "half of the incoming roll -off boxes from commercial and industrial customers are expected to be primarily wood waste" (page 2-14, 11). As a result 17.5 percent of all commercial/industrial waste constitutes recoverable wood waste. Of the 2,022 tpd of commercial/industrial waste identified in Table 2.0-1 (page 2-8), an estimated 354 tpd of wood material would be projected (and not 243 tpd as identified in that table). The DEIR should reconcile this discrepancy. Page 2-16,13. while the DER indicates that 141 employees (maximum) are anticipated when the OMP reaches capacity, the distribution of these employees by function and shift is not indicated. Assuming the maintenance of three full shifts (based upon a 24 hour work day), approximately 35 sorters can be anticipated. Based upon a 4,700 tpd waste stream, these sorters will process approximately 3.26 tons of MSW per minute (equating to over 3 pounds/scoond/sorter). Based upon the facility's size and labor force, it is difficult to fathom the operator's capability to process the identified tonnage and accomplish the recovery rates specified in the MR. Employee generated vehicle trips are not identified in Table 2.0-3 or discussed under the traffic analysis (e.g., Table 4.5-7, page 4.5-30). Page 2-18, 11. The identification of an "anticipated project service area" which "involves 25 cities including the City of Industry" (note that 26 Cities are graphically depicted on Figure 2.0-4 and Table 2.0-5) appears arbitrary based upon broad variations in travel distance, ignores other jurisdictions located in proximity to the project (including incorporated and unincorporated areas of Riverside and Orange Counties) and without bases (in the absence of a commitment from those communities to utilize the IIdM- The determination of the service area constitutes the basis for the identification of the design capacity of the IIdRF, as depicted by Table 2.0-5 (page 2-20) in the DEM. If the service area is ill-defined, the project's design capacity will not bear a direct relationship to the material recovery and disposal needs exhibited within the actual service area or the operational demands imposed upon the 1MRF. Additional documentation is required to support the conclusion that the geographic area identified represents a reasonable service area for the project. In the derivation of the service area, alternative geographic areas (as determined by isochronal distances, competing opportunity and tentative contractual commitments) should be examined. Based upon that analysis, the City of Industry may conclude that either a larger or smaller facility should be, proposed (including a reduction in project size to accommodate only the 500-600 tpd generated within the City). 4692AWRF Analysis Page 11 CITY OF INDUSIRYMATERMIS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 2-18,13. The DEM references that "waste is expected to be delivered to the LMRF facility by transfer trailers from other transfer stations without rail -haul capacity or without the equipment to separate recyclables from the ....[text missing]." The DEIR further specifies that a 1,000 tpd will be received "from a transfer station in another area Of Southern California" (page 2-7, 12). Although the DEnt appears exact in quantifying demand (i.e., 1,000 tpd), it fails to disclose from which facilities MSW will be transported. without additional information concerning the location, capacity and capabilities of those MRFs, the supposition that "the project is assumed to receive 1,000 tpd six days per week from transfer stations" has not bases in fact. ° Page 2-21,12 and 3. The discussion of the BKK Landfill, including its expected closing date, should be augmented to include a discussion of the proposed actions as identified in and authorized by the Drat! Environmental Impact Report for Revision of BKK Landfill's Solid Waste Facility Peri it No. 19 -AF -001 (SCH No. 91061016) presently in circulation. Based upon the information presented herein, it is reasonable to conclude that the Focal Enforcement Agency will authorize an extension to the Solid Waste Facilities Permit beyond its currently permitted closure date. Pare 2-23. Since the air quality analysis (page 4.6-23, 12) premises certain projections on the future operation of the Elsmere Canyon Landfill, the status, location, classification and projected capacity of that facility should be discussed in the MR. P990 2-239 17. The text indicates that "Figure 2.0-6 shows the location of eight proposed remote landfills accessible by rail -haul and their approximate distance from the City of Industry." Twelve landfills (not eight) are identified on that exhibit. ° Page 2-25, 11. The DEIR errors in concluding that only two waste -by -rail projects are "most actively considered by many communities in the County... " The Puente Hills Waste Malagemuu Fadlides, Dre j3 Environment Impact Report (June 1992), prepared by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, identifies four proposed waste - by -rail landfill projects located outside of Los Angeles County. These sites are Eagle Mountain, Rarticycle-Bolo Station, East Carbon City and California Interail Project. The Eagle Mountain project a located in northeastern Riverside County and would accept up to 20,000 -tons of solid waste per day at maximum capacity. The final EISIEIR for this project was certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1992. The Railcycle-Bob Station site is located in southeastern San Bernardino County and would accept up to 21,000 tons of solid waste per day. The draft 1 DUM for this project was released for public review in November 1992. The East Carbon City site is an existing permitted landfill located in Utah. On December 3, 1992, as part of a demonstration project, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County shipped 4MIMRF Andysis Page 12 C177 OF INDUSTRY r WERLIIS RECOVERY FACQ.TTY four rail ma filled with solid wastes to this landfill. It is anticipated that this site could accept up to 20-25,000 tons of solid waste per day. The California Interail Project, located in eastern Imperial County, is proposing to accept up to 20,000 tons of solid waste per day. The draft EWEIS for this project is anticipated to be released for public review in the spring of 1993. All four of these waste -by -rail projects are proposing to accept solid wastes from Los Angeles County. The listing of potential milhaul sites should be supplemented to identify these facilities. Section 15123 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs contain a brief summary of the proposed action and its consequences. That summary shall include: (1) significant effects, proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid those effects; (2) area of controversy, including issues raised by agencies and the public; and (3) issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives. The summary section of the DEM fails to address each of the requisite components identified above. The DEM indicates that "the siting of waste management facilities is commonly a source of controversy. Adjacent property owners often object to having facilities that handle waste located near their properties for fear of excessive noise, traffic bion, noxious odors, dust, negative visual and aesthetic impacts, vectors, and/or lite" (page 4.13-4, 13). These concerns should be included as issues of potential controversy. 0 Impacts presented in Table 3.2 are often structured as generalization, although specific impacts as indicated in the DEM are potentially quantifiable based upon known or readily available information concerning the proposed project. To the extent feasible, the analysis of project impacts (including direct, indirect and cumulative effects) should quantify the potential environmental impacts identified in the text, identify any standards which may be utilized to evaluate project "significance" and quantitatively describe how the proposed mitigation measures will affect the identified impact. Section 15126(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that "the discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by the project proponent to be included in the project and other measures that are not included but could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts if required as conditions of approving the project." The DEIR should clearly draw this distinction and indicate when in the development process (or project phasing plan) these measures will be implemented. In accordance with Section 21083 of the California Environmental Quality Act, specific criteria are identified which require a finding that a project may have a "significant effect on the environment." Based upon that statute, a significant environmental effect will 46921MRF. Awb's* Page 13 Cn7 OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY occur if any of the following conditions exist: (1) a proposed project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; (2) the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cwnuWvely conslderabk; or (3) the effects of a Project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In the above context "cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." In concluding whether the project would produce significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the DEM fails to evaluate the potential cumulative effects of the project and other development activities, resulting in an undimation of the potential significance of the project and its core+esponding enrvironmeartal impacts. As a result, the DEIR erroneously concludes that the following topical issues can -be mitigated to a level which is not significant: public services and utilities (e.g., school facilities, sewage treatment), traffic and circulation, construction -term and long-term air quality impacts. All mitigation measures identified in the DEM must be constructed ted as mandatory requirements (using the word "shall") rather than only providing guidance or implying an option on the part of the Lead Agency or others (using the word "should") for their implementation. If mitigation measures are not implemented, the potential environmental effect that the measure is designed to minimize may produce a greater level of significance than anticipated to occur if the measure was enforced. As written, a number of mitigation measures presented in the DEM (e. g. , Mitigation Measure Nos. 4.6.1, 4.6.9, 4.9.3, 4.9.6, 4.9. 11) do not mandate actions on the part of the City (or others) and can, therefore, be ignored by the responsible party. Each of these mitigation measures should either be restractured (i.e., "shall" or "will") to ensure incorporation into the project, identified as optional elements or deleted from the document and the resulting environmental effect (without the mitigation measure) re-examined. Page 4.1.3. Figure 4.1-1 (Ind Use in the Surrounding Arra) fails to identify specific land uses in the project arra (e.g., residential uses in the City of Diamond Bar), accurately and precisely represent those land uses (e.g., identify the existing ballfield in the City of Diamond Bar), correctly illustrate the distance and configuration of those adjoining land uses relative to the project site (e.g., Lanterman State Hospital and Development Center) or include a broad enough arra of analysis which will facilitate understanding of adjoining development activities (e.g., easterly of the site only an arra of approximately 1,200 linear feet is represented). Use of an aerial photograph 4021MRF Analysis Page 14 CITY OF INDUSTRY MAMULS RECOVERY FACILITY z (identifying the project in the center of the exhibit) would be more illustrative that the figure provided in the DEOL Based upon a review of the USGS 7.5 minute San Dimas Quadrangle (which includes the project site), the nearest building contained within the Lanterman State Hospital and Development Center (identified on that map as the Pacific State Hospital) is approximately 2,600 feet (approximately 0.5 miles) from the project site. The repi+esentation that this medical facility is "approximately 3/4 miles to the northeast" implies a greater physical separation than actually exists. In recognition of this measurement error, impacts upon that facility (as identified in the DEM may u� the project's potential effects upon Lanterman State Hospital and the users of that complex. Similarly, as indicated on that USGS map, the closest residential unit to the project site is approximately 800 feet away and not 1,200 feet as indicated in the DEM (page 4.1-4, 13). Page 4.1-3. Figure 4.1-2 (Vicinity Zoning Map) should include a scale to assess distances of each zoning category from the project site, include additional land area beyond the narrow confines illustrated on that exhibit, and accurately dahnate all zoning designation within a radius of not less than 0.5 miles from the site. The zoning designations indicated do not accurately reflect (or define) the corresponding zoning classifications in the area analyzed. The actual zoning designation (and development standards) and not a generalized classification should be indicated. In addition, the corresponding General Plan designations applicable to these areas should be identified. G Page 4.1-4, 11 through 4. The zoning designations indicated in the text do not directly correspond with the zoning designation illustrated in Figure 4.1-2 (page 4.1-3). All discrepancies should be reconciled. Page 4.1-6,13. While the DEM indicates that the Los Angeles County Fire Department is the Local Baforcement Agency (LEA) for hazardous waste facilities, the DElR does not indieale the LEA for solid waste management (e.g., Los Angeles County Department of Heaitb Services). The appropriate LFA should be identified and any discretionary actions sable to that agency delineated. o Page 4.1-6, 14. Applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits and permit requirements (e.g., NPDES CA 0061654 issued to the County and local communities) should be discussed, including project compliance with all stormwater quality management requirements imposed upon the City and County pursuant to that permit. 4MIMRF Analysis Page IS CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY 0 Page 4.1-5 through 4.1-7. Project implementation will require the development of an access road linldng the site to Grand Avenue, including the construction of street improvements within the Union Pacific Railroad/Grand Avenue undercrossing. These improvements may necessitate land (or easement) acquisition through negotiation or eminent domain. What discretionary actions (and by whom) will be required to develop the access roadway? What additional discretionary entitlements will be required from the City (e.g., site plan review), County (e.g., alterations to or encroachment upon the existing flood control channel), State (e.g., Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Section 1601-16(Y7 Streambed Alteration Agreement) or applicable federal agencies (e.g., Section 404 permit)? 0 Page 4.1-7,12. The DEIR indicates that the impacts of the project "were determined by identifying the project's conformance with pertinent land use policy documents and addressing the compatibility of the project with existing and proposed attacent land use" (emphasis added). The identification of proposed or potential land uses should result from a detailed analysis of existing public policy documents (e.g., General Plana, Zoning. Ordinances) affecting the area of analysis. Based upon those policies, as inaufincieuutllt represented in Figure 4.1-2 (page 4.1-3), residential development either exists or can be anticipated in the City of Walnut and City of Diamond Bar in close proximity to the site (i.e., future residential development may occur closer to the site than reflected by present conditions). Although stating that the impact analysis includes "proposed adjacent land uses," the DEIR limits its analysis.of potential residential conflicts to reflect only existing land uses. For example, although Figure 4.1-2 (page 4.1-3) identifies "residential" zoning northerly of Valley Boulevard and the text indicates that "existing open spaces adjacent to the northwest side of Valley Boulevard is currently zoned Residential Planned Development" (page 4.1-4,12), no discussion of potential residential development within 500 feet of the site is provided in the DER (pages 4.1-8 and 4.1-9). As a result of the DEIR's failure to address potential impacts, the document erroneously concludes that no mitigation is necessary. Page 4.1-7, 13. Although no formal thresholds for significance are defined by CBQA (for land use), a number of potential criteria should be considered for incotpoi d — in the DElig. Significant adverse impacts should be assumed to result from: (1) the loss Of 'Primo 8061tural lands" as defined under Section 56064 of the California Code of Regulatim; (2) the creation or conflicts with adopted regional plans and policies (e.g., Air QaaNy Management Plan); (3) projects which exacerbate regional affordable housing demands through either the reduction of affordable housing opportunities or the creation of additional demands for that horsing; (4) the loss or reduction of any sensitive or protected habitat area, vegetation community or animal species; (5) development in areas susceptible to geologic or hydrologic hazards; and (6) any activity which creates a 46921MRF Ana6wis Page 16 M7 OF nOUJ.S T MAMMUS RECOVERY FACHR7 potential lwlth and safety risk to either site users or off-site receptors. Based upon a number of the above factors, potential land use impacts would be deemed "significant." Page 4.1-7,14. 117he DEnt confuses promotional statements which support preconceived solutions with actual analysis of project impacts. Referencing Section 15151 of the State CBQA Guidelines, "an EER should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision -makes with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently falces account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be extensive, but the sufficiency of an IIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible." The DEIR indicates (page 4.1-1, 11) that the site "is presently used by the Mechlin Feed Processing Company ... for feed processing and storage." Directly adjoining the site is the Benton Feed Processing Facility. The Spadm Farms (Cal Poly University) adjoins the site's northeasterly boundary. These activities constitute agricultural uses and their presence verifies the feasibility of agricultural activities on this site. Similarly, agricultural activities are authorized under the City of IndustryZoning Ordinance. Although the ardministratire, record supports the feasibility of retaining agricultural uses on-site, the DER concludes that since "this site has been designated for industrial devekpnent...the continued agricultural use of this site is impractical." While the loss of this agricultural use may not "have an adverse impact on agricultural productivity" (page 4.1-8, 11), no attempt has been provided to present a reasonable analysis of the project's potential land use impacts. o Page 4.1-8, 14. The conclusion that "existing agriculturaltOM spaces [uses] on the adjacent Spadra Farm site will not be affected by the adjacent BMF" fails to consider the potential indirect impacts associated with the.. conversion of the site from an agricultural activity to an inial land use. As non ag awltcual uses encroach into existing agrieultnral areas, the viability of the remaining agricultural activities are diminished. Addition0y, no analysis is offered to support the conclusion that "Lanterman State Hospital and nevelopaaeat Cater, located approximately 3,000 feet northeast of the 1MRF dit w MW not be at%cted by operation of the R4MF due to its distance from the project.' Section 15064(b) of the State CBQA Guidelines requires that "the deterrmination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment cells for careful judgment on the n of the public agency involved, based to the e.Ytent possibk on sCkndfic an f data' (emphasis added). No analysis is provided indicating that beyond a certain distance (e.g., 2,600 feet) impacts will diminish or disappear. The statement in the DEIR suggests not that the 4MIMRF Amdysis Page 17 s CITY OF INDUSTRY MA73RULS AWOVFRY FACTTITY impacts will be reduced to a level which is insignificaar nt, rather no impacts are anticipated. The existence of odor, air quality and noise (e.g., truck traffic and railroad operations) all suggest that impacts upon this land use would be potentially significant. To support the conclusions presented in the MR, an analysis of the project's impacts upon this medical facility should be undertaken. Although potentially beyond the radius established by statute, the DER should include a discussion of the disclosure obligation required under Section 65850.2 of the California Code of Regulations, which provides a mechanism for local governmental agencies to determine and mitigate risks posed by routine and accidental hazards and acutely hazardous emissions from new and existing sources. Based upon that statute, no agency shall approve an application for a permit to construe or aper an emission source within a specified distance from the outer boundary of a school, hospital or long-term care facility without meeting the requirements of Sections 25334 and 42303 of the California Health and Safety Code. The project's distance from the boundaries of the hospital site (and YMCA) should be accurately delineated and, if applicable, the requires of the above statute addressed. Page 4.1-59, 17. Insutiiciat analysis is provided to support the conclusion that project impletion will not significantly impact future residential uses which may be developed on residentially zoned property fronting on Valley Boulevard. Although the ir+iRF may Proceed the development of that property, the DELR (through its own admission) should analyze tbture land uses reasonably anticipated to occur in the project area. What are the em+ironmental and economic impacts upon those land uses and how will the proposed project influence or effect the subsequent development of these residential sites? In analyzing project slated impacts upon residential uses in the City of Diamond Bar (page 4.1-9,14), located approximately 700 feet from the AM site, the DEIR concludes that PoteQM impacts will be significant. Similar conclusions should be made for both existing and future residential uses in the City of Walnut. Pate 4."t " through S. The DEM indicates that, prior to mitigation, impacts to existing nptideotial and recreational uses in the City of Diamond Bar will be "significant" for'chayls to views, increased night lighting and noise from the project:" In addition, air quality acct odor impacts (see Air Quality below) will significantly affect Diamond Bar residents. While numerous mitigation measures are proposed, the effectiveness of each measure to address a specific impact (and to reduce that impact to a level which is not significant) is neither quantified nor qualitatively addressed. An unspecified "landscape plan" will 4WIMRF Anatpk Page 18 MY OF INDUMY MATFRUM RECOVERY FACHM somehow manus that the IIVIItF is adequately screened from view and that residential uses located at mucor higher elevations (above sea level) will not be afforded interior views of the proposed facility (note that no photographs have been included for Key Observation Points "F" and "G" as represented in Figure 4.2-1, page 4.2-3 in the DEM. Additional, the DEM does not distinguish between potential short-term impacts (e.g., prior to any vegetative screening reaching maturity) and long-term impacts nor does the mitigation measure suggest a landscape palette, planting plan or monitoring program to ensue effectiveness. Appendix G of the State CBQA Guidelines includes a listing of impacts that are considered to constitute "significant effects on the environment." This listing includes, but is not limited to, projects which: (1) have a substantial, demonst<able negative aesthetic effect; (2) increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; (3) create a potential heath hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the area affected; (4) conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of the area; (5) violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute obsMatisAy to as existing or projected air quality violation or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and (7) convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural uaa or impact the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land. The proposed project results in land use conflict which produce each of the above rderenced significant impacts. The construction of a 6 -foot barrier to attenuate noise will neither prevent line -of --sight exposure or reduce project related impacts to levels in compliance with existing municipal noise standards. Noise sources are not confined to the periphery of the site but will occur as a result of operational activities both interior to the site and along the site boundaries (e.g., along the access road and rail spurs). Openings in the wall, as may be required for vehicular and/or rail access, will further diminish any attemiation associated with a perimeter barrier comprised of either "opaque fencing or a 6 -foot high block wall" (page 2-11, 13). As indicated by the windrose represented in Figure 4.6-2 (page 4.6-4), the major wind direetios is assumed to be southwest to northeast, directing air -borne pollutants (and odors) to o u existing residential uses in the City of Diamond Bar. As a result air pollutim a ('including fugitive dust and odors) will be directed toward those land uses. The proposed mitigation measures will not reduce identified impacts to a level which is insignificant. Either additional mitigation measures need to be identified, project alternatives (including alternative sites) explored or the DMR needs to be revised to conclude for significance. 4692/MRF Arwlyds Page 19 CUT OF INDURRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACllll'Y Pap 4.1-10 and Plop 4.1-11. Project implementation will necessitate the construction and operatics of a new access road to be developed on, across or adjoining the existing Benton Feed Lot. No discussion is provided concerning the potential impacts resulting with this improvement and the associated traffic on this existing business activity and agricultural land use. Page 4.2-4. Figure 4.2-2 (Cross Section Elevation) provides insufficient information from which to evaluate visual impacts from either Key Observation Point (KOP) "C", located in the City of Walnut, or KOP "F," located in the City of Diamond Bar. Although topographic information provided in Figure 4.2-1 (pap 4.2-3) indicates that KOP "C" is approximately 150 feet above the project site and KOP "F" is approximately 50 feet above the site, both the scale of the section drawing and the absence of a verticle grid prevents substantive analysis. However, based upon the ekvation of adjacent residential receptors and the proposed addition of a six-foot perimeter wall, all easterly oriented dwelling units in the Snow Crede Subdivision (City of Walnut) and all westerly oriented residential units on Deep Hill Road, Big Falls Drive and other streets within the existing residential area westerly of the SR-57/SR-W interchange (City of Diamond Basi will be afforded a view of the project site (inchxft the proposed access road). The graphics contained in the DEIR do not accurately depict either the magnitude of the problem or the number of dwelling units affected. Page 4.2-5, Pap 4.2-7 and Plop 4.2-8. Although a number of photographs an Provided, the location of the project site is not depicted. As a result, it is not possible to determine the viewer's perception of the site from any of the KOPs indicated. Each photograph should be modified to include both delineation of the project site and a rendering of the project as perceived from the locations indicated. Additionally, it is not clear why photographs from KOP "F" and KOP "G" (City of Diamond Bar) have been deleted from the DEfit. Page 4.1,6, % Although the DEER references the City of bdnstry Development Guidelines (Appendix B), no analysis is provided concerning the project's compliance with thoetdeeign st oduds. Raking those guidelines, the following design standards indicate d ala the proposed project fails to conform with established policies of the City of Industry: ► New development or the alteration or enlargement of existing development shall be compatible with the character and quality of surrounding development and shall enhance the appearance of the arra in which the development is located; 4=IMRF Analysis Paas 20 C17Y OF INDUSTRY MA7ERU S RECOVERY FACHBY P. The location, configuration, size and design of buildings and structui= shall be visually harmonious with their sites and with the surrounding sites, buildings and structures and should not create pedestrian or vehicular traffic hazards; .and ► Truck loading docks which are located on the front or side of a building shall be adequately screened by an eight foot high masonry wall, accessory structures, or landscaping and foliage so that such truck loading docks are not visible, to the greatest extent practical, from any public right-of-way. Whenever possible, trick loading docks should be located at the rear of the building. The project, based upon its location and visibility from adjoining mal, recreational, institutional and agricultural arm, will neither "enhance the appearance of the ara" nor be "harmonious with their sites and with the surrounding sites." Should development be authorized, a variance from these design standards should be included as a discrOdOnary action on the part of the City of Industry. In accordance with Section 15125(b) of the State CHQA Guidelines, "the OR sha8 discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project sad applicable geaeaxl plans Wd regional plans." Merely stating that design standards presently exist, does not constitute an analysis of project consistency with those standards. In the absence of that consistency analysis, the description of the environmental setting does not satisfy applicable CBQA requirements• As indicated in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR shall conclude for significance when a project will "have a substantial, demonstrable negative effect." The DEM should be amended to conclude that the project will both conflict with local standards and will produce a "significant effect on the environment." page 4.2-6, 16. The conclusion that the visual charactesistios of the project will not be "substantially different from any other industrial complex" ignores the fact that the visual characteristics of a pm*ct aro not limited to the design of the buildings, but include the operational characteristics of the proposed use. A project which generates 7,302 daily vehiMIW trips (page 4.5-30, 11), generates offensive odor (i.e., 5D/'1') both during normal operating conditions (page 4.6-32, 12) and which are deemed significant "under upset coaditkm" (page 4.6-34, 14) cannot be equated with just any "other industrial compim s The discission of "visual characteristics" should be expanded to include an analysis of the project's operational parameters and how those parameters may irut IM= visual perceptions about the site from adjoining residential, recreational and inakational remptors- 4692/MRF Analysis Page 21 CITY OF INDUSTRYMWERULS RECOVERY FACHRY Page 4.2.41 16. The DEIR states that "a 6 -foot tall cyclone fence will circle the entire site." Elsewhere, the DMR indicates that "a 6 -foot high block wall will surround the site" (page 2-11, 13). The composition of the wall may influence and partially mitigate certain project -related impacts (e.g., noise). As a result, a consistent statement concerning the wall's proposed building material, should be provided. Additionally, any area where a block wall may be infeasible (e.g., access points) should be identified and graphically depicted. Page 4.2-10,14. The DEIR indicates that the project will cause a negative visual impact if it will "may obstruct views, block sunlight, cause disruptive glare or light, or conflict with the visual character of the regional due to the scale, height, mass and architectural character of the project. " This definition artificially narrows the range or activities which may be considered intrusive and ignores: (1) projects which are inconsistent with existing public policy; and (2) projects which are disharmonious with the existing visual environment (e.g., create a visual contrast to either the natural character of the landscape or introduce man-made changes which potentially conflict with adjoining uses). Since the project will displace an existing agricultural use and introduce a land use which is potentially disharmonious with adjoining residential uses, the DEM should conclude that the project will produce a "significant effect on the environment' and explore other development alternatives (e.g., alternative sites) which have the potential to minimize project -induced impacts below a level of significance. Page 4.2-12, 12. The DEIR concludes that "the visual change in the MF site from Open space to an industrial complex could be perceived as a substantial conflict in [the] visual character of the region." Based upon that finding, the DEM is obligated to conclude for significance. The mere planting of landscape material (as proposed in the only mitigation measure offered) will not adequately mitigate this impact and will not eliminate this identified visual conflict (e.g., will landscaping be so dense as to prevent interior views of the site?). The DER further indicates that trees will only "partially screen the view of the DOV (page 2-11, 14), thereby not precluding a view of the site from other potential sensitive receptors (e.g., residential, recreational and institutional land uses). The g* feasible mitigation measure available to the Lead Agency to reduce this effect below a level of significance would be to relocate the project to a less visible location (so as to minimize or avoid potential land use conflicts). o Page 4.2-12, 16. The DEER indicates that views of the project site from the City of Diamond Bar "will be substantially changed due to the close proximity of [the] proposed structure to existing development." Section 15382 of the State CBQA Guidelines defines "significant effect on the environment" to mean "a substantial or potential substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, 46921MRF Analysis Page 22 MY OF INDUSTRY MATERUL S RECOVERY FACHJTY including iand...(emphasis added). 'The DEM concludes that the change is substantial, therefore, a finding of significance will be required. It is unclear how the introduction of bandscaping and directorial lighting will reduce this impact to a level which is bass than significant. ]Does the planting of a tree suggest that the physical change to the environment will not occur? Page 4.2-14,120. The DEIR should explain how the introduction of 5,700 tpd of MSW onto an existing agricultural site in view of numerous residential uses will result in an "enhancement of the visual environment." The Initial Study (Appendix A) concluded that project implementation had the potential to affect schools, the maintenance of public facilities (including roads), other government services and communication systems. Despite declarations in the Inl" Study that there topical issues will be addressed in the lit, no discussion or analysis is provided in the DEIR. Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that "an BIR must include a description of the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commencement of the project, from both a local and regional perspective ... Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts." Based upon this requirement, the DEIR has an obligation to disclose sufficient information regarding the existing environmental setting which will both assist in the understanding of that condition and facilitate an independent analysis of the project's potential environmental impacts. As presented, the DEIR (pages 4.3-1 and 4.3-2) provides negligible information concerning fire and police protection, water (domestic, fire flow) and utilities. Specific comments concerning each of these topical issues are presented below. o Page 4.3-1, Fire Prntedion. The discussion of existing fire protection and paramedic services should be augmented to include: (1) the location, staffing, equipment and response bases for both the first -response station and secondary fire stations providing back-up response to the project area; (2) any applicable public standards regarding the adequacy of response times; (3) obstacles (e.g., traffic congestion, at -grade railroad crossing) and constraints (e.g., budgetary limitations) which may influence response characteristics; (4) existing fire hazards imposed by site conditions (e.g., wildland fire hazards) or adjoining land uses; (5) applicable City or County policies regarding this topical issue; (6) information concerning either response rates or other generation factors utilized by the County to project project -induced demands; and (7) any unique fire 4MIMRF Analysis Page 23 CITY OF IlVDUSIRY MA7ERUL S RECOVERY FACUM s hazards and noticing obligations associated with project, s storage or processing of MSW, including household hazardous wastes. Page 4.3-1, Police Services. The discussion of the existing police protection services should be augmented to include: (1) the location, staffing, equipment and response times for first -response and secondary stations or substations; (2) any applicable public standards regarding the adequacy of response times; (3) obstacles and constraints which may influence response times; (4) historic response rates concerning emergency/ nonemergency calls (as a factor of population or development) within the service area; (S) generation factors uhLzed for Pig pub; (6) enwgency response and disaster plans; (7) applicable City or County policies applicable to the topical issues (e.g., standards, addressing the adequacy of police protection services); (8) California Highway Patrol involvement; (9) applicable Vehicle Code or other policies associated with the transport of MSW and household hazardous wastes; and (10) other information which may help describe the casting em+ironi setting. Fags 4.3-19, Water. Although the DFJR discloses that a 24 -inch water main a located in Grand Avenue, no discussion is provided indicating whether adequate capacity exists within that water line to service the project. Additionally, the DER should compare existing water resp u menta associated with the current land use against projected water demands resulting from the IInF. The location of the -12-inch reclaimed [water] main- should be identified and/or gmphically dept, operational activities (e.g., dust palliation) which may utilize reclaimed water should be identified and any applicable standards or requirements associated with the use of reclaimed water should be outlined. Any permits, approvals or easements which may be required to obtain adequate water service should be identified. Page 4.3-2, Sewage Treatment. The pear capacity of the existing -27-inch trunk main located along the Southesrn Pacific rail line, - measured in million gallons per day (ingd), should be identified, iWAX11ng the existing and projected pear flow when the Dd RF is made operational. Any potential deficiencies in sewer capacity should be identified. Wastewaters will be transported to either the San Jose Creels Water Reclamation Plant or the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant. The design capacity of those facilities should be identified, the average flow processed at those facilities (including both existing and projected rates) determined, based upon consultation with the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, and any proposed and approved expansion plans identified. Any regional wastewater treatment issues (e.g., systemwide deficiencies) should be identified and discussed. 4MIMRF Page 24 IL CITY OF IMUSMY MATARUL S RECOVERY FACff1TY Page 4.3-21, Utilities. The location of the easement containing the "12,000 volt express line from the Trophy Substation [which] nuns through the project site" should be described and graphically depicted. Should this transmission line require relocation or should the presencx of the easement affect subsequent site utilization, the DEM should acknowledge these potential constraints. Page 4.3-3, 12 and 3. Although the project will introduce an estimated 7,302 daily vehicle trips onto the area's roadway network and add 141 new employees to the region's labor force, the only impact upon police services identified in the DEM is the potential for trespass, vandalism and/or theft (of MSW') from the project site. No increase m emergency or, nonemergency calls has been identified, no increase in police personnel or equipment needs are indicated and no transportation -related issues, affecting the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LACSD) or California Highway Patrol (CSP) are addressed in the DER. As indicated in the Notice of hVWVd M (NOP) mailing list (included in Appendix A), the CSP was not consulted in the derivation of the DEIR's conclusions. The analysis presented m the DMR does not provide a "suffxda t degree of analysis to provide decision-makeas with information which enables them to make a decision which ;ntev gay totes account of environmental consequences" (Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines). Page 4.3-49, 11. As with the preceding comment on the adequacy of the analysis of Project -related impacts upon police services, two 'sentences cannot be construed as a "reasonably feasible" analysis (Section 15 15 1, State CEQA Guidelines) of project related impacts upon fire protecdon and Pari�le aenncCII• Since the DEM sclmowledges that workers will be exposed to health rislm (e.g., page 1-10,13-5), an increase in paramedic services may be anticipated. Similarly, based upon unique fire hazards (imchrding those associated with household hazard materials), the DER should define the requisite fire hydrant capacity (and the availability of the existing water service. to deliver . that capacitS►), any requisite upgrades to existing fire flow systems, project-speeif a equipment requimew, training procedures or procedural obligations, relevant Uniform Pie Code reqs- discussion of underground storage tanks if proposed for the storage of peri bxw. products (e.g., diesel fuel) or leachate collection and access requirements (including secondary access rocpuirements and emergency response Plans) - Page 4.3-4, Water. Section 210812 of the California Bnvironmental Quality Act requires that the determination of project impacts be "based on substantial evidence in the public record. " Substantial evidence is defined to mean "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support 4MIMRF Analysis Paas 25 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACMUY a cOncludon...mere uncorroborated opinion or manor does not constitute substantial evidence- (Section 15384, State CEQA Guidelines). Based upon this definition and the absence of any analysis concerning potential water -related or sewage treatment impacts, the DEIR does not provide sufficient information to facilitate informed decision -malting. C Page 4.3-4, Sewage Treatment. Although identified as a discretionary approval sought under authority of this EIRR (page 1-7, 12), no discussion or analysis is provided concerning the wed for (or conditions precedent to the obtaining of) an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit. The DEM should be augmented to identify both the- rrmme -tal and procedural considerations associated with the issuances of this permit. See also Pig cam. Page 4.3-5, Stormwatw Drainage. On page 4.3-2, 12, the DER defers any discussion Of the project setting to Section 4.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of that dock. Equipped with no information on dormwatea drainage and water quality issues, ,the reader is then provided with a discussion which purports to analyze stormwater drainage water quality consideradm. Based upon the absence of supportive doouaseetaA. , this sec tioa should be either supplemented or relocated to the appropriate section in the DER. Page 4.3-69 Utilities. No attempt has been provided to quantify electrical or natural gas consumption requirod either under this topical heading, as part of the air quality analysis (Section 4.6) or as part of the analysis of natural resources and energy (Section 4.8). In the absence of any projections, it is not possible to i -1-pendently verify either the existence of avalMe service capacity or evaluate who on-site or off-site improvements may be required to extend those services onto the project site. Although natural gas is introduced under the "setting" section (page 4.3-2,15), no discussion of potential impacts is provided herein. From this it can be assumed that no natural gas service will be provided to the project site or consumed during Project operation. 0 Page 4.4-5,14. The DEIR indicates that "this project conforms to provisions of the City of Industry's (metal Plan, the County General Plan, the County Hazardous Waste Maaagemeat Plan, and the County Solid Waste Management Plan... " No information is, howewr, provided to substantiate the above comment or indicate how (or to what degree) the project conforms to the planning documents cited. Has a FYnding of Conformance (with the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan) been issued by the Local Enforcement Agency (e.g., Los Angeles County Health Department, Solid waste Program)? 4MIMRF Analysis Page 26 cnT OF INDUSTRY 11/VERULS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 4.441 12. To facilitate public understanding of the information presented in the DEM, the term "risk of upset" should be defined or included under Section I1 (Glossary of Technical Terms) included in that document. Page 4.4-6,13 through S. Although the DEM concludes that "rail transportation presents less of a safety risk than truck transportation," the DER does not include a comparative analysis (e.g., number and severity of acus) of potential health and safety hazards associated with truck transport verses rad haul. The hazards analysis should address the relationship between project -generated train trips and the accident incidence potential at nonseparated grade crossing. Calculations for determining hazard index values should include type of crossing protection provided, average daily trips (ADI) along p area roadways and the maximum number of train trips projected to occur when the BOF is fully operable. Since a number of different rail -haul sites are under oonaidWO. on (page 2-25 through 2-28), any variation in hazard potential associated with these sites should be identified. C Page 4.4-7, 11. The DEW indicates that "a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Sit! Assessment for the facility site was prepared by Tait Environmental Management Inc•, of Orange, California. The report concluded that this site presented no signiJieant environmmml cancans' (emphasis added). Wen "nonsignrfica dw environmental concerns identified? Were mitigation measures or further analysis recommended? By not including the &Wron nmd Site Assessment as a technical appendix in the DEIR or presenting a summary of its findings, the public has no opportunity to independendy evaluate the adequacy of that analysis, verify its faithful representation in the DER, understand the limitations of that investigation or ensure that the recommendations of that study (if any) are implemented as conditions of project approval. Since a Phase U limited site assessment is typically conducted when the results of a Phase I due -diligence asses reveals the existence of potential contamination, actual site contamination or both, the fact that a Phase II investigation, was performed may indicate that potential problem areas or liabilities (associated with soil or groundwater o - ----- ration) have been identified. Based upon these concerns, the En- ironmead Site A messma t should be included as a technical appendix to the MR. Page 4.4-7, 14. The DEM declares that "the possibility of an increase in traffic accidents is discussed in Section 4.5 [Traffic and Circulation] of this ML" Upon reviewing Section 4.5, no discussion of traffic accidents, vehicle -pedestrian or vehicle - rail hazards are provided. The DEIR should be augmented to discuss both on-site and off-site traffic hazards. 4MAWRF Analysis Page 27 I CITY OF IMUnRl lIGlTF1t U RECOVERY FACILITY Plage 4.4.0, U. The DEIrs "standards of significance" should be expanded to include information from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.Referencing that document, sigoifcaft effects include the creation of "a potential health hoard or involve the use, production or dQPOsal Of nweriak which pose a hazard to people or animal or Plant populations in the area affected" (emphasis added). Based upon the anticipated identification (and on-site storage) of household hazardous wastes within the waste stream (page 2-14, 12-3, page 4.4-2, 11-3) and the resulting obligation on the MF operation to dispose of those materials in the manner prescribed by law, potential health and safety hazards associated with the IIVIRF must be viewed as significant. Fags 4.4-10,18. As indicated herein (page 2-16, 13) each waste sorter will be required to handle approximately 3 pounds of MSW per .second throughout their &hour shift. Ibis produiction mWirement will expose sorters to repetitive stress, making m "fatigue and discomfret...and cause the workers to be more accident prone" (page 4.4-5, 13). The DEIR acimowledges that "secondary material sorters would be subjected to repetitive SUM' (page 1-11, 12). Despite this potential safety hazard, the 2pliM analysis of repartrve stress in that "off cient data is not available to determine whether secondary material sorters an subject to repetitive stress mlunes. " Mus level of analysis (or nonanalysis) is both contradictory to other conclusions presented in the DEIR and does not satisfy the "standards for adequacy" specified under Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Fags 4.4-12, 19. The DER should be augmented to include a "reasonably feasible" analysis (Section 15151, State CEQA Guidelines) of the potential hazards associated with projected increases in rail traffic. See comments under page 4.4-6, 13 through 5 herein. Page 4.4-13, Mitigation Measure 4.4.20. The DEIR states that "wastes shall be shipped to an authorized facility within 48 hours of receiving the waste, or within 96 hours if stored within a covered container." What'are the potential health risks and odor impacts to adjaceiat residents anxiated with the storage of several thousand tons of solid waste, held in rail storage containers for up to four days? Paige 4.4-139, 18. The DER states that "when the RARF is fully operational, a loaded train wi11leave the facility every day, six days a week, making a wait of more than 48 hours unliWy" (page 4.4-13,12). In the event of a rail accident or derailment that could close a Segment of the rail line, how would the DARF operator ensure uninteaupted service so that MSW is not stockpiled either within or outside of the facility? 4=IMRF Analysis Page 28 CHT OF INDEWRY M47ERM W RECOVERY FACILITY o Page 4.5-5, 13. The DICIR assumes that 1,000 tpd of the projected maximum capacity of MSW will be transported from another MRP in Southern California (page 2-7, 12). Although that facility is not identified, it can be assumed that traffic patterns in the vicinity of that MSF will be modified as MSW is transported between transfer stations. In recognition of this off-site impact, a number of additional ink (and freeway cps) in Proximity to that existing facility should be examined. o Pap 4.5-13, 12. The DEM represents that the project will be phased, such that the ultimate capacity will not be reached under the year 1998 (Page 2-1, 12). In contrast, the traffic analysis mdiCates the the "project could be constructed and fully operational sometime in 1994." No phased analysis of the project's pohmdd impacts is inchrded in the traffic analysis. Additionally, no rationale is Provided why the year 2000 has been selected to analyze future year project oondit m (since the Project is projected to be Operating at build—t by the year 1998). The DEM should explain why the year 1996 and a longer time period was not selected for analysis. Page 4.5-15 through Fags 4.5-17. A total of 17 projects are identified which, when have the potential to produce cumulative impacts. Although not all added to the 1aVIItF, foot assumptions are identified, for those dwelling unit of square of the call i nNO- projects which include a designated size, the following Cumulative project activities are anticipated: (1) 411,965 square feet of medical use; (2) 365,000 square feet of commercial use; (3) 457,904 square feet of industrial use, plus 1,000 acres of industrial development; (4) 569 dwelling units; and (5) 1,135,000 square feat of office use. The location of each of these related projects, relative to the project site, should be graphically depicted. Additionally, these projects have not been utilized to evaluate potential cumulative impacts in Section 6 (pages 6.0-1 through 6.0-10) of the DEUR. The DEIR's failure to accurately and consistently evaluate the impacts from these related projects results in a significant under -estimation of cumulative projed impacts throughout the environmental analysis. Page 4.5-27. In discussing both projed setting and environmental impacts, the DEIR makes no referanee to (or analysis of) congestion management programs (CMP) being prepared by various County transportation planning agencies' such as the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC). The CMP is mandated by Section 65089 of the California Government Code. Assembly Bill (AB) 471, as amended by AB 1791, enacted the requirement for the Preparation of 4MIMRF Andysir Page 29 CITY of INDUSTRYMATERIALS RECOVERY FACITn7 CMPs. Proposition I I I (passed in June of 1990) permits a nine -cent increase of the State gasoline tax over a five year period. The new gasoline tax revenue provides the funds needed to implement the CMP transportation programs. Each County is required to submit its proposed final draft of the CMP to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG will review the CMPs for conformance with the adopted Regional Mobility Plan and then adopt a regional CMP. Thereafter, the CMP will be updated annually. To qualify for funding, the City of Industry must satisfy all of the CMP requirements adopted by SCAG. Under statute, the CMP must consist of the following five elements: (1) a system or network of freeways, highways and streets with minimum Level of Service (LOS) standards designated for the freeway/highway/street segmenta and Joey intersections on this system; (2) hansit standards for frequency and muting of transit service and coordircatiwn between transit operators; (3) a trip .reduction plan and travel demand management pogram to promote ahm&dve trans1. , , *on methods during Peak travel periods; (4) a program to analyze the impacts of local land use decisions on the regional transportation system; and (5) a seven-year capital inpovement program that includes projem proposed for funding through the State Flexible Congestion Relief or Traffic System Management programs. The County transportation planning agencies are responsible for providing County -wide transportation planning. Local governments are req= 16 for implementing the CMP. If a local jurisdiction is found to be out of compHa= with the CMP, the County transportation Planning agency is mandated to notify the State Controller to withhold the Proposition 111 gasoline tax funds (Section 2105 of the State Streets and highways Code). Annually, the County transportation Ping agency is mandated to certify that local jurisdictions are in compliance with the CMP requirements. The respon MAlitin of local governments include: Monitoring the attainment of acceptable minimum LOS standards and the collection of traffic data for the local streets and roads that are adopted as part of the County CMP network; Adopting and implementing a trip reduction plan (for approval by the South Coast Air Quality Management District under that agency's Regulation XV requirements) and a travel demand ordinance. Each local jurisdiction is responsible for adopting and implementing a Transportation Demand Management 4=IMRF Analysis Page 30 Z i-rry na IMMI TRY JWA7"[AfS RECOVERY FACIIM (TDM) ordinance and should consider approving trip reduction options during the permit review process; ► Adopting and implementing a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions on the CMP transportation system, including mitigation costs. Local jurisdictions are required to consider how new development may impact the regional system, as part of the land use decision-making process. 'This aspect of the CMP is also enforced by the passage of AB 40 (1990) which amends the CBQA requirements to require the Lead Agency to assess a project's impact on the regional syn. Local agencies should consult with transit opus during the development review process to assess the impacts of a development project on transit; ► Developing annual deficiency plans for portions of the CMP network within a jurisdiction that does not meet the established minimum IAS standards (Le., LOS "D" or better or the existing LOS if worse than LOS "D"). Improvements identified in deficiency plans must be from the Deficiency Plan list prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 'These plans are submitted to the County transportation planning agency for approval. Bach jurisdiction must prepare an annual jurisdiction -wide deficiency plan for those segments or intersections of the CMP systems that drop below the established acceptable level of service standards. Statute requires the deficiency plans to include the following elements: (1) an analysis of the cause of the deficiency; (2) a list of improvements necessary to maintain the LOS standard and the estimated cost of the improvements; (3) a list of improvements, programs or action and their estimated coat that will measurably improve the level of service of the system; and (4) an action plan with specific schedule to implement the recommended improvements; and ► Developing sub -County transportation planning models consistent with the County- wide model, to assess the impact of new land developments on the CMP system. Local agencies are required to conduct transportation analysis for all new development projects and the mitigation measures required for these projects. The DEIR should be amended to include a discussion both the City's actions in fulfillment of CMP requirements and the project's consistency with the CMP. o Page 4.5-27, 14. The DER indicates that "the access road [Road A] crosses under Grand Avenue, via the UP [Union Pacific] rail underpass" (page 2-3, 14). The traffic analysis, in its discussion of site access and circulation, makes no further reference to this design concept nor does it present an analysis of the feasibility of this design scheme. 4692AWRF Analysis Page 31 CITY OF INDUSTRY MA7=ALS RECOVERY FACII.TIY In order to allow an independent analysis of this proposed access route, both additional discussion will be required in the DER and one or more graphics provided illustrating the adequacy of any necessary right-of-way, demonstrating physical separation between that roadway and the existing rail link. In addition, the DEIR should be supplemented to include a discussion and graphic representation of specific projed components, including: (1) parking (e.g-, has adequate parking opportunities been provided on-site based upon existing parking standards); (2) vehicle queuing at the gate house and truck scales; (3) the adequacy of container storage area to accommodate anticipated project demands; (4) secondary and/or emergency access routes; (5) on-site turning radius based upon the proposed vehicle fleet and operational characteristics of various on-site activities; and (6) control devices or strategies to minimize vehicle -rail conflicts. C Page 4.5-29, 13. While rail -haul may be available for off-site disposal in the future, the DEM should reflect the continuing use of transfer trucks throughout the period of analysis (i.e., through the year 2000). As a result, the DER should be clarified to delineate the assumptions utilized to evaluate projected year 2000 traffic conditions. If rail haul u assumed for the future year 2000 condition, an additional analysis should be provided assuming that rail -haul is not operational. Page 4.5-29, Trip Generation. Although the DER concludes that 5,882 daily vehicle trips will result from project implementation by the year 1994 and 7,302 trips/day can be anticipated in the year 2000, the methodology for the deviation of those trips is not presented for independent validation. All assumptions utilized to develop those Projections should be presented for public review, including document sources (e.g., ITE) used to derive trip generation rates. Employee trips should be included in the preparation of those trip estimates. 0 Page 4.5-30, 12. Although the traffic analysis presents a trip distribution pattern "based upon anticipated service area projections and review of circulation patterns in the study tea," WSUfficiest information is provided to independently derive the distribution rates Presented in aro DMR. 18ased upon the information presented in Table 2.0-5 (page 2-20), it is possible to derive a percentage of the total waste stream attributable to each jurisdiction (note that the County unincorporated area is not tabulated) and assign a corresponding percentage of haffic to the corresponding segment of the roadway network. The methodology utilized by the traffic engineer should be articulated in the D&R. Page 4.542, 12. The air quality analysis (page 4.6-16, 12) concludes that the total number of vehicle miles traveled (VMI) will decrease as a result of project 4692/MRF Analysis Page 32 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACUTY implementation. The traffic analysis, however, appears to present conflicting conclusions (page 4.5-30,11), indicating that project development will generate a significant increase in vehicular trips. The traffic engineer should supplement the analysis of year 2000 traffic conditions to evaluate pre- and post -project VMT. 0 Page 4.5-47 through Page 4.5-51. The evaluation of project -related and cumulative impacts fails to accurately represent the potential environmental consequences of the project in combination with those reasonably foreseeable development activities listed in Table 4.5-3 (pages 4.5-15 through 4.5-17) between the years 1994 and 2000. Each of the 21 study area intersections will be adversely impacted (i.e., change in VIC ratio of greater than two percentage points). The project -plus -related projects (plus ambient growth suppositions which constitute a component of the cumulative analysis) will significantly affect each of the intersections modeled. As a result, mitigation measures should be formulated for each of the project area intersections. From that analysis, a "fair -share" funding mechanism can be developed and post -mitigation assumptions utilized to derive conclusions concerning project significance. Page 4.5-51, 12. A number of traffic improvements have been identified as mitigation for the project's contribution to traffic congestion on the area's roadway network. These measures indicate that "the DaF (City of Industry) shall be responsible for its fair shave based on its portion of the overall impact." It is unclear whether reference to the IlViRF implies the City of Industry or the ultimate solid waste operator(s) of that facility. Additionally, it is unclear how a "fair share" allocation system will be established and implemented and from whom additional contributions will be obtained. No timeframe has been established for these improvements; therefore, it is not clear whetter these improvements will be operational at project commencement (1994) or build -out (1998). Page 4.6-2, 12. The discussion of typical wind flow patterns does not directly address the seasonal variation of wind patterns. The reference to Figure 4.6-1 (Wind Flow Patterns) should indicate the time period during which the data applies. Is this annual average grind flow? If this is a monthly pattern, which month is it for? Does the figure depict typical wind flow for a certain time of day, such as morning nighttime or noon? Page 4.6-2, 13. The relationship between the location of the "air quality station .in Walnut" and the project site should be established to describe the proximity of the two and the representativeness of using data from Walnut for the proposed project. A more specific quantification of the "number of years" and the actual dates that the station was in operation would be relevant as meteorologic data must be gathered over many years to be considered representative. Also, describing the station where the wind data was 46921MRF Analysis Page 33 CrIT OF INDUSTRY MATEi MLS RECOVERY FACMUT derived as an "air quality station" may be incorrect. Air quality monitoring stations measure pollutant cations in ambient air at over 200 locations throughout the South Coast Air Basin, meteorological (or "met") towers monitor conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind speed and wind direction. The Walnut station was most likely a meteorological monitoring station since CARBs Swnmary of 1991 Air Quality Date does not list an air quality monitoring station in Walnut. A brief interpretation of the wind rose data presented in the DEM (Figure 4.6-2) would be helpful. A wind rose that shows wind speeds at the same Walnut location should also be included. ° Pap 4.6-2, 15. The term "possible sunshine" should be explained to facilitate understanding concerning both the intent and purpose of this reference. ° Page 4.6-5, 13. This paragraph leads the reader to believe that a federal ambient air quality standard exists for sulfate. Them is no such. federal standard; only a State standard exists for sulfate. ° Pap 4.6-69 13. The reference to the contribution of nitrogen oxides to the formation of fine particulate matter should include a mention of nitrates. Also, the abbreviation for nitric oxide is incorrectly stated as NO.. The corrected notation should be provided. ° Page 4.6-6. 14. The chemical formula for sulfates should be given along with a brief discussion on how sulfates are formed. ° Page 4.6-5, 11. Source/Receptor Areas (SRA) are no longer used in an air quality impact assessment. The location of the SCAQMD office within a particular SRA has no relevance in the discussion of project impacts on air quality.. ° Page 4.6-59 12. The selection of the Pico Rivera monitoring station as being most reptive of existing air quality in the project vicinity was based on faulty criteria. The data used to describe existing air quality should be from the air quality monitoring station whidh is both nearest the project site and which reflects the greatest similarity in terrain and urban density. The Pico Rivera station seems to have been selected because it was (at one time) in the same SRA. The Pico Rivera station is approximately 15 miles away and is separated from the project site by the Puente Hills and 1$ Habra Heights. A more reptive set of air quality data would have been obtained from the Pomona station which is on the same side of these hills (as the project site) and is only 5 miles away. The DEIR should describe its masons for selecting the Pico Rivera station and include information obtained from the Pomona air quality monitoring station. 46921MRF Awlysis Page 34 S CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHM Page 4.6-10, 14. A source reference should be provided for the ADT volumes and 45 miles per hour (mph) speed for the SR -60 freeway. An explanation should be given as to why other area roadways were not considered. This is particularly relevant since the DEIR indicates that the "State Route 57 currently carries an ADT of 192,000 vpd in this area" (page 4.5-1,14). ADTe for the SR -W Freeway, as presented in the traffic analysis (page 4.5-1,13), differ from the ADTs presented herein. Additionally, since this vehicle speed appears to contradict the assumptions presented in Appendix D (i.e., 25 mph), the reasons for any internal inconsistencies in the DEM should be cited. o Page 4.6-10, 1S. It is not clear whether a vehicular traverse or a wallcing traverse (or both) was performed for the odor survey. Though the dilution -to -threshold (13/1) levels are explained later in the DEIR (pages 4.6-31 and 4.6-32), there is no explanation in this paragraph and no reference as to where that information could be found in the document. o Page 4.6-11, 11. Since no odor level standards are presented for comparison with the measured data of 5 D/T given, no bases is provided for drawing the conclusion that existing odor levels are insignificant. o Page 4.6.14, Table 4.6-2. The table incorrectly states that there is no federal standard for nitrogen dioxide. The adopted national annual average standard should be identified. • Page 4.6-15,12. The current status of the 1991 Air Quality ManagenwW Plan (AQMP) should be updated since the projected adoption date presented in the text has passed. o Page 4.16, 12. Since MSW must be first transported to the DaF Prior to its subsequent transport to and disposal in a sanitary landfill, the total number of vehicle miles traveled (VMI) may, in fact, increases, particularly for those jurisdictions which are presently located in proximity to the BKK Landfill, Puente Hills Landfill and for Spadra Landfill. Since no or insufficient analysis has been provided concerning the DEM's contention that VMT will be reduced and project -related (and cumulative) air quality impacts will not be significant, it is not possible to conclude that the project conforms to the three AQMP conformity tests. This reference in the DEM should be. either deleted or relocated to after a detailed conformity review is provided. Similarly, the DEIR should be transmitted to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) who will conduct a conformity review as part of their analysis of the DEIR. SCAG has not been identified as a recipient of the Notice of Preparation and may not have received notice of the DEM's availability. o Page 4.6-16, 16. The threshold criteria for carbon monoxide is misrepresented. 46921MRF Analysis Page 35 P CITY OP INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 4.6-189 11. Although the DEIR indicates that a "worst-case" estimate has been utilized to assess construction -related impacts, it is unclear whether the equipment assumptions which are "based upon the past requirements of similar projects" are representative of this project. Since the majority of on-site soils on this 40 -acre site will require removal and replacement with more suitable soil material (page 4.9-16, 11), it is likely that the equipment projections do not accurately reflect required grading Operations. If grading operations have been considered, the grading assumptions should be provided for public review. Page 4.6-18, Table 4.6-3. Information .should be provided to indicate whether these emissions are for gasoline or diesel powered engines. Page 4.6.18, 12. The DEIR concludes that "pollutant emissions generated during peak construction activities, especially NO., may be temporally [sic] significant. - The document further states that "emissions can be reduced by using construction equipment that has catalytic converters, using methanol or low -sulfur pile drivers, and by preventing trucks from idling longer than two minutes. " Although "emissions can be reduced" the DEIR does not clearly indicate whether this reduction will reduce projected impacts below a level of sigWfrca=. Since these potential solutions (e.g., using methanol) are not identified as mitigation measures in the DM, the DER cannot assume the incorporation of these measures or take credit for possible reductions that may result from their application. Page 4.6-19, 11. The conclusion that "combined emissions should not result in local exceedances of air quality standards, but would contribute to downwind exceedances of the ozone standards" is not supported by any attempt to quantify "combined emissions" or define project -related contributions. In the absence of that analysis, no bases is provided to support the conclusion that emissions will not exceed established air quality standards. Page 4.6-19, 11 and 2. Although the DEIR indicates that construction -related vehicle trips include "trucks hauling soil or construction equipment," no projections of the trial number of daily haul trips is provided or the distance of those trips estimated. Page 4.6-20, 11. In projecting a "worst-case" fugitive dust analysis, the DEIR should not limit its analysis exclusively to on-site impacts. Since all or most on-site soils will require exportation and replacement soils imported to replace that soil displaced, off-site grading can be anticipated to occur concurrently with projected site-specific activities. 4MIMRF MalysLv Page 36 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY • Page 4.6-20, 13. The DEIR should clearly state that short-term construction impacts would be deemed to be significant since NO. emissions would exceed the threshold value stated on page 4.6-16, 16 of the DEIR. o Page 4.6-22, Table 4.6-4. The table (or accompanying text) should identify the assumptions utilized in the derivation of the emission projections. Only by identifying both the number of vehicle trips for each of the trip categories listed, the average trip length and the generation factors utilized for each of the criteria pollutants can the reader verify consistency with the assumptions presented in the traffic analysis and methodology recommended by the SCAQMD. o Page 4.6-23, 11. Should the Blsmere Canyon Landfill project not be permitted, how would that action affect the air quality analysis presented in the DEW Why was the Elsmere Canyon site evaluated over other more distant disposal alternatives? o Page 4.6-23, 13. Emissions from the project alone must be quantified, not compared with and subtracted from the emissions from another proposed project. This does not accurately characterize project impacts on air quality. No project will generate negative emissions. o Page 4.6-24, Table 4.6.6. The comparison between rail emissions and mobile emissions must be made on a pounds -per -day basis in accordance with the methodology established by the SCAQMD. The number of tricks required to haul the quantity of waste transported by one train should be stated along with the truck miles traveled so that total daily emissions could be calculated. Page 4.6.25, 11. The DEIR indicates that "twelve trucks and three heavy-duty off- highway pieces of equipment would be utilized" to transport recovered materials to local markets. It is unclear whether this assumption is based upon daily activities on whether the "trucks" (as indicated above) constitute "truck trips." Based upon a projected 50 percent diversion rate (as mandated by AB 939), an estimated 2,850 tpd of recovered material would be transported to local mar%rts in the year 2000• The number of vehicles and vehicle trips required to accomplish that diversion should be documented in the traffic analysis. o Page 4.6-25, 13. The electrical generation and natural gas consumption factors utilized to derive information presented in Table 4.6-7 should be clearly defined, including the methodology utilized. The reader should not be required to review Appendix D of the DuR or required to search throughout the document in an attempt to independently verify the project's emission projections. In reviewing Appendix D, the stationary source emission projections underestimate emissions by inaccurately defining the square footages 4692AWRF Analysis Page 37 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHJ7Y of the Material processing and Transfer Building (see page 4.2-6, 17), failing to include other buildings and not factoring specialized equipment needs of other project -specific energy requirements (e.g., night lighting). Since the facility will operate 24-hour per day, the usage rates indicated in Appendix D may not accurately reflect on-site activities. ° Page 4.6-23, 14. Since the SCAQMD's CEQA Guidelines for Air Quality Analysis constitute only a draft document, the DEIR should also include a project evaluation in accordance with the current Air Quality Handbook for Preparing EnWronntenml rmpacts Reports (April 1987). ° Page 4.6-27, 12. The DEIR misrepresents the distance between the project site and the nearest residential dwelling unit within the City of Diamond Bar, based upon information contained in both the USGS 7.5 minute San Dimas Quadrangle and Figure 4.1-1 (page 4.1-2) in the DEIR. Since all project -generated traffic will either originate from or terminate at the MIRF, the project site may be better utilized (than the adjoining roadway network) for the CALI NE4 analysis. Additionally, since both the YMCA and existing ball field are located in closer proximity that adjoining residential areas, effects on those receptors should be evaluated. ° Page 4.6-29, Table 4.6-9. The footnotes contained within the table misrepresent that 1990 data constitutes "the most recent year available." Year 1991 data should be utilized both in Table 4.6-9, Table 4.6-10 (page 4.6-30) and Table 4.6-2 (page 4.6-14). ° Page 4.6-33, 14 and Page 4.6-34, 11. Although the SCAQMD may have not elected to comment on odor impacts associated with the proposed 4,000 tpd Puente Hills MRF, from that action it is erroneous to conclude that "the AQMP thus concurs that rail car staging and on-site refuse storage for periods of up to 96 hours has no significant odor impact potentlol` (emphasis added). Similarly, insufficient information is provided concerning the Seattle example to determine where that facility is representative or whether conclusions derived from that facility are applicable to the UARF. • Page 4.6-34, 12. The SCREEN model run has not been included in Appendix D as indicated in the DEM. Page 4.6-25, 14. Since "the SOCAB is not expected to attain the state and federal air pollutant standard in the near future," it is reasonable to conclude that any contribution Of non -attainment pollutants to the air basin would exacerbate this regional condition. It is, therefore, unclear how the DEM concludes that "project emissions are determined to be regionally insignificant. " 46921MRF Analysis Page 38 ,•rn»rrvv vAwvwu.c RFrnVF_RY FACILITY In Page 4.626, 11. The DEIR concludes that project emission would result in a regional decrease in specific criteria pollutants. This conclusion is both erroneous and misrepresents both project -related and cumulative. impacts. A thorough air quality analysis must attempt to accurately quantify project and related project emissions and compare those emissions against adopted air quality standards. The analysis should include both a truck -haul and rail -haul scenario and, based upon that separate analysis, compare the resulting impacts associated with those two options. Since no waste -by -rail facilities have presently been permitted, the DEIR must represent the truck haul alternative as the "worst-case" scenario. pursuant to Section 15064(i) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if "information is presented suggesting that the [air or water] emission or discharge may cause a significant effect, the Lead Agency shall evaluate the effect and decide whether it may be significant." Page 4.626, Table 4.6-8. Although the table purports to reflect "year 2000 cumulative emissions," it is unclear whether (or which) related projects were utilized to derive these projections. The cumulative impact analysis, including the assumptions (e.g., related the projects) which are used, should be defined and consistentlyapplied throughout environmental analysis. 0 Page 4.6-24,13. Information from the Pomona air quality monitoring station should be utilized in lieu of the Pico Rivera station, since the Pomona station is more representative of the project conditions. o Page 4.635, 11. The DEIR indicates that "the following mitigation measures are recommended by the SCAQMD as Standard Mitigation Measures (SW to be applied to all projects regardless of the extent of air quality impacts." Based upon the specific nature of the DW and the activities associated with its operation, these SMM should be supplemented with a number of project -specific measures which address those unique characteristics. In the absence of those additional measures, the DEIR is unable to conclude for insignificance. Noise Page 4.7-6,11. Although the DEIR indicates that "a list of those noise regulations which pertain to the types of equipment in use in the solid waste collection and disposal business is included in the Appendix," no such listing has been provided in Appendix E of that document. As a result, it is not possible to verify the accuracy of the referenced standard provided for the compaction cycle. 46921MRF Analysis Page 39 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACWT ° Page 4.7-7, 11 and Table 4.7-1. The 65 dBA contour distances represented in the text do not correspond with information provided in the accompanying table. This internal inconsistency needs to be rectified or differences explained. ° Page 4.7-8, Table 4.7-2. Traffic volumes identified on the table do not correspond with information contained in other sections of the DEIR (e.g., page 4.6-10, 14). Differences should be explained and the corresponding analyses reexamined to ensure that impacts are correctly quantified. ° Page 4.7-9, 12 and Table 4.74. Although the text indicates that "the AT&SF freight lines create the greatest noise of the lines operating in the City," Table 4.7-4 indicates higher noise levels associated with the operation of the Union Pacific Anaheim Branch Line. The anomaly represented by the noise level at 800 feet should be explained. ° Page 4.7-99 14 and Table 4.7-5. Table 4.7-5 indicates that noise measurements were taken at 1:30 PM and 2:30 PM on July 22, 1992. It is unclear (and unlilmly) whether conditions evident at that time mftx:t peals conditions or truly reflect ambient conditiom. ° Page 4.7-13, 14. The DEIR concludes that "at the nearest sensitive receptor, the noise level would range from 50 to 70 0A throughout the construction period." Since those values exceed the threshold for significance as identified in the DEIR (page 4.7-12, 12), no bases is provided to support the conclusion that construction -related noise impacts are not significant. Many of the mitigation measures identified in the text (e.g., Mitigation Measure No. 4.7. 1) may be currently required; therefore, no additional attenuation may result from the inclusion of these measures as project conditions. Other measures (e.g., Mitigation Measure Nos. 4.7.3 and 4.7.4) are stated as general comments and fail to mandate specific actions or provide suitable definition to determine compliance. Similar, another measure (i.e., Mitigation Measure No. 4.7.5) arc not feasible and cannot be implemented (based upon the presence of deletions soil conditions). Each of the proposed mitigation measures should be reexamined and their corresponding ability to attenuate noise quantified. Page 4.7-14, 14 and S. Insufficient information is provided to allow an independent confirmation of these conclusions. All relevant assumptions should be clearly identified so that an independent analysis can be conducted. Page 4.8-1, 11 through 4. The Initial Study (Appendix A) indicates that "the E R will evaluate the project for its potential impact on energy consumption and use of natural resources, and determine whether it is significant." To accomplish this task, the DEIR 46921MRF Analysis Page 40 C177 OF INDUSTRY MA7ERL4/ S RECOVERY FACILITY should define the types and amounts of energy which will be consumed, include: (1) petroleum products consumed (or saved) as a result of additional (or fewer) vehicle miles driven transporting MSW to the MIRF in lieu of deposition at the area's landfills (including transport of MSW by truck from the IIARF to the landfills); (2) energy consumption (natural gas, electricity) associated with project operation; and (3) water consumption associated with processing activities, maintenance functions (e.g., washdowns), human consumption and irrigation (including fugitive dust control). No consumption estimates have been provided in the DEIR; therefore, no basis is provided to judge significance. The DEIR indicates that "a significant energy impact will be identified if the project uses large amounts of fuel, water or energy or uses resources in a wasteful manner" (page 4.8-2, 13). Based upon this statement, the DEIR has an obligation to quantify project - related (and cumulative) energy requirements. In the absences of that information, the DEIR should be supplemented to quantify projected fossil fuel, .electrical, natural gas and water (e.g., domestic, reclaimed) consumption. Page 4.9-1. It is unclear whether information presented in this section reflects generalized information which has been assembled (from other studies) to provide a geotechnical overview of the project site or reflects the findings of a site-specific and project -specific analysis. If the information is derived from a site-specific investigation, the date of that survey should be identified, the report authors specified,, any limitations in the analysis identified and the report (in its entirety) included as a technical appendix in the DEM. Page 4.9-8, 14. In reviewing this section, it is evident that specific information has been withheld from the reader (e.g., "the references and aerial photographs reviewed are listed in the Reference Section "- no reference section has been provided) and/or deleted from this technical analysis. Since it is not possible to compare the text of the DEIR with the information submitted to the Lead Agency or developed by the geotechnical consultant (if any), relevant information and recommended conditions of approval may have been deleted or otherwise modified. In order to ensure a thorough analysis of geotechnical issues potentially impacting the project, the full text of the report should be provided. Page 4.9-11,16. The DEIR indicates that "liquefaction more often occurs in earthquake - prone areas where the groundwater table is less than 50 feet below the ground surface, especially in areas underlain by young alluvium." As indicated in the DEIR: (1) the San Jose Fault is located "within 1.25 miles (21m) of the site" (page 4.9-4, 13); (2) 46921MRF lysis Page 41 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY groundwater was "found to occur 46.5 feet below the ground surface" (page 4.9-7, 15); and (3) "the subject property is directly underlain by young alluvial deposits" (page 4.9- 1, 14). Based upon these conditions, the DEM should conclude that liquefaction potential is considered to be "high" (and not "moderate" as indicated in the text). Page 4.912, 12. The DEIR indicated, as a mitigation measure, that "the liquefaction susceptibility of the soils should be determined based on a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted to evaluate the engineering properties of the soil, and the depth or groundwater." By including this condition, the DEIR infers that no site-specific geotechnical study has been conducted and that no such study will be undertaken until after the project is approved. In the absence of site-specific information, it is not possible to evaluate the feasibility of the project (from a geotechnical perspective) or assess the potential health and safety risks associated with the development and operation of the iaARF at this location. Deferring analysis of possible mitigation measures is counter to CBQA's requirement to consider environmental effects as early as possible in any project. Studiea conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decision- making. In the absence of that information, the Lead Agency cannot base its conclusions on "substantial evidence in the record" (Section 21082.2. of the Public Resources Code). Page 4.915, 12. Although the information in the DEIR indicates that "landslides in the Puente Hills, to the southeast of the subject site, have been mapped," no information is provided indicating the susceptibility of the adjoining site area to failure. Based upon the conclusion that "the potential hazard from a landslide or slope failure at the subject site is considered nil to moderate" (reflecting an extremely broad range of impact potential), either additional analysis or graphic information presenting the findings of that mapping project should be provided in the MR. Page 4.913, 16. In introducing potential mitigation measures, the DF lR indicates that the measures proposed "could reduce" potential impacts to a level of significance (see text prig Mitigation Measures Nos. 4.9.3, 4.9.4, 4.9.6, 4.9.10, 4.9. 11 and 4.9.12). Based upon this word selection, it is not possible to conclude whether the mitigation measure "will" or "may" reduce the identified environmental effect to a level which is less than significant. Page 4.9-150 16 and Page 4.916, JL The DEIR indicates that "organic materials mixed in with the clayey soils [exist] to depths of about 20 feet" (page 4.9-3, 11) and will, therefore, require removal and replacement with non-compressible fill material (page 4.9- 8, 11, page 4.9-16, 11). No information is presented in the DEIR quantifying the cubic 46921MRF Analysis Page 42 MY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY yardage of soil requiring either removal or import, where the exported soil will be deposited, from where the fill material will be obtained, the term of the grading operations, the impacts of those operations on the area's roadways or adjoining receptors or any mitigation measures which may be appropriate to reduce or avoid those environmental consequences. In . the absence of additional information concerning projected grading operations, it is not possible to assess the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measure or conclude for insignificance. Additionally, information on grading operations is necessary to accurately quantify project -related air quality impacts. Page 4.9-17,12. Based upon the depth of groundwater and the historic use of Well No. 3177A to provide a supply source for the on-site feed lot (page 4.9-7, 15), the analysis of project -related impacts on those resources should constitute an important component of the DEIR. Although addressed in part, under Section 4.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality), inadequate information has been provided to effectively analyze the potential cause -and -effect relationship between the control and mitigation of surface water discharge and impacts upon groundwater quality. In reviewing Section 4.10 of the DEIR, the document infers that all surface water shall be discharged in accordance with applicable NPDBS and storm water permit obligations. In contrast, the DEIR discloses that "waste products routinely handled at the proposed R4RF may occasionally be spilled onto the ground" (page 4.9-17, 12). The DEIR then concludes that "given that the soil at the site, especially near the surface, is clayey and therefore, has a low permeability," contaminants "are not expected to infiltrate deep into the soil and into the groundwater table." No mitigation measures are proposed in the DEIR in response to this anticipated accident potential. The removal of site soils, as indicated under page 4.9-15, 16 above, has the potential to affect the permeability of site conditions. In addition, the anticipated storage of household hazardous wastes on-site (page 2-14, 12 and 3) creates a potential for significant groundwater impacts. As a result, an expanded analysis of this topical issue is required to support the conclusions presented in the DEIR. WO Ur TIMP Page 4,10-1, 11. While the DEIR disclosed that "a tributary of San Jose Creek, South San Jose Creels, bisects the proposed project site," no further discussion of this potential design constraint is included in the document. The DEIR should identify any physical improvements which may be proposed along or adjoining this easement and evaluate how the project may affect both the channel and requisite maintenance activities which may be necessary to service this flood control conduit. 46921MRF Analysis Page 43 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACLU7Y ° Page 4.10-1, 13. By indicating that "the proposed project site is not identified on Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)", it is unclear whether the statement infers that the site has not been surveyed by FEMA or the site has been surveyed and found not to contain identifiable flood hazards (e.g., identified as Zone "C"). The appropriate Flood Insurance Rate Map (FMM) should be included in the DEIR and the project site delineated on that map. Page 4.10.2, 15. The DEM should indicate whether a Section 401 water quality certification will be required from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the relationship between that process and other discretionary approvals which may be required from other County, State and federal agencies. Page 4-10, 13. Although the DEIR identifies both pre- and post -development peak flow conditions (W, no engineering information a provided to independently validate those calculations to facilitate public review. The hydrologic study (or calculations) should be included as a technical appendix to the DEIR and a minimum of two graphics provided illustrating existing and future drainage patterns, identifying the project site relative to the drainage area boundaries and specifying the size and the location of any existing or proposed storm drains and catch basins. Similarly, a portion of the applicable USGS quadrangle map should be included as a graphic to illustrate whether any "blueline" or "blue dot" streams exist within or in proximity to the project site. Page 4.10-4. The Initial Study (Appendix A) indicates that the existing concrete lined channel that traverses the site and flows east to west may be relocated as part of this project... Effects of this relocation will be evaluated in the EIR." No discussion of this relocation is provided in the DEM. If relocation is no longer assumed necessary, the DEIR should so indicate. Page 4.10.4. Since refuse stored in freight containers will generate leachate (page 1-11, 15, Mitigation Measure No. 4.4.19) which has the potential to spill from those containers onto local roadways or along rail routes (if waste -by -rail service is implemented), the DEIR should both address this water quality and health and safety impact and incorporate mitigation measures for the monitoring of containers and their repair or replacement if the release of leachate is identified. ° Page 4.10-59 11. In addition to the significance criteria identified, a project will have a significant effect on the environment if the project: (1) discharges water to a local or regional stormwater system which either captures a substantial percentage of its remaining design capacity, contributes flows which exceed the system's capacity or exacerbates existing stormdrain deficiencies; (2) violates or conflicts with adopted local or regional 46921MRF Analysis page 44 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACUXT plans (e.g., Regional Water Quantity Control Board's Basin Plan); or (3) results in the discharge of hazardous materials into the stormdrain network. Page 4.14-6, 16. Water quality impacts and mitigation measures included on page 4.3-5 of the DER are repeated in this section of the text. The analysis and mitigation measures presented on page 4.3-5, 13 and repeated herein should then be reconciled with the setting section. For example, the three areas identified as potential sources of stormwater contaminants (i.e., streets and parking areas; recycling, storage and processing areas; truck wash and maintenance areas), should .be broadened to include: (1) construction operations; (2) leachate holding tanks (page 4.10-3,13) and sediment ponds (page 4.10-3, 14); and (3) off-site impacts, associated with the transport of MSW. These potential sources should be identified and analyzed in the MR. Me • •- rl- Page 4.11-2. The project boundaries are not depicted on Figure 4.11-1 (Distribution of Vegetation Communities). As a result, it is not possible to assess whether the entire site has been surveyed. Additionally, since no access road presently serves the project site, the area of the future access road (i.e., Road "A") should be identified and analyzed. Acreage estimates for each of the vegetation communities should . be- provided, with particular attention provided to the quantification of the riparian scrub areas identified within the San Jose Creek channel area and adjacent to the railroad tracks on the south side of the existing channel (page 4.11-4, 12). Any applicable State or federal statutory requirements, permit obligations or procedural requirements affecting riparian or wetland areas should be identified. Page 4.11-5 and Page 4.11-6. The following comments are offered concerning Table 4.11-1 (Animal Species in the Project Area): (1) the federal and State designations for each specifies should be identified where applicable (e. g. , Campylor hynchus bruenneicapillus sandiegonse and Lardus ludovicianus are federal C2 candidate species); (2) the San Diego cactus wren is also identified as the coastal cactus wren by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); (3) which species of Melospiza melodia was observed (M.M. maxillaris, M.M. pusiUula and M.M. samuelis all occur within California and all are listed C2 species); (4) what species of Sylvilagus bachmani was expected/observed (S.b. riparius is a Cl species (Fed. Reg. Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991) and a CPB species proposed on December 4, 1992 as a State candidate for endangered listing); (5) what species of Eumeces skiltonianus was expected/observed (E.s. interparietalis is a CSC and C2 species); (6) what species of Cnemidophorus dgris was expected/observed (C. t. multiscutatus is a C2 candidate for federal listing); (7) what species of Anniella pulchra is referenced (A. p. nigrn is a CSC 46921MRF Analysis Page 45 MY OF 1ADUISIRYMATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY and C2 species; A.p. pukhra is a CSC species); and (8) the letter notations "O" and "U" in the far right column are not defuied. ° Page 4.11-8. Reference to Cmnpylorhynchus brundcappilm cousei should be corrected to refer to Cb. couesi (pursuant to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) or Cb. sand egonse (pursuant to CDFG). In addition, the project biologist should verify the State status of Lwdus ludovicianus. ° Page 4.11-9. The DEIR does not disclose whether any raptor nests were observed on- site. Disturbance to those nesting sites (whether occupied or not) will necessitate consultation with the CDFG. Additional mitigation measures to protea raptors and their nesting sites should be included to the DEIR should incorporate an analysis why these resource requirements may not be applicable. ° Page 4.11-9. The Initial Study (Appendix A) indicates that "a Biotic Survey will be conducted as part of the EIR to determine the presence of any significant species or habitat type. A mitigation plan will be prepared to protect any such species." Despite this declaration, no "mitigation plan" has been included in the DEIR. Additionally, the Initial Study indicates that "the introduction of new species of plants into the area from the addition of new site landscaping" will be addressed in the EHL The biotic analysis does not discuss or evaluate the potential effects of this project component. By representing that the DEIR would incorporate that information represented in the Initial Study, the City of Industry may have limited the number and type of comments which were transmitted to the City in response to the Notice of Preparation. Page 4.11-9, 11. The DEIR indicates that the "riparian scrub habitat within the stream bed of the San Jose Creek is likely to be recognized as a wetland. Further study will be required to determine the boundaries of the wetland. " In making this statement, the DEIR neither clearly discloses whether this area is classified as a "wetland," defines the meaning of the term or the requisite criteria for that designation, discusses jurisdictional obligations associated with both a wetland and riparian area (pursuant to Sections 1601- 1607 of the California Fish and Game Code and Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act) or explains the reasons for deferring future analysis (and delineation) until after project approval. As indicated in reference to page 4.9-12 above (i.e., need for site- specific geotechnical analysis), the ability of the Lead Agency and affected Responsible Agencies to make informed decisions about the project and its potential environmental impacts is seriously diminished by deferring analysis to subsequent stages of the development process. 46921MRF Analysis Page 46 rrry nF mrnusTRY MATERMLS RECOVERY FACHX Y Page 4.11-9, 12. The statement that "the site does not contain canyons or riparian habitat which would constitute important corridors for wildlife" constitutes a conclusionary statement which lacks any analytical support and contradicts the preceding paragraph which discloses the presence of both riparian and wetland habitat area on-site. The DEIR should disclose that: (1) drainage channels are often utilized by wildlife as movement corridors; (2) what conditions may make the San Jose Creek incapable of functioning as a viable wildlife corridor; (3) the site's potential role as a wildlife corridor linldng the San Jose Hills and the Puente Hills; and (4) the function that wetland and riparian areas serve (or may serve) in promoting or supporting regional wildlife movement. A more extensive discourse on this issue is required to support the document's conclusion, including the need for a more detailed explanation of both the habitat areas located within and adjoining this drainage course, prospects for habitat enhancement, a discussion of the site's potential role as part of a regional wildlife corridor and requisite actions which may be imposed by other resource actions (e.g., CDFG's "no net loss" provision) to compensate for any project -related impacts to these biotic resources. a Page 4.11-9, 13. The DEIR indicates that a single field survey of the site was conducted "on July 2, 1992 in order to map the plant communities, observe wildlife and evaluate whether any sensitive species occur or are likely to occur on site." A summer survey, during a five year drought, may impose specific constraints or other limitations on the type, diversity or number of plant (and animal) species observed. Those limitations should be clearly identified in the text. Additionally, the time period and hours of the day during which the survey was conducted should be identified. If these time periods did not include a nocturnal survey, what further constraints or limitations would be anticipated? O In the absence of a springtime survey, many of the species which have the potential to exist on-site would not be identified; therefore, the results of the July field investigation would prove ineffective in that the results of the survey would be non-conclusive. If a spring survey has not been conducted (or will not be conducted prior to the decision - makers consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report), a detailed explanation of the City's reasons for inappropriately narrowing the scope of the biological assessment should be provided. o Page 4.11-9, 13. The complete botanical and zoological report(s) prepared by The Planning Center (or others) should be included as a technical appendix in the DEIR. o Page 4.11-10, 12. As indicated above, the absence of a springtime field survey may have limited the accuracy and effectiveness of the project's biotic assessment. In the absence of that survey, no definitive conclusions can be reached that the site does not 46921MRF Analysis Page 47 C177 OF INDUnRYMA7ERL4M RECOVERY FACHJTY contain plant species "which are recognized as sensitive." At minimum, further field investigation should be conducted and the results of that investigation entered into the environmental review record prior to the City's taking action on the project. Inclusion of a springtime survey as a mitigation measure would prove ineffective in that the results of the survey would be provided afta the crate of public action on the project and would not facilitate informed decision-making regarding the project's potential biological impacts. Page 4.11-11, 11. It is unclear how the DEIR justifies the conclusion that the displacement of the site's animal population will be less -than -significant when the project site has a "relatively diverse and abundant animal community" (page 4.11-4,15) and "the two sensitive bird species observed on-site, the coastal cactus wren and the loggerhead strike, would be displaced off-site and could be expected to perish" (page 4.11-9, 15). Based upon the threshold criteria identified in the DEER and included m Appendix G the State CBQA Guidelines, any action which diminishes the population of candidate species would be deemed to constitute a "significant effect on the environment." Page 4.11.11, 14 and S. Although the DEIR concludes that the introduction of night lighting will result in "a substantial diminution or degradadon to wildlife habitat" (emphasis added), the DEIR concludes that this impact is less than significant. Referring Section 15382 of the State CB+QA Guidelines, "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project" (emphasis added) is to be constructed as a significant environmental impact. Impacts to flora and fauna are specifically referenced in the above statute. Based upon the DEIR's own declaration, this loss of habitat should be construed as significant. Page 4.11-11, 17 and S. The DEIR indicates that the San Diego cactus wren and Loggerhead shrike are both Category 2 (C2) candidate species (page 4.11-8). The DEIR indicates that "Category 2 candidates comprises species which the [United States] Fish and Wildlife Service considers appropriate to propose Usting as threatened or endangered" (emphasis added). Based upon the definition for significance provided in the DEIR (page 4.11-10, 11), candidate species are to be "considered rare or endangered if then is data which indicates that this species meets the criteria for state listing." Although C2 species are not presently proposed for listing, the designation of these two species as C2 candidate species affords them special attention during the planning process. Since "these species are taxa whose breeding populations in California have declined severely or are otherwise so low that expiration could occur" (page 4.11-12,12), a reasonable argument follows that "there is data which indicates that this species meets the criteria for state listing." As a result and based upon the DEIR's standards for significance, impacts upon the San Diego cactus wren and Loggerhead shrike (i.e., 46921MRF Malys& Page 48 CITY OF INDUSTRY MA7ERI4LS RECOVERY FACILITY "would be displaced off-site and could be expected to perish") should be considered significant. o Page 4.11-12,15 and 6. Although the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is identified as a Responsible Agency, Section 10 (Report Authors; People and Organizations Consulted) includes no reference to the DEIR's authors contacting or consulting with the CDFG. Additionally, should a 1601-1607 Streambed Alteration Agreement be required, both the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act) and United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act) may have separate review and/or permit obligations. Neither agency is discussed or their associated requirements identified. Based upon the listing of agencies who received the Nodce of Preparation (as indicated in Appendix A), none of the above referenced Responsible Agencies received notice about the project (as prescribed under Section 15082(a) of the State CBQA Guidelines)• In addition, based upon the listing of agencies identified in Section 10 (Report Authors; People and Organizations Consulted) of the DEIR, no consultation occurred with any of those Responsible Agencies during preparation of that document. Page 4.12-2, 17. Since the majority of the site was not surveyed, it is not possible to draw conclusions concerning the presence or absence of cultural resources which may exist on-site (or the adequacy of mitigation measures proposed). Based upon the existence of other known resources along San Jose Creek (i.e., CA -LAN -522), a more thorough analysis may yield specific finds within the project area. A map should be provided indicating which areas have been field surveyed and which areas have not been investigated. It may also be beneficial to overlay that map onto Figure 4.11-1 (page 4.11-2). Page 4.12-4, IS. The DEIR indicates that "a survey of the full forty acres was not possible..." Based on the project size indicated, it appears that no field investigation was conducted along the right-of-way of the proposed access road linking the site with Grand Avenue. Failure to include this area as part of the cultural resources analysis or to include this area as part of the environmental analysis under any of the other topical issues precludes a thorough analysis of potential project -related impacts. 46921MRF Analysis Page 49 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 4.13-3, 12. The DER states that "with the full implementation of AB 939, the supply of recyclable materials in the marketplace will increase dramatically. This will exacerbate the marketing problems that some materials already experience, driving their market prices down." The DEM further states that "the facility would provide the City of Industry and surrounding contributing cities the 25 percent diversion rate as mandated by AB 939 for the year 1995." What guarantees are there that the INMRoperator will be able to divert up to 1,425 tons of solid waste per day (representing 25 percent of anticipated maximum tonnage received)? In recognition of potential market constraints, what assurance is there that these materials will be sent to a secondary processive facility (and not a landfill) so that participating Cities can maintain their AB 939 diversion credits? Page 4.13-3, 13 and 4. It is not clear whether the City of Industry currently owns the DW site or whether public acquisition (including the proposed access road) will be required. H publicly owned, do other parties currently possess leasehold interests? Are there any existing its which have to be acquired or vacated? Page 4.13-5,11 through 3. Economic studies conducted for the ptente Hills landfill ace not directly relevant to the proposed D&W. In the case of the Puente Hills landfill study, the landfill existed and was operational prior to the construction, sale and occupancy of the homes. The initial value of those properties was influenced, in part, by the location of those properties from that facility. Subsequent changes in valuation would, therefore, reflect general market conditions. Conversely, in the case of the DdRF, the homes already exist. Public actions external to those properties, including the approval of the DdRF, have the potential to influence property values. Based upon this clew difference between the Puente Hills landfill study and the relevant conditions affecting the SOF economic analysis, the DEIR should be amended to discount the conclusions of that previous analysis. Page 4.1;-5,14. The conclusion that "the project will generate approximately 141 jobs and no housing units" may not be correct. Based upon job -housing relationships identified in the Growth Management Plan (Southern California Association of Govermnents) and modeled for the subregion which includes, the project site (i.e., East San Gabriel Valley Subregion), there were 1.03 jobs/dwcftg unit in the year 1984. That ratio will improve to 1.10 jobs/unit by the year 2010. Utilizing the 1984 factor, the 141 jobs associated with the project will equate to approximately 137 dwelling units. The DEIR does not present information which indicates whether these new employees are 4MIMRF Analysis Page 50 cay of INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY already adequately housed within the project area or whether new housing will be required (e.g., the marketplace will be induced to develop new housing based upon consumer demands) to accommodate this new demand. Page 4.13-6. The DEW indicates that "markets will need to be expanded and developed to ensure that diverted waste materials are appropriately utilized" (page 2-7, 14). In making this statement, the DER acknowledge that there may not presently exist adequate market demand to absorb the recycled materials generated by the project. Based upon this condition, the socioeconomic analysis should evaluate both current and projected market demand, compare that demand relative to the projected volume of recovered materials (including other recovered material available regionally), identify emerging industries (including local consumers) and describe currently proposed or possible public actions which may accelerate market demands. Page 4.13-6, 13. CEQA requires that EMs also examine indirect or secondary impacts "which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance. Indirect or secondary effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use..." (Section 15358(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines). Should the proposed MMF produce a negative economic impact upon those existing residential units which overlook the site (and other vacant or under -developed properties in the project area), owners may experience a loss or reduction in property value or use potential, may elect to relocate to other areas and may experience a disincentive to further improve (or maintain) those properties. Those potential secondary factors should be identified and analyzed in the DEIR. o Page 4.23-7,16. The DEIR indicates that the economic viability of the proposed project will be dependent, in part, upon its competitive pricing relate to alternative disposal options available to both municipalities and individual waste haulers. Since the BUT is identified as a public project (i.e., City of Industry is identified as the project applicant), the City has the ability to support the project through the commitment of public funds (including financing through the Redevelopment Agency). The expenditure of finite public resources for this project (including the forfeiture of revenue opportunities associated with the sale or lease of the site), precludes the use of those resources for other activities; therein, producing potential secondary impacts. In order to evaluate those impacts, the DEW should include an economic analysis which illustrates both the economic feasibility of the project and indicates the extent of public involvement. Page 5.0-1, 12. A notation should be provided to document the "recent court decision" described in the DEIR. 46921MRF Analysis Page 51 41 C177 OF INDUSTRY MWERUZS RECOVERY FACHJTY Air ° Page 5.0-1, 13. The information presented in the DEM does not constitute an adequate analysis of the project's potential growth -inducing impacts. The conclusion that "the only growth related effects of the proposed DdRF would be the secondary, or indirect impact of increased demands on community services, increased traffic and related air and noise impacts, and the conservation [sic] of open space to development" fails to address such issues as in -migration to fill employment opportunities, household formation (i.e., non - heads of households moving out), induced development on adjoining properties (including loss of agricultural land uses) and effects on emerging industries (associated with the development of a consistent source of recovered materials). Each of these issues should be addressed in a revised growth -inducing analysis. Cumulative Lnnacts 0 Page 6.0-1, 11. The DEIR should reconcile the internal contradiction associated with the statement that "given the larger scale of the arra to be served by the DOW, a specific list of past, present and probable future projects cannot realistically be addressed" and the pully conflicting statement that the inclusion of 17 related projects (Table 4.5-3, pages 4.5-15 through 4.5-17) will produce cumulative traffic impacts. Referencing Section 15355(b) of the State CHQA Guidelines, "cumulative impacts from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probabk future projects" (emphasis added). Since the project, if approved, will commence operation in the year 1994 (and reach build -out in 1995), it is reasonable to assume that a listing of projects which are either- presently proposed or currently permitted (but not constructed or occupied) coin be developed. Section 15130(b)(1) of the State CHQA Guidelines offers public agencies two approaches to identify cumulative prgled activities, including either "a list of past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects" or "a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document which is designed to evaluate regional or areawide conditions." The DEM should select between these methodologies and clearly ddinotte the assumptions utilized in the environmental analysis. Page 6.0-19 11. In assessing cumulative impacts, the DEIR should also examine other existing or proposed MRFs which may be developed throughout the region. Since the project size is based upon the premise. that MSW will be transported to the M&W from those 26 Cities (and unincorporated County areas) identified in Table 2.0-5 (page 2-20), it is necessary to know whether other facilities may be competing against the D4 " for some or all of the regional waste stream. Should numerous material recovery facilities 4021MRF Analysis Page 52 Cl1Y OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY and transfer stations be brought on-line between 1994 and 1998, the MSW volumes projected to be delivered to the DARF may be diverted to other locations. In addition, since the project assumes rail -haul activities for the transport of refuse to distant landfills (which may not be presently permitted or operational), these facilities constitute relevant related projects which should be addressed as part of the cumulative impact analysis. a Page 6.0-1, 12. The DEIR inappropriately narrows the scope of the cumulative impact analysis by concluding that "the focus of the [cumulative] analysis is on the direct cumulative impact of the D RF facility" (emphasis added). Impacts under CEQA are defined as both the "direct or primary effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place [and] indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable" (Section 15358(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines). As a result, the DEER should be supplemented to include both an analysis of potential indirect effects anticipated to occur as a result of the project (in combination with other foreseeable development activities) and an analysis of the direct impacts resulting from the project and those related development activities. o Page 6.0-4, 11. The DEER indicates that "the expected daily traffic volume for [the] project is estimated to be 1,111 one-way trips." Earlier in the text, the DEER concluded that the DdW would "generate approximately 5,882 daily PCB [passenger car equivalent] trips in 1994" and 7,302 PCB trips by the year 2400. These different projections should be reconciled. Page 6.0-6, 13 and Page 6.0-69 15 through 7. Cumulative traffic impacts identified in the DEIR are sign xmdy underestimated based upon technical errors in the methodology utilized. Cumulative traffic impacts, associated with either those related ProJeCtS identified in Table 4.5-3 (pages 4.5-15 through 17) or projected ambient traffic growth will produce "kss than acceptable levels [of services]" at 11 intersections by the year 1994 (page 4.5-13, 13) and 13 intersections by the year 2000 (page 4.5-22, 13). Based upon this conclusion, the DEM is obligated to conclude that there exists significant cumulative traffic impacts. To mitigate those impacts to a level which is not significant, appropriate street improvements, funding mechanisms and phasing plans should be formulated for each of these study area intersections. o Page 6.0-7, 13 and S. The DEIR errors in concluding that both project -related and cumulative air quality impacts will not be significant (defined as an exceedance of 4MIMRF Analysis Page 53 CITY OF MDUNRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY SCAQMD New Source Review threshold values) for specific criteria pollutants based upon Projected pollutant contributions for both year 1994 and year 2000 conditions. Refer to comments under "Air Quality" above. Page 6.0-7, 18 and Page 6.0-8,11 through 3. Insufficient information is provided in the DM to independently validate a conclusion that pmject-related and cumulative noise impacts will not be sufficient. Additional analysis should be provided to allow an independent verification of these conclusions. Page 8.0-1,11. The DEIR acknowledges the requirements of Section 15126(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines which require that "the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance..." Compliance with this requirement presupposes that the ffiR fly repots the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts. As submitted, the DFJR contains major technical deficiencies which limit the ability of a reviewer to draw conclusions concerning the significance of potential project related and cumulative environmental effects, judge the effectiveness of the identified mitigation measures to reduce or avoid those impact or assess the net unavoidable adverse impact after the proposed mitigation strategies are applied. Additionally, based both technical flaws and failure to provide a "sufficient degree of analysis" (Section 15151, State CEQA Guidelines), the DEM misrepresents the significance of many of the environmental effects (e.g., traffic, air quality) identified therein. The ability of the public to comment upon the adequacy of the alternative analysis, including the effectiveness with which the alternatives may reduce or avoid specific potential environmental effects, is significantly reduced because of the DEIR's underestimation of the project's environmental consequences. Section 15126(d)(5) of the California Code of Regulations indicates that "the key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision-making and infammad public participation. " The DEM fails to satisfy this basic CEQA tenet by: (1) includipg a project alternative (i.e., Benton Site Alternative) which, in essence, is the same project upon the same site (more specifically right -next-door); (2) failing to adequately address reasonable project options which could minimize the significant effects of the project as proposed (e.g., Southern Pacific Rail Yard Site Alternative); and (3) fig to disclose the methodology used by the City (or others) to identify alternative sites and identify the rationale for not considering (or considering or rejecting) other 46921MRF Analysis Page 54 C17Y OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACIL.TTY potentially viable alternative sites which could minimize the project's many significant adverse impacts. o Page 8.0-2, 12. Although the Executive Summary (page 1-20, 14 through 7) indicates that the DEAR includes an analysis of an "existing industrial zoning alternative" (i.e., site will be developed with some other industrial use in conformance with the site's existing industrial zoning), no such alternative is analyzed in the document. Since alternative MRFs are presently being processed at a number of other sites within the region (e.g., RAEL-CYCLE MRF, Puente Hills MRF), the need for the MF has not been proven (in light of the capacity at those alternative facilities and the lack of existing market demand for the recovered material). As a result, a logical alternative which should be explored in the DEIR is the development of the project site in accordance with existing zoning and City of Industry General Plan standards. The brief discussion which currently exists in the document is both insufficient to allow a reasonable comparative analysis between development alternatives, draws erroneous conclusions regarding the potential impacts associated with an industrial land use and contains contradictory statements (e.g -, "the benefits of diverting waste from landfills,... will not be achieved ... the City of Commerce facility could provide the waste diversion services to support achievement of the AB 939 diversion goals"). Page 8.0-1, 12. A graphic should be provided illustrating the location of each of the project alternatives examined in the DEIR. In the absence of both a vicinity map identifying the site and surrounding land uses, a zoning or General Plan map denoting designated land use categories, a topographical map and individual photographs of each alternative site, it is not possible to effectively analyze each of the proposed options. o Page 8.0-1, 12 and 3. In addition to the project alternatives identified in the DEIR, a number of additional alternatives should be examined based upon the ability of these alternatives to eliminate or minimize potential environmental effects. These alternatives include, but may not be limited to: (1) constructing and operating a MRF at either an existing landfill site (e.g., Puente Hills, Azuza Western) or a potential new landfill site; and (2) reduction in project size to accommodate only City of Industry MSW demands (i.e., 500-600 tpd). The DEIR should be supplemented to evaluate these development options. o page 8.0.1, 13. Reference that the site will remain undeveloped (page 8.0-1, 13, page 8.0-2, 11, page 8.04, 16) ignores the. fact that the site "is presently used by the Machlin Feed processing Company ... for feed processing and storage" (page 4.1-1, 11) and can "continue to function as part of the feed processing plant or some other agricultural [use]" (page 8.0-2, 14). 4MAWRP Analysis Page 55 CITY OF INDUSTRY MWERUIS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 8.0-7. As indicated under Section 15126(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effect or reducing them to a level of significance." Based upon this criteria, the Benton Site Alternative (located adjacent to and southwest of the project site) does not represent a reasonable project alternative in that each of the impacts identified in the DEM will continue to manifest if the MRF is developed on this site. Page 8.0-8, 11. The DEUR indicates that "the land use impacts on the Benton site will be the same as those of the DW site in terms of compatibility with adjacent land uses. " This statement appears to contradict the carper position that "by locating the M" on this site the potential significant impacts" will continue "but will reduce the noise and visual impacts because the facility is further away from sensitive receptors in the city of Diamond Bar" (page 1-21, 11). The extent to which these and other potential environmental effects may be reduced should be quantified and this site identified as environmentally superior to the project as proposed. Page 8.0.10, 14. Based upon the alternative site's distance from residential land uses, the potential impacts associated with this project alternative may be substantially less than the comparable impacts identified in the DEM. Insufficient information is, however, provided concerning this site (or its potential impacts) to devise appropriate conclusions. Page 8.0-10, 14. Implementation of the project at this alternative location "may also require construction of a large overpass to avoid delays in. either rail or truck traffic accessing the site." In malting this Mteam t, the DEM is unclear whether an "overpass" will be required or whether the project can effectively and safely operate in the absence of that potential improvement. When an alternative would cause one or mons significant effects in addition to these that the project itseff would cause, the effect of the alternative Project shall also be discussed (Section 15126(d)(4), State CEQA Guidelines). As a result, additional elaboration of this potential project component (and its corresponding impacts) is required. ° Page 8.0-10, 15. The DEIR eonchrdes that "the construction of a MRF on the SP site will have similar land use impacts as the Il1SRF site in terms of compatibility with adjacent land uses. " This statement appears to contradict an earlier declaration that "this site would have environmental advantages [over the proposed site] in terms of locating the facility away from sensitive receptors, such as residential areas. This will eliminate the air, noise and visual impacts which will result from locating the EmF adjacent to the 4=IMRF Analysis Pane 56 rrry nr nvnumvY MAw-R/AM RECOVERY FACILITY City of Diamond Bar" (page 1-21, 12). The two statements appear contradictory. In addition, in the latter declaration, the DEIR appears to conclude that the proposed project site will manifest in significant unavoidable adverse impacts upon the City, of Diamond Bar and its residents, in terms of air, noise and visual effects. The corresponding analysis in the DEIR for each of these topical issues appears to draw opposite (and erroneous) conclusions. a page g.0-10, 16. As indicated under Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a specific standard for adequacy is established for EMs (Le., sufficient degree of analysis to allow decision -makers to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences). Although the discussion of alternatives can provide less detail than provided for the proposed project (Section 15126(d)(4)), the level of analysis must continue to be guided by the above statutory requirement. As indicated herein, the DEM's conclusions concerning potential visual impacts to the YMCA, ballfield and reside" areas within both the City of Diamond Bar and City of Walnut underestimate both the significance of the environmental effects and adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce those impacts below a level of significance The impact upon those receptors is believed to be significant pursuant to the definition (i.e., potentially substance adverse change) provided under Section 15382 of the State CEQA Guidelines. in discussing the potential impacts associated with the development of a MRF on an alternative site, the DEIR is obligated to provide a comparative analysis which would enable decision -makers to understand whether development of a particular option may minimize or avoid the occurrence of a particular impact. By concluding that "the visual impact of a MRF on the Sp [Southern Pacific] site will not be substantially different from the proposed MF, except for the advantage of not being directly adjacent to a YMCA facility, a ball field and a residential area," it is not clear what other visual impact the authors of the DEM are considering. For those alternatives that have the potential to reduce identified project impacts, additional analysis of each of the topical issues will be required to allow a reasonable comparative analysis. o page 8.0-11,14. Although the DEIR indicates that "a large overpass [may be required] to avoid delays in either the rail or truck traffic accessing the site" (page 8.0-10, 14), no discussion of this potential project requirement is provided. Additionally, no information is provided to evaluate project -related impacts upon the intersections identified as being "significantly impacted" or the availability of mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a level which is not significant. 4MIMRF Analpis Page 57 C1IY OF INDUSIRY AIC47U lLS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 9-1. Based upon the comments provided herein, a number of additional significant environmental effects have been identified (e.g., land use, geotechnical, biological aesthetics, air and water quality, traffic) and/or impacts which the DEIR concludes as being mitigated to a level of insignificance would, in fact, produce a grater effect (i.e., significant effect on the environment) that presented in that document. As a result, this section should be revised to both ensure conformity with Section 15126(f) of the State CBQA Guidelines and identify those direct, indirect and cumulative impacts which constitute signify irreversible environmental changes. Page 10-1 and Page 14.2. As required under Section 15129 of the State CBQA Guidelines, "the BUt shall identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EMZ, and the Persons, firm or agency preparing the draft Wt, by clad or other authorization." in addition to disclosing those parties consulted pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 of CBQA, the D= should identify all parties referenced in the text, individuals or companies who participated in the design of the project or contributed information for the BQt (including document review and comment) and the participation of any solid waste contractors or others who may have provided either technical review or input. 4M IMRF Analysis Page 58 Mine Reclamation Corporation is encouraging free tours of the Eagle Mountain Landfill Site. Tour times are Monday through Friday at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. Special group tours can be scheduled on Saturday mornings. Eagle Mountain is located 1-1/2 hours east of Palm Springs. Please call in advance for reservations and remember to dress casually. For reservations and directions or more information call EAGLE OUNTAIN LANDFILL AND RECYCLING CENTER r� TIE-. 1... P (619) 392-4308 ..1... We ..1... WO t Mine Reclamation Corporation 960 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 204, Palm Springs, CA 92262 (619) 778-5131 • P.O. Box 8, Desert Center, CA 92239(619)392-4308 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING THE PROPOSEDINDUSTRY MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY AND CORRESPONDING DRAFT ENVIBONlAENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar will hold a regular adjourned meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Tuesday, February 9, 1993, in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California, for the purpose of discussing the proposed City of Industry Material Recovery Facility (MIM and correspondingDraft Environmental Impact Report (DEER). The City Council encourages you to attend this important and timely meeting lin order to provide community input on the Proposed Project and corresponding environmental document. A representative from the City of Industry has been invited to discuss the proposed project and to answer any questions that you may have. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Industry has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a proposed 5,700 -ton per day material recovery and transfer station facility located on a 40 -acre parcel of land east of Grand Avenue and south of Valley Boulevard in the City of Industry (See Map on Reverse). The proposed project is designed to receive unprocessed solid waste from the City of Industry, as well as other communities in the surrounding region for the purpose of extracting all recyclable materials from the waste stream. The residual waste will then be transported by high volume transfer trucks for disposal at local landfills and/or loaded onto railcars and transported to remote disposal sites. The project, as proposed, will be developed in three (3) phases and will consist of several functional areas which include: a transfer/sorting building for the processing and storage of unprocessed solid waste; a curbside sorting area for the recovery of recycled materials; a processing area for woodwaste and source -separated yard waste; an intermodal rail transfer and storage area; and an administrative and maintenance area. As required by state law, the City of Industry must hold at least one public hearing to allow the general public, affected governmental agencies, private industry and other interested parties to comment upon the environmental information contained within Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEER). This hearing has been scheduled for 8:30 a.m., on Thursday, February 11, 1993, at the City of Industry's Administrative Offices located at 15651 E. Stafford Street. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend this meeting and provide their comments on the proposed project and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). If you are unable to attend this meeting, but wish to provide written comments to the City of Industry, you may send your comments to Mr. John Ballas, City Engineer, City of Industry, P.O. Box 3366, City. of Industry, California 91744. Pursuant to Section 15087. of the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Industry will accept written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEER) through March 3, 1993, when the circulation and comment period ends on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEER). If you intend to submit written comments on the proposed project, the City of Diamond Bar would like to receive a copy so that it can be included in the City's response. You may submit your comments to the City of Diamond Bar at the addressed listed below. Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) are available for public inspection and review during regular business hours at the following locations: City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Diamond Bar County Library 1061 S. Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, California 91765 City of Industry Administrative Offices 15651 E. Stafford Street City of Industry, California 91744 Additional information concerning this matter may be obtained by contacting the City of Diamond Bar, Office of the City Manager, at (909) 396-5666. SPA A ,SPA LANDFILL pp i Mo WALNUT o/ �POMONA uAoat.aAtm tm ...�muxtt APPRO/ a /UMI g �. f�al,f 1 6iAtIM!!!��� ECIRM lq1 YIIO� D // PRAP_ SSD vAvrmm \ 1� / O rp� ® I CITE( OF I ® IMRF SITE i i) ,BAR CITY OF INDUSTRYFlGURE CITY OF INDUSTRY FIGURE MATERIAL RECOVERY AND TRANSFER FACILITY MATERIAL RECOVERY AND TRANSFER FACILITY LAND USE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA 4.1-1 SITE PLAN 2.0-2 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MPACT REPORT CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY PURPOSE Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, the City of Industry has prepared a Drat I Environmental Impact Repo jt (DEIR) for a proposed 5,700 -ton per day material recovery and transfer station facility located on a 40 -acre parcel of land east of Grand Avenue and south of Valley Boulevard in the City of Industry (See Map). In order to properly evaluate the proposed project and corresponding DEIR, the City of Diamond Bar has retained the services of Ultrasystems Engineers & Constructors, Inc., an Irvine based consulting firm with experience in environmental planning and engineering, as well as solid waste facility siting and design. The purpose of this independent evaluation was to provide the City of Diamond Bar with an analysis of the proposed project to: (1) ensure that the environmental analysis provided by the City of Industry accurately describes and evaluates the impacts upon the City of Diamond Bar; (2) minimize the potential environmental impacts through either the redesign and/or operation of that facility, the incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures and other conditions of approval, or the relocation of that facility to a preferential alternative site; and (3) evaluate subsequent actions that can be undertaken to either further assess project -related impacts and/or minimize potential adverse impacts upon the City, its residents and its service delivery systems. The purpose of this briefing paper is to present the .consultant's preliminary findings based on their technical review of the DEM and to solicit public input concerning formulation of a response to that document pursuant to the authority provided under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. BACKGROUND The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, also known as AB 939, requires each city to prepare, adopt and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) which identifies how the city will divert, through a combination of source reduction, recycling and composting programs, 25 percent of the solid wastes generated within its jurisdictional boundaries Brom landfill disposal by the year 1995 and 50 percent or the maximum amount feasible by the year 2000. This requirement, designed in part to reduce the impacts of the impending shortfall in disposal capacities at sanitary landfills throughout the State, has resulted in the processing of a number of independent applications for material recovery and transfer stations (MRFs) designed to serve regional municipal solid waste (MSW) demands, including the Puente Hills Landfill MRF (4,200 tons/day), Commerce Rail -Cycle MRF (4,200 tons/day), Fontana MRF (5,000 tons/day) and Industry MRF (5,700 tons/day). As localized sanitary landfill capacity diminishes, there is an increased need to transport MSW by truck or by rail to more distant disposal sites. MRFs provide an opportunity to accept MSW transported by municipal and commercial waste hauling vehicles, remove recoverable materials and transport the remaining wastes in larger vehicles or rail -haul containers to those outlining sites. PROJECT The City of Industry proposes to develop and operate (through a contract to a solid waste operator) a 5,700 ton per day (tpd) material recovery and transfer station BRIEFING PAPER Page 1 February 9, 1993 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DIPACT REPORT CITY OF IIVDUSTRY MATERIAL RECOVERY FACIIATY facility. The proposed Industry Material Recovery Facility (IMRF) project is located on a 40 -acre parcel of land east of Grand Avenue and south. of Valley Boulevard on what used to be a feed -processing site (e.g., Machlin Feed Processing). The project will consist of several functional areas that include: a transfer/sorting building for the processing and storage of unprocessed refuse; a curbside sorting area for the recovery of recycled materials; a processing area for woodwastes and source - separated yard wastes; an intermodal rail transfer and storage area; and an administrative and maintenance area. The material recovery and transfer station function of the project will require approximately 20 acres. Approximately 12 acres will be set aside for rail sidings connecting either the Southern Pacific Railroad and/or Union Pacific main lines. These lines, which border the north and south sides of the project site respectively, will be used to transport recycled materials or residual waste by railcars to end-use markets or remote disposal locations. The remaining eight (8) acres of land will be used for equipment and container storage and open space. The facility is proposed to be operational 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and will initially receive up to 3,330 tpd of mixed municipal solid waste from commercial, residential, debris box and self -haul vehicles from both the City of Industry and surrounding communities. Selected loads will be pushed onto conveyor belts and sorted. It is anticipated that the facility will generate between 500 to 600 tpd of residual waste which will be transported by 40 -foot long containers pulled by truck to remote landfill locations outside of the San Gabriel Valley. Although the site and all adjacent parcels are zoned Manufacturing (M) and may be considered appropriate for this type of facility under existing zoning regulations, the proposed project design and site orientation have potential environmental impacts (i.e., noise, odor and vectors) which may adversely affect the City and its residents. This is significant because the southeast tip of the proposed project site, which is contiguous to the City of Diamond Bar, comes within close proximity to existing residential uses within the City, as well as the YMCA facility and a baseball field used extensively by a local little league organization. CEQA CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require that all projects involving discretionary approvals from government agencies be reviewed to determine whether those project have the potential to produce significant impacts upon the environment. For those projects which are determined to have the potential to propose significant effects, the agency with primary responsible for approving the project is required to produce an environmental impact report which identifies the project's direct, indirect and cumulative environmental effects, identifies mitigation measures which have the potential to reduce or avoid those effects and examines alternatives to the project which, if enacted, would minimize the occurrence of any significant environmental consequence. BRIEFING PAPER Page 2 February 9, 1993 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF MU9MY MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY The City of Industry, acting in the capacity of Lead Agency, has prepared and disseminated a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the IMRF. CEQA provides opportunities for all interested and affected parties to submit comments on the adequacy of that document. Written comments which are received on the DEIR on or before March 3, 1993 are to be addressed and included in a Final Environmental Impact Report which then becomes the environmental basis for subsequent actions by the Lead Agency and other Responsible Agencies from whom permits or approvals will be required. DEIR REVIEW Based upon a review of the DEIR by the firm of Ultrasystems Engineers & Constructors, Inc. (UEC), acting in the capacity of environmental consultant to the City, a number of technical and procedural deficiencies have been identified in the DEIR. These issues, which are summarized below, suggest that further technical analysis of the IMRF may be required in order to ensure a reasonable analysis of the project and its potential environmental impacts. Only by thoroughly analyzing potential project -related impacts can the City of Diamond Bar and its residents effectively evaluate the proposed project and develop formal policy recommendation for inclusion in the environmental review record. The issues identified by UEC include, but are not limited to: • Failure of the DEIR to demonstrate the need for a MRF of the size indicated based upon other planned and pending projects throughout the region; • Notification of this pending project, as required under CE" may not have occurred in the manner prescribed by law; • Based upon procedural and technical deficiencies, "significant new information" will be required to provide a faithful analysis of project impacts. As a result, the DEIR should be augmented and recirculated for public review after each of those deficiencies are addressed in a revised document; • The DEIR fails to provide a project description which provides the public with an understanding of the activities, uses, environmental controls and engineering feasibility of the project. Only through a detailed project description can the project's effects be identified and its impacts upon adjoining land uses judged; • The DEIR contains numerous unsupported conclusions which lack either the corresponding analysis or engineering information to allow an independent validation of those conclusions. As a result, the DEIR needs to be augmented so that all project -related assumptions are identified, the methodology by which impacts are quantified clearly stated and the effectiveness of various mitigation measures evaluated; • Notwithstanding the DEIR's conclusions, the proposed project will produce significant unavoidable adverse impacts (including land use compatibility, BRIEFING PAPER Page 3 February 9, 1993 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL EWPACT REPORT CITY OF WDUSTRY MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY aesthetic, air and water quality, noise, traffic and biological effects) which cannot be minimized to a level which is not significant; By underestimating project impacts and inaccurately- defining the significance of those effects, the DEIR fails to accurately delineate the project's environmental consequences. This failure diminishes the DEIR's needs to explore reasonable project alternatives (e.g., alternative sites) which, if examined, might prove environmentally superior to the proposed action; The DEIR fails to accurately evaluate the potential cumulative effects of the proposed action in combination with other MRFs or reasonably foreseeable development activities which can be anticipated to occur in the project area; • Although the DEIR is comprised of numerous technical studies prepared by specialized subconsultants, the full text of those reports have not been included in that document or made available for public review; thereby, preventing a comparison between the findings of those studies and the information provided in the DEIR; and The nature, type and extent of any public financial support for the project should be disclosed, including information concerning the nature of any future contractual relationship between the City of Industry and the project's solid waste operator. All discretionary actions associated with the project must be disclosed in the environmental record. CITYACTION Although the City of Diamond Bar has no formal review or approval responsibilities over the project, CEQA provides both the City and other interested parties authority to submit comments to the City of Industry concerning both the adequacy of the environmental documentation, the project's potential impacts, recommendations regarding other actions or mitigation measures which could be implemented to minimize or avoid the project's potential impacts and other alternatives (including alternative sites) which could be considered and evaluated in the environmental assessment. Broad-based public participation is a basic tenet of CEQA and is required to ensure the consideration of all relevant environmental issues in the decision-making process. BRIEFING PAPER Page 4 February 9, 1993 22410 feeT ���raiuo ,ems, cam. 9i7G.t' �"';�,8, �, ✓99 a ,ry try 91- lND.Clr7/Zy 9/Zo /n/ If,�9ArX1A—"7XDN aliT,y z erry orr f va�sr eyJ' P2�i�as�.o av /� •rte srT,E a' wrrfiY,{/ ,Q ,�i6,yrL� �,B,�iZ� �e.� f112 11i/ 7X4,.:!!7 ,44-//��y IMO 4-11725�14Zfdoa4o z� Tim CliVi�/�o G�Sr.� .�'`c�L/D ui.�T� w.Yrc�y eo�L,o /•vc-�o� 72) 2,�r�D.Eivrs ©rte N��:�;yca� �zo•�,��,��rrEs ,�.ivp rvio CT Ll,�y 14f;o 72� s i7-f7l- �! X20 BLS rN 7" �u7 y � Z-//,�o �Py � Cary �,� D�,�tirorvp �3� &per y p2 , f le 6 8j C,f. '0" February 6, 1993 Mr. John Ballas, City Engineer City of Industry P.O. Box 3366 15651 East Stafford Street City of Industry, CA 91744 Dear Mr. Ballas, Periodically, politicians propose projects that may enhance the revenue of their jurisdictions. Some are good ideas, that may even have social value. Some, however, pose a health and social cost/risk far beyond the revenue gain. The latter, represents the proposed Materials Recovery Facility planned for your city. If your city were located in an isolated portion of the state, maybe this project would have merit This project will not only affect your city, but it will also draslica//y affect surrounding communities and thousands of persons living there. Adding additional smog, noise, odor, and hazardous waste pollution is flat what I call a social benefit Government should be attempting to remove such dangerous contaminants from our environment, not concentrating them where they will have untold impact on near -by residents! We have been living in North Diamond Bar for over seventeen years. We have seen it grow into an ideal residential area. All this will change if the proposed Material Recovery Facility Project is approved. My wife and I are opposed to the approval of this project Steven C. Manning Phandnee Manning 22735 East Eaglespur Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 cc: City of Diamond Bar Mr. Deane Dana, Los Angeles County Supervisor Mr. Paul Horcher, Assemblyman Mr. Frank Hill, Senator .z� f4 T a.WfS1 I6;, AS 2. �oL �rY D� /iVD �ls'T/zy /N ow t, t'i�o•i.Ec� y 11V TXAE .F-Z1?,6 aye y Z) Tiff lliVi�/to.Eao S'c�L/o G�/.d�T,c� curdy fauL,o /�vcC�a,E 1115/0 it,(i 1'2'- 4ef G 9a4o Po.rF� 7a 2 'rD�ivrs ©� N -rz coxexf�lvl, -Iss o vp m CT L/may L J'1W17-f71- oitl �2oaL 1,1V 7_ fuzzes y tit• G/,,.q campy d14orV.0 ,�ftj 9/7 " February 6, 1993 Mr. John Ballas, City Engineer Co of Industry P.O. Box 3366 15651 East Stafford Street City of Industry, CA 91744 Dear Mr. Ballas, Periodically, politicians propose projects that may enhance the revenue of their jurisdictions. Some are good ideas, that may even have social value. Some, however, pose a health and social cost/risk far beyond the revenue gain. The latter, represents the proposed Materials Recovery Facility planned for your city. If your city were located in an isolated portion of the state, maybe this project would have merit This project will not only affect your city, but it will also drastically affect surrounding communities and thousands of persons living there. Adding additional smog, noise, odor, and hazardous waste pollution is not what I call a social benefit Government should be attempting to remove such dangerous contaminants from our environment, not concentrating them where they will have untold impact on near -by residents! We have been living in North Diamond Bar for over seventeen years. We have seen it grow into an ideal residential area. All this will change if the proposed Material Recovery Facility Project is approved. My wife and I are to the approval of this project Steven C. Manning Phandnee Manning 22735 East Eaglespur Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 cc: City of Diamond Bar Mr. Deane Dana, Los Angeles County Supervisor Mr. Paul Horcher, Assemblyman Mr. Frank Hill, Senator CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Mayor — Gary G. Miller Mayor Pro Tem — Phyllis E. Papen Councilman — John A. Forbing Councilman — Gary H. Werner Councilman — Dexter D. MacBride City Council Chambers are located at: South CoastAir Quality Management DistrrtAuditodum 21865 East Copley Drnre w.� 3 ® o� �oA�weolwi o iB® i' ®C ®3 'E i i i-3 1�1 E i $. 31 MEETING DATE: February 9, 1993 Terrence L. Belanger Adjourned Regular Meeting City Manager Andrew V. Arczynski City Attorney MEETING TIME: 7: o o p. m. Lynda Burgess City Clerk The City of Diamond Bar uses RECYCLED paper and encourages you to ao me same. THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY JONES INTERCABLE FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 51, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Miller ROLL CALL: Councilmen MacBride, Forbing, Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Miller 2. PROPOSED MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY (MRF) BY THE CITY OF INDUSTRY - Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Industry has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a proposed 5,700 -ton per day material recovery and transfer station facility located on a 40 -acre parcel of land east of Grand Avenue and south of Valley Blvd. in the City of Industry, as well as other communities in the surrounding region, for the purpose of extracting all recyclable materials from the waste stream. The residual waste will then be transported by high volume transfer trucks for disposal at local landfills and/or loaded onto railcars and transported to remote disposal sites. The project, as proposed, will be developed in three phases and will consist of several functional areas which include: a transfer/sorting building for the processing and storage of unprocessed solid waste; a curbside sorting area for the recovery of recycled materials; a processing area for woodwaste and source -separated yard waste; an intermodal rail transfer and storage area; and an administrative and maintenance area. Recommended Action: Receive public input and direct staff as necessary. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 4. ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) The Diamond Bar City Council will hold an Adjourned Regular Meeting at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, located at 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 9, 1993. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, LYNDA BURGESS, declare as follows: I am the City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy of the Notice for the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council, to be held on February 9, 1993 was posted at their proper locations. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Notice and Affidavit was executed this 5th day of February, 1993, at Diamond Bar, California. /s/ Lynda Buraess Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar DRAFT THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY JONES INTERCABLE FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 51, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Miller ROLL CALL: Councilmen MacBride, Forbing, Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Miller 2. PROPOSED MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY (MRF) BY THE CITY OF INDUSTRY - Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Industry has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a proposed 5,700 -ton per day material recovery and transfer station facility located on a 40 -acre parcel of land east of Grand Avenue and south of Valley Blvd. in the City of Industry, as well as other communities in the surrounding region, for the purpose of extracting all recyclable materials from the waste stream. The residual waste will then be transported by high volume transfer trucks for disposal at local landfills and/or loaded onto railcars and transported to remote disposal sites. The project, as proposed, will be developed in three phases and will consist of several functional areas which include: a transfer/sorting building for the processing and storage of unprocessed solid waste; a curbside sorting area for the recovery of recycled materials; a processing area for woodwaste and source -separated yard waste; an intermodal rail transfer and storage area; and an administrative and maintenance area. Recommended Action: Receive public input and direct staff as necessary. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 4. ADJOURNMENT: 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100 DIAMOND BAR, CA 917654177 909-860-2489 • FAX 909-861-3117 T E L E C O P Y DATE: T IME : .` a C) 0-1cer Name: [r1cC,V1 1 Agency: Telephone No.: FAX No.: FROM: Name:Division: C O V E R S H E E T NUMBER NUMBER OF PAGES: (Including Cover Sheet): C.) COMMENTS: GARY G. MILLER PHYLLIS E. PAPEN JOHN A. FORBING DEXTER D. MacBRIDE GARY H. WERNER Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Coundbnember Coundboember Coundimember RECYCLED PAPER SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Diamond Bar City Council will hold a Closed Session prior to the Adjourned Regular Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. for the purposes.of discussing: Litiation - Government Code 54956.9. Personnel - Government Code 54957.6 DATED: February 8, 1993 /s/ Tommye Nice Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk City of Diamond Bar Fax to Press: February 8, 1993 F' 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE - SUITE 100 Ell' 14 M& DIAMOND BAR, CA 917654177 909460-2489 • FAX 909-861-3117 T E L E C O P Y DATE: TIME: TO: Agency: Telephone No.: FAX No . : C O V E R S H E E T FROM: Name: Division: fi rc,� J NUMBER OF PAGES: (Including Cover Sheet):_ COMMENTS: GARY G. MILLER PHYLLIS E. PAPEN JOHN A. FORBING DEXTER D. MacBRIDE GARY H. WERNER Mayor Mayor Pro Tan Councilmember Coundimember Councibnember RECYCLED PAPER SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Diamond Bar City Council will hold a Closed Session prior to the Adjourned Regular Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. for the purposes_of discussing: Litiation - Government Code 54956.9 Personnel - Government Code 54957.6 DATED: February 8, 1993 /s/ Tommye Nice Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk City of Diamond Bar Fax to Press: February 8, 1993 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM COWNNNML DATE: February 5, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manage SUBJECT: Technical Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Industry Material Recovery Facility Attached for your information and review, please find a draft report from the City's consultant, Ultrasystems Engineers & Constructors, Inc., on the proposed City of Industry Material Recovery Facility and corresponding Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Based on their technical evaluation, Ultrasystems has identified a number of technical deficiencies, as well as procedural errors in this document which raise serious doubts about its adequacy and may present a reasonable argument for the recirculation of the DEIR as required under Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code. Ultrasystems is scheduled to be at the February 9, 1993, meeting and will provide a brief presentation on their findings, as well as answer any questions you may have on the proposed project and corresponding environmental documentation. Should you have any questions or need additional clarification regarding this matter, please contact me at your earliest convenience. tb: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS DRArr ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY -FACILITY SCH NO. 92061073 These comments, which reflect the findings of a technical analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Industry Materials Recovery Facility (City of Industry, January 8, 1993), are submitted in response to authority provided under Sections 15044 and 15209 of Title 14, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. This analysis has been conducted for the purpose of evaluating the technical adequacy of the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), including both its compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended (CEQA) and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines). To facilitate agency review of these comments and assist local efforts to incorporate these comments into the project's environmental review record, each of the following comments includes a page reference or other notation indicating the specific component or passage of the DEIR addressed by that comment. In addition, "general comments" have been included under a single heading. Unlike other comments in this analysis, these observations are not specifically associated with individual components of the DEIR, but focus upon potential procedural deficiencies or technical inadequacies in that document. General Comments Recognizing the nature of the project, the project proponent(s) have a responsibility (as specified under Section 15124(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines) to provide sufficient information concerning the project's technical characteristics and principal engineering proposals to demonstrate both the feasibility of the project and facilitate subsequent environmental analysis. The processing of 4,700 tons per day (tpd) of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), including an additional 1,000 tpd transported to the project site for an off- site material recovery facility (MRF), will require the capacity to process approximately 3.26 tons per minute (based upon a 24 hour day). The project description provided in the DEIR does not clearly demonstrate the facility's capability to process this volume of MSW. Without a project description which illustrates the feasibility of the project's technical/engineering aspects, it is not possible to assess the effectiveness of that process, the suitability of the environmental controls and safety considerations and the potential environmental impacts associated with the project's operation. Since the project description fails in its attempt to convey a clear understanding of the engineering process, the ability of the public to independently evaluate the project's environmental considerations is seriously diminished. Only through an understanding of 46921MRF Analysis Page I CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY the operational aspects of the project can its impacts be identified and the fail safe mechanisms evaluated. The DEIR defines the City of Industry's waste generation rate at between 500 and 600 tpd on a five day basis (page 2-7, 11), equating to a weekly demand of only 2,500 to 3,000 tons. At full capacity, the facility could handle 34,200 tons of waste per week. Although the DEIR concludes that the remaining tonnage "is expected to be delivered directly from the participating Cities in the San Gabriel Valley" (page 2-7, 12), the DEIR neither quantifies the regional demand, discusses alternative options available to other municipalities (e.g., other existing or proposed facilities which may compete with the proposed project for MSW) or documents other communities willingness to divert all or a portion of its waste stream to this facility. The representation that the City of Industry Material Recovery Facility (EMRF) is responding to a regional need, as articulated in the project's goals and objectives (page 2-5, 15), is not validated by any information which purports to quantify that demand or demonstrate the willingness (or economic feasibility) of other municipalities to utilize this facility. As a result, the DEIR should be amended to include a 500-600 tpd MRF as a project alternative and/or present additional information documenting the project proponent(s) ability to attract a daily waste stream in excess of that localizes demand. While the diversion goals of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) provide the impetus for the project, the DEIR (page 2-7, 14) indicates that there is presently insufficient market demand to utilize the recovered materials. In the absence of that demand, whereby divertable waste materials are regimentally transported to alternative end users, all recyclable material will continue to end up in a sanitary landfill. As the capacity of a MRF increases, the project proponent(s) has an obligation to document the existence of a market demand capable of absorbing the materials which will be generated from that facility. In the absence of that existing market, the DEIR should analyze alternative options available to the IMRF operator (including landfill disposal) and analyze AB 939 conformity should landfill disposal become a necessary operating alternative. In order to make the project operational and economically feasible, some form of public (financial) intervention is required (page 2-9, 11 and 2). The DEIR does not specify what form (or magnitude) that public support will take or the potential indirect impacts associated with the diversion of finite public resources to this project. Absent from the DEIR is any discussion of the proposed operating agreement with the service provider(s), discussion of short-term and long-term costs to the community, application of redevelopment funds (if any) and discussion of public liability associated with the City's 46921MRF Analysis Page 2 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY retention of the project site (including recourse in the event of noncompliance or repeated environmental/safety violations). In order to understand the project's potential environmental impacts, additional disclosure of these economic considerations are necessary. The DEIR indicates (page 2-16, 13) that approximately 141 employees will be required "as the DdRF reaches design capacity." Since most of these positions will be labor intensive, it is assumed that many of these positions will be filled by primary wage- earners (head of household) and that salaries will limit the ability of employees to compete effectively in the housing marketplace. Based upon a limited inventory of affordable housing opportunities within the City, employees will be required to seek housing in other adjoining communities and/or commute from outlying areas. No discussion is offered in the DEIR concerning either the indirect or potentially growth - inducing impacts associated with this labor force, including (but not limited to) impacts upon the region's affordable housing inventory and associated actions proposed by the City of Industry to expand housing opportunities to address community demands and regional fair share allocations, impacts upon affected school districts and any potential municipal obligations should redevelopment agency participation be proposed. The DEIR contains a number of unsupported conclusions which either lack the corresponding analysis from which those conclusions are derived or the engineering information to substantiate material provided in the text. To allow an independent review of the document, the EIR should include a technical appendix incorporating a project - specific geotechnical analysis, hydrological study, biological survey and such other technical analyses (e.g., Phase I environmental audit) as may be available to both determine applicable project impacts and verify the findings presented in the DEIR. Based upon the need to augment the DEIR to ensure both an accurate project description and to provide an adequate environmental analysis of the proposed action, "significant new information" will be required for inclusion into the environmental impact report. In accordance with Section 21092.1 of CEQA, "when significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092 and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report. " Where the change to the "project" and/or the addition of new information is significant, the revised and recirculated EIR must be subjected to the same strict scrutiny as occurs during the preparation of the initial draft EIR so that the public is not denied an opportunity to fully evaluate the new data in making an informed judgment on the validity 4692/MRF Analysis Page 3 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY of the conclusions that the public agency has drawn. As a result of the inclusion of that new information (including the need to augment the environmental analysis), recirculation of the DEIR may be required in accordance with Section 21092.1 of the Public Resource Code. In accordance with Section 15020 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "each public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA and shall not rely on comments from other public agencies or private citizens as a substitute for work CEQA requires the lead agency to accomplish. For example, the lead agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct defects in the document" (emphasis added). Under CEQA, the public and affected Responsible Agencies are to be presented with an E R "prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision -makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of the [project's] environmental consequences" (Section 15151). The DEW which has been submitted for public and agency review necessitates major revisions to both fulfill minimum standards of adequacy and facilitate informed decision-making in a manner consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 21082.2 of CEQA indicates that "the lead agency shall determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in the record" (emphasis added). The DEIR's conclusions regarding the significance of specific project impacts is often conclusionary and not supported by reasoned analysis submitted for public review and independent verification. Referencing Section 15021(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines: "CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. In regulating public or private activities, agencies are required to give major consideration to preventing environmental damage. A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment." In accordance with these provisions, the City of Industry is mandated to seek solutions (i.e., alternatives, mitigation measures) which will minimize project -induced impacts. Although mitigation measures identified in the DEIR will "substantially lessen" many of the project's environmental impacts, a number of topical issues and environmental impacts have not been adequately mitigated. As a result, the DEIR is required to identify and evaluate project alternatives (e.g., alternative sites) which have the potential to either avoid identified impacts or minimize those effects to a level which is not significant. 46921MRF Analysis Page 4 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHM In accordance with Section 15206 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project "shall be deemed to be of statewide, regional or areawide significance. " Based upon that provision, the Lead Agency is required to notify and consult with transportation planning agencies and public agencies which have transportation facilities in their jurisdiction which would be affected by the project and to provide those agencies with copies of environmental documents undertaken to analyze those projects. Although the DEIR (Appendix A) includes a Notice of Preparation (NOP) mailing list, a number of agencies required by statute to receive notice, have not been identified. 0 Since the DEIR concludes that a number of potentially significant adverse impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened as a result of mitigation measures included as part of the proposed project, it is incumbent upon the Lead Agency and other Responsible Agencies to develop a mechanism which will ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented as proposed. Should the proposed mechanism prove deficient or should other Responsible Agencies not adequately incorporate those measures into existing procedures (and monitor compliance), the impacts which have been assumed to be mitigated to levels of insignificance may, in fact, produce more significant effects than now anticipated (assuming the subsequent application of those measures). To provide the public with an opportunity to evaluate both the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures and the mechanism(s) that will be implemented to ensure the incorporation of these measures into project design and/or operation, a draft mitigation reporting and monitoring program should be included in the DEIR, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21081.6. Section 15082(x) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that "the Lead Agency shall send to each Responsible Agency a Notice of Preparation stating that an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared." Notification of the State Clearinghouse does not preempt the Lead Agency's obligation to independently notify each Responsible Agency in the manner prescribed by statute. The DEIR indicates that the California Department of Fish and Game (page 4.11-12,16) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (page 1-7, 11 and page 4.10-3, 12) both have permit obligations over this project. Although not acknowledged in the DEIR, the United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers may also be required to issue a permit for the project (pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act). As indicated in Section 10 (Report Authors; People and Organizations Consulted) and Appendix A (Mailing List for IMRF NOP), none of the above referenced Responsible Agencies received copies of the Notice of Preparation or were consulted in the preparation of the DEIR. 46921MRF Analysis Page 5 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Similarly, the Lead Agency failed to notify Trustee Agencies as required by Section 15086(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines and "transportation planning agencies" and "public agencies which have transportation facilities within their jurisdictions" as required under Section 21092.4 of the California Public Resources Code. In recognition of the above referenced failure of the Lead Agency to provide notification as required by statute, the Lead Agency has an obligation to ensure the public that adequate opportunities have been provided these agencies to comment upon the DEIR. Although not formally required under CEQA or the State CEQA Guidelines the DEIR should include a listing of those agencies or organization which were provided copies of that document. Only by reviewing the DEIR mailing list can the public verify if the requirements of Section 15086(a) of the State CEQA Guideline have been satisfied. That statutory obligation requires that "the Lead Agency shall consult with and request comments on the draft EIR from: (1) Responsible Agencies; (2) Trustee agencies with resources affected by the project; and (3) other State, federal and local agencies which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project." To ensure that the proposed project was adequately and accurately described in the Notice Of Preparation and Notice of Completion, as required under Sections 15082(x) and 15085 of the State CEQA Guidelines, copies of these notices should be included in the DEIR to demonstrate continuity in the environmental review record. Executive Summary Page 1-2, 12. Although the DEIR is correct in identifying "a 25 percent diversion rate" as one of the stated goals of AB 939 (note the typographical error in the text), the document fails to mention that this goal increases to 50 percent by the year 2000. Throughout the DEIR, no phased analysis is provided evaluating the corresponding impacts (e.g., additional traffic associated with increased volumes of recovered materials) based upon both year 1994 and 2000 conditions. The DEIR should provide additional information discussing both operational changes and corresponding environmental impacts associated with these separate conditions. Page 2-1, 11. The DEIR indicates that "the facility will be owned by the City of Industry, but operated by a professional solid waste management company." The DEIR neither discloses that the City is the project applicant or identifies the solid waste management company who will operate the IIVW. Although the Initial Study (Appendix A) identifies the City of Industry as project proponent, the DEIR should clearly identify 46921MRF Analysis Page 6 CITY OF MURRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY the applicant, disclose that the applicant is also the Lead Agency, discuss any potential conflicts associated with that dual relationship, disclose the management agency or company (if known) and discuss the role of the solid waste management agency (if any) in the design of the project and the presentation of information in the environmental analysis. Page 2-1, 12 and 3. The DEIR defines the City of Industry's need for a material recovery facility as "500 to 600 tpd [tons per day]." The proposed capacity of the IMRF is, however, identified as 5,700 tpd. The large discrepancy between local demands and projected capacity appear to relate to "the inclusion" of 25 cities" which exist "within a realistic hauling distance of the project." Figure 2.0-1 (Vicinity Map) identifies the project site and includes 26 Cities (i.e., Industry and 25 Cities). Are these the Cities to be included? Have incorporated County areas been considered? Have these agencies or their waste haulers expressed a commitment to participate (i.e., transport solid waste to the IMRl)? Are other facilities (e.g., RAIL -CYCLE Material Recovery Facility located in the City of Commerce) competing for these community solid wastes? Are other existing or proposed material recovery facilities (MRF) located within shorter commuting distances? What defines a "realistic hauling distance" and, if isochronal, why does that travel distance/time not apply equally in all directions? What is the current status of "the proposal 4,000 tons/day Puente Hills MRF" (page 4.6-33, 14) and what impacts will its operations have upon the DARF service area, projected MSW quantities and market demand for recovered materials? As indicated in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Puente H111s Waste Management Facility, a "material recovery and rail loading facility capable of processing 4,000 tons per day on a 6 day average (4,400 tpd maximum)" has been proposed at that site. Although a regional need for MRFs can be identified (pursuant to AB 939), no basis is provided to indicate why a 5,700 tpd facility is required at this location. Since the specification of facility capacity is the starting point for both the resulting project design and basis for all subsequent environmental analysis, adequate discussion is required to document this development assumption. No information has been provided to validate the need for a 5,700 tpd facility. ° Page 2-3, 13. Since "the City of Industry plans to build a full width, two lane access road to the site from Grand Avenue," the proposed right-of-way and identified improvements constitute a component of the project and need to be addressed in the DEIR. The exclusion of that area from the environmental analysis results in both an inadequate project description and precludes an evaluation of the potential impacts associated with that capital improvement (e.g., will additional right-of-way be required?). 46921MRF Analysis Page 7 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 24, Figure 2.0-2. The level of detail presented in the site plan, as illustrated in Figure 2.0-2 (Site Plan), indicates that considerable effort was expended in the development of the project design. No discussion is, however, provided indicating to whom the design is attributable. Did the City design the project? Did the solid waste management agency which will be contracted to operate the facility prepare the design plan? The project designer should be identified, the relationship between the designer, the City and the solid waste management agency (if any) specified and the participation of any waste hauler, operator or service provider disclosed. Has the solid waste management agency been preselected (if yes, define process) or will the contract be provided through competitive bid? ° Page 2-5, 14. The DEIR indicates that 40 -foot long containers loaded with MSW will be stored on-site "until there is a full train unit of 80 cars." Since each "railcar holds four 40 -foot containers," an estimated 352 full containers (and an undisclosed number of empty containers) will be stockpiled within the MRF prior to off-site transport via railhaul "to one or more distant landfills." The capacity (in tonnage) of each container is neither identified nor the storage requirements for the total inventory of containers indicated. Will railcars be loaded and stored on-site pending transport? Is adequate railspur capacity provided for both Southern Pacific and Union Pacific rail lines? How was adequate track length (i.e., 6,400 feet) determined? ° Page 2-5 and Page 2-6. The project objectives appear inconsistent. In the first objective, the DEIR reflects a regional objective to serve "participating cities [in] the San Gabriel Valley." The following goal reflects only a localized perspective (i.e., to satisfy the City of Industry's source reduction and recycling objectives). This internal conflict should be reconciled. If the project seeks to satisfy only the City's AB 939 goals, the size of the D4RF should be reduced to 500-600 tpd (page 2-1, 12). Similarly, the Cities identify in Figure 2.0-1 (Vicinity Map) include communities which are not physically located within the San Gabriel Valley and which may be better served by alternative MRFs. ° Page 2-7, 12. The DEIR indicates that "current plans anticipate receiving 1,000 tpd of the projected maximum capacity from a transfer station in another area of Southern California. " Although this waste "is expected to have the recyclable materials removed prior to transferring to the iMRF," it is unclear whether this constitutes a condition for acceptance of these wastes. This assumption is contradicted by other information in the DEIR which indicates that wastes will be received from "other transfer station(s) without rail -haul capacity or without the equipment to separate recyclables" (page 2-18, 13). Additionally, the source of these wastes and location of this existing transfer station(s) should be identified, including projected haul requirements, routes between facilities and 46921MRF Analysis Page 8 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY safety controls to minimize/avoid acceptance of hazardous materials if no further sorting is anticipated to occur at the IMRF. ° Page 2-7, 14. While a MRF can be beneficial in the removal of recoverable materials from the waste stream, the ability to satisfy AB 939 objectives (i.e., 25 percent diversion by 1995; 50 percent diversion by the year 2000) is dependent upon the development of emerging markets for the recovered material. The DEIR infers that those markets do not Presently exist ("markets will need to be expanded and developed to ensure that diverted waste materials are appropriately utilized"). In the absence of those end users, the goals of AB 939 and the objectives of the MW (see page 2-6, 11 and 2) will not be attained. The DEIR should present market information which verifies the existence of those material users, discusses projected absorption rates relative to the IMRF phasing plan and describes waste disposal scenarios should those markets not materialize. Page 2-8, Figure 2.0-3. The source of the table and the projected recovery rates should be provided. Additionally, the relationship between the "1,000 tpd of the projected maximum capacity from a transfer station in another area of Southern California" (page 2-7, 12) and the assumptions presented in Table 2.0-1 should be clarified, including assumptions on the projected tonnage of recovered materials from that off-site facility. In order to attain the recovery rates identified, what actions external to the project (e.g., curbside recycling) will be required? Page 2-9. The project description should be augmented to identify the size, height and/or area proposed for each of the buildings and exterior areas (e. g. , storage areas) to be developed on-site (e.g., 124,450 square foot Material Processing and Transfer Building). The function of each building or area should be described and the operational characteristics (e.g., noise levels provided by mechanical equipment) delineated. All structural openings should be identified and there orientation delineated. In addition, if large service doors are to open (or remain open), information addressing conditions precedent to the opening of those service entrances should be specified. Page 2-9, 12. Since "economic viability of the IMRF will depend on the City of Industry's ability to finance a facility that is competitively priced with other MRFs and landfills," some form of public financing or financial contribution is anticipated. The DEIR does not indicate the forms of public assistance (e.g., redevelopment funds, land write-down) presently being contemplated, the term of that contribution (e.g., annual, one-time only) or the potential impact/trade-off to other public programs, services or special districts resulting from the diversion of finite public funds to this enterprise. 46921MRF Analysis Page 9 CITY OF INDUSTRYMATERLlLS RECOVERY FACILITY Is the BW within a redevelopment project area and will tax increment financing be utilized to provide needed financial assistance? Should the projected revenue stream not materialize (e.g., lack of a market for recovered materials), what are the long-term economic implications to the City? Page 2-9, 14. The assumptions outlined in Table 2.0-1 (e.g., 2,022 tpd of commercial/industrial waste; 2,655 tpd of residential waste) differs from the assumptions presented in Figure 2.0-3 (e.g., 2,450 tpd of commercial/industrial waste; 1,900 tpd of residential waste) and Table 2.0-2 (e.g., 2,450 tpd of commerciaVindustrial waste; 2,225 tpd of residential waste). Similarly, the "recovery rate" identified in Table 2.0-1 (e.g., Yard wastes), bears no relationship with the "assumptions about recovered materials" presented in Table 2.0-2. These internal conflicts should be reconciled. Page 2-10, Figure 2.0-3. The exhibit fails in its attempt to provide information concerning the on-site processing of solid waste. For example, no linkage is provided which indicates that "mixed waste" from the residential waste stream is processed to remove recoverable material. Additionally, the "waste in" does not equate with the to waste out. Revise to correct procedural and quantitative deficiencies. Page 2-13, 11. The quantity of recovered material (i.e., 1,850 tpd) differs from the assumptions presented in Table 2.0-1 (i.e., 1,540 tpd), Figure 2.0-3 (i. e. , 1,673 tpd) and Table 2.0-2 (i.e., 1,673 tpd). Page 2-15, 14. The DEIR misrepresents the projected number of truck trips associated with the project. Since "a total of 827 trucks will access the site [daily] delivering waste, " a comparable number of empty and/or loaded trucks will also exit the site. Assuming haul vehicles transporting waste material to the site will be the same vehicles departing with recyclable material, daily vehicle trips (excluding employee and other trips) will total 1,654 trips/day. This figure is substantially greater than the 1,111 one- way vehicle trips referenced in the DEIR. Additionally, no linkage is provided with information presented in the traffic analysis (page 4.5-30, 11) which indicates that "the site is anticipated to generate 7,302 daily PCE [passenger car equivalent] trips by the year 2000.1' Page 2-15, 16. The DEIR again errors in concluding that when railhaul is initiated, the number of truck trips will be reduced "by 167 one-way trips per day. " First, no rational is provided indicating how the projected 167 trips were derived. Secondly, all trucks (full) arriving at the site will also have to leave the site (empty or full). This under counting of truck trips results in an inaccurate analysis of project -related traffic impacts. 46921MRF Analysis Page 10 CITY OF INDUS7RY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 2-16, 12. The DEIR indicates that 35 percent of all commercial/industrial waste will be "delivered in roll -off boxes." The document further states that "half of the incoming roll -off boxes from commercial and industrial customers are expected to be primarily wood waste" (page 2-14, 11). As a result 17.5 percent of all commercial/industrial waste constitutes recoverable wood waste. Of the 2,022 tpd of commercial/industrial waste identified in Table 2.0-1 (page 2-8), an estimated 354 tpd of wood material would be projected (and not 243 tpd as identified in that table). The DEIR should reconcile this discrepancy. Page 2-16, 13. While the DEIR indicates that 141 employees (maximum) are anticipated when the MF reaches capacity, the distribution of these employees by function and shift is not indicated. Assuming the maintenance of three full shifts (based upon a 24 hour work day), approximately 35 sorters can be anticipated. Based upon a 4,700 tpd waste stream, these sorters will process approximately 3.26 tons of MSW per minute (equating to over 3 pounds/second/sorter). Based upon the facility's size and labor force, it is difficult to fathom the operator's capability to process the identified tonnage and accomplish the recovery rates specified in the DEIR. Employee generated vehicle trips are not identified in Table 2.0-3 or discussed under the traffic analysis (e.g., Table 4.5-7, page 4.5-30). Page 2-18, 11. The identification of an "anticipated project service area" which "involves 25 cities including the City of Industry" (note that 26 Cities are graphically depicted on Figure 2.0-4 and Table 2.0-5) appears arbitrary based upon broad variations in travel distance, ignores other jurisdictions located in proximity to the project (including incorporated and unincorporated areas of Riverside and Orange Counties) and without bases (in the absence of a commitment from those communities to utilize the IlVIRF). The determination of the service area constitutes the basis for the identification of the design capacity of the D4RF, as depicted by Table 2.0-5 (page 2-20) in the DEIR. If the service area is ill-defined, the project's design capacity will not bear a direct relationship to the material recovery and disposal needs exhibited within the actual service area or the operational demands imposed upon the Dd RF. Additional documentation is required to support the conclusion that the geographic area identified represents a reasonable service area for the project. In the derivation of the service area, alternative geographic areas (as determined by isochronal distances, competing opportunity and tentative contractual commitments) should be examined. Based upon that analysis, the City of Industry may conclude that either a larger or smaller facility should be proposed (including a reduction in project size to accommodate only the 500-600 tpd generated within the City). 46921MRF Analysis Page 11 CITY OF INDUSTRYMA?ERIAIS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 2-18, 13. The DEIR references that "waste is expected to be delivered to the I MRF facility by transfer trailers from other transfer stations without rail -haul capacity or without the equipment to separate recyclables from the .... [text missing]." The DEIR further specifies that a 1,000 tpd will be received "from a transfer station in another area of Southern California" (page 2-7, 12). Although the DEIR appears exact in quantifying demand (i.e., 1,000 tpd), it fails to disclose from which facilities MSW will be transported. Without additional information concerning the location, capacity and capabilities of those MRFs, the supposition that "the project is assumed to receive 1,000 tpd six days per week from transfer stations" has not bases in fact. Page 2-21, 12 and 3. The discussion of the BKK Landfill, including its expected closing date, should be augmented to include a discussion of the proposed actions as identified in and authorized by the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Revision of BKK Landfill's Solid Waste Facility Permit No. 19 -AF -001 (SCH No. 91061016) presently in circulation. Based upon the information presented herein, it is reasonable to conclude that the Local Enforcement Agency will authorize an extension to the Solid Waste Facilities Permit beyond its currently permitted closure date. • Page 2-23. Since the air quality analysis (page 4.6-23, 12) premises certain projections on the future operation of the Elsmere Canyon Landfill, the status, location, classification and projected capacity of that facility should be discussed in the DEIR. ° Page 2-23, 17. The text indicates that "Figure 2.0-6 shows the location of eight Proposed remote landfills accessible by rail -haul and their approximate distance from the City of Industry." Twelve landfills (not eight) are identified on that exhibit. Page 2-25, 11. The DEIR errors in concluding that only two waste -by -rail projects are "most actively considered by many communities in the County..." The Puente Hills Waste Management Facilities, Draft Environment Impact Report (June 1992), prepared by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, identifies four proposed waste - by -rail landfill projects located outside of Los Angeles County. These sites are Eagle Mountain, Railcycle-Bolo Station, East Carbon City and California Interail project. The Eagle Mountain project is located in northeastern Riverside County and would accept up to 20,000 tons of solid waste per day at maximum capacity. The final EIS/EIR for this Project was certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1992. The Railcycle-Bolo Station site is located in southeastern San Bernardino County and would accept up to 21,000 tons of solid waste per day. The draft EIR/EIS for this project was released for public review in November 1992. The East Carbon City site is an existing permitted landfill located in Utah. On December 3, 1992, as part of a demonstration project, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County shipped 46921MRF Analysis Page 12 CITY OF INDUSTRY MWERUM RECOVERY FACILITY four railcars filled with solid wastes to this landfill. It is anticipated that this site could accept up to 20-25,000 tons of solid waste per day. The California Interail Project, located in eastern Imperial County, is proposing to accept up to 20,000 tons of solid waste per day. The draft EWEIS for this project is anticipated to be released for public review in the spring of 1993. All four of these waste -by -rail projects are proposing to accept solid wastes from Los Angeles County. The listing of potential railhaul sites should be supplemented to identify these facilities. 0 Section 15123 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that EMs contain a brief summary of the proposed action and its consequences. That summary shall include: (1) significant effects, proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid those effects; (2) areas of controversy, including issues raised by agencies and the public; and (3) issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives. The summary section of the DEIR fails to address each of the requisite components identified above. The DEIR indicates that "the siting of waste management facilities is commonly a source of controversy. Adjacent property owners often object to having facilities that handle waste located near their properties for fear of excessive noise, traffic congestion, noxious odors, dust, negative visual and aesthetic impacts, vectors, and/or liter" (page 4.13-4, 13). These concerns should be included as issues of potential controversy. ° Impacts presented in Table 3.2 are often structured as generalization, although specific impacts as indicated in the DEIR are potentially quantifiable based upon known or readily available information concerning the proposed project. To the extent feasible, the analysis of project impacts (including direct, indirect and cumulative effects) should quantify the potential environmental impacts identified in the text, identify any standards which may be utilized to evaluate project "significance" and quantitatively describe how the proposed mitigation measures will affect the identified impact. Section 15126(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that "the discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by the project proponent to be included in the project and other measures that are not included but could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts if required as conditions of approving the project." The DER should clearly draw this distinction and indicate when in the development process (or project phasing plan) these measures will be implemented. In accordance with Section 21083 of the California Environmental Quality Act, specific criteria are identified which require a finding that a project may have a "significant effect on the environment." Based upon that statute, a significant environmental effect will 46921MRF Analysis Page 13 CITY OF IND USTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY occur if any of the following conditions exist: (1) a proposed project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; (2) the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable; or (3) the environmental effects of a Project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. In the above context "cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." In concluding whether the project would produce significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the DEIR fails to evaluate the potential cumulative effects of the project and other development activities, resulting in an underestimation of the potential significance of the project and its corresponding environmental impacts. As a result, the DEIR erroneously concludes that the following topical issues can be mitigated to a level which is not significant: public services and utilities (e.g., school facilities, sewage treatment), traffic and circulation, constriction -term and long-term air quality unpacts. All mitigation measures identified in the DEIR must be constructed as mandatory requirements (using the word "shall") rather than only providing guidance or implying an option on the part of the Lead Agency or others (using the word "should") for their implementation. If mitigation measures are not implemented, the potential environmental effect that the measure is designed to minimize may produce a greater level of significance than anticipated to occur if the measure was enforced. As written, a number of mitigation measures presented in the DEIR (e.g., Mitigation Measure Nos. 4.6.1, 4.6.9, 4.9.3, 4.9.6, 4.9. 11) do not mandate actions on the part of the City (or others) and can, therefore, be ignored by the responsible party. Each of these mitigation measures should either be restructured (i.e., "shall" or "will") to ensure incorporation into the project, identified as optional elements or deleted from the document and the resulting environmental effect (without the mitigation measure) re-examined. 11WFTTTITTk-F7 T77113[7711 .1 Page 4.1-3. Figure 4.1-1 (Land Use in the Surrounding Area) fails to identify specific land uses in the project area (e.g., residential uses in the City of Diamond Bar), accurately and precisely represent those land uses (e.g., identify the existing ballfield in the City of Diamond Bar), correctly illustrate the distance and configuration of those adjoining land uses relative to the project site (e.g., Lanterman State Hospital and Development Center) or include a broad enough area of analysis which will facilitate understanding of adjoining development activities (e.g., easterly of the site only an area of approximately 1,200 linear feet is represented) . Use of an aerial photograph 46921MRF Analysis Page 14 CTIY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY (identifying the project in the center of the exhibit) would be more illustrative that the figure provided in the MR. Based upon a review of the USGS 7.5 minute San Dimas Quadrangle (which includes the project site), the nearest building contained within the Lanterman State Hospital and Development Center (identified on that map as the Pacific State Hospital) is approximately 2,600 feet (approximately 0.5 miles) from the project site. The representation that this medical facility is "approximately 3/4 miles to the northeast" implies a greater physical separation than actually exists. In recognition of this measurement error, impacts upon that facility (as identified in the DEIR) may underestimate the project's potential effects upon Lanterman State Hospital and the users of that complex. Similarly, as indicated on that USGS map, the closest residential unit to the project site is approximately 800 feet away and not 1,200 feet as indicated in the DEI? (page 4.1-4, 13). Page 4.1-3. Figure 4.1-2 (Vicinity Zoning Map) should include a scale to assess distances of each zoning category from the project site, include additional land area beyond the narrow confines illustrated on that exhibit, and accurately delineate all zoning designation within a radius of not less than 0.5 miles from the site. The zoning designations indicated do not accurately reflect (or define) the corresponding zoning classifications in the area analyzed. The actual zoning designation (and development standards) and not a generalized classification should be indicated. In addition, the corresponding General Plan designations applicable to these areas should be identified. Page 4.1-4, 11 through 4. The zoning designations indicated in the text do not directly correspond with the zoning designation illustrated in Figure 4.1-2 (page 4.1-3). All discrepancies should be reconciled. Page 4.1-6, 13. While the DEIR indicates that the Los Angeles County Fine Department is the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for hazardous waste facilities, the DEIR does not indicate the LEA for solid waste management (e.g., Los Angeles County Department of Health Services). The appropriate LEA should be identified and any discretionary actions attributable to that agency delineated. Page 4.1-6, 14. Applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits and permit requirements (e.g., NPDES CA 0061654 issued to the County and local communities) should be discussed, including project compliance with all stormwater quality management requirements imposed upon the City and County pursuant to that permit. 46921MRF Analysis Page 15 C177 OF INDUSTRY MA7ERL4LS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 4.1-5 through 4.1-7. Project implementation will require the development of an access road linking the site to Grand Avenue, including the construction of street improvements within the Union Pacific Railroad/Grand Avenue undercrossing. These improvements may necessitate land (or easement) acquisition through negotiation or eminent domain. What discretionary actions (and by whom) will be required to develop the access roadway? What additional discretionary entitlements will be required from the City (e.g., site plan review), County (e.g., alterations to or encroachment upon the existing flood control channel), State (e.g., Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Section 1601-1607 Streambed Alteration Agreement) or applicable federal agencies (e.g., Section 404 permit)? Page 4.1-7, 12. The DEIR indicates that the impacts of the project "were determined by identifying the project's conformance with pertinent land use policy documents and addressing the compatibility of the project with existing and proposed adjacent land use" (emphasis added). The identification of proposed or potential land uses should result from a detailed analysis of existing public policy documents (e.g., General Plans, Zoning Ordinances) affecting the area of analysis. Based upon those policies, as insufficiently represented in Figure 4.1-2 (page 4.1-3), residential development either exists or can be anticipated in the City of Walnut and City of Diamond Bar in close proximity to the site (i.e., future residential development may occur closer to the site than reflected by present conditions). Although stating that the impact analysis includes "proposed adjacent land uses," the DEIR limits its analysis.of potential residential conflicts to reflect only existing land uses. For example, although Figure 4.1-2 (page 4.1-3) identifies "residential" zoning northerly of Valley Boulevard and the text indicates that "existing open spaces adjacent to the northwest side of Valley Boulevard is currently zoned Residential Planned Development" (page 4.1-4, 12), no discussion of potential residential development within 500 feet of the site is provided in the DEIR (pages 4.1-8 and 4.1-9). As a result of the DEIR's failure to address potential impacts, the document erroneously concludes that no mitigation is necessary. Page 4.1-7, 13. Although no formal thresholds for significance are defined by CEQA (for land use), a number of potential criteria should be considered for incorporation in the DEIR. Significant adverse impacts should be assumed to result from: (1) the loss Of "prime agricultural lands" as defined under Section 56064 of the California Code of Regulations; (2) the creation or conflicts with adopted regional plans and policies (e.g., Air Quality Management Plan); (3) projects which exacerbate regional affordable housing demands through either the reduction of affordable housing opportunities or the creation of additional demands for that housing; (4) the loss or reduction of any sensitive or Protected habitat area, vegetation community or animal species; (5) development in areas susceptible to geologic or hydrologic hazards; and (6) any activity which creates a 46921MRF Analysis Page 16 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACM17Y potential health and safety risk to either site users or off-site receptors. Based upon a number of the above factors, potential land use impacts would be deemed "significant. " Page 4.1-7, 14. The DEIR confuses promotional statements which support preconceived solutions with actual analysis of project impacts. Referencing Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "an HIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to Provide decision -makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be extensive, but the sufficiency of an HIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. " The DEIR indicates (page 4.1-1, 11) that the site "is presently used by the Machlin Feed Processing Company... for feed processing and storage." Directly adjoining the site is the Benton Feed Processing Facility. The Spada Farms (Cal Poly University) adjoins the site's northeasterly boundary. These activities constitute agricultural uses and their presence verifies the feasibility of agricultural activities on this site. Similarly, agricultural activities are authorized under the City of Industry Zoning Ordinance. Although the administrative record supports the feasibility of retaining agricultural uses on-site, the DEIR concludes that since "this site has been designated for industrial development... the continued agricultural use of this site is impractical." While the loss of this agricultural use may not "have an adverse impact on agricultural productivity" (page 4.1-8, 11), no attempt has been provided to present a reasonable analysis of the project's potential land use impacts. Page 4.1-8, 14. The conclusion that "existing agricultural/open spaces [uses] on the adjacent Spadra Farm site will not be affected by the adjacent IMRF" fails to consider the potential indirect impacts associated with the conversion of the site from an agricultural activity to an industrial land use. As non-agricultural uses encroach into existing agricultural areas, the viability of the remaining agricultural activities are diminished. Additionally, no analysis is offered to support the conclusion that "Lanterman State Hospital and Development Center, located approximately 3,000 feet northeast of the MW site, would not be affected by operation of the n4RF due to its distance from the project." Section 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that "the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data" (emphasis added). No analysis is provided indicating that beyond a certain distance (e.g., 2,600 feet) impacts will diminish or disappear. The statement in the DEIR suggests not that the 46921MRF Analysis Page 17 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY impacts will be reduced to a level which is insignificant, rather no impacts -are anticipated. The existence of odor, air quality and noise (e.g., truck traffic and railroad Operations) all suggest that impacts upon this land use would be potentially significant. To support the conclusions presented in the DEIR, an analysis of the project's impacts upon this medical facility should be undertaken. Although potentially beyond the radius established by statute, the DEIR should include a discussion of the disclosure obligation required under Section 65850.2 of the California Code of Regulations, which provides a mechanism for local governmental agencies to determine and mitigate risks posed by routine and accidental hazards and acutely hazardous emissions from new and existing sources. Based upon that statute, no agency shall approve an application for a permit to construct or alter an emission source within a specified distance from the outer boundary of a school, hospital or long-term care facility without meeting the requirements of Sections 25534 and 42303 of the California Health and Safety Code. The project's distance from the boundaries of the hospital site (and YMCA) should be accurately delineated and, if applicable, the requirements of the above statute addressed. Page 4.1-8, 17. Insufficient analysis is provided to support the conclusion that project implementation will not significantly impact future residential uses which may be developed on residentially zoned property fronting on Valley Boulevard. Although the IMRF may proceed the development of that property, the DEIR (through its own admission) should analyze future land uses reasonably anticipated to occur in the project area. What are the environmental and economic impacts upon those land uses and how will the proposed project influence or effect the subsequent development of these residential sites? In analyzing project -related impacts upon residential uses in the City of Diamond Bar (page 4.1-9, 14), located approximately 700 feet from the RARp site, the DEIR concludes that potential impacts will be significant. Similar conclusions should be made for both existing and future residential uses in the City of Walnut. Page 4.1-99 13 thmugh 5. The DEIR indicates that, prior to mitigation, impacts to existing reddential and recreational uses in the City of Diamond Bar will be "significant" for "changes to views, increased night lighting and noise from the project:" In addition, air quality and odor impacts (see Air Quality below) will significantly affect Diamond Bar residents. While numerous mitigation measures are proposed, the effectiveness of each measure to address a specific impact (and to reduce that impact to a level which is not significant) is neither quantified nor qualitatively addressed. An unspecified "landscape plan" will 46921MRF Analysis Page 18 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY somehow ensure that the DARF is adequately screened from view and that residential uses located at much higher elevations (above sea level) will not be afforded interior views of the proposed facility (note that no photographs have been included for Key Observation Points "F" and "G" as represented in Figure 4.2-1, page 4.2-3 in the DEM. Additional, the DEIR does not distinguish between potential short-term impacts (e.g., prior to any vegetative screening reaching maturity) and long-term impacts nor does the mitigation measure suggest a landscape palette, planting plan or monitoring program to ensure effectiveness. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines includes a listing of impacts that are considered to constitute "significant effects on the environment. " This listing includes, but is not limited to, projects which: (1) have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; (2) increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; (3) create a potential health hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the area affected; (4) conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses Of the area; (5) violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or expose sensitive receptors to substantial Pollutant concentrations; and (T) convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impact the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land. The proposed project results in land use conflict which produce each of the above referenced significant impacts. The construction of a 6 -foot barrier to attenuate noise will neither prevent line -of -sight exposure or reduce project -related impacts to levels in compliance with existing municipal noise standards. Noise sources are not confined to the periphery of the site but will occur as a result of operational activities both interior to the site and along the site boundaries (e. g. , along the access road and rail spurs). Openings in the wall, as may be required for vehicular and/or rail access, will further diminish any attenuation associated with a perimeter barrier comprised of either "opaque fencing or a 6 -foot high block wall" (page 2-11, 13). As indicated by the windrose represented in Figure 4.6-2 (page 4.6-4), the major wind direction is assumed to be southwest to northeast, directing air -borne pollutants (and odors) toward existing residential uses in the City of Diamond Bar. As a result air Pollutants (including fugitive dust and odors) will be directed toward those land uses. The proposed mitigation measures will not reduce identified impacts to a level which is insignificant. Either additional mitigation measures need to be identified, project alternatives (including alternative sites) explored or the DEM needs to be revised to conclude for significance. 46921MRF Analysis Page 19 MY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY ° Page 4.1-10 and Page 4.1-11. Project implementation will necessitate the construction and operation of a new access road to be developed on, across or adjoining the existing Benton Feed Lot. No discussion is provided concerning the potential impacts resulting with this improvement and the associated traffic on this existing business activity and agricultural land use. Aesthetics/Light and Glare ° Page 4.2-4. Figure 4.2-2 (Cross Section Elevation) provides insufficient information from which to evaluate visual impacts from either Key Observation Point (KOP) "C", located in the City of Walnut, or KOP "F," located in the City of Diamond Bar. Although topographic information provided in Figure 4.2-1 (page 4.2-3) indicates that KOP "C" is approximately 150 feet above the project site and KOP "F" is approximately 50 feet above the site, both the scale of the section drawing and the absence of a verticle grid prevents substantive analysis. However, based upon the elevation of adjacent residential receptors and the proposed addition of a six-foot perimeter wall, all easterly oriented dwelling units in the Snow Creek Subdivision (City of Walnut) and all westerly oriented residential units on Deep Hill Road, Big Falls Drive and other streets within the existing residential area westerly of the SR-57/SR-60 interchange (City of Diamond Bar) will be afforded a view of the project site (including the proposed access road). The graphics contained in the DEM do not accurately depict either the magnitude of the problem or the number of dwelling units affected. Page 4.2-5, Page 4.2-7 and Page 4.2-8. Although a number of photographs are provided, the location of the project site is not depicted. As a result, it is not possible to determine the viewer's perception of the site from any of the KOPs indicated. Each photograph should be modified to include both delineation of the project site and a rendering of the project as perceived from the locations indicated. Additionally, it is not clear why photographs from KOP "F" and KOP "G" (City of Diamond Bar) have been deleted from the DEM. ° Page 4.2-6, 14. Although the DEIR references the City of Industry Development Guidelines (Appendix B), no analysis is provided concerning the project's compliance with those design standards. Referencing those guidelines, the following design standards indicate that the proposed project fails to conform with established policies of the City of Industry: ► New development or the alteration or enlargement of existing development shall be compatible with the character and quality of surrounding development and shall enhance the appearance of the area in which the development is located; 46921MRF Analysis Page 20 CIPY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHJ7T ► The location, configuration, size and design of buildings and structures shall be visually harmonious with their sites and with the surrounding sites, buildings and structures and should not create pedestrian or vehicular traffic hazards; and ► Truck loading docks which are located on the front or side of a building shall be adequately screened by an eight foot high masonry wall, accessory structures, or landscaping and foliage so that such truck loading docks are not visible, to the greatest extent practical, from any public right-of-way. Whenever possible, truck loading docks should be located at the rear of the building. The project, based upon its location and visibility from adjoining residential, recreational, institutional and agricultural areas, will neither "enhance the appearance of the area" nor be "harmonious with their sites and with the surrounding sites." Should development be authorized, a variance from these design standards should be included as a discretionary action on the part of the City of Industry. In accordance with Section 15125(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the EiR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans." Merely stating that design standards presently exist, does not constitute an analysis of project consistency with those standards. In the absence of that consistency analysis, the description of the environmental setting does not satisfy applicable CEQA requirements. As indicated in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Eat shall conclude for significance when a project will "have a substantial, demonstrable negative effect." The DEIR should be amended to conclude that the project will both conflict with local standards and will produce a "significant effect on the environment." Page 4.2-6, 16. The conclusion that the visual characteristics of the project will not be "substantially different from any other industrial complex" ignores the fact that the visual characteristics of a project aro not limited to the design of the buildings, but include the operational characteristics of the proposed use. A project which generates 7,302 daily vehicular trips (page 4.5-30, 11), generates offensive odor (i.e., 5Dl1) both during normal operating conditions (page 4.6-32, 12) and which are deemed significant "under upset conditions" (page 4.6-34, 14) cannot be equated with just any "other industrial complex." The discussion of "visual characteristics" should be expanded to include an analysis of the project's operational parameters and how those parameters may influence visual perceptions about the site from adjoining residential, recreational and institutional receptors. 46921MRF Analysis Page 21 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 4.2-6, 16. The DEIR states that "a 6 -foot tall cyclone fence will circle the entire site." Elsewhere, the DEIR indicates that "a 6 -foot high block wall will surround the site" (page 2-11, 13). The composition of the wall may influence and partially mitigate certain project -related impacts (e.g., noise). As a result, a consistent statement concerning the wall's proposed building material should be provided. Additionally, any area where a block wall may be infeasible (e.g., access points) should be identified and graphically depicted. Page 4.2-10, 14. The DEIR indicates that the project will cause a negative visual impact if it will "significantly obstruct views, block sunlight, cause disruptive glare or light, or conflict with the visual character of the regional due to the scale, height, mass and architectural character of the project." This definition artificially narrows the range or activities which may be considered intrusive and ignores: (1) projects which are inconsistent with existing public policy; and (2) projects which are disharmonious with the existing visual environment (e.g., create a visual contrast to either the natural character of the landscape or introduce man-made changes which potentially conflict with adjoining uses). Since the project will displace an existing agricultural use and introduce a land use which is potentially disharmonious with adjoining residential uses, the DEIR should conclude that the project will produce a "significant effect on the environment" and explore other development alternatives (e.g., alternative sites) which have the potential to minimize project -induced impacts below a level of significance. Page 4.2-12, 12. The DEIR concludes that "the visual change in the U4RF site from open space to an industrial complex could be perceived as a substantial conflict in [the] visual character of the region." Based upon that finding, the DEIR is obligated to conclude for significance. The mere planting of landscape material (as proposed in the only mitigation measure offered) will not adequately mitigate this impact and will not eliminate this identified visual conflict (e.g., will landscaping be so dense as to prevent interior views of the site?). The DER further indicates that trees will only "partially screen the view of the BMF" (page 2-11, 14), thereby not precluding a view of the site from other potential sensitive receptors (e.g., residential, recreational and institutional land uses). The Qnly feasible mitigation measure available to the Lead Agency to reduce this effect below a level of significance would be to relocate the project to a less visible location (so as to minimize or avoid potential land use conflicts). o Page 4.2-12, 16. The DEIR indicates that views of the project site from the City of Diamond Bar "will be substantially changed due to the close proximity of [the] proposed structure to existing development." Section 15382 of the State CBQA Guidelines defines "significant effect on the environment" to mean "a substantial or potential substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, 46921MRF Analysis Page 22 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHJ7Y including land ... (emphasis added). The DEIR concludes that the change is substantial, therefore, a finding of significance will be required. It is unclear how the introduction of landscaping and directorial lighting will reduce this impact to a level which is less than significant. Does the planting of a tree suggest that the physical change to the environment will not occur? Page 4.2-14, 120. The DEIR should explain how the introduction of 5,700 tpd of MSW onto an existing agricultural site in view of numerous residential uses will result in an "enhancement of the visual environment." The Initial Study (Appendix A) concluded that project implementation had the potential to affect schools, the maintenance of public facilities (including roads), other government services and communication systems. Despite declarations in the Initial Study that these topical issues will be addressed in the IIR, no discussion or analysis is provided in the DEM. Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that "an EIR must include a description of the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commencement of the project, from both a local and regional perspective... Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts." Based upon this requirement, the DEIR has an obligation to disclose sufficient information regarding the existing environmental setting which will both assist in the understanding of that condition and facilitate an independent analysis of the project's potential environmental impacts. As presented, the DEIR (pages 4.3-1 and 4.3-2) provides negligible information concerning fire and police protection, water (domestic, fire flow) and utilities. Specific comments concerning each of these topical issues are presented below. Page 4.3-1, Fire Protection. The discussion of existing fire protection and paramedic services should be augmented to include: (1) the location, staffing, equipment and response times for both the fust -response station and secondary fire stations providing back-up response to the project area; (2) any applicable public standards regarding the adequacy of response times; (3) obstacles (e.g., traffic congestion, at -grade railroad crossing) and constraints (e.g., budgetary limitations) which may influence response characteristics; (4) existing fire hazards imposed by site conditions (e.g., wildland fire hazards) or adjoining land uses; (5) applicable City or County policies regarding this topical issue; (6) information concerning either response rates or other generation factors utilized by the County to project project -induced demands; and (7) any unique fire 46921MRF Analysis Page 23 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACIL.PPY hazards and noticing obligations associated with project's storage or processing of MSW, including household hazardous wastes. o Page 4.3-1, Police Services. The discussion of the existing police protection services should be augmented to include: (1) the location, staffing, equipment and response times for first -response and secondary stations or substations; (2) any applicable public standards regarding the adequacy of response times; (3) obstacles and constraints which may influence response times; (4) historic response rates concerning emergency/ nonemergency calls (as a factor of population or development) within the service area; (5) generation factors utilized for planning purposes; (6) emergency response and disaster plans; (7) applicable City or County policies applicable to the topical issues (e.g., standards, addressing the adequacy of police protection services); (8) California Highway Patrol involvement; (9) applicable Vehicle Code or other policies associated with the transport of MSW and household hazardous wastes; and (10) other information which may help describe the existing environmental setting. Page 4.3-1, Water. Although the DEIR discloses that a 24 -inch water main is located in Grand Avenue, no discussion is provided indicating whether adequate capacity exists within that water line to service the project. Additionally, the DEIR should compare existing water requirements associated with the current land use against projected water demands resulting from the UARF. The location of the "12 -inch reclaimed [water] main" should be identified and/or graphically depicted, operational activities (e.g., dust palliation) which may utilize reclaimed water should be identified and any applicable standards or requirements associated with the use of reclaimed water should be outlined. Any permits, approvals or easements which may be required to obtain adequate water service should be identified. Page 4.3-2, Sewage Treatment. The peak capacity of the existing 1127 -inch trunk main located along the Southern Pacific rail line," measured in million gallons per day (mgd), should be identified, including the existing and projected peak flow when the MMF is made operational. Any potential deficiencies in sewer capacity should be identified. Wastewaters will be transported to either the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant or the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant. The design capacity of those facilities should be identified, the average flow processed at those facilities (including both existing and projected rates) determined, based upon consultation with the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, and any proposed and approved expansion plans identified. Any regional wastewater treatment issues (e.g., systemwide deficiencies) should be identified and discussed. 4021MRF Analysis Page 24 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHM Page 4.3-2, Utilities. The location of the easement containing the "12,000 volt express line from the Trophy Substation [which] runs through the project site" should be described and graphically depicted. Should this transmission line require relocation or should the presence of the easement affect subsequent site utilization, the DEIR should acknowledge these potential constraints. Page 4.3-3, 12 and 3. Although the project will introduce an estimated 7,302 daily vehicle trips onto the area's roadway network and add 141 new employees to the region's labor force, the only impact upon police services identified in the DER is the potential for trespass, vandalism and/or theft (of MSW?) from the project site. No increase in emergency or nonemergency calls has been identified, no increase in police personnel or equipment needs are indicated and no transportation -related issues affecting the Los Angeles County Sherifr s Department (LACSD) or California Highway Patrol (CHP) are addressed in the DEIR. As indicated in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) mailing list (included in Appendix A), the CHP was not consulted in the .derivation of the DEIR's conclusions. The analysis presented in the DEIR does not provide a "sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision -makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences" (Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines). Page 4.3-4, 11. As with the preceding comment on the adequacy of the analysis of project -related impacts upon police services, two sentences cannot be construed as a "reasonably feasible" analysis (Section 15151, State CEQA Guidelines) of project -related impacts upon fire protection and paramedic services. Since the DEM acknowledges that workers will be exposed to health risks (e.g., page 1-10, 13-5), an increase in paramedic services may be anticipated. Similarly, based upon unique fire hazards (including those associated with household hazard materials), the DEIR should define the requisite fire hydrant capacity (and the availability of the existing water service to deliver that capacity), any requisite upgrades to existing fire flow systems, project -specific equipment requirements, training procedures or procedural obligations, relevant Uniform Fire Code requirements, discussion of underground storage tanks if proposed for the storage of petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel) or leachate collection and access requirements (including secondary access requirements and emergency response plans). 0 Page 4.3-4, Water. Section 21082,2 of the California Environmental Quality Act requires that the determination of project impacts be "based on substantial evidence in the public record." Substantial evidence is defined to mean "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support 46921MRF Analysis Page 25 CITY OF INDUSTRY MAMUL S RECOVERY FACUM a conclusion... mere uncorroborated opinion or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence" (Section 15384, State CBQA Guidelines). Based upon this definition and the absence of any analysis concerning potential water -related or sewage treatment impacts, the DEIR does not provide sufficient information to facilitate informed decision-making. Page 4.3-4, Sewage Treatment. Although identified as a discretionary approval sought under authority of this EIIR (page 1-7, 12), no discussion or analysis is provided concerning the need for (or conditions precedent to the obtaining of) an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit. The DEIR should be augmented to identify both the environmental and procedural considerations associated with the issuances of this permit. See also preceding comment. Page 4.3-5, Stormwater Drainage. On page 4.3-2, 12, the DEIR defers any discussion of the project setting to Section 4.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of that document. Equipped with no information on stormwater drainage and water quality issues, the reader is then provided with a discussion which purports to analyze stormwater drainage water quality considerations. Based upon the absence of supportive documentation, this section should be either supplemented or relocated to the appropriate section in the DEIR. Page 4.3-6, Utilities. No attempt has been provided to quantify electrical or natural gas consumption required either under this topical heading, as part of the air quality analysis (Section 4.6) or as part of the analysis of natural resources and energy (Section 4.8). In the absence of any projections, it is not possible to independently verify either the existence of available service capacity or evaluate what on-site or off-site improvements may be required to extend those services onto the project site. Although natural gas is introduced under the "setting" section (page 4.3-2,15), no discussion of potential impacts is provided herein. From this it can be assumed that no natural gas service will be provided to the project site or consumed during project operation. Public Health and Safety Page 4.4-5, 14. The DEIR indicates that "this project conforms to provisions of the City of Industry's General Plan, the County General Plan, the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and the County Solid Waste Management Plan..." No information is, however, provided to substantiate the above comment or indicate how (or to what degree) the project conforms to the planning documents cited. Has a Finding of Conformance (with the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan) been issued by the Local Enforcement Agency (e.g., Los Angeles County Health Department, Solid Waste Program)? 46921MRF Analysis Page 26 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHM Page 4.4-6, 12. To facilitate public understanding of the information presented in the DEIR, the term "risk of upset" should be defined or included under Section 11 (Glossary of Technical Terms) included in that document. Page 4.4-6,13 through S. Although the DEIR concludes that "rail transportation presents less of a safety risk than truck transportation," the DEIR does not include a comparative analysis (e.g., number and severity of accidents) of potential health and safety hazards associated with truck transport verses rail -haul. The hazards analysis should address the relationship between project -generated train trips and the accident incidence potential at nonseparated grade crossing. Calculations for determining hazard index values should include type of crossing protection provided, average daily trips (ADT) along project area roadways and the maximum number of train trips projected to occur when the IMRF is fully operable. Since a number of different rail -haul sites are under consideration (page 2-25 through 2-28), any variation in hazard potential associated with these sites should be identified. Page 4.4-7, 11. The DEIR indicates that "a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the facility site was prepared by Tait Environmental Management Inc., of Orange, California. The report concluded that this site presented no significant environmental concerns" (emphasis added). Were "nonsignificant" environmental concerns identified? Were mitigation measures or further analysis recommended? By not including the Environmental Site Assessment as a technical appendix in the DEIR or presenting a summary of its findings, the public has no opportunity to independently evaluate the adequacy of that analysis, verify its faithful representation in the DEIR, understand the limitations of that investigation or ensure that the recommendations of that study (if any) are implemented as conditions of project approval. Since a Phase II limited site assessment is typically conducted when the results of a Phase I due -diligence assessment reveals the existence of potential contamination, actual site contamination or both, the fact that a Phase II investigation was performed may indicate that potential problem areas or liabilities (associated with soil or groundwater contamination) have been identified. Based upon these concerns, the Environmental Site Assessment should be included as a technical appendix to the DEIR. Page 4.4-7, 14. The DEW declares that "the possibility of an increase in traffic accidents is discussed in Section 4.5 [Traffic and Circulation] of this EIR." Upon reviewing Section 4.5, no discussion of traffic accidents, vehicle -pedestrian or vehicle - rail hazards are provided. The DEIR should be augmented to discuss both on-site and off-site traffic hazards. 46921MRF Analysis Page 27 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 4.4-8, 12. The DEIR's "standards of significance" should be expanded to include information from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Referencing that document, significant effects include the creation of "a potential health hazard or involve the use, production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the area affected" (emphasis added). Based upon the anticipated identification (and on-site storage) of household hazardous wastes within the waste stream (page 2-14, 12-3, page 4.4-2, 11-3) and the resulting obligation on the iMRF operation to dispose of those materials in the manner prescribed by law, potential health and safety hazards associated with the DARF must be viewed as significant. Page 4.4-10,18. As indicated herein (page 2-16, 13) each waste sorter will be required to handle approximately 3 pounds of MSW per second throughout their 8 -hour shift. This production requirement will expose sorters to repetitive stress, resulting in "fatigue and discomfort... and cause the workers to be more accident prone" (page 4.4-5, 13). The DEIR acknowledges that "secondary material sorters would be subjected to repetitive stress" (page 1-11, 12). Despite this potential safety hazard, the gatia analysis of repetitive stress is that "sufficient data is not available to determine whether secondary material sorters are subject to repetitive stress injuries." This level of analysis (or nonanalysis) is both contradictory to other conclusions presented in the DEIR and does not satisfy the "standards for adequacy" specified under Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Page 4.4-12, 19. The DEIR should be augmented to include a "reasonably feasible" analysis (Section 15151, State CEQA Guidelines) of the potential hazards associated with projected increases in rail traffic. See comments under page 4.4-6, 13 through 5 herein. Page 4.4-13, Mitigation Measure 4.4.20. The DEIR states that "wastes shall be shipped to an authorized facility within 48 hours of receiving the waste, or within 96 hours if stored within a covered container." What are the potential health risks and odor impacts to adjacent residents associated with the storage of several thousand tons of solid waste, held in rail storage containers for up to four days? Page 4.4-13, 18. The DEIR states that "when the IlARF is fully operational, a loaded train will leave the facility every day, six days a week, making a wait of more than 48 hours unlikely" (page 4.4-13,12). In the event of a rail accident or derailment that could close a segment of the rail line, how would the HARF operator ensure uninterrupted service so that MSW is not stockpiled either within or outside of the facility? 46921MRF Analysis Page 28 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHM W. ma .�� WL -IM :�.� Page 4.5-5, 13. The DOR assumes that 1,000 tpd of the projected maximum capacity of MSW will be transported from another MRF in Southern California (page 2-7, 12). Although that facility is not identified, it can be assumed that traffic patterns in the vicinity of that MSF will be modified as MSW is transported between transfer stations. In recognition of this off-site impact, a number of additional intersection (and freeway ramps) in proximity to that existing facility should be examined. Page 4.5-13, 12. The DEIR represents that the project will be phased, such that the ultimate capacity will not be reached under the year 1998 (page 2-1, 12). In contrast, the traffic analysis indicates that the "project could be constricted and fully operational sometime in 1994." No phased analysis of the project's potential impacts is included in the traffic analysis. Additionally, no rationale is provided why the year 2000 has been selected to analyze future year project conditions (since the project is projected to be operating at build -out by the year 1998). The DEIR should explain why the year 1998 and a longer time period was not selected for analysis. Page 4.5-15 through Page 4.5-17. A total of 17 projects are identified which, when added to the RARF, have the potential to produce cumulative impacts. Although not all of the corresponding dwelling unit of square foot assumptions are identified, for those projects which include a designated size, the following cumulative project activities are anticipated: (1) 411,965 square feet of medical use; (2) 365,000 square feet of commercial use; (3) 457,904 square feet of industrial use, plus 1,000 acres of industrial development; (4) 569 dwelling units; and (5) 1,135,000 square feet of office use. The location of each of these related projects, relative to the project site, should be graphically depicted. Additionally, these projects have not been utilized to evaluate potential cumulative impacts in Section 6 (pages 6.0-1 through 6.0-10) of the DEIR. The DEIR's failure to accurately and consistently evaluate the impacts from these related projects results in a significant under -estimation of cumulative project impacts throughout the environmental analysis. Page 4.5-27. In discussing both project setting and environmental impacts, the DEIR makes no reference to (or analysis of) congestion management programs (CMP) being prepared by various County transportation planning agencies, such as the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC). The CMP is mandated by Section 65089 of the California Government Code. Assembly Bill (AB) 471, as amended by AB 1791, enacted the requirement for the preparation of 46921MRF Analysis Page 29 CTIY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY CMPs. Proposition 111 (passed in June of 1990) permits a nine -cent increase of the State gasoline talc over a five year period. The new gasoline tax revenue provides the funds needed to implement the CMP transportation programs. Each County is required to submit its proposed final draft of the CMP to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG will review the CMPs for conformance with the adopted Regional Mobility Plan and then adopt a regional CMP. Thereafter, the CMP will be updated annually. To qualify for funding, the City of Industry must satisfy all of the CMP requirements adopted by SCAG. Under statute, the CMP must consist of the following five elements: (1) a system or network of freeways, highways and streets with minimum Level of Service (IAS) standards designated for the freeway/highway/street segments and key intersections on this system; (2) transit standards for frequency and routing of transit service and coordination between transit operators; (3) a trip .reduction plan and travel demand management program to promote alternative transportation methods during peak travel periods; (4) a program to analyze the impacts of local land use decisions on the regional transportation system; and (5) a seven-year capital improvement program that includes projects proposed for funding through the State Flexible Congestion Relief or Traffic System Management programs. The County transportation planning agencies are responsible for providing County -wide transportation planning. Local governments are responsible for implementing the CMP. If a local jurisdiction is found to be out of compliance with the CMP, the County transportation planning agency is mandated to notify the State Controller to withhold the Proposition 111 gasoline tax funds (Section 2105 of the State Streets and Highways Code). Annually, the County transportation planning agency is mandated to certify that local jurisdictions are in compliance with the CMP requirements. The responsibilities of local governments include: Monitoring the attainment of acceptable minimum LOS standards and the collection of traffic data for the local streets and roads that are adopted as part of the County CMP network; ► Adopting and implementing a trip reduction plan (for approval by the South Coast Air Quality Management District under that agency's Regulation XV requirements) and a travel demand ordinance. Each local jurisdiction is responsible for adopting and implementing a Transportation Demand Management 46921MRF Analysis Page 30 CITY OF INDUSTRY AM7ERMLS RECOVERY FACHJ7Y (TDM) ordinance and should consider approving trip reduction options during the permit review process; No. Adopting and implementing a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions on the CMP transportation system, including mitigation costs. Local jurisdictions are required to consider how new development may impact the regional system, as part of the land use decision-making process. This aspect of the CMP is also enforced by the passage of AB 40 (1990) which amends the CEQA requirements to require the Lead Agency to assess a project's impact on the regional system. Local agencies should consult with transit operators during the development review process to assess the impacts of a development project on transit; No. Developing annual deficiency plans for portions of the CMP network within a jurisdiction that does not meet the established minimum LOS standards (i.e., LOS "D" or better or the existing LOS if worse than LOS "D"). Improvements identified in deficiency plans must be from the Deficiency Plan list prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. These plans are submitted to the County transportation planning agency for approval. Each jurisdiction must Prepare an annual jurisdiction -wide deficiency plan for those segments or intersections of the CMP systems that drop below the established acceptable level of service standards. Statute requires the deficiency plans to include the following elements: (1) an analysis of the cause of the deficiency; (2) a list of improvements necessary to maintain the LOS standard and the estimated cost of the improvements; (3) a list of improvements, programs or action and their estimated cost that will measurably improve the level of service of the system; and (4) an action plan with specific schedule to implement the recommended improvements; and Developing sub -County transportation planning models consistent with the County- wide model, to assess the impact of new land developments on the CMP system. Local agencies are required to conduct transportation analysis for all new development projects and the mitigation measures required for these projects. The DER should be amended to include a discussion both the City's actions in fulfillment of CMP requirements and the project's consistency with the CMP. Page 4.5-27, 14. The DEIR indicates that "the access road [Road A] crosses under Grand Avenue, via the UP [Union Pacific] rail underpass" (page 2-3, 14). The traffic analysis, in its discussion of site access and circulation, makes no further reference to this design concept nor does it present an analysis of the feasibility of this design scheme. 46921MRF Analysis Page 31 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY In order to allow an independent analysis of this proposed access route, both additional discussion will be required in the DEIR and one or more graphics provided illustrating the adequacy of any necessary right-of-way, demonstrating physical separation between that roadway and the existing rail link. In addition, the DEIR should be supplemented to include a discussion and graphic representation of specific project components, including: (1) parking (e.g., has adequate Parking opportunities been provided on-site based upon existing parking standards); (2) vehicle queuing at the gate house and truck scales; (3) the adequacy of container storage areas to accommodate anticipated project demands; (4) secondary and/or emergency access routes; (5) on-site turning radius based upon the proposed vehicle fleet and operational characteristics of various on-site activities; and (6) control devices or strategies to minimize vehicle -rail conflicts. ° Page 4.5-29, 13. While rail -haul may be available for off-site disposal in the future, the DEIR should reflect the continuing use of transfer trucks throughout the period of analysis (i.e., through the year 2000). As a result, the DEIR should be clarified to delineate the assumptions utilized to evaluate projected year 2000 traffic conditions. If rail -haul is assumed for the future year 2000 condition, an additional analysis should be provided assuming that rail -haul is not operational. ° Page 4.5-29, Trip Generation. Although the DEIR concludes that 5,882 daily vehicle trips will result from project implementation by the year 1994 and 7,302 trips/day can be anticipated in the year 2000, the methodology for the deviation of those trips is not presented for independent validation. All assumptions utilized to develop those projections should bepresented for public review, including document sources (e.g., ITE) used to derive trip generation rates. Employee trips should be included in the preparation of those trip estimates. ° Page 4.5-30, 12. Although the traffic analysis presents a trip distribution pattern "based upon anticipated service area projections and review of circulation patterns in the study area," insufficient information is provided to independently derive the distribution rates Presented in the DEIR. Based upon the information presented in Table 2.0-5 (page 2-20), it is possible to derive a percentage of the total waste stream attributable to each jurisdiction (note that the County unincorporated area is not tabulated) and assign a corresponding percentage of traffic to the corresponding segment of the roadway network. The methodology utilized by the traffic engineer should be articulated in the DEIR. ° Page 4.542, 12. The air quality analysis (page 4.6-16, 12) concludes that the total number of vehicle miles traveled (VM1) will decrease as a result of project 46921MRF Analysis Page 32 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY implementation. The traffic analysis, however, appears to present conflicting conclusions (page 4.5-30,11), indicating that project development will generate a significant increase in vehicular trips. The traffic engineer should supplement the analysis of year 2000 traffic conditions to evaluate pre- and post -project VMT. Page 4.5-47 through Page 4.5-51. The evaluation of project -related and cumulative impacts fails to accurately represent the potential environmental consequences of the project in combination with those reasonably foreseeable development activities listed in Table 4.5-3 (pages 4.5-15 through 4.5-17) between the years 1994 and 2000. Each of the 21 study area intersections will be adversely impacted (i.e., change in V/C ratio of greater than two percentage points). The project -plus -related projects (plus ambient growth suppositions which constitute a component of the cumulative analysis) will significantly affect each of the intersections modeled. As a result, mitigation measures should be formulated for each of the project area intersections. From that analysis, a "fair -share" funding mechanism can be developed and post -mitigation assumptions utilized to derive conclusions concerning project significance. Page 4.5-51, 12. A number of traffic improvements have been identified as mitigation for the project's contribution to traffic congestion on the area's roadway network. These measures indicate that "the MIRF (City of Industry) shall be responsible for its fair share based on its portion of the overall impact." It is unclear whether reference to the MW implies the City of Industry or the ultimate solid waste operator(s) of that facility. Additionally, it is unclear how a "fair share" allocation system will be established and implemented and from whom additional contributions will be obtained. No timeframe has been established for these improvements; therefore, it is not clear whether these improvements will be operational at project commencement (1994) or build -out (1998). Page 4.6-2, 12. The discussion of typical wind now patterns does not directly address the seasonal variation of wind patterns. The reference to Figure 4.6-1 (Wind Flow Patterns) should indicate the time period during which the data applies. Is this annual average wind flow? N this is a monthly pattern, which month is it for? Does the figure depict typical wind flow for a certain time of day, such as morning nighttime or noon? Page 4.6-2, 13. The relationship between the location of the "air quality station in walnut" and the project site should be established to describe the proximity of the two and the representativeness of using data from Walnut for the proposed project. A more specific quantification of the "number of years" and the actual dates that the station was in operation would be relevant as meteorologic data must be gathered over many years to be considered representative. Also, describing the station where the wind data was 46921MRF Analysis Page 33 CITY OF INDUnNY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHZIY derived as an "air quality station" may be incorrect. Air quality monitoring stations measure pollutant concentrations in ambient air at over 200 locations throughout the South Coast Air Basin, meteorological (or "met") towers monitor conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind speed and wind direction. The Walnut station was most likely a meteorological monitoring station since CARBs Summary of 1991 Air Quality Date does not list an air quality monitoring station in Walnut. A brief interpretation of the wind rose data presented in the DEIR (Figure 4.6-2) would be helpful. A wind rose that shows wind speeds at the same Walnut location should also be included. ° Page 4.6-2, 15. The term "possible sunshine" should be explained to facilitate understanding concerning both the intent and purpose of this reference. ° Page 4.6-5, 13. This paragraph leads the reader to believe that a federal ambient air quality standard exists for sulfate. There is no such federal standard; only a State standard exists for sulfate. ° Page 4.6-6, 13. The reference to the contribution of nitrogen oxides to the formation of fine particulate matter should include a mention of nitrates. Also, the abbreviation for nitric oxide is incorrectly stated as NO.. The corrected notation should be provided. ° Page 4.6-6. 14. The chemical formula for sulfates should be given along with a brief discussion on how sulfates are formed. ° Page 4.6-8, 11. Source/Receptor Areas (SRA) are no longer used in an air quality impact assessment. The location of the SCAQMD office within a particular SRA has no relevance in the discussion of project impacts on air quality. ° Page 4.6-8, 12. The selection of the Pico Rivera monitoring station as being most representative of existing air quality in the project vicinity was based on faulty criteria. The data used to describe existing air quality should be from the air quality monitoring station which is both newest the project site and which reflects the greatest similarity in terrain and urban density. The Pico Rivera station seems to have been selected because it was (at one tune) in the same SRA. The Pico Rivera station is approximately 15 miles away and is separated from the project site by the Puente Hills and La Habra Heights. A more representative set of air quality data would have been obtained from the Pomona station which is on the same side of these hills (as the project site) and is only 5 miles away. The DEIR should describe its reasons for selecting the Pico Rivera station and include information obtained from the Pomona air quality monitoring station. 46921MRF Analysis Page 34 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACIIdTY Page 4.6-10, 14. A source reference should be provided for the ADT volumes and 45 miles per hour (mph) speed for the SR -60 freeway. An explanation should be given as to why other area roadways were not considered. This is particularly relevant since the DEIR indicates that the "State Route 57 currently carries an ADT of 192,000 vpd in this area" (page 4.5-1, 14). ADTe for the SR -60 Freeway, as presented in the traffic analysis (page 4.5-1, 13), differ from the ADTs presented herein. Additionally, since this vehicle speed appears to contradict the assumptions presented in Appendix D (i.e., 25 mph), the reasons for any internal inconsistencies in the DEIR should be cited. ° Page 4.6-10, 15. It is not clear whether a vehicular traverse or a walldng traverse (or both) was performed for the odor survey. Though the dilution -to -threshold (D/T) levels are explained Later in the DEIR (pages 4.6-31 and 4.6-32), there is no explanation in this paragraph and no reference as to where that information could be found in the document. • Page 4.6-11, 11. Since no odor level standards are presented for comparison with the measured data of 5 D/T given, no bases is provided for drawing the conclusion that existing odor levels are insignificant. ° Page 4.6-14, Table 4.6-2. The table incorrectly states that there is no federal standard for nitrogen dioxide. The adopted national annual average standard should be identified. • Page 4.6-15, 12. The current status of the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) should be updated since the projected adoption date presented in the text has passed. ° Page 4.16, 12. Since MSW must be first transported to the ZIRF prior to its subsequent transport to and disposal in a sanitary landfill, the total number of vehicle miles traveled (VM') may, in fact, increases, particularly for those jurisdictions which are presently located in proximity to the BKK Landfill, Puente Hills Landfill and for Spadra Landfill. Since no or insufficient analysis has been provided concerning the DEIR's contention that VMT will be reduced and project -related (and cumulative) air quality impacts will not be significant, it is not possible to conclude that the project conforms to the three AQMP conformity tests. This reference in the DEIR should be either deleted or relocated to after a detailed conformity review is provided. Similarly, the DEIR should be transmitted to the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) who will conduct a conformity review as part of their analysis of the DEIR. SCAG has not been identified as a recipient of the Notice of Preparation and may not have received notice of the DEIR's availability. Page 4.6-16, 16. The threshold criteria for carbon monoxide is misrepresented. 46921MRF Analyse Page 35 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERI,II.S RECOVERY FACILITY Page 4.6-18, 11. Although the DEIR indicates that a "worst-case" estimate has been utilized to assess construction -related impacts, it is unclear whether the equipment assumptions which are "based upon the past requirements of similar projects" are representative of this project. Since the majority of on-site soils on this 40 -acre site will require removal and replacement with more suitable soil material (page 4.9-16, 11), it is likely that the equipment projections do not accurately reflect required grading operations. If grading operations have been considered, the grading assumptions should be provided for public review. Page 4.6-18, Table 4.6-3. Information .should be provided to indicate whether these emissions are for gasoline or diesel powered engines. Page 4.6-18, 12. The DEIR concludes that "pollutant emissions generated during peak construction activities, especially NO,,, may be temporally [sicj significant.- The document further states that "emissions can be reduced by using construction equipment that has catalytic converters, using methanol or low -sulfur pile drivers, and by preventing trucks from idling longer than two minutes." Although "emissions can be reduced" the DEIR does not clearly indicate whether this reduction will reduce projected impacts below a level of significance. Since these potential solutions (e.g., using methanol) are not identified as mitigation measures in the DER, the DEIR cannot assume the incorporation of these measures or take credit for possible reductions that may result from their application. Page 4.6-19, 11. The conclusion that "combined emissions should not result in local exceedances of air quality standards, but would contribute to downwind exceedances of the ozone standards" is not supported by any attempt to quantify "combined emissions" or define project -related contributions. In the absence of that analysis, no bases is provided to support the conclusion that emissions will not exceed established air quality standards. • Page 4.6-19, 11 and 2. Although the DEIR indicates that constriction -related vehicle trips include "trucks hauling soil or constriction equipment," no projections of the total number of daily haul trips is provided or the distance of those trips estimated. • Page 4.6-20, 11. In projecting a "worst-case" fugitive dust analysis, the DEIR should not limit its analysis exclusively to on-site impacts. Since all or most on-site soils will require exportation and replacement soils imported to replace that soil displaced, off-site grading can be anticipated to occur concurrently with projected site-specific activities. 46921MRF Analysis Page 36 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY ° Page 4.6-20, 13. The DEIR should clearly state that short-term construction impacts stated on page 4.6-16, 16 of the MR. would be deemed to be significant since No emissions would exceed the threshold value Page 4.6-22, Table 4.6-4. The table (or accompanying text) should identify the assumptions utilized in the derivation of the emission projections. Only by identifying both the number of vehicle trips for each of the trip categories listed, the average trip length and the generation factors utilized for each of the criteria pollutants can the reader verify consistency with the assumptions presented in the traffic analysis and methodology recommended by the SCAQMD. ° Page 4.6-23, 11. Should the Elsmere Canyon Landfill project not be permitted, how would that action affect the air quality analysis presented in the DEIR? Why was the Elsmere Canyon site evaluated over other more distant disposal alternatives? ° Page 4.6-23, 13. Emissions from the project alone must be quantified, not compared with and subtracted from the emissions from another proposed project. This does not accurately characterize project impacts on air quality. No project will generate negative emissions. ° Page 4.6-24, Table 4.6-6. The comparison between rail emissions and mobile emissions must be made on a pounds -per -day basis in accordance with the methodology established by the SCAQMD. The number of trucks required to haul the quantity of waste transported by one train should be stated along with the truck miles traveled so that total daily emissions could be calculated. ° Page 4.6-25, 11. The DEIR indicates that "twelve tracks and three heavy-duty off- highway pieces of equipment would be utilized" to transport recovered materials to local markets. It is unclear whether this assumption is based upon daily activities on whether the "trucks" (as indicated above) constitute "truck trips." Based upon a projected 50 Percent diversion rate (as mandated by AB 939), an estimated 2,850 tpd of recovered material would be transported to local martets in the year 2000. The number of vehicles and vehicle trips required to accomplish that diversion should be documented in the traffic analysis. Page 4.6-25, 13. The electrical generation and natural gas consumption factors utilized to derive information presented in Table 4.6-7 should be clearly defined, including the methodology utilized. The reader should not be required to review Appendix D of the DEIR or required to search throughout the document in an attempt to independently verify the project's emission projections. In reviewing Appendix D, the stationary source emission projections underestimate emissions by inaccurately defining the square footages 46921MRP Analysis Page 37 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACIIdTY Of the Material Processing and Transfer Building (see page 4.2-6, 17), failing to include Other buildings and not factoring specialized equipment needs of other project -specific energy requirements (e.g., night lighting). Since the facility will operate 24-hour per day, the usage rates indicated in Appendix D may not accurately reflect on-site activities. ° Page 4.6-25, 14. Since the SCAQMD's CEQA Guidelines for Air Quality Analysis constitute only a draft document, the DEIR should also include a project evaluation in accordance with the current Air Quality Handbook for Preparing Environmental Impacts Reports (April 1987). Page 4.6-27, 12. The DEIR misrepresents the distance between the project site and the nearest residential dwelling unit within the City of Diamond Bar, based upon information contained in both the USGS 7.5 minute San Dimas Quadrangle and Figure 4.1-1 (page 4.1-2) in the DEIR. Since all project -generated traffic will either originate from or terminate at the IMRF, the project site may be better utilized (than the adjoining roadway network) for the CALINE4 analysis. Additionally, since both the YMCA and existing ball field are located in closer proximity that adjoining residential areas, effects on those receptors should be evaluated. ° Page 4.6-29, Table 4.6-9. The footnotes contained within the table misrepresent that 1990 data constitutes "the most recent year available. " Year 1991 data should be utilized both in Table 4.6-9, Table 4.6-10 (page 4.6-30) and Table 4.6-2 (page 4.6-14). Page 4.6-33, 14 and Page 4.6-34, 11. Although the SCAQMD may have not elected to comment on odor impacts associated with the proposed 4,000 tpd Puente Hills MRF, from that action it is erroneous to conclude that "the AQMP thus concurs that rail car staging and on-site refuse storage for periods of up to 96 hours has no significant odor impact potential" (emphasis added). Similarly, insufficient information is provided concerning the Seattle example to determine where that facility is representative or whether conclusions derived from that facility are applicable to the UvIRF. Page 4.6-34, 12. The SCREEN model run has not been included in Appendix D as indicated in the DEIR. ° Page 4.6-25, 14. Since "the SoCAB is not expected to attain the state and federal air pollutant standard in the near future," it is reasonable to conclude that any contribution of non -attainment pollutants to the air basin would exacerbate this regional condition. It is, therefore, unclear how the DEIR concludes that "project emissions are determined to be regionally insignificant." 4692/MRF Analysis Page 38 C17Y OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Noise Page 4.6-26, 11. The DEIR concludes that project emission would result in a regional decrease in specific criteria pollutants. This conclusion is both erroneous and misrepresents both project -related and cumulative impacts. A thorough air quality analysis must attempt to accurately quantify project and related project emissions and compare those emissions against adopted air quality standards. The analysis should include both a trick -haul and rail -haul scenario and, based upon that separate analysis, compare the resulting impacts associated with those two options. Since no waste -by -rail facilities have presently been permitted, the DEIR must represent the truck -haul alternative as the "worst-case" scenario. Pursuant to Section 15064(i) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if "information is presented suggesting that the [air or water) emission or discharge may cause a significant effect, the Lead Agency shall evaluate the effect and decide whether it may be significant." Page 4.6-26, Table 4.6-5. Although the table purports to reflect "year 2000 cumulative emissions," it is unclear whether (or which) related projects were utilized to derive these projections. The cumulative impact analysis, including the assumptions (e.g., related projects) which are used, should be defined and consistently applied throughout the environmental analysis. Page 4.6-24, 13. Information from the Pomona air quality monitoring station should be utilized in lieu of the Pico Rivera station, since the Pomona station is more representative of the project conditions. Page 4.6-35, 11. The DEIR indicates that "the following mitigation measures are recommended by the SCAQMD as Standard Mitigation Measures (SUM to be applied to all projects regardless of the extent of air quality impacts." Based upon the specific nature of the IMRF and the activities associated with its operation, these SMM should be supplemented with a number of project -specific measures which address those unique characteristics. In the absence of those additional measures, the DEIR is unable to conclude for insignificance. Page 4.7-6, 11. Although the DEIR indicates that "a list of those noise regulations which pertain to the types of equipment in use in the solid waste collection and disposal business is included in the Appendix," no such listing has been provided in Appendix E of that document. As a result, it is not possible to verify the accuracy of the referenced standard provided for the compaction cycle. 4692/MRF Analysis Page 39 CITY OF IAV US7RY MATERLILS RECOVERY FACILITY • Page 4.7-7, 11 and Table 4.7-1. The 65 dBA contour distances represented in the text do not correspond with information provided in the accompanying table. This internal inconsistency needs to be rectified or differences explained. ° Page 4.7-8, Table 4.7-2. Traffic volumes identified on the table do not correspond with information contained in other sections of the DEIR (e.g., page 4.6-10, 14). Differences should be explained and the corresponding analyses reexamined to ensure that impacts are correctly quantified. Page 4.7-9, 12 and Table 4.74. Although the text indicates that "the AT&SF freight lines create the greatest noise of the lines operating in the City," Table 4.7-4 indicates higher noise levels associated with the operation of the Union Pacific Anaheim Branch Lane. The anomaly represented by the noise level at 800 feet should be explained. ° Page 4.7-9, 14 and Table 4.7-5. Table 4.7-5 indicates that noise measurements were taken at 1:30 PM and 2:30 PM on July 22, 1992. It is unclear (and unlikely) whether conditions evident at that time reflect peak conditions or truly reflect ambient conditions. Page 4.7-13, 14. The DEIR concludes that "at the nearest sensitive receptor, the noise level would range from 50 to 70 dBA throughout the construction period." Since those values exceed the threshold for significance as identified in the DEIR (page 4.7-12, 12), no bases is provided to support the conclusion that constniction-related noise impacts are not significant. Many of the mitigation measures identified in the text (e.g., Mitigation Measure No. 4.7. 1) may be currently required; therefore, no additional attenuation may result from the inclusion of these measures as project conditions. Other measures (e.g., Mitigation Measure Nos. 4.7.3 and 4.7.4) are stated as general comments and fail to mandate specific actions or provide suitable definition to determine compliance. Similar, another measure (i.e., Mitigation Measure No. 4.7.5) are not feasible and cannot be implemented (based upon the presence of deletions soil conditions). Each of the proposed mitigation measures should be reexamined and their corresponding ability to attenuate noise quantified. Page 4.7-14, 14 and 5. Insufficient information is provided to allow an independent confirmation of these conclusions. All relevant assumptions should be clearly identified so that an independent analysis can be conducted. Natural Resources and Energy o Page 4.8-1, 11 through 4. The Initial Study (Appendix A) indicates that "the EIR will evaluate the project for its potential impact on energy consumption and use of natural resources, and determine whether it is significant. " To accomplish this task, the DEIR 46921MRF Analysis Page 40 C17Y OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHJ Y should define the types and amounts of energy which will be consumed, include: (1) Petroleum products consumed (or saved) as a result of additional (or fewer) vehicle miles driven transporting MSW to the WRF in lieu of deposition at the area's landfills (including transport of MSW by truck from the IMRF to the landfills); (2) energy consumption (natural gas, electricity) associated with project operation; and (3) water consumption associated with processing activities, maintenance functions (e.g., washdowns), human consumption and irrigation (including fugitive dust control). No consumption estimates have been provided in the DEIR; therefore, no basis is provided to judge significance. The DEIR indicates that "a significant energy impact will be identified if the project uses large amounts of fuel, water or energy or uses resources in a wasteful manner" (page 4.8-2, 13). Based upon this statement, the DEIR has an obligation to quantify project - related (and cumulative) energy requirements. In the absences of that information, the DEIR should be supplemented to quantify projected fossil fuel, electrical, natural gas and water (e.g., domestic, reclaimed) consumption. Page 4.9-1. It is unclear whether information presented in this section reflects generalized information which has been assembled (from other studies) to provide a geotechnical overview of the project site or reflects the findings of a site-specific and project -specific analysis. If the information is derived from a site-specific investigation, the date of that survey should be identified, the report authors specified, any limitations in the analysis identified and the report (in its entirety) included as a technical appendix in the DEIR. ° Page 4.9-5, 14. In reviewing this section, it is evident that specific information has been withheld from the reader (e. g. , "the references and aerial photographs reviewed are listed in the Reference Section "- no reference section has been provided) and/or deleted from this technical analysis. Since it is not possible to compare the text of the DEIR with the information submitted to the Lead Agency or developed by the geotechnical consultant (if any), relevant information and recommended conditions of approval may have been deleted or otherwise modified. In order to ensure a thorough analysis of geotechnical issues potentially impacting the project, the full text of the report should be provided. ° Page 4.9-11,16. The DEIR indicates that "liquefaction more often occurs in earthquake - prone areas where the groundwater table is less than 50 feet below the ground surface, especially in areas underlain by young alluvium." As indicated in the DEIR: (1) the San Jose Fault is located "within 1.25 miles (21m) of the site" (page 4.9-4, 13); (2) 46921MRF Analysis Page 41 CI7Y OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHM groundwater was "found to occur 46.5 feet below the ground surface" (page 4.9-7, 15); and (3) "the subject property is directly underlain by young alluvial deposits" (page 4.9- 1, 14). Based upon these conditions, the DEIR should conclude that liquefaction potential is considered to be "high" (and not "moderate" as indicated in the text). Page 4.9-12, 12. The DEIR indicated, as a mitigation measure, that "the liquefaction susceptibility of the soils should be determined based on a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted to evaluate the engineering properties of the soil, and the depth or groundwater." By including this condition, the DEIR infers that no site-specific geotechnical study has been conducted and that no such study will be undertaken until after the project is approved. In the absence of site-specific information, it is not possible to evaluate the feasibility of the project (from a geotechnical perspective) or assess the potential health and safety risks associated with the development and operation of the IMRF at this location. Deferring analysis of possible mitigation measures is counter to CEQA's requirement to consider environmental effects as early as possible in any project. Studies conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decision- making. In the absence of that information, the Lead Agency cannot base its conclusions on "substantial evidence in the record" (Section 21082.2 of the Public Resources Code). Page 4.9-15, 12. Although the information in the DEIR indicates that "landslides in the Puente Hills, to the southeast of the subject site, have been mapped," no information is provided indicating the susceptibility of the adjoining site areas to failure. Based upon the conclusion that "the potential hazard from a landslide or slope failure at the subject site is considered nil to moderate" (reflecting an extremely broad range of impact potential), either additional analysis or graphic information presenting the findings of that mapping project should be provided in the DEIR. Page 4.9-13, 16. In introducing potential mitigation measures, the DEIR indicates that the measures proposed "could reduce" potential impacts to a level of significance (see text preceding Mitigation Measures Nos. 4.9.3, 4.9.4, 4.9.6, 4.9.10, 4.9.11 and 4.9.12). Based upon this word selection, it is not possible to conclude whether the mitigation measure "will" or "may" reduce the identified environmental effect to a level which is less than significant. Page 4.9-15, 16 and Page 4.9-16, 11. The DEIR indicates that "organic materials mixed in with the clayey soils [exist] to depths of about 20 feet" (page 4.9-3, 11) and will, therefore, require removal and replacement with non-compressible fill material (page 4.9- 8, 11, page 4.9-16, 11). No information is presented in the DEIR quantifying the cubic 46921MRF Analysis Page 42 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Yardage of soil requiring either removal or import, where the exported soil will be deposited, from where the fill material will be obtained, the term of the grading operations, the impacts of those operations on the area's roadways or adjoining receptors or any mitigation measures which may be appropriate to reduce or avoid those environmental consequences. In. the absence of additional information concerning projected ceding operations, it is not possible to assess the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measure or conclude for insignificance. Additionally, information on grading operations is necessary to accurately quantify project -related air quality impacts. Page 4.9-17, 12. Based upon the depth of groundwater and the historic use of Well No. 3177A to provide a supply source for the on-site feed lot (page 4.9-7, 15), the analysis Of project -related impacts on those resources should constitute an important component Of the DEIR. Although addressed in part, under Section 4.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality), inadequate information has been provided to effectively analyze the potential cause -and -effect relationship between the control and mitigation of surface water discharge and impacts upon groundwater quality. In reviewing Section 4.10 of the DEIR, the document infers that all surface water shall be discharged in accordance with applicable NPDES and storm water permit obligations. In contrast, the DEIR discloses that "waste products routinely handled at the proposed M" may occasionally be spilled onto the ground" (page 4.9-17, 12). The DEIR then concludes that "given that the soil at the site, especially near the surface, is clayey and therefore, has a low permeability, " contaminants "are not expected to infiltrate deep into the soil and into the groundwater table." No mitigation measures are proposed in the DEIR in response to this anticipated accident potential. The removal of site soils, as indicated under page 4.9-15, 16 above, has the potential to affect the permeability of site conditions. In addition, the anticipated storage of household hazardous wastes on-site (page 2-14, 12 and 3) creates a potential for significant groundwater impacts. As a result, an expanded analysis of this topical issue is required to support the conclusions presented in the DEIR. Page 4,141, 11. While the DEIR disclosed that "a tributary of San Jose Creek, South San Jose Creek, bisects the proposed project site," no further discussion of this potential design constraint is included in the document. The DEIR should identify any physical improvements which may be proposed along or adjoining this easement and evaluate how the project may affect both the channel and requisite maintenance activities which may be necessary to service this flood control conduit. 4692/MRF Analysis Page 43 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 4.10-1, 13. By indicating that "the proposed project site is not identified on Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)", it is unclear whether the statement infers that the site has not been surveyed by FEMA or the site has been surveyed and found not to contain identifiable flood hazards (e.g., identified as Zone "C"). The appropriate Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM should be included in the DEIR and the project site delineated on that map. Page 4.10-2, 15. The DEIR should indicate whether a Section 401 water quality certification will be required from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the relationship between that process and other discretionary approvals which may be required from other County, State and federal agencies. Page 4-10, 13. Although the DEIR identifies both pre- and post -development pear flow conditions (Q50), no engineering information is provided to independently validate those calculations to facilitate public review. The hydrologic study (or calculations) should be included as a technical appendix to the DEIR and a minimum of two graphics provided illustrating existing and future drainage patterns, identifying the project site relative to the drainage area boundaries and specifying the size and the location of any existing or Proposed storm drains and catch basins. Similarly, a portion of the applicable USGS quadrangle map should be included as a graphic to illustrate whether any "blueline" or "blue dot" streams exist within or in proximity to the project site. Page 4.10-4. The Initial Study (Appendix A) indicates that "the existing concrete lined channel that traverses the site and flows east to west may be relocated as part of this project... Effects of this relocation will be evaluated in the EIR." No discussion of this relocation is provided in the DEIR. If relocation is no longer assumed necessary, the DEIR should so indicate. Page 4.10-4. Since refuse stored in freight containers will generate leachate (page 1-11, 15, Mitigation Measure No. 4.4.19) which has the potential to spill from those containers onto local roadways or along rail routes (if waste -by -rail service is implemented), the DEIR should both address this water quality and health and safety impact and incorporate mitigation measures for the monitoring of containers and their repair or replacement if the release of leachate is identified. Page 4.10-5, 11. In addition to the significance criteria identified, a project will have a significant effect on the environment if the project: (1) discharges water to a local or regional stormwater system which either captures a substantial percentage of its remaining design capacity, contributes flows which exceed the system's capacity or exacerbates existing stormdrain deficiencies; (2) violates or conflicts with adopted local or regional 46921MRF Analysis Page 44 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERMLS RECOVERY FACILITY Plans (e.g., Regional Water Quantity Control Board's Basin Plan); or (3) results in the discharge of hazardous materials into the stormdrain network. Page 4.10-6, 16. Water quality impacts and mitigation measures included on page 4.3-5 of the DEIR are repeated in this section of the text. The analysis and mitigation measures presented on page 4.3-5, 13 and repeated herein should then be reconciled with the setting section. For example, the three areas identified as potential sources of stormwater contaminants (i.e., streets and parking areas; recycling, storage and processing areas; truck wash and maintenance areas), should be broadened to include: (1) construction operations; (2) leachate holding tanks (page 4.10-3,13) and sediment ponds (page 4.10-3, 14); and (3) off-site impacts, associated with the transport of MSW. These potential sources should be identified and analyzed in the DEIR. _ NI Page 4.11-2. The project boundaries are not depicted on Figure 4.11-1 (Distribution of Vegetation Communities). As a result, it is not possible to assess whether the entire site has been surveyed. Additionally, since no access road presently serves the project site, the area of the future access road (i.e., Road "A") should be identified and analyzed. Acreage estimates for each of the vegetation communities should. be provided, with particular attention provided to the quantification of the riparian scrub areas identified within the San lose Creek channel area and adjacent to the railroad tracks on the south side of the existing channel (page 4.11-4, 12). Any applicable State or federal statutory requirements, permit obligations or procedural requirements affecting riparian or wetland areas should be identified. Page 4.11-5 and Page 4.11-6. The following comments are offered concerning Table 4.11-1 (Animal Species in the Project Area): (1) the federal and State designations for each specifies should be identified where applicable (e.g., Campylor hynchus bruenneicapillus sandiegonse and Lanius ludovicianus are federal C2 candidate species); (2) the San Diego cactus wren is also identified as the coastal cactus wren by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); (3) which species of Melospiza melo&a was observed (M.M. maxillaris, M.M. pusillula and M.M. samuelis all occur within California and all are listed C2 species); (4) what species of Sylvilagus bachmani was expected/observed (S.b. riparius is a C1 species (Fed. Reg. Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991) and a CPE species proposed on December 4, 1992 as a State candidate for endangered listing); (5) what species of Eumeces skiltonianus was expected/observed (E.s. interpadetalis is a CSC and C2 species); (6) what species of Cnemidophorus tigris was expected/observed (C. t. Multiscutatus is a C2 candidate for federal listing); () what species of Anniella pulchra is referenced (A. p. nigm is a CSC 46921MRF Analysis Page 45 CHY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHJYY and C2 species; A.p. pulchra is a CSC species); and (8) the letter notations "O" and "U" in the far right column are not defined. Page 4.11-8. Reference to Campylorhynchus bruneicappilus cousei should be corrected to refer to C.b. couesi (pursuant to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) or C.b. sandtegonse (pursuant to CDFG). In addition, the project biologist should verify the State status of Lanius ludovicianus. Page 4.11-9. The DEIR does not disclose whether any raptor nests were observed on- site. Disturbance to those nesting sites (whether occupied or not) will necessitate consultation with the CDFG. Additional mitigation measures to protect raptors and their nesting sites should be included Q1 the DEIR should incorporate an analysis why these resource requirements may not be applicable. Page 4.11-9. The Initial Study (Appendix A) indicates that "a Biotic Survey will be conducted as part of the Elft to determine the presence of any significant species or habitat type. A mitigation plan will be prepared to protect any such species." Despite this declaration, no "mitigation plan" has been included in the DEIR. Additionally, the Initial Study indicates that "the introduction of new species of plants into the area from the addition of new site landscaping" will be addressed in the EIR. The biotic analysis does not discuss or evaluate the potential effects of this project component. By representing that the DEIR would incorporate that information represented in the Initial Study, the City of Industry may have limited the number and type of comments which were transmitted to the City in response to the Notice of Preparation. Page 4.11-9, 11. The DEIR indicates that the "riparian scrub habitat within the stream bed of the San Jose Creek is likely to be recognized as a wetland. Further study will be required to determine the boundaries of the wetland." In making this statement, the DEIR neither clearly discloses whether this area is classified as a "wetland," defines the meaning of the term or the requisite criteria for that designation, discusses jurisdictional obligations associated with both a wetland and riparian area (pursuant to Sections 1601- 1607 of the California Fish and Game Code and Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act) or explains the reasons for deferring future analysis (and delineation) until after project approval. As indicated in reference to page 4.9-12 above (i.e., need for site- specific geotechnical analysis), the ability of the Lead Agency and affected Responsible Agencies to make informed decisions about the project and its potential environmental impacts is seriously diminished by deferring analysis to subsequent stages of the development process. 46921MRF Analysis Page 46 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 4.11-9, 12. The statement that "the site does not contain canyons or riparian habitat which would constitute important corridors for wildlife" constitutes a conclusionary statement which lacks any analytical support and contradicts the preceding paragraph which discloses the presence of both riparian and wetland habitat areas on-site. The DEIR should disclose that: (1) drainage channels are often utilized by wildlife as movement corridors; (2) what conditions may make the San Jose Creek incapable of functioning as a viable wildlife corridor; (3) the site's potential role as a wildlife corridor linking the San Jose Hills and the Puente Hills; and (4) the function that wetland and riparian areas serve (or may serve) in promoting or supporting regional wildlife movement. A more extensive discourse on this issue is required to support the document's conclusion, including the need for a more detailed explanation of both the habitat areas located within and adjoining this drainage course, prospects for habitat enhancement, a discussion of the site's potential role as part of a regional wildlife corridor and requisite actions which may be imposed by other resource actions (e.g., CDFG's "no net loss" provision) to compensate for any project -related impacts to these biotic resources. Page 4.11-9, 13. The DEIR indicates that a single field survey of the site was conducted on July 2, 1992 in order to map the plant communities, observe wildlife and evaluate whether any sensitive species occur or are likely to occur on site." A summer survey, during a five year drought, may impose specific constraints or other limitations on the type, diversity or number of plant (and animal) species observed. Those limitations should be clearly identified in the text. Additionally, the time period and hours of the day during which the survey was conducted should be identified. If these time periods did not include a nocturnal survey, what further constraints or limitations would be anticipated? In the absence of a springtime survey, many of the species which have the potential to exist on-site would not be identified; therefore, the results of the July field investigation would prove ineffective in that the results of the survey would be non-conclusive. If a spring survey has not been conducted (or will not be conducted prior to the decision - makers consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report), a detailed explanation of the City's reasons for inappropriately narrowing the scope of the biological assessment should be provided. Page 4.11-9, 13. The complete botanical and zoological report(s) prepared by The Planning Center (or others) should be included as a technical appendix in the DEIR. ° Page 4.11-10, 12. As indicated above, the absence of a springtime field survey may have limited the accuracy and effectiveness of the project's biotic assessment. In the absence of that survey, no definitive conclusions can be reached that the site does not 46921MRF Analysis Page 47 CITY OF 1NDUS77?Y AM7ERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY contain plant species "which are recognized as sensitive." At minimum, further field investigation should be conducted and the results of that investigation entered into the environmental review mord prior to the City's taking action on the project. Inclusion of a springtime survey as a mitigation measure would prove ineffective in that the results of the survey would be provided afta the date of public action on the project and would not facilitate informed decision-making regarding the project's potential biological impacts. Page 4.11-11, 11. It is unclear how the DEIR justifies the conclusion that the displacement of the site's animal population will be less -than -significant when the project site has a "relatively diverse and abundant animal community" (page 4.11-4, 15) and "the two sensitive bird species observed on-site, the coastal cactus wren and the loggerhead strike, would be displaced off-site and could be expected to perish" (page 4.11-9, 15). Based upon the threshold criteria identified in the DEIR and included in Appendix G the State CEQA Guidelines, any action which diminishes the population of candidate species would be deemed to constitute a "significant effect on the environment." Page 4.11-11, 14 and 5. Although the DEIR concludes that the introduction of night lighting will result in "a substantial diminution or degradation to wildlife habitat" (emphasis added), the DEIR concludes that this impact is less than significant. Referring Section 15382 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project" (emphasis added) is to be constructed as a significant environmental impact. Impacts to flora and fauna are specifically referenced in the above statute. Based upon the DEIR's own declaration, this loss of habitat should be construed as significant. Page 4.11-11, 17 and 8. The DEIR indicates that the San Diego cactus wren and Loggerhead shrike are both Category 2 (C2) candidate species (page 4.11-8). The DEIR indicates that "Category 2 candidates comprises species which the [United States] Fish and Wildlife Service considers appropriate to propose listing as threatened or endangered" (emphasis added). Based upon the definition for significance provided in the DEIR (page 4.11-10, 11), candidate species are to be "considered rare or endangered if there is data which indicates that this species meets the criteria for state listing." Although C2 species are not presently proposed for listing, the designation of these two species as C2 candidate species affords them special attention during the planning process. Since "these species are taxa whose breeding populations in California have declined severely or are otherwise so low that expiration could occur" (page 4.11-12,12), a reasonable argument follows that "there is data which indicates that this species meets the criteria for state listing. " As a result and based upon the DEIR's standards for significance, impacts upon the San Diego cactus wren and Loggerhead shrike (i.e., 46921MRF Analysis Page 48 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY "would be displaced off-site and could be expected to perish") should be considered significant. ° Page 4.11-12,15 and 6. Although the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is identified as a Responsible Agency, Section 10 (Report Authors; People and Organizations Consulted) includes no reference to the DEIR's authors contacting or consulting with the CDFG. Additionally, should a 1601-1607 Streambed Alteration Agreement be required, both the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act) and United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act) may have separate review and/or permit obligations. Neither agency is discussed or their associated requirements identified. Based upon the listing of agencies who received the Notice of Preparation (as indicated in Appendix A), none of the above referenced Responsible Agencies received notice about the project (as prescribed under Section 15082(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines). In addition, based upon the listing of agencies identified in Section 10 (Report Authors; People and Organizations Consulted) of the DEM, no consultation occurred with any of those Responsible Agencies during preparation of that document. Cultural Resources ° Page 4.12-2, 17. Since the majority of the site was not surveyed, it is not possible to draw conclusions concerning the presence or absence of cultural resources which may exist on-site (or the adequacy of mitigation measures proposed). Based upon the existence of other known resources along San Jose Creek (i.e., CA -LAN -522), a more thorough analysis may yield specific finds within the project area. A map should be provided indicating which areas have been field surveyed and which areas have not been investigated. It may also be beneficial to overlay that map onto Figure 4.11-1 (page 4.11-2). Page 4.124, 18. The DEIR indicates that "a survey of the full forty acres was not possible..." Based on the project size indicated, it appears that no field investigation was conducted along the right-of-way of the proposed access road linking the site with Grand Avenue. Failure to include this area as part of the cultural resources analysis or to include this area as part of the environmental analysis under any of the other topical issues precludes a thorough analysis of potential project -related impacts. 4692/MRF Analysis Page 49 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 4.13-3, 12. The DEIR states that "with the full implementation of AB 939, the supply of recyclable materials in the marketplace will increase dramatically. This will exacerbate the marketing problems that some materials already experience, driving their market prices down." The DEIR further states that "the facility would provide the City of Industry and surrounding contributing cities the 25 percent diversion rate as mandated by AB 939 for the year 1995. " What guarantees are there that the IMRF operator will be able to divert up to 1,425 tons of solid waste per day (representing 25 percent of anticipated maximum tonnage received)? In recognition of potential market constraints, what assurance is there that these materials will be sent to a secondary processive facility (and not a landfill) so that participating Cities can maintain their AB 939 diversion credits? Page 4.13-3, 13 and 4. It is not clear whether the City of Industry currently owns the D4RF site or whether public acquisition (including the proposed access road) will be required. If publicly owned, do other parties currently possess leasehold interests? Are there any existing easements which have to be acquired or vacated? Page 4.13-5,11 through 3. Economic studies conducted for the Puente Hills Landfill are not directly relevant to the proposed DOW. In the case of the Puente Hills Landfill study, the landfill existed and was operational prior to the construction, sale and occupancy of the homes. The initial value of those properties was influenced, in part, by the location of those properties from that facility. Subsequent changes in valuation would, therefore, reflect general market conditions. 0 Conversely, in the case of the IlbiRF, the homes already exist. Public actions external to those properties, including the approval of the DARF, have the potential to influence property values. Based upon this clear difference between the Puente Hills Landfill study and the relevant conditions affecting the DARF economic analysis, the DEIR should be amended to discount the conclusions of that previous analysis. 0 Page 4.13-5, 14. The conclusion that "the project will generate approximately 141 jobs and no housing units" may not be correct. Based upon job -housing relationships identified in the Growth Management Plan (Southern California Association of Governments) and modeled for the subregion which includes the project site (i.e., East San Gabriel Valley Subregion), there were 1.03 jobs/dwelling unit in the year 1984. That ratio will improve to 1.10 jobs/unit by the year 2010. Utilizing the 1984 factor, the 141 jobs associated with the project will equate to approximately 137 dwelling units. The DEIR does not present information which indicates whether these new employees are 46921MRF Analysis Page 50 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY already adequately housed within the project area or whether new housing will be required (e.g., the marketplace will be induced to develop new housing based upon consumer demands) to accommodate this new demand. Page 4.13-6. The DEIR indicates that "markets will need to be expanded and developed to ensure that diverted waste materials are appropriately utilized" (page 2-7, 14). In making this statement, the DEIR acknowledge that there may not presently exist adequate market demand to absorb the recycled materials generated by the project. Based upon this condition, the socioeconomic analysis should evaluate both current and projected market demand, compare that demand relative to the projected volume of recovered materials (including other recovered material available regionally), identify emerging industries (including local consumers) and describe currently proposed or possible public actions which may accelerate market demands. ° Page 4.13-6, 13. CEQA requires that HIRs also examine indirect or secondary impacts which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance. Indirect or secondary effects may include growth -inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use..." (Section 15358(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines). Should the proposed DdRF produce a negative economic impact upon those existing residential units which overlook the site (and other vacant or under -developed properties in the project area), owners may experience a loss or reduction in property value or use potential, may elect to relocate to other areas and may experience a disincentive to further improve (or maintain) those properties. Those potential secondary factors should be identified and analyzed in the DEIR. ° Page 4.23-7, 16. The DEIR indicates that the economic viability of the proposed project will be dependent, in part, upon its competitive pricing relate to alternative disposal options available to both municipalities and individual waste haulers. Since the DRF is identified as a public project (i.e., City of Industry is identified as the project applicant), the City has the ability to support the project through the commitment of Public funds (including financing through the Redevelopment Agency). The expenditure Of finite public resources for this project (including the forfeiture of revenue opportunities associated with the sale or lease of the site), precludes the use of those resources for other activities; therein, producing potential secondary impacts. In order to evaluate those impacts, the DEIR should include an economic analysis which illustrates both the economic feasibility of the project and indicates the extent of public involvement. Growth Inducement ° Page 5.0-1, 12. A notation should be provided to document the "recent court decision" described in the MR. 46921MRF Analysis Page 51 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY Page 5.0-1, 13. The information presented in the DEIR does not constitute an adequate analysis of the project's potential growth -inducing impacts. The conclusion that "the only growth related effects of the proposed MIRF would be the secondary, or indirect impact of increased demands on community services, increased traffic and related air and noise impacts, and the conservation [sic] of open space to development" fails to address such issues as in -migration to fill employment opportunities, household formation (i.e., non - heads of households moving out), induced development on adjoining properties (including loss of agricultural land uses) and effects on emerging industries (associated with the development of a consistent source of recovered materials). Each of these issues should be addressed in a revised growth -inducing analysis. umulative Im Page 6.0-1, 11. The DEIR should reconcile the internal contradiction associated with the statement that "given the larger scale of the area to be served by the HARF, a specific list of past, present and probable future projects cannot realistically be addressed" and the potentially conflicting statement that the inclusion of 17 related projects (Table 4.5-3, pages 4.5-15 through 4.5-17) will produce cumulative traffic impacts. Referencing Section 15355(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "cumulative impacts from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects" (emphasis added). Since the project, if approved, will commence operation in the year 1994 (and reach build -out in 1998), it is reasonable to assume that a listing of projects which are either presently proposed or currently permitted (but not constructed or occupied) could be developed. Section 15130(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines offers public agencies two approaches to identify cumulative project activities, including either "a list of past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects" or "a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document which is designed to evaluate regional or areawide conditions." The DEIR should select between these methodologies and clearly delineate the assumptions utilized in the environmental analysis. Page 6.0-1, 11. In assessing cumulative impacts, the DEIR should also examine other existing or proposed MRFs which may be developed throughout the region. Since the project size is based upon the premise that MSW will be transported to the (DdRF from those 26 Cities (and unincorporated County areas) identified in Table 2.0-5 (page 2-20), it is necessary to lmow whether other facilities may be competing against the B4 RF for some or all of the regional waste stream. Should numerous material recovery facilities 46921MRF Analysis Page 32 CITY OF INDUS7RY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHJ77 and transfer stations be brought on-line between 1994 and 1998, the MSW volumes projected to be delivered to the Dd RF may be diverted to other locations. In addition, since the project assumes rail -haul activities for the transport of refuse to distant landfills (which may not be presently permitted or operational), these facilities constitute relevant related projects which should be addressed as part of the cumulative impact analysis. Page 6.0-1, 12. The DEIR inappropriately narrows the scope of the cumulative impact analysis by concluding that "the focus of the [cumulative] analysis is on the direct cumulative impact of the D4RF facility" (emphasis added). Impacts under CEQA are defined as both the "direct or primary effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place [and] indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable" (Section 15358(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines). As a result, the DEIR should be supplemented to include both an analysis of potential indirect effects anticipated to occur as a result of the project (in combination with other foreseeable development activities) and an analysis of the direct impacts resulting from the project and those related development activities. Page 6.0-4, 11. The DEIR indicates that "the expected daily traffic volume for [the] project is estimated to be 1,111 one-way trips." Earlier in the text, the DEIR concluded that the DA RF would "generate approximately 5,882 daily PCE [passenger car equivalent] trips in 1994" and 7,302 PCE trips by the year 2000. These different projections should be reconciled. o Page 6.0-6, 13 and Page 6.0-6, 15 through 7. Cumulative traffic impacts identified in the DEIR are significantly underestimated based upon technical errors in the methodology utilized. Cumulative traffic impacts, associated with either those related projects identified in Table 4.5-3 (pages 4.5-15 through 17) or projected ambient traffic growth will produce "less than acceptable levels [of services]" at 11 intersections by the year 1994 (page 4.5-13, 13) and 13 intersections by the year 2000 (page 4.5-22, 13). Based upon this conclusion, the DEIR is obligated to conclude that there exists significant cumulative traffic impacts. To mitigate those impacts to a level which is not significant, appropriate street improvements, funding mechanisms and phasing plans should be formulated for each of these study area intersections. Page 6.0-7, 13 and 5. The DEIR errors in concluding that both project -related and cumulative air quality impacts will not be significant (defined as an exceedance of 46921MRF Analysis Page 53 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY SCAQMD New Source Review threshold values) for specific criteria pollutants based upon projected pollutant contributions for both year 1994 and year 2000 conditions. Refer to comments under "Air Quality" above. Page 6.0-7, 18 and Page 6.0-8, 11 through 3. Insufficient information is provided in the DEIR to independently validate a conclusion that project -related and cumulative noise impacts will not be sufficient. Additional analysis should be provided to allow an independent verification of these conclusions. ° Page 8.0-1, 11. The DEIR acknowledges the requirements of Section 15126(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines which require that "the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance..." Compliance with this requirement presupposes that the EIR accurately represents the project's potentially significant environmental impacts. As submitted, the DEIR contains major technical deficiencies which limit the ability of a reviewer to draw conclusions concerning the significance of potential project -related and cumulative environmental effects, judge the effectiveness of the identified mitigation measures to reduce or avoid those impact or assess the net unavoidable adverse impact after the proposed mitigation strategies are applied. Additionally, based both technical flaws and failure to provide a "sufficient degree of analysis" (Section 15151, State CEQA Guidelines), the DEIR misrepresents the significance of many of the environmental effects (e.g., traffic, air quality) identified therein. The ability of the public to comment upon the adequacy of the alternative analysis, including the effectiveness with which the alternatives may reduce or avoid specific potential environmental effects, is significantly reduced because of the DEIR's underestimation of the project's environmental consequences. Section 15126(d)(5) of the California Code of Regulations indicates that "the key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision-making and informed public participation." The DEIR fails to satisfy this basic CEQA tenet by: (1) including a project alternative (i.e., Benton Site Alternative) which, in essence, is the same project upon the same site (more specifically right -next-door); (2) failing to adequately address reasonable project options which could minimize the significant effects of the project as proposed (e.g., Southern Pacific Rail Yard Site Alternative); and (3) failing to disclose the methodology used by the City (or others) to identify alternative sites and identify the rationale for not considering (or considering or rejecting) other 46921MRF Analysis Page 54 CITY OF IND UMY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACHM potentially viable alternative sites which could minimize the project's many significant adverse impacts. Page 8.0-2, 12. Although the Executive Summary (page 1-20, 14 through 7) indicates that the DEIR includes an analysis of an "existing industrial zoning alternative" (i.e., site will be developed with some other industrial use in conformance with the site's existing industrial zoning), no such alternative is analyzed in the document. Since alternative MRFs are presently being processed at a number of other sites within the region (e.g., RAIL -CYCLE MRF, Puente Bills MRF), the need for the I MRF has not been proven (in light of the capacity at those alternative facilities and the lack of existing market demand for the recovered material). As a result, a logical alternative which should be explored in the DEIR is the development of the project site in accordance with existing zoning and Cit' of Industry General Plan standards. The brief discussion which currently exists in the document is both insufficient to allow a reasonable comparative analysis between development alternatives, draws erroneous conclusions regarding the potential impacts associated with an industrial land use and contains contradictory statements (e.g., "the benefits of diverting waste from landfills ... will not be achieved—the City of Commerce facility could provide the waste diversion services to support achievement of the AB 939 diversion goals"). Page 8.0-1, 12. A graphic should be provided illustrating the location of each of the project alternatives examined in the DEIR. In the absence of both a vicinity map identifying the site and surrounding land uses, a zoning or General Plan map denoting designated land use categories, a topographical map and individual photographs of each alternative site, it is not possible to effectively analyze each of the proposed options. ° Page 8.0-1, 12 and 3. In addition to the project alternatives identified in the DEIR, a number of additional alternatives should be examined based upon the ability of these alternatives to eliminate or minimize potential environmental effects. These alternatives include, but may not be limited to: (1) constructing and operating a MRF at either an existing landfill site (e.g., Puente Hills, Azuza Western) or a potential new landfill site; and (2) reduction in project size to accommodate only City of Industry MSW demands (i.e., 500-600 tpd). The DEIR should be supplemented to evaluate these development options. Page 8.0-1, 13. Reference that the site will remain undeveloped (page 8.0-1, 13, page 8.0-2, 11, page 8.0-4, 16) ignores the fact that the site "is presently used by the Machlin Feed Processing Company ... for feed processing and storage" (page 4.1-1, 11) and can "continue to function as part of the feed processing plant or some other agricultural [use]" (page 8.0-2, 14). 46921MRF Analysis Page 55 CPIY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY nton °. Page 8.0-7. As indicated under Section 15126(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effect or reducing them to a level of significance." Based upon this criteria, the Benton Site Alternative (located adjacent to and southwest of the project site) does not represent a reasonable project alternative in that each of the impacts identified in the DEIR will continue to manifest if the MRF is developed on this site. Page 8.0-8, 11. The DER indicates that "the land use impacts on the Benton site will be the same as those of the Dd RF site in terms of compatibility with adjacent land uses.. This statement appears to contradict the earlier position that "by locating the INW on this site the potential significant impacts" will continue "but will reduce the noise and visual impacts because the facility is further away from sensitive receptors in the City of Diamond Bar" (page 1-21, 11). The extent to which these and other potential environmental effects may be reduced should be quantified and this site identified as environmentally superior to the project as proposed. Page 8.0.10, 14. Based upon the alternative site's distance from residential land uses, the potential impacts associated with this project alternative may be substantially less than the comparable impacts identified in the DEIR. Insufficient information is, however, provided concerning this site (or its potential impacts) to devise appropriate conclusions. Page 8.0-10, 14. Implementation of the project at this alternative location "may also require construction of a large overpass to avoid delays in , either rail or truck traffic accessing the site." In making this statement, the DEIR is unclear whether an "overpass" will be required or whether the project can effectively and safely operate in the absence of that potential improvement. When an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that the project itself would cause, the effect of the alternative Project shall also be discussed (Section 15126(d)(4), State CEQA Guidelines). As a result, additional elaboration of this potential project component (and its corresponding impacts) is required. ° Page 8.0-10, 15. The DEM concludes that "the construction of a MRF on the SP site will have similar land use impacts as the RARF site, in terms of compatibility with adjacent land uses." This statement appears to contradict an earlier declaration that "this site would have environmental advantages [over the proposed site] in terms of locating the facility away from sensitive receptors, such as residential areas. This will eliminate the air, noise and visual impacts which will result from locating the DMF adjacent to the 46921MRF Analysis Page 56 CITY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY City of Diamond Bar" (page 1-21, 12). The two statements appear contradictory. In addition, in the latter declaration, the DEIR appears to conclude that the proposed project site will manifest in significant unavoidable adverse impacts upon the City of Diamond Bar and its residents, in terms of air, noise and visual effects. The corresponding analysis in the DEIR for each of these topical issues appears to draw opposite (and erroneous) conclusions. Page 8.0-10, 16. As indicated under Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a specific standard for adequacy is established for EiRs (i. e. , ' sufficient degree of analysis to allow decision -makers to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences). Although the discussion of alternatives can provide less detail than provided for the proposed project (Section 15126(d)(4)), the level of analysis must continue to be guided by the above statutory requirement. As indicated herein, the DEIR's conclusions concerning potential visual impacts to the YMCA, ballfield and residential areas within both the City of Diamond Bar and City of Walnut underestimate both the significance of the environmental effects and adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce those impacts below a level of significance. The impact upon those receptors is believed to be significant pursuant to the definition (i.e., potentially substance adverse change) provided under Section 15382 of the State CEQA Guidelines. In discussing the potential impacts associated with the development of a MRF on an alternative site, the DEIR is obligated to provide a comparative analysis which would enable decision -makers to understand whether development of a particular option may minimize or avoid the occurrence of a particular impact. By concluding that "the visual impact of a MRF on the SP [Southern Pacific] site will not be substantially different from the proposed BW, except for the advantage of not being directly adjacent to a YMCA facility, a ball field and a residential area," it is not clear what other visual impact the authors of the DEIR are considering. For those alternatives that have the potential to reduce identified project impacts, additional analysis of each of the topical issues will be required to allow a reasonable comparative analysis. Page 8.0-11, 14. Although the DEIR indicates that "a large overpass [may be required] to avoid delays in either the rail or truck traffic accessing the site" (page 8.0-10, 14), no discussion of this potential project requirement is provided. Additionally, no information is provided to evaluate project -related impacts upon the intersections identified as being "significantly impacted" or the availability of mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a level which is not significant. 4MIMRF Analysis Page 57 CPPY OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY WMM—Mri IM -1187=, MUM Page 9-1. Based upon the comments provided herein, a number of additional significant environmental effects have been identified (e. g. , land use, geotechnical, biological aesthetics, air and water quality, traffic) and/or impacts which the DEIR concludes as being mitigated to a level of insignificance would, in fact, produce a greater effect (i.e., significant effect on the environment) that presented in that document. As a result, this section should be revised to both ensure conformity with Section 15126(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines and identify those direct, indirect and cumulative impacts which constitute significant irreversible environmental changes. Report Authors' PQQpk and Q nizaions Consulted Page 10-1 and Page 10-2. As required under Section 15129 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the EIR shall identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and the persons, firm or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other authorization. " In addition to disclosing those parties consulted pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 of CEQA, the DEIR should identify all parties referenced in the text, individuals or companies who participated in the design of the project or contributed information for the EIR (including document review and comment) and the participation of any solid waste contractors or others who may have provided either technical review or input. 4MIMRF Analysis Page 58