HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 11-C49 RESOLUTION NO. 11-C49
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
#2010081010), ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE WASTE MANAGEMENT MATERIAL
RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Waste Management Material Recovery Facility, Transfer Station and
Household Hazardous Waste Facility project comprises the construction of an approximately
125,000 square foot Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station ("MRF/TS"), a bale
storage building, and a scale house, and would be adjacent to the existing Waste Management
Azusa Land Reclamation landfill in the City of Azusa(the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in an industrial area in the southwestern portion of the
City of Azusa(the "City"), approximately 27 miles northeast of Downtown Los Angeles, and the
western portion of the site is generally located to the northeast of the intersection of Irwindale
Avenue and Gladstone Street and the eastern portion of the site is located to the northeast of the
intersection of Gladstone and Vincent Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the proposed MRF/TS is an allowable use in the existing DW zone with
approval of a Use Permit, and a portion of the MRF/TS site is currently zoned DWL, which does
not allow this type of facility, but applications for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment
are proposed as part of this Project and the MRF/TS will be consistent with zoning upon such
approvals; and
WHEREAS, the MRF/TS would be designed to receive, process, and transfer up to
3,800 tons per day ("tpd") of solid waste and, upon its opening, the MRF/TS is anticipated to
handle 1,500 tpd of Municipal Solid Waste, 500 tpd of recyclables, and 300 tpd of green waste;
and
WHEREAS, implementation of the Project would also require the relocation of the
existing day laborers site approximately 500 feet east of its current location along Gladstone
Street, and the relocated day laborers site would include a 600 square foot day labor shelter, a
24-inch wide raised concrete median, and associated planters for landscaping; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §§
21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines(14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.)
and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, (collectively, "CEQA"), the City, as the lead agency for
the Project, determined that the Project would require the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report ("EIR") pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental
impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") to announce the
preparation of a Draft FIR for the Project, soliciting comments, including details about the scope
and content of the environmental information, as well as potential feasible mitigation measures,
45635.0181715969390.3 1
from responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and members of the public; and
WHEREAS, the NOP was filed on August 3, 2010, and circulated for a period of thirty
(30) days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082(a); and
WHEREAS, the City received approximately 12 comment letters in response to the
NOP, which assisted the City in focusing the scope of the issues and alternatives for analysis in
the Draft FIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA
Guidelines section 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a scoping meeting on August 18, 2010 at
the Azusa City Hall Auditorium to gather public comments on the Project, the NOP, and the
potential impacts that the Project would have on the physical environment; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21092 and State CEQA
Guidelines section 15087, the initiated a public review period for the Draft FIR on March 24,
2011 by filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and
Research and releasing the Draft FIR to state agencies, other affected agencies, adjacent cities
and counties, members of the public, and parties who had submitted a written request for a copy;
and
WHEREAS, the public comment period on the Draft EIR closed on May 9, 2011; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the City consulted with and requested
comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and
WHEREAS, the City received 165 written comment letters on the Draft FIR; and
WHEREAS, a public meeting before the Planning Commission was held to solicit
comments on the Draft EIR for the Project on March 30, 2011; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on April 13 and
May 11, 2011, at which the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the
Draft EIR be certified; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2011, the City released the Final FIR (the "Final EIR"), which
consists of written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft FIR and errata
to the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided
copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least 10 days prior to the City's
consideration of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final FIR and the Draft FIR (as modified by the
Final EIR), as well as the City of Azusa General Plan, the City of Azusa General Plan
Environmental Impact Report, the City of Azusa Municipal and Development Code, and the City
of Azusa Zoning Classification Map, which are incorporated by reference pursuant to State
45635.018 t 715969390.3 2
CEQA Guidelines section 15150; and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently .
analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the
basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA
Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which
is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the
Project, as well as feasible mitigation measures, have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both
the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's
potentially significant environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of
eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this
Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the
entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this
reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City finds are less than
significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 below; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City finds are
potentially significant but can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the
imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, are described in Section 3
below; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as
potentially significant but that cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite
the imposition of all feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are
described in Section 4 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the less than significant cumulative environmental impacts of the Project
identified in the EIR are described in Section 5 below; and
WHEREAS, significant irreversible environmental changes identified in the EIR are
described in Section 6 below; and
WHEREAS, growth inducing impacts identified in the EIR are described in Section 7
below, and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 8 below; and
45635.018 15969390.3 3
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program sets forth the mitigation
measures to which the City shall bind itself in connection with the Project, is adopted in Section
11 below, and is attached hereto as Exhibit"A'; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed
and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not
limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and
hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed
adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no
additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information
requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public
Resources Code section 212092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2011, the City conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this
Resolution at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard, and the Project was fully
considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
At a regular meeting assembled on July 5, 2011, the City Council determined that, based
on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the EIR, written and oral testimony
given at meetings and hearings, the submission of testimony from the public, organizations and
regulatory agencies, and the whole of the administrative record, which is incorporated by
reference herein, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: (1) less
than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant but will be avoided or
reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified Mitigation Measures; or (3) significant
and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened
to the extent feasible by the identified Mitigation Measures.
SECTION 2: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT
REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Project and found that no significant
direct or cumulative impact would occur to Agricultural, Biological, Mineral, Population and
Housing, and Recreation resources. (EIR at 5-1.) The City also found there would be no
significant direct or cumulative impact in relation to the following impact categories:
• Aesthetics: Scenic Resources; Light and Glare (See EIR at 10-1);
45635.01817\5969390.3 - 4
• Land Use/Planning: Division of Established Community, Conflict with
Habitat Conservation Plan (See EIR at 10-11);
• Cultural Resources: Historical Resources(See EIR at 10-5);
• Geology and Soils: Rupture of Fault, Seismic Ground Shaking, Seismic
Ground Failure, Landslides (See EIR at 10-6 to 8);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Hazardous Materials Near Schools;
Airport Hazards; Private Airstrip Hazards; Impairment of Emergency
Response Plan; Risk of Loss,Injury, or Death (See EIR at 10-8 to 9);
• Hydrology and Water Quality: Groundwater; 100-Year Flood Hazard Area;
100-Year Flood Structures; Dam or Levee Failure; Inundation by Seiche,
Tsunami, or Mudflow (See EIR at 10-10 to 11);
• Land Use and Planning: Physically Divide an Established Community,
Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan (See EIR at 10-11);
• Noise: Airport Noise, Airstrip Noise (See EIR at 10-12to 13);
• Public Services: School Services, Parks, Other Public Facilities (See EIR at
10-14 to 15);
• Transportation and Traffic: Change in Air Traffic Patterns, Inadequate
Emergency Access (See EIR at 10-15);
• Utilities and Service Systems: Service by Landfill (See EIR at 10-16).
Accordingly, these resources were scoped out of the EIR and not addressed in detail
therein. (EIR at 5-1.)
The City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project
are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures:
A. Land Use and Relevant Planning
1. Conflict with SCAG's Regional Plan (Threshold LAND-1).
a. Finding: Any potential impacts from the Project would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
b. Supporting Explanation: SCAG's Intergovernmental Review
("IGR") Section is responsible for performing a consistency review of local plans, projects, and
programs with regional plans. The two criteria relevant to this Project and thus used to determine
the regional significance of the Project are:
• Criteria 6: A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial
45635.018175969390.3 5
park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of
land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
Criteria 20: Proposed solid waste disposal sites in excess of 40 acres or the
expansion of these facilities by 40 acres.
The Project did not satisfy either requirement. The City also distributed the NOP to
SCAG, and requested SCAG's views and concerns related to the Project's potential
environmental effects. SCAG did not respond to the NOP. For the reasons set forth herein, and
as discussed further in the EIR, the Project is not regionally significant and no mitigation is
required. (EIR at 5.1-11.)
2. Conflict with Azusa General Plan (Threshold LAND-2).
a. Finding: The Project would not conflict with the Azusa General
Plan and thus impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b. Supporting Explanation: The Project site is located in the South
Portion of the West End Industrial District (District) and proposes an industrial development
utilizing state of the art technologies. Project implementation would therefore further the City's
objective to provide industrial high-tech opportunities for companies within the District. The
Project also proposes to supply jobs to approximately 75 persons (69 jobs for the MRF/TS and 6
jobs for the HHWF) and it would therefore further the City's vision for the District to attract new
firms that supply jobs.
The Project site is designated Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use, except for the western
corner of the site (i.e., northeast corner of the Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street
intersection), which is designated Industrial. The proposed HHWF development area is
designated Recreation/Landfill. Pursuant to Built Environment Element Table CD-2 of the Azusa
General Plan, the proposed HHWF would be consistent with the intended principal uses for the
Recreation/Landfill designation. The proposed MRF/TS development area is designated
Recreation/Landfill and Industrial. Pursuant to Built Environment Element Table CD-2 of the
Azusa General Plan, the proposed MRF/TS would be consistent with the intended principal uses
for the Industrial designation. The MRF/TS would be inconsistent, however, with the intended
principal uses for the Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use designation, but to ensure consistency with
the Azusa General Plan, the Project proposes a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2010-01),
changing a portion of the site's land use designation from Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use to
Industrial. Approval of a General Plan Amendment by the City would result in the Project's
compliance with the intended principal uses for the Industrial designation, and a less than
significant impact would occur. (EIR at 5.1-15 to 16.)
45635.01817\5969390.3 6
3. Conflict with Azusa Development Code Standards or Regulations
(Threshold LAND-3).
a. Findine: The Project would not conflict with the Azusa
Development Code Standards and Regulations and any impact would be less than significant
without mitigation.
b. importing Explanation: The proposed MRF/TS involves an
approximate 125,000 square foot Processing Facility and the proposed HHWF involves a 5,400
square foot Collection Facility. The Project components and design features are discussed in
detail in Section 3.0, Project Characteristics. The Azusa Development Code carries out the
policies of the Azusa General Plan by regulating development and land uses within the City,
consistent with the General Plan. The Azusa Development Code is intended to provide standards
for the continuing the City's orderly growth and development, and ensure compatibility between
different types of development and land uses. The proposed Project has been analyzed for
consistency with the Azusa Development Code, as demonstrated on pages 5.1-16 through 5.1-23
of the Draft EIR, and found to be consistent. Therefore, this impact would be less than.
significant.
B. Aesthetics.
1. Scenic Views and Vistas (Threshold AES-1).
a. Finding: The Project would have a less than significant impact on
scenic views and vistas and no mitigation is required.
b. Supporting Explanation: There are no General Plan designated
scenic views or vistas in the City, nor are there any unique features in the Project area that
comprise a dominant portion of a viewshed. Further, the Project site is not located in the
viewshed of the scenic routes or trails specified in the General Plan EIR, except for the scenic
views of the San Gabriel Mountains from the San Gabriel River Bike Path (VP 1) and Irwindale
Avenue (VP 2). It was determined based on photo-simulations, that the Project would not impair
the existing views of the mountains from VP 1 or VP 2. Project impacts are therefore less than
significant. (EIR at 5.2-12 to 13.)
2. Long-Term Visual Character/Quality (Threshold AES-3).
a. Findin The Project's long-term effect on the visual
character/quality of the Project site and surrounding areas will be less than significant and
mitigation is not required.
b. Supporting Explanation: There are no visually sensitive receptors
located in the Project vicinity. The Project involves development of an industrial use within an
industrial area (i.e., the southern extent of the West End Industrial District). Additionally, the
predominant industrial land use in the Project area is the Azusa Land Reclamation landfill, which
extends along the length of the Project site's northern boundary. There is no uniformity in the
surrounding industrial land uses, with regard to architectural features or scale. Buildings along
45635.01817%5969390.3 7
Irwindale Avenue are constructed directly on the property line (zero setbacks), while buildings
along Gladstone Street have varying setbacks. The Project site is not located in a visually
sensitive area. Project implementation would alter -the visual character of the site, and its
surroundings, as the existing industrial buildings, improvements, and vacant land would be
replaced by the proposed MRF/TS and HHWF, and appurtenant structures. Photo-simulations
were prepared to demonstrate the degree of change resulting from Project implementation
(Viewpoint 2 [Irwindale Avenue] and Viewpoints 3 and 4 [Gladstone Street]). (EIR at 5.2-17 to
19.)
Given the distance to the adjacent land uses provided by the proposed MRF/TS setbacks
and the Irwindale Avenue right-of-way, the proposed MRF/TS is considered visually compatible
with the character of the surrounding industrial land uses, as depicted from VP 2.The eastern
elevation of the proposed MRF/TS would be visible from VP 3. MRF/TS would be a taller
structure than the industrial buildings to the south and would predominantly influence the site's
visual character from VP 3. The block wall and landscaping along the site's southern boundary
and Gladstone Street would also continue to influence the character of this viewshed. The
proposed building would be separated from existing buildings to the south by the proposed
landscaping and Gladstone Street right-of-way. Additionally, the vacant land situated
immediately north of the proposed MRF/TS (i.e., the slopes which make up the southwestern
edge of the Azusa Land Reclamation landfill) would give the appearance of a greater amount of
onsite open space. Therefore, the proposed MRF/TS is considered visually compatible with the
character of the surrounding industrial land uses, as depicted from VP 3. A comparison of
existing and proposed conditions from VP 4 reveals that Project implementation would not
degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. The eastern elevation of the
proposed HHWF would be visible from VP 4. The HHWF and proposed landscaping would
replace the existing landscaping and Cemex sign. The proposed building and landscaping would
predominantly influence the site'.s visual character from VP 4. However, the HHWF would be of
a similar height as the industrial buildings situated to the south. Additionally, the proposed
building would be separated from existing buildings to the south by the proposed landscaping
and the Gladstone Street right-of-way, and from existing buildings to the east by the Mira Loma
Avenue right-of-way. Therefore, the proposed HHWF is considered visually compatible with
the character of the surrounding industrial land uses, as depicted from VP 3. (Ibid.)
Overall, as is evidenced by the discussions presented above, the proposed Project is
considered compatible in scale to the surrounding industrial'land uses. Given there is no
uniformity of architectural features in the surrounding industrial land uses, the Project would not
result in incompatibilities in this regard. Additionally, the Project involves development of an
industrial use within an industrial area. There are no visually sensitive receptors located in the
Project vicinity. (Ibid.)
Perimeter walls in the Project vicinity consist of cement block walls and stone walls
varying in height. Existing wall coloring generally consists of browns, tans, and beiges. The
Project proposes a decorative perimeter security wall along Gladstone Street and Irwindale
Avenue which would contain vine treatments. Trees and shrubs are also proposed in front of the
proposed security wall to enhance the character/quality of the area. Planters would also be
included in the vicinity of the day laborers shelter in order to allow for further landscaping
treatments. (Ibid.)
45635.01817\5969390.3 8
The Project would be subject to compliance with the City's design review requirements
pursuant to Azusa Municipal Code Section 88.51.032, Design Review. Such discretionary review
would ensure that the design of the proposed MRF/TS and HHWF would maintain and enhance
the City's appearance. Additionally, through the City's Use Permit and Variance review
processes, the Project would be reviewed for compliance with all applicable Azusa Development
Code standards and guidelines that influence the visual character of a development, including
building height, setbacks, lot coverage, and landscaping, among others. Through compliance
with Azusa Municipal Code Section 88.51.032 and the City's Use Permit and Variance review
processes, Project implementation would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. (Ibid.)
C. Traffic/Transportation
1. Hazardous Traffic Conditions (Threshold TRA-4).
a. Finding: The Project would not result in a dangerous condition
either on site or in the surrounding area and thus impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
b. Supporting Explanation: The Project site was previously occupied
by a tire recycling facility and, prior to this use, a material recycling facility, which generated
passenger vehicle and truck traffic entering and leaving the site from both the east and west of
Gladstone Street. Also, truck trips currently access the eastern portion of the Project site as part
of the existing landfill operations to the northeast of the Project site. Although the proposed
Project would create additional truck trips entering and exiting the eastern portion of the Project
site (at the main entrance to the Azusa Land Reclamation landfill), trucks would no longer be
entering and existing the western portion of the Project site onto Gladstone. The proposed
Project would include internal roadway circulation that would allow trucks to safely enter the
Project site from Gladstone, travel west toward the proposed MRF/TS site (note that this area
.also contains the proposed scale house), unload and load appropriate waste materials at the
MRF/TS, and then exit the Project site via the roadway back to the scale house and the exit
driveway located at the eastern portion of the Project site. Note that automobiles accessing the
proposed HHWF would minimally interact with trucks using the proposed MRF/TS or the offsite
landfill to the northeast, as the HHWF would only operate on the weekends. The relocation of
the existing day laborers site would not result in an increase in hazardous traffic conditions,
compared to existing conditions as the relocation would include a 24-inch wide raised concrete
median in order to provide space for vehicles to safely pull off to the side of Gladstone Street
away from on-coming traffic. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. (EIR
at 5.3-36 to 37.)
2. Conflict with Policies, Plans, or Programs (Threshold TRA-5).
a. Fin din : The Project would not result in a decrease of the
performance or safety of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities as a result of a conflict
with adopted policies, plans, or programs and thus impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
45635.01817\5969390.3 9
b. Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project
would not impede the existing public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Further, the
proposed Project would construct a new sidewalk along the northern portion of Gladstone Street,
where sidewalk currently does not exist. The proposed Project would not conflict with any of the
following policies of the Mobility Element of the Azusa General Plan pertaining to public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Also, the Project Applicant has committed to having the
proposed MRF/TS facility LEED Certified upon completion of construction. The Applicant
expects to achieve LEED Silver Certification with a goal to achieve LEED Gold Certification.
While the proposed Project would generate relatively few employee trips, ride sharing would be
encouraged. To achieve LEED Silver Certification, convenient preferential locations would be
provided for car-share vehicles. Also, accommodations for employees choosing to bicycle to
work would be provided. (EIR at 5.3-37 to 38.)
D. Air Quality
1. Consistency with Regional Plans (Threshold AQ-5).
a. Finding: The Project would be consistent with regional air quality
plans and thus impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b. Supporting Explanation:
Frequency or Severity of Violations
Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, there would not be significant
localized short-term construction or long-term operational impacts due to the Project based on
the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Emissions generated during construction and operation
would not exceed SCAQMD's LST criteria, and therefore, it is unlikely that development of the
Project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations in the
immediate vicinity of the Project. Further, the Project is not projected to result in any
exceedances due to traffic volume increases at nearby intersections. Project operation and
construction is projected to increase regional NOx emissions greater than the SCAQMD
significance threshold but this increase is a very small fraction of the total basin NOx emissions
and would contribute only slightly to ozone formation. The LST analysis demonstrates that the
Project would not cause a localized exceedance of the NO2 standard. Therefore, proposed Project
is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards.
Thus, the Project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. (EIR at 5.4-34
to 35.)
Exceedance of Assumptions in AQMP
The proposed Project would be consistent with the 2007 AQMP as it would satisfy the two key
indicators of consistency identified by the SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook. The proposed Project
would not contribute to the exceedance of an air pollutant concentration standard, as its localized
impacts would be below significance thresholds. Additionally, the Project would not induce
growth or increase the amount of waste generated in the basin. Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with the assumptions in the 2007 AQMP. As a result, the proposed Project would be
consistent with the 2007 AQMP and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.4-34 to
45635.0181715969390.3 10
35.)
E. Greenhouse Gases
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Threshold GHG-2.)
a. Finding: The Project would not conflict with an applicable
greenhouse gas reduction plan, policy, or regulation and thus impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
b. Supporting Explanation: The City does not currently have an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
GHGs, other than the Geology Hazards Implementation Program, GEO 18 (Interagency
Coordination), which states "To reduce the possibility of significant changes in climate and
regional hydrology that could lead to local flooding, support national and international efforts to
protect the Earth's ozone layer, including policy to minimize or prevent the release of
greenhouse gases." As concluded in Impact Statement GHG-1 the proposed Project would not
generate a significant amount of GHGs. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with
the City's Geology Hazards Implementation Program. Further, the proposed Project would
include design features to reduce energy and water consumption and achieve LEEP certification, .
impacts are less than significant in this regard. (EIR at 5.5-27.)
F. Noise
1. Construction-Related Vibration Impacts (Threshold N-2).
a. Findin : Grading and construction associated with the Project
would not result in temporary vibration impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors and impacts
would be less than significant without mitigation.
b. Supporting Explanation: The types of construction vibration
impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when
construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended
periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Table 5.6-9 of the EIR shows
that based on the Federal Transit Administration data, vibration velocities from typical heavy
construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from
0.003 to 0.644 inch-per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of
activity. At 75 .feet from the source of activity, vibration velocities range from 0.001 to 0.124
inch-per-second PPV. With regard to the proposed Project, ground-borne vibration would be
generated primarily during site clearing and grading activities on-site and by off-site haul-truck
travel. The PPV from bulldozer and heavy truck operations is shown to be 0.089 inch-per-second
PPV and 0.076 inch-per-second PPV, respectively, at a distance of 25 feet. As the closest
sensitive receptors are 1,000 feet to the east and each of these values is below the 0.2 inch-per-
second PPV significance threshold, vibration impacts associated with construction would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are required. (EIR at 5.6-23 to 24.)
45635.01817\5969390.3 11
2. Long-Term (Stationary) Noise Impacts (Threshold N-4).
a. Finding: The Project's impact on ambient noise levels would be
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b. Supporting Explanation: The Project would be operational 24
hours per day, 7 days a week and would typically receive waste from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. A second shift from approximately 5:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. (Monday
through Friday) would process recyclable materials and load the remaining waste on to transfer
trucks. Except for the trucks entering and exiting the site and the loading of transfer trucks, all
activities would take place in a fully enclosed building (i.e., the tipping floor). The greatest
amount of activity and noise levels within the Project would occur on the tipping floor inside the
building. As discussed in the EIR, this activity is only barely audible outside of the building
away from openings. The greatest noise levels would be experienced by observers with direct
line of-sight to the openings. The openings to the tipping floor where collection trucks would
enter and exit are located on the west and east sides of the building. The entrance would be
located on the west side of the building near the southwest corner. The exit would be located
along the southern wall near the southeast.corner of the building with the opening facing east.
The nearest off-site use from the openings is the industrial use located across Gladstone Street
approximately 160 feet from the tipping floor exit. The nearest off-site use to the tipping floor
entrance is the industrial use located directly north of the Project. This use is located
approximately 200 feet from the entrance opening. Note that in both cases the closest uses are
located perpendicular to the opening. The noise levels presented in
Table 5.6-13 are representative of an observer directly in line with the opening and observers that
are "off axis" from the opening would experience somewhat lower noise levels. It is difficult to
estimate this "off-axis" reduction but it could be as high as 10 to 15 dBA for these off
axesobservers. The nearest noise sensitive uses, residences, are located approximately 2,300 feet
to the southeast of the proposed MRF/TS southwest of Vincent Avenue and Newburgh Street.
The next nearest residences are located south of Arrow Highway approximately 2,750 feet from
the proposed MRF/TS. There are also residences located 3,250 feet to the east across Jackson
Avenue. There are buildings located between the Project site and all of these residences.
Intervening buildings would act as noise barriers reducing noise levels by approximately 10 to 20
dBA. The closest point of the Santa Fe Dam recreation area is located approximately 2,100 feet
west southwest of the Project site. The Santa Fe Dam structure rises at least 20 feet above the
ground level between the Project and the recreation area and there are intervening buildings.
Intervening buildings would act as noise barriers reducing noise levels by approximately 10 to 20
dBA. Table 5.6-14, Projected Noise Levels From the Azusa MRF/TS Facility at Nearby Uses,
presents the projected noise levels from the tipping floor activities at nearby uses based on the
noise levels presented in Table 5.6-14 and the distances to the receptors. The Noise Ordinance
limits for each area are presented for comparison. Note that the noise levels presented in Table
5.6-14 are representative for an observer on-axis to and with direct line-of-sight of the tipping
floor openings and do not include any reductions from intervening structures or topography or
from observers being off-axis from the opening; including these factors would reduce the
projected noise levels. The Noise Ordinance limit presented is the nighttime limit applicable to
the use at each location. Note that the residential Noise Ordinance limit is presented for the Santa
Fe Damn Recreation Area as well. This standard is not strictly applicable to a park use but it is
45635.01817\5969390.3 12
representative of non-objectionable noise levels for a park use. Table 5.6-14 shows that the
projected noise levels from tipping floor activities would be well below the Noise Ordinance
limits. In many cases the projected levels are 10 dBA or more lower than the limits. Perceptually,
a 10 dBA difference is described as being one half as loud. Noise levels from other activities are
projected to be less than those generated by the tipping floor activities. Therefore, the noise
levels generated on the Project site are not anticipated to exceed the City of Azusa Noise
Ordinance limits (Azusa has the most stringent noise standards) and the Project would not result
in a significant noise impact due to on-site activities. Activities associated with the operation of
the HHWF are not expected to generate considerable noise levels. Residents wishing to dispose
of materials would drive under a covered area where attendants would remove the materials the
resident wish to dispose of and take them into the HHWF building to be processed. The materials
would be hauled from the facility as required during the work week. (EIR at 5.6-32 to 35.)
G. Public Services and Utilities
1. Short-Term Construction (Threshold PSU-1.)
a. Finding: Water demand and wastewater generation during
construction activities would not result in a significant impact and no mitigation is required.
b. Supporting Explanation:
Water Demand
Construction ofthe proposed Project would create a demand for water during the 12 to 14 month
construction period. As discussed the EIR's Project Description (Section 3), construction
activities would include demolition of the existing structures, site grading, paving, and building
construction. More specifically, the construction activities that would create a demand for water
include watering soil for fugitive dust control, adding water to backfill material, spraying
concrete, masonry, painting, and equipment and site clean up, among others. However, Azusa
Light & Water Department (who will be servicing the Project) anticipates it would be able to
accommodate the Project's water demand with existing water supplies. As such, construction
activities would result in a less than significant impact on the existing water supply and
infrastructure. (EIR at 5.7-14.)
Wastewater Generation
During all phases of construction, a private contracted vendor would provide and maintain
portable toilets at the construction site. Typically, one 68-gallon portable toilet is provided for
every ten persons at the construction site. The contracted vendor would empty the portable toilets
once per week and dispose of the waste off-site. Construction personnel would generate a
negligible amount of wastewater. Therefore, no measurable wastewater flows are anticipated and
the existing wastewater capacity would not be constrained during Project construction. In
addition, no disruption of wastewater service is expected to occur as a result of construction
activities. Therefore, construction activities would result in a less than significant impact on
wastewater service and infrastructure. (EIR at 5.7-14 to 15.)
45635.018 M5969390.3 13
2. Water Services (Threshold PSU-2).
a. Finding: The Project would not cause a significant increase in the
demand for water and thus no new entitlements or resources would be required, and impacts
would be less than significant without mitigation.
b. Supporting Explanation: Project implementation would result in a
long-term water demand for operational uses, including restrooms, administrative uses, and
landscaping. Table 5.7-1 of the EIR illustrates a breakdown of the Project's estimated average
total water demands. ALW anticipates it would be able to accommodate the proposed Project's
demand for potable water services in combination with other water demands throughout the City
at Project completion with existing water supplies. No new water facilities or additions to
existing facilities would be required to accommodate the proposed Project. The Azusa General
Plan states that the City has the adequate capacity to serve anticipated growth until 2025, and the
Main Basin (the City's main source of water supply) is expected to have adequate water supply
through 2025. Although the proposed Project would require a Zone Code Change and General
Plan Amendment, the re-designation of land uses would not increase the population at the
Project site (thus, creating a greater water demand) from that analyzed in the Azusa General
Plan. Therefore, overdrafting of groundwater supplies is not anticipated to occur as a result of
Project implementation. Additionally, ALW has indicated that existing water supply and
facilities are adequate to serve proposed Project's demand of 16.48 AF for an average year, and
Project implementation would not require the construction of new water facilities. The Applicant
would be required to contribute fees based on the Project's proportional demand for new
resources, to be calculated by the directory of utilities, per Municipal Code Chapter 78, Utilities,
Article VI, Water, Division 5, System Development Fee. As such, with payment of such fees,
operation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact on water supply. (EIR at
5.7-15 to 16.)
3. Wastewater Services (Threshold PSU-3).
a. Finding: The Project's impact to wastewater services would be less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
b. Supporting Explanation: The Project would generate
approximately 90 percent of the total water demand. This would be 35,681 gallons/day or 24.8
gallons/minute (39,645 [water use in gallons per day] x 0.90). According to the Azusa Sewer
Master Plan, Pipe Nos. 2249 and 2251 (both eight inch pipes) located along Irwindale Avenue
would serve the proposed Project. These two pipelines carry an existing flow of 51 gpm with a
design flow capacity of approximately 227 gpm. Therefore, on an average day, with
implementation of the proposed Project these pipelines would carry a flow of approximately 81
gpm, which is far below the pipelines' capacity of 227 gpm. Thus, the proposed Project would be
accommodated by existing sewer pipelines and would not require additional sewer infrastructure
to serve the Project. Furthermore, the design capacity of the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation
Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant would accommodate the minimal increase in
wastewater generated by the Project. (EIR at 5.7-16 to 17.)
45635.018 t 7\5969390.3 - 14
Overall, the Project would result in an increase of wastewater generation, but not to the
extent that it would constrain the capacity of the existing wastewater infrastructure at the San
Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant. The increase of
wastewater generated on-site that would result from the Project would be accommodated by
existing infrastructure. The proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB, and Azusa Public Works has not noted any
assessment fees or other recommended mitigation measures for the proposed Project. Project
compliance with Azusa Public Works regulations and the City's Municipal Code would ensure
the Project would have less than significant impacts on the existing sewer system. As such,
impacts regarding wastewater associated with Project implementation would be less than
significant. (EIR at 5.7-16 to 17.)
4. Solid Waste (Threshold PS-4).
a. Finding: The Project would comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste and thus impacts would be less than significant
without mitigation. Overall, implementation of recycling measures and development of MRF/TS
facilities would address landfill capacity issues by diverting additional solid waste, both at the
source of generation and through recovery and consolidation. The Project would not hinder or
interfere with applicable solid waste plans and policies. As such,.impacts regarding solid waste
associated with Project implementation would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.7-17 to 19.)
b. Supporting Explanation:
Los Angeles County Countywide Siting Element (CSE). CSE Section 5.4, Alternative Methods
for Extending the Life of Existing Class III Landfills, describes the various measures that could
be used to optimize the use of existing Class III landfills, and thus extend their life. These
measures include the use of alternative maternal for daily cover, among others. The proposed
MRF/TS would be designed to receive, process, and transfer up to 3,800 tpd of solid waste,
including 500 tpd of green waste. The green waste that is recovered could be used for daily cover
in area landfills or composting or soil amendments. Therefore, the Project's proposed green
waste component would be in furtherance of optimizing the use of existing Class III landfills,
and thus extending their lives. The CSE recognizes that as regional landfill facilities close, there
is an increasing need for regional transfer/MRF facilities that are located close to points of waste
generation to efficiently transport solid waste to distant landfill facilities. As recognized by the
County of Los Angeles, one solution to the shortage of permitted solid waste disposal facilities is
the siting or expansion of MRFs, such as proposed by the Project. (EIR at 5.7-17 to 19.)
County of Los Angeles Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan 2008 Annual Report.
The 2008 Annual Report concludes the County would be able to accommodate the Daily
Disposal Demand through the 15-year planning period, provided the jurisdictions in Los Angeles
County continue to expand transfer and processing infrastructure, and maximize waste reduction
and recycling. The Project involves a MRF/TS that would assist the City and County in
achieving higher levels of diversion and facilitate transport to out-of-County landfills.
Additionally, the proposed Project would facilitate recovery of recyclables and green waste,
thereby increasing the City's and County's diversion rate, reducing the County's Daily Disposal
45635.018 M5969390.3 15
Demand, extend the lives of area landfills, and assure that the City and County will be able to
meet the future disposal needs. (EIR at 5.7-17 to 19.)
City of Azusa Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE).
Per the City's SRRE, the City intends to divert, through recycling, the maximum quantity of
recyclable material technically feasible. The City has incorporated a number of recycling
programs for residential, commercial, and industrial uses, which include Materials Recovery
Facility/RMDA (Programs RC-4-1, RC-10-1, and RC-15-1) and Drop-Off Recycling (Program
RC-1-3). The Project involves a MRF/TS and HHWF that would assist the City in achieving the
goals and objectives of the SRRE through implementation of the proposed recycling facilities.
(EIR at 5.7-17 to 19.)
Citv of Azusa Non Disposal Facility Element.
The Nondisposal Facility Element identifies the Nondisposal Facilities to be used by the City in
order to assist in reaching the diversion mandates of Public Resources Code Section 41780. The
Nondisposal Facility Element identified one facility that was located at the Project site:
• BFI Tire Recycling and Proposed Material Recovery Facility (located at the northeast
corner of Gladstone Street and Irwindale Avenue, City of Azusa)—This facility no longer
operates at the Project site. Implementation of the proposed MRF/TS would exceed the
originally projected 600 tons of diversion for this past facility. Thus, Project
implementation would be consistent with the goals set forth in the Nondisposal Facility
Element. (EIR at 5.7-17 to 19.)
5. Fire Protection Services (Threshold PSU-6).
a. Findin : The Project would not result in the need for additional fire
protection facilities and personnel and thus impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
b. Supporting Explanation:
Short-Term Impacts
The proposed Project would construct a MRF/TS and HHWF. Construction of the Project is
anticipated to take 12 to 14 months to complete. Construction activities have the potential to
increase fire hazards on-site. However, LACFD reviews all development Projects and requires
standard conditions of approval to mitigate Project-related impacts in this regard. Specifically,
LACFD addresses fire and life safety requirements for Project construction at the Project's fire
plan check stage. This includes plan review of the design details of the architectural, structural,
mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. All projects are required to comply with
applicable City, County, and State code and ordinance requirements for fire protection. The
LACFD has reviewed the proposed Project and site plans to date, and has not recommended any
mitigation measures for the construction phase(s). Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
(EIR at 5.7-21.)
45635.018M5969390.3 16
Long-Term Impacts
The availability of sufficient on-site water pressure for fire flows is a basic requirement of the
LACFD. Based on correspondence with LACFD, the proposed Project may require fire flows of
up to 5,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a
five-hour duration. Due to the stations' close proximity to the Project site, the response time
from the nearest fire station (Station 48) is approximately 3.2 minutes, and the response time
from Station 32 is approximately seven minutes. At this time, there are not any facilities or
staffing needs at the fire stations that would be required in order to serve the Project site. After
reviewing the proposed Project, LACFD does not anticipate the Project to result in a significant
impact on LACFD fire and emergency protection services, and does not recommend any
mitigation measures to.be incorporated into the Project beyond standard conditions of approval.
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts on fire
services. (EIR at 5.7-21.)
SECTION 3: RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
A. Aesthetics
1. Short-Term Visual Character/Quality (Threshold AES-2).
a. . Finding: The Project impacts on the short-term visual character
and quality of the site and surrounding area will be less than significant with the implementation
of Mitigation Measure AES-1.
AES-1 Concurrent with the Demolition Permit Application, a Construction Management
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Economic and
Community Development. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a
minimum, indicate the equipment and vehicle staging areas, stockpiling of
materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), and haul route.
Construction haul routes shall minimize impacts to sensitive uses in the City. The
Applicant shall implement the Construction Management Plan during Project
Construction.
b. Supporting Explanation: There are no visually sensitive receptors
located in the Project vicinity. The nearest residential uses are the City's southeast
neighborhoods located east of Jackson Avenue. Due to the distance, and intervening structures
and landscaping, these residential uses would not view the Project's construction activities. The
construction-related activities would temporarily influence the character of the Project site, as
viewed from the industrial uses located east, west, and south of the Project site, and motorists
traveling along Gladstone Street and Irwindale Avenue. During Project construction, the various
construction activities would intermittently alter the character of the Project site and its
surroundings. Graded surfaces, construction debris, construction equipment, and truck traffic
would be visible. Additionally, soil would be stockpiled and equipment for grading activities
would be staged at various locations throughout the Project site. Based on the proposed
construction phasing plan, the duration and intensity of Project construction would vary with
45635.01917\5969390.3 17
each stage. Construction-related visual impacts would not be constant over the 14 month
construction period. The demolition and rough grading work would occur over approximately
two months. Most heavy grading equipment would be on-site for the period needed to complete
the demolition and rough grading. The construction phase would involve less heavy equipment
and once a building is completed. Upon completion of construction, these short-term visual
impacts would cease. Given the Project construction activities are temporary and would occur in
an industrial setting, Project construction would not substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Mitigation Measure AES-1 would require
preparation of a Construction Management Plan, which specifies requirements for equipment and
vehicle staging areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque
material), and haul route. Implementation of AES-1 would minimize the visual impacts, as
viewed from the surrounding industrial uses and motorists traveling along Gladstone Street and
Irwindale Avenue. Thus, the Project's construction related impacts to the visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant with implementation of
Mitigation Measure AES-1. (EIR at 5.2-16.)
B. Air Quality
1. Odors (Threshold AQ-3).
a. Findine: Project operations would not creation objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4
and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
AQ-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project applicant shall prepare an Odor
Management Plan (OMP) pursuant to the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 410. The
City Engineer shall verify that the OMP has been approved by the SCAQMD or the
Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) of CalRecycle and verify its implementation prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and during project operations. Any odor
complaints received shall be sent to the City of Azusa City Engineer.
b. Supporting Explanation: The Project would be required to comply
with SCAQMD Rule 410, which establishes odor management practices and requirements to
reduce odors from municipal soiled waste transfer stations and material recovery facilities. For
new facilities, the rule requires that all tipping, sorting, and transfer operations be conducted
within the confines of an enclosure. The rule limits the total area of openings based on the total
surface area of the enclosures exterior walls and sets minimum inward face velocity 100 to 200
feet per minute of air through each opening which air can enter the enclosure. When and how
long enclosure openings can be opened.is also restricted. The rule requires that the facility be
more than 1,000 feet from any,property zoned for residential or mixed use or designated as a site
for a school. The MRF/TS building is being designed with a continuous negative air pressure
system. This system would draw air into the building through the openings and exhaust it
through roof mounted filtering equipment that would treat the outgoing air. The system would
have the capacity to provide six air exchanges every hour and negative pressure per the
requirements of SCAQMD Rule 410 would be maintained at the building openings so that no
untreated air would leave the building. If necessary, an odor neutralizing misting system would
be utilized to mitigate any odors. Further, the interior of the building would include a ceiling
45635.01817\5969390.3 18
mounted water misting system for dust control. If needed, an odor neutralizer may be mixed with
the dust control water for extra odor mitigation as needed. SCAQMD Rule 410 also requires the
facility to develop an Odor Management Plan (OMP) and have the plan approved by the
SCAQMD or the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health, Solid Waste Management
Program of CalRecycle. This plan is required to describe housekeeping activities, such as
sweeping or the use of detergents or odor neutralizing substances, that would be implemented to
minimize odor generation as odors can occur from damp material left on the tipping floor for
any extended period, or from poor clean-up procedures. The tipping floor must be completely
swept or cleared not less than once a week and the transfer tunnel is required to be swept or
cleared not less than once a day. Any open top trucks are required to be covered within 15
minutes of loading and any pre-loaded trucks that would transfer materials the following day are
required to be completely covered with solid material, 18-ounce vinyl tarp, or the equivalent.
Additionally, the plan must describe a protocol for handling especially odiferous loads that could
result in odor complaints if not handled expeditiously when they are received by the facility. The
OMP must also describe a protocol for handling community complaints. The rule requires that
when a complaint is received, a facility representative is required to conduct an odor survey of
the surrounding community as soon as practical within 2 hours after receiving the complaint. The
results of the survey must be recorded in a log describing the odor and odor intensity, weather
conditions, and the source of the odor if it is identifiable. The OMP would be required to
describe a protocol for responding and resolving odor complaints received from the surrounding
community. The facility would be required to post a contact sign indicating a contact phone
number at the facility to call for questions or complaints. If odors are inadvertently generated, the
odor complaint response protocols developed for the OMP required by SCAQMD Rule 410
(refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-4) would ensure that any odor issues are dealt with in a timely
and effective manner. Although odor impacts would be less than significant due to the design
features of the proposed Project, implementation of Mitigation AQ-4 would further reduce
potential odor impacts through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 410. Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4 (OPM per SCAQMD Rule 410), the Project is not
projected to result in a significant odor impact. (EIR at 5.4-29 to 32.)
2. Localized Hot Spots (Threshold AQ-4).
a. Finding: The Project would not result in significant localized CO
emissions or particulate matter concentrations along local roadways serving the Project.
However, impacts from particulate matter concentrations along I-210 could be significant but
would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3.
AQ-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall prepare an
implementation program for the City's approval requiring the use of alternative
fuel vehicles under the following schedule, and consistent with Rule 1193:
a. Waste Management shall convert into alternative fuel vehicles solid waste
collection trucks, and transfer trucks that utilize the Facility and are owned
by Waste Management, its subsidiaries, or affiliated enterprises, according
to the following phase-in schedule:
45635.01817\5969390.3 19
i. By December 31, 2014, at least 70 percent of all aforementioned
vehicles shall be alternative fuel vehicles.
ii. By December 31, 2015, at least 85 percent of all aforementioned
vehicles shall be alternative fuel vehicles.
iii. By December 31, 2016, at least 100 percent of all aforementioned
vehicles shall be alternative fuel vehicles.
b. For the purpose of complying with this mitigation measure, alternative fuel
vehicles shall utilize alternative fuels that are consistent with
recommendations or regulations of CARB and SCAQMD Rule 1193.
C. Off-road equipment for on-site operations shall use model 2011 or later
diesel equipment that are fully compliant with Tier 4 emissions standards.
The Applicant shall implement the implementation plan and submit proof of
compliance for each of the milestones listed above by the designated date.
b. Supporting Explanation:
CO Hotspots
The most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. CO modeling was performed for the 2003
AQMP to demonstrate attainment of the Federal CO standards in the South Coast Air Basin.
Modeling was performed for four intersections considered the worst-case intersections in the
South Coast Air Basin. These intersections included; Wilshire at Veteran, Sunset at Highland, La
Cienega at Century, and Long Beach at Imperial. Table 4-10 of Appendix V of the 2003 AQMP
shows that modeled 1-hour average concentrations at these four intersections for 2002 conditions
are actually below the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. The highest modeled 1-hour average
concentration of 4.6 ppm occurred at the Wilshire and Veteran intersection. None of the
intersections in the Project area have peak hour traffic volumes that exceed those at the
intersections modeled in the 2003 AQMP nor do they have any geometric qualities that would
result in higher concentrations than for the intersections modeled. Generally, only intersections
operating at LOS of D or worse are considered to have the potential to cause CO concentrations
to exceed the State ambient air quality standards of 20 ppm for a 1-hour averaging time and 9
ppm for an 8-hour averaging time. The traffic study prepared for the Project shows that 12
intersections are projected to have a LOS of D or worse in 2035 with the Project. The Caltrans
CO Protocol states that traffic volume increases of less than 2 percent would not substantially
affect CO concentrations. Of the 12 intersections projected to have a LOS of D or worse, the
Project would increase peak hour traffic volumes by more than two percent at the following four
intersections:
• Irwindale Avenue at 1-210 eastbound ramps;
• Irwindale Avenue at 1 st Street;
• Irwindale Avenue at Gladstone Street; and
• Vincent Avenue at Gladstone Street.
45635.01817\5969390.3 20
Transfer and collection trucks emit about 2.8 times more CO per mile than passenger vehicles.
Therefore, to assess the Project's potential impact on CO concentrations near these intersections,
peak hour traffic volumes were computed by adding the no project peak hour volumes plus the
employee vehicles plus 2.8 times the number of trucks. Traffic volumes at these intersections (as
well as the seven other intersections) are not projected to exceed the traffic volumes of the four
worst-case intersections in the Basin either on a per lane basis or total traffic. Further, these
intersections do not have any characteristics that would result in higher CO concentrations than
the worst-case intersections. Therefore, an exceedance of the CO air quality standard would not
be expected at any of these intersections and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.4-
32 to 34.)
Particulate Hot Spots
Roads with substantial diesel truck volumes have the potential to result in particulate hot spots.
The proposed Project would add approximately 700 additional diesel truck trips on Irwindale
Boulevard (north of Arrow Highway) and the total would be much less than the 10,000 required
for a potential hotspot impact. On I-210 there are approximately 14,000 daily non-Project related
diesel truck trips projected for the opening year of the. Project and approximately 16,000
projected for 2035. The proposed Project would add approximately 220 diesel trucks on I-210
west of Irwindale Boulevard and approximately 470 east of Irwindale Boulevard. This represents
an increase of up to 3.6 percent of daily diesel trucks on I-210 during the opening year and an
increase of up to 3.2 percent for 2035. The Project's trucks could considerably increase
particulate matter concentrations along I-210 and result in a significant impact. As discussed in
more detail in the EIR, there is no reliable and accurate method for quantitatively assessing
particulate hotspots. The Project is not anticipated to cause or significantly contribute to any CO
or particulate matter concentrations exceeding the AAQS along local roadways serving the
Project. Without mitigation, the Project would potentially result in considerable increases of
particulate matter concentrations along 1-210 and result in a significant impact. Additionally,
implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 requires that vehicles accessing the Project site
adhere to the latest CARB emissions regulations as well as the use of alternative fueled vehicles.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would require the use of current model year
vehicles and alternative fuel vehicles and would reduce hotspot impacts to a less than significant
level. (EIR at 5.4-33 to 34.)
C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Threshold GHG-1).
a. Finding: Greenhouse gas emissions generated by the Project would
not have a significant impact on global climate change and no mitigation beyond Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 are required to reduce global climate change impacts to less
than significant levels.
AQ-1 The following measures shall be implemented during construction to substantially
reduce NOX related emissions. They shall be included in the Grading Plan,
Building Plans, and specifications. Reductions in particulate emissions shall also
be realized from the implementation of these measures as well as AQ-2 and AQ-
3.
45635.0181715969390.3 21 .
• Off-road diesel equipment operators shall be required to shut down their engines
rather than idle for more than five minutes, and shall ensure that all off-road
equipment is compliant with the CARB in-use off-road diesel vehicle regulation
and SCAQMD Rule 2449.
• The following note shall be included on all grading plans: "During construction
activity, the contractor shall utilize California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier
II certified equipment or better for all on-site construction equipment to meet
EPA. Tier 2 or higher emissions standards according to the following:
o Thru December 31, 2011: All off-road diesel-powered construction
equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 2 off-road emissions
standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with
the BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used
by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than
what could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control
strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014: All off-road diesel powered
construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 off-road
emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be
outfitted with the BACT devices certified by GARB. Any emissions
control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions
that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions
control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB
regulations.
o Post-January 1, 2015: If applicable, all off-road diesel-powered
construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission
standards where available and commercially feasible.
o A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation,
and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided to the City at
the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
• The contractor and applicant, if the applicant's equipment is used, shall maintain
construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned and regularly serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
• Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. This is required by
SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2.
• Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when available. This measure
would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators.
• Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
• Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes and provide temporary traffic
controls such as a flag person during all phases of construction when needed to
maintain smooth traffic flow. Construction shall be planned so that lane closures
on existing streets are kept to a minimum.
• Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours to the best
extent when possible.
AQ-2 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the City Engineer and the Chief Building
45635.01817\5969390.3 22
Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and specifications
stipulate that, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District
Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular
watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District's Rules and Regulations. In addition, South Coast
Air Quality Management ,District Rule 402 requires implementation of dust
suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site.
The following measures shall be implemented to reduce short-term fugitive dust
impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:
• All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive
amounts of dust;
• On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; All on-site roads shall
be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized;
• All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust; watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least
twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day;
• Visible dust beyond the property line which emanates from the Project shall be
prevented;
• All material transported off-site shall be sufficiently watered and securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and
• All delivery truck tires shall be watered down and scraped down prior to
departing the job site.
AQ-3 See supra.
b. Supporting Explanation:
Construction Emissions
Non CO2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions represent a small percentage (approximately 4
percent) of the total construction equipment GHG emissions and would not represent a
significant source of GHG emissions generated by the Project. Therefore, non CO2 construction
GHG emissions were not quantified in the analysis. CO2 emissions during construction of the
Project were calculated and are presented in Table 5.5-1 in the EIR. For each construction
activity the daily CO2 emissions are-presented along with the number of days of the activity and
the total CO2 emissions from each activity. Note that no activities associated with the
construction or operation of the Project would be expected to generate fluorocarbon emissions;
therefore, emissions from HFC, PFC, and S176 are not included in the emissions estimates. The
total emissions for all construction activities are presented along with the Project's lifetime
amortized emissions. The SCAQMD GHG guidance recommends that construction emissions be
amortized over a 30-year Project lifetime and added to the operational emissions to determine
significance. Therefore, the amortized construction emissions have been added to the operational
emissions presented under Operational Emissions (below). (EIR at 5.5-15 to 16.)
Operational Emissions
The primary source of emissions associated with the operation of the Project would occur from
vehicles including collection trucks, transfer trucks, landscaper trucks and employee vehicles.
4 563 5.0181715 9 693 90.3 23
Additional emissions would result from the on-site operation of equipment, and on-site area
sources. It is important to note that, rather than create any new collection truck trips, the Project
would change the distances that existing collection trucks would travel in the region to dispose
and process waste materials which is, and will be, required irrespective of the proposed Project.
Thus, not all the GHG emissions assumed to be generated by the Project are new emissions
which would contribute to a net increase in overall global GHG emissions. Further, without the
Project, some of the trucks that would utilize the Project site would instead use other
transfer/recovery facilities and those materials would then need to be delivered to their final
destination. Emission factors used to estimate emissions of the Project were derived for each
vehicle type using EMFAC2007. EMFAC2007 is a program published by CARB to estimate
regional on-road vehicle emissions. The most notable GHGs are N2O, CH4 and CO2. The
EMFAC2007 model only reports CO2 and CH4 emissions. For many sources, emission rates for
N2O are not available and they appear to be minuscule accounting less than approximately 0.1
percent of the CO2 equivalent (CO2eq) from motor vehicles. As a result, N2O.emissions from
on-road vehicles were not included in the analysis. Table 5.5-4 and Table 5.5-6 show that the
Project is projected to result in a net increase of 7,828 MTCO2eq per year under opening
conditions, and 9,210 MTCO2eq per year under buildout conditions, respectively. These
increases are, in part, due to collection and transfer truck trips already occurring in the region but
which would be expected to utilize the Project site rather than another TS/MRF. The EIR
nevertheless conservatively assumes the Project would result in such net increases. The increases
are less than the 10,000 MTCO2eq per year screening threshold for industrial projects suggested
by SCAQMD. Because many of the assumed GHG emissions would not be new global GHG
emissions, and because the assumed increases are less than the SCAQMD's threshold of
significance for stationary industrial sources, the Project is not projected to result, directly or
indirectly, in a significant GHG/climate change impact on the environment and no additional
mitigation measures beyond the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 thru AQ-3 (for
air quality impacts) are required. (EIR at 5.51-15 to 27.)
Table 5.5-7, Comparison of Project Net Emissions With Global Emissions, compares the
assumed increase in GHG emissions due to the Project with the total emissions for the State of
California, the United States, and the world. This comparison shows that the Project represents a
very small fraction of the total GHG emissions even if they are assumed to be all new trips. The
emissions generated by this Project would contribute a miniscule amount to the overall climate
change issue. By way of comparison, the global data from the United Nations14 indicates that
the net increase due to the Project would contribute approximately 0.000028 percent to the GHG
burden-for the planet. The additive effect of this amount GHG would not result in a reasonably
foreseeable significant adverse impact on global climate change. Additionally, the Project
Applicant has committed to having the facility LEED Certified upon completion of construction.
Additionally, the proposed Project would incorporate several design features that are consistent
with emissions strategies suggested by CARB in their Potential Performance Standards and
Measures, and from the California Office of the Attorney General's recommended measures to
reduce GHG emissions. A list of these measures and the Project's compliance with each
applicable measure is presented in Table 5.5-8, Project Consistency with GHG Emissions
Reduction Strategies. (EIR at 5.51-15 to 27.) On the basis of the above analysis, it is therefore
concluded that the Project's impact would be less than significant.
45635.0181755969390.3 24
D. . Noise
1. Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts (Threshold N-1).
a. Finding: Grading and construction within the Project site would
not result in temporary noise impacts to nearby noise receptors with the implementation of
Mitigation Measure N-1 and thus impacts would be less than significant.
N-1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Project shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction
of the City of Azusa Community Development Department that the Project
complies with the following:
• Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or
mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers
and other State required noise attenuation devices.
• Prior to issuance of each Grading or Building Permit, the Applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official how
construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment,
installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise
sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging
areas and occupied residential areas, and electric air compressors and similar
power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used where feasible.
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
b. Supporting Explanation:
Construction Noise
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by
construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable
generators can reach high levels. Heavy grading and demolition equipment typically generate the
greatest construction noise levels. The proposed Project's demolition, grading, and construction
activities would utilize typical construction equipment with graders, scrapers, tractors, trucks,
and loaders generating the greatest noise levels. Demolition and removal of the existing facilities
is anticipated to take one month to complete. Site grading for the MRF/TS is anticipated to take
three weeks to complete. The closest residential uses to construction activities associated with
the Project are the homes located at the northeast corner of Gladstone Street and Jackson
Avenue. These homes are located approximately 1,000 feet from the HHWF. At a distance of
1,000 feet, construction equipment noise levels would be 26 dBA lower than the levels shown in
Table 5.6-8 due solely to the distance from the Project. Intervening buildings would act as noise
barriers reducing noise levels by an additional 10 to 20 dBA. Noise levels due to construction of
the HHWF would not typically be expected to exceed 54 dBA, but could occasionally reach as
high as 60 dBA at these residences. Average noise levels would be expected to be 5 to 10 dBA
lower. Therefore, noise levels generated by construction at the HHWF would not exceed the City
of Azusa Noise Ordinance at these homes. Additional homes are located approximately 1,400
feet south of the Project at the southeast corner of Vincent Avenue and Newburgh Street. These
homes are part of unincorporated Los Angeles County. The Project does not propose conducting
45635.01817\5969390.3 25 .
noise generating construction activities during the hours prohibited by the County's Municipal
Code (7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time Sundays or Holidays).
Further, noise levels generated by construction would be 29 dBA lower than the levels shown in
Table 5.6-8 due solely to the distance from the Project. Intervening buildings would act as noise
barriers reducing noise levels by an additional 10 to 20 dBA. Noise levels due to construction of
the HHWF would not typically be expected to exceed 51 dBA, but could occasionally reach as
high as 57 dBA. This maximum on-site level would be less than the County's 80 dBA criteria for
mobile equipment and 65 dBA criteria for stationary equipment. The next nearest noise sensitive
uses to the MRF/TS are residences located approximately 2,300 feet to the southeast. The next
nearest residences are located south of Arrow Highway approximately 2,750 feet from the
Project site. Residences.are also located 3,250 feet to the east across Jackson Avenue. There are
industrial buildings located between the Project site and all of these residences. Noise levels at
the homes would be at least 33 dBA lower than those shown in Table 5.6-8 due solely to the
distance from the Project. Intervening buildings would act as noise barriers reducing noise levels
by an additional 10 to 20 dBA. Construction of the Project would likely not be audible at these
homes and would not begin to approach the limits defined in the Azusa's Noise Ordinance
(which is more stringent than the City of Irwindale). Therefore, construction of the proposed
Project would not result in any significant noise impacts to residences. As described above,
construction of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant short-term noise
impact. All noise generating c6nstruction activities would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure
N-1 would reduce short-term construction noise impacts by requiring mobile equipment to be
muffled and requiring best management practices for hauling activities in order to minimize
construction related noise. Construction noise impacts would cease upon completion of the
construction phase. Although less than significant, measures would be implemented to ensure
construction related noise impacts remain less than significant to the nearest residential areas.
(EIR at 5.6-20 to 23.)
2. Long-Term (Mobile) Noise Impacts (Threshold N-3.)
a. Finding: The impact traffic noise in the area from on-site traffic
generated by the Project would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure N-2. The Project would not result in a significant off-site traffic noise impact and no
mitigation is required.
N-2 Prior to issuance of building permits an acoustical study shall be prepared and
submitted to the City that demonstrates that the specific building design and
materials of the MRF/TS offices (e.g., upgraded windows and insulation, etc.)
will ensure that they will not experience interior noise levels greater than 45
CNEL due to traffic on Gladstone Street. The study shall be prepared by a
qualified acoustical engineer and quantify the noise level impacting the building
face, the noise reduction provided by the building design, and any upgrades that
are required to meet the standard. Any required upgrades shall be incorporated
into the architectural drawings for the project.
4 563 5.01817159693 90.3 26
b. Supporting Explanation:
Traffic Noise Impacts. As depicted in Table 5.6-10 through Table 5.6,12, the proposed Project
would cause potentially significant traffic noise level increases along Irwindale Avenue (between
Gladstone Street and I-210), and along Gladstone Street (east of Irwindale Avenue and west of
Vincent Avenue). There are only commercial land uses (industrial and retail) located along
Irwindale Avenue between Gladstone Street and I-210 and Gladstone Street east of Irwindale
Avenue and west of Vincent Avenue. Traffic noise levels along these segments would not be
expected to generate excessive noise levels for these types of uses, including within the inside of
the businesses and therefore, they would not be significantly impacted by the Project. The
Project would not result in a significant off-site traffic noise impact and no mitigation measures
are required. (EIR at 5.6-24 to 31.)
On-Site Traffic Noise Impacts
The only on-site and potentially noise sensitive use (i.e. use with a City noise standard) are the
MRF/TS offices, which would be located approximately 77 feet from the centerline of Gladstone
Street. Based on the noise levels presented in Table 5.6-10 and Table 5.6-11, the office use
would be exposed to a traffic noise level of approximately 72 CNEL. Therefore, the building
would need to provide at least 27 dB of outdoor-to-indoor of noise reduction. Typical
construction receives at least 20 dB of reduction and construction meeting Title 24 energy
efficiency requirements often achieves around 25 dB of outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction. A
building with upgraded windows should be able to achieve the required 27 dB of reduction.
Calculations based on architectural drawings for the building are required to demonstrate more
than 20 dB of outdoor-to-indoor reduction. At this time the final design for the building has not
been determined. According to Section 88.31-020 (Noise Standards) of City of Azusa Municipal
Code, the noise standard for indoor office spaces is 45 dBA; refer to Table 5.6-7. Therefore, to
ensure that the office use is not significantly impacted by noise, the offices shall be constructed
to ensure interior noise levels no greater than 45 dBA are achieved. A noise study would be
required prior to issuance of building permits to ensure how the office construction would meet
this performance standard through, for example, building materials including double pane
windows. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2, on-site noise impacts would be less
than significant. (EIR at 5.6-24 to 31.)
E. Public Services and Utilities
1. Police Protection Services (Threshold PSU-5).
a. Findin>?: The Project would not result in the need for additional
police services (facilities and personnel) to accommodate any demands arising from short-term
construction-related activities and impacts will be less than significant. Long-term impacts from
the Project will be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure PSU-1.
PSU-1 The Applicant shall incorporate safety and security conditions specified by
the Azusa Police Department regarding issues including, but not limited
to, perimeter walls, parking requirements, fire lanes, traffic specifications,
surveillance cameras, lighting systems, and pedestrian crossings. The
incorporation of specified conditions in building plans and specifications
45635.01817\5969390.3 27
shall be verified by the Azusa Police Department prior to issuance of a
building permit.
b. Supporting Explanation:
Short-Term Impacts
During the construction of the proposed Project, police service requirements on the Project site
have the potential to increase over existing demands as a result of both increased persons and the
presence of buildings and equipment on the Project site. The daytime population would increase
due to the presence of construction workers on the Project site. There is a potential for increased
calls for service to the Project site as a result of the increased number of persons at the Project
site. Due to the presence of building materials, construction and related temporary office
buildings, the potential for vandalism and theft is also greater; thereby, increasing the Azusa
Police Department's calls for service demands for emergency services. However, The Azusa
Police Department has indicated that calls for police service can be accommodated by existing
staff levels; thus police staffing levels would remain the same, resulting in less than significant
impacts. Slow-moving construction related traffic on adjacent roadways could reduce optimal
traffic flows and could impact police services by delaying emergency vehicles traveling through
the area. Potential traffic impacts would be short-term, however, and would cease upon Project
completion. Construction-related traffic would not result in a significant impact on police
services or traffic flows. Therefore, short-term construction-related police impacts would be less
than significant. (EIR at 5.7-19 to 20.)
Lone-Term Impacts
While the proposed Project would not directly induce population growth, the proposed Project
would generate employment within the City. The Project would provide 75 jobs at full capacity,
which is 65 more jobs than provided at the former tire reclamation facility which previously
occupied the Project site. It should be noted that given the high unemployment rate that exists in
the region, 65 additional jobs would easily be absorbed by existing housing units in the area and
would not result in substantial growth in the City. As service level needs increase due to
increased population or other factors affecting the community, the City would determine whether
or not additional police staff is needed. The Azusa Police Department has indicated that
implementation of the proposed Project would not require the expansion of police facilities or
services, and that adequate services exist to serve the Project site. However, in order to ensure
employee and visitor safety at the Project site as well as overall site security, the Applicant
would be required to adhere to specific conditions related to safety and security specified by the
Azusa Police Department, such as perimeter walls, parking requirements, fire lanes, traffic
specifications, surveillance cameras, lighting systems, and pedestrian crossings (Mitigation
Measure PSU-1). Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure PSU-1, impacts in
this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels. (EIR at 5.7-20.)
F. Cultural Resources
1. Archaeological Resources(Threshold CUL-1).
a. Findine: The Project's impacts on archaeological resources would
be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1.
4563 .01817\5969390.3 28
CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground-disturbing
activities, construction activities (e.g., grading, grubbing, or vegetation
clearing) shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of the discovery. An
archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualifications Standards (Secretary of the Interior 1983) shall be retained
to evaluate the find's significance under CEQA. If the discovery proves to
be significant, additional work to preserve the find, such as data recovery
excavation, shall be recommended by the archaeologist, in consultation
with the Director of Economic and Community Development, and
implemented by the Applicant.
b. Supporting Explanation: Two studies were previously conducted
in the Project area. It was determined that there were no archaeological resources occurring at
the Project site. However, the proposed Project does have the potential to impact previously
unrecorded cultural resources during ground disturbances. In the event that cultural resources are
exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities would be halted in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery. An archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards (Secretary of the Interior 1983) would be retained to
evaluate the find's significance under CEQA. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional
work, such as data recovery excavation, would be recommended by the archaeologist, in
consultation with. the City, and implemented by the Applicant (Mitigation Measure CUL-1).
Therefore, in the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project construction
activities, the Project would be required to adhere to Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Impacts to
archaeological resources would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation.
(EIR at 5.8-7 to 8.)
2. Paleontological Resources (Threshold CUL-2).
a. Finding: The Project's impact on paleontological resources would
be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2.
CUL-2 In the event that any prehistoric, historic, or paleontological resources are
discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities, all work
within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the developer shall
consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to assess the
significance of the find. If any finds are determined to be significant by the
qualified archaeologist, then representatives from the City of Azusa and
the qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist shall meet to determine
the appropriate course of action by the Applicant necessary to recover and
preserve the find.
b. Supporting Explanation: Based on the Azusa General Plan EIR,
certain rock units are present within the City. These include Mesozoic plutonic rocks,
Quartemary terrestrial sediments, and Tertiary marine sediments. These rock units include
formations that have been known to contain fossilferous materials, including remains of marine
mammals. Although the Azusa General Plan and the Azusa General Plan EIR do not note any
45635.0181759693903 29
locations of paleontological resources within the City, the Azusa General Plan includes
Implementation Program HR2 which identifies the following:
"...In the event that any prehistoric, historic, or paleontological
resources are discovered during construction related earth-moving
activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted
and the developer shall consult with a qualified archaeologist or
paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. If any finds are
determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, then
representatives from the City of Azusa and the qualified
archaeologist and/or paleontologist shall meet to determine the
appropriate course of action..."
Adherence to Implementation Program Historic Resources 2 (HR2) and recommended
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce any potential impacts to paleontological uses to less
than significant levels. Further, given that the Project site has been previously disturbed with the
construction of structures and related infrastructure, it is not anticipated that Project construction
activities would uncover unknown potential for paleontological resources within the Project site.
Impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels upon implementation of Mitigation
Measure CUL-2. (EIR at 5.8-8 to 9.)
3. Burial Sites (Threshold CUL-3).
a. Finding: The Project's impacts on burial sites would be less than
significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3.
CUL-3 If construction activities result in the discovery of human remains during
ground disturbances, State of California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 shall be implemented. This code section states that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination
of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County
Coroner shall be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains
are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission, which shall determine and notify a Most
Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the
site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal
and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with
Native American burials. Such human remains and associated items will
be treated as recommended by the MLD.
b. Supporting Explanation: Although there are no known Native
American burial sites occurring at the Project site, the proposed Project does have the potential to
impact previously unrecorded human remains during ground disturbances. In the event cultural
resources or human remains are discovered during Project construction activities, the Project
would be required to adhere to Mitigation Measure CUL-3. (EIR at 5.8-9 to 10.)
45635.01817\5969390.3 30
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Threshold HAZ-1).
a. Finding: Short-term construction activities of the Project could
create a hazard to the public or the environment through accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials, but impacts would be less than significant with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1,HAZ-2, HAZ-3,HAZ-4, and HAZ-5.
HAZ-1 Prior to demolition and/or rehabilitation activities, an asbestos survey shall
be conducted by an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act(AHERA)
and Cal OSHA certified building inspector to determine the presence or
absence of asbestos containing-materials (ACMs). If ACMs are located,
abatement of asbestos shall be completed prior to any activities that would
disturb ACMs or create an airborne asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal
shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment contractor in
accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 1403.
HAZ-2 If paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically)
during demolition of the structures, the paint waste shall be evaluated
independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental
Professional. If lead-based paint is found, abatement shall be completed by
a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any activities that would create lead
dust or fume hazard. Lead-based paint removal and disposal shall be
performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8,
Section 1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure monitoring and
respiratory protection, and mandates good worker practices by workers
exposed to lead. Contractors performing lead-based paint removal shall
provide evidence of abatement activities to the City Project Engineer.
HAZ-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall determine
whether or not underground storage tanks (USTs) are present within the
western portion of the project site. Should USTs be present on-site, the
Applicant shall obtain appropriate permits from the County of Los
Angeles Department of Public Works and County of Los Angeles Health
Hazardous Materials Division, per the Environmental Programs Division
and the Underground Storage Tank Program, and remove the USTs. UST
closure by removal shall comply with the closure conditions as directed on
the Closure Permit as well as meet the requirements of California Health
and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.7, Section 25298, California Code
of Regulations Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16, Sections 2670 through
2672, and the Los Angeles County Code. The Applicant shall conduct
soil/groundwater testing, as requested by the Health Hazardous Materials
Division. Should contamination be present above regulatory thresholds,
then the Applicant shall remediate appropriately (e.g., soil removal and
proper disposal, soil vapor extraction, in situ, on-site, ex situ, etc.), as
45635.01817\5969390.3 31
required by the Health Hazardous Materials Division. Should the Health
Hazardous Materials Division refer the case to any other regulatory
agency (e.g., the Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional
Water Quality Control Board, etc), then the Applicant shall comply with
that said agency as well.
HAZ-4 If groundwater is encountered during construction, sampling shall be
conducted by a qualified hazardous materials specialist with Phase II/Site
Characterization experience in order to ensure that worker safety is not
compromised. In the event that groundwater contamination is above
acceptable regulatory thresholds, then the Applicant shall prepare and
implement a Worker Safety Plan, approved by the County of Los Angeles
Health Hazardous Materials Division, that outlines safety precautions
(e.g., utilization of protection equipment, specific training prior to
commencing work, verification of safety requirements during
construction, etc.) that minimize potential exposure to workers.
HAZ-5 If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction
by the contractor that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials,
the contractor shall comply with the following:
• Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant,
and remove workers and the public from the area;
• Notify the City Engineer of the City of Azusa;
• Secure the area as directed by the City Engineer; and
• Notify the County of Los Angeles Health Hazardous Materials
Division's Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator (or other
appropriate agency specified by the County of Los Angeles Health
Hazardous Materials Division). The Hazardous Waste/Materials
Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further actions that
shall be taken, if required, and the applicant will implement all further
actions so specified.
b. Supporting Explanation:
Structural Demolition
Existing structures would be demolished prior to construction of new buildings. Demolition of
structures could expose construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances such as
asbestos containing materials (ACMs) or lead-based paints (LBPs). Given the age of the on-site
buildings (constructed prior to 1978), it is likely that these buildings could contain LBPs and/or
ACMs. As a result, construction workers and the public could be exposed. The National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) mandates that building owners
conduct an asbestos survey to determine the presence of ACMs prior to the commencement of
any remedial work, including demolition (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1). If ACM material is
found, abatement of asbestos would be required prior to any demolition activities. If paint is
separated from building materials (chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures,
the paint waste would be required to be evaluated independently from the building material by a
45635.01817\5969390.3 32
qualified Environmental Professional (HAZ-2). If lead-based paint is found, abatement would be
required to be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any demolition activities.
Compliance with Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, as well as SCAQMD Rule 1403
would reduce potential impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. (EIR at 5.9-14 to
15.)
Underground Storage Tanks
Four unpermitted Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) associated with the storage of asphalt oil
(used for the production of asphalt paving material) were observed at the site during a routine
inspection conducted on April 7, 2003. The proposed Project would be required to comply with
the Health Hazard Management Division's (HHMD) Underground Storage Tank Program,
including obtaining the appropriate permit(s) for UST removal (Mitigation Measure HAZ-3).
When a UST is closed, the owner must submit soil/groundwater testing results to rule out the
presence of regulated hazardous materials with a closure letter. Upon implementation of HAZ-3,
the Applicant would also be required to confirm that the removed USTs have not contaminated
groundwater. If groundwater contamination, as a result of the removed USTs, is present above
regulatory thresholds, then the Applicant would be required to remediate the groundwater
appropriately (e.g., soil removal and proper disposal, soil vapor extraction, in situ, on-site, ex
situ, etc.), as required by the HHMD. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure
HAZ-3, potential accidental conditions during construction, as a result of the removal of USTs,
would be reduced to less than significant levels. (EIR at 5.9-15.)
Groundwater Contamination
The San Gabriel Valley and San Gabriel Valley (Area 2) properties have reported the presence of
VOCs at or greater than the MCLs. Noted contaminants include: carbon tetrachloride, PCE,
TCE, and other chlorinated solvents. According to the PHMAR, perchlorate, PCE, and TCE in
the groundwater extend under the western portion of the Project site. Reported concentrations of
perchlorate, PCE, and TCE are approximately 5 to 6 µg/1 beneath the western portion of the
Project site. However, due to the depth to groundwater (approximately 172 feet or more bgs), it
is unlikely that worker safety during construction would be compromised as a result of the
underlying groundwater conditions. In the event that groundwater is encountered during
construction, it is not likely that workers would encounter a health hazard since the reported
contamination concentrations near the site are at levels that are acceptable for drinking water.
Although not likely to pose a health hazard, if groundwater is encountered during construction,
sampling would be required to be conducted to ensure that worker safety is not compromised
(Mitigation Measure HAZA). In the event that groundwater contamination is above acceptable
regulatory thresholds, the Applicant would be required to prepare a Worker Safety Plan,
approved by the HHMD, which would outline safety precautions (e.g., utilization of protection
equipment, specific training prior to commencing work, verification of safety requirements
during construction, etc.) that would minimize potential exposure to workers. Therefore,
potential accidental conditions during construction resulting from the existing groundwater
contamination would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.9-15.)
In sum, remediation activities could expose workers to a variety of potentially hazardous
materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would reduce
potential impacts from site disturbance activities that would result in accidental conditions at the
45635.01817\5969390.3 33
Project site. Moreover, if groundwater is encountered during construction, sampling would be
required to be conducted to ensure that worker safety is not compromised as set forth in
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4. Also, if unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered
during construction by the contractor, which he/she believes may involve hazardous
wastes/materials, the contractor would be required to complete Mitigation Measure HAZ-5.
(EIR at 5.9-16 to 17.) Therefore, the impacts of the Project would be less than significant.
2. Long-Term Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials (Threshold
HAZ-2).
a. Findine: Operations of the Project may create a significant hazards
to the public or the environment through accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials, but impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance with the implementation of
Mitigation Measure HAZ-6.
HAZ-6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate
compliance with land use regulations specified by CalRecycle in Title 27,
Division 2, Chapter 3, Subchapter 5, Article 2, Section 21190, California
Integrated Waste Management Board — Postclosure Land Use standards
as follows:
• All on-site construction within 1,000 feet of the boundary of any
disposal area shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
following, or in accordance with an equivalent design which will
prevent gas migration into the building, unless an exemption has been
issued:
o A geomembrane or equivalent system with low permeability to
landfill gas shall be installed between the concrete floor slab of the
building and subgrade;
o A permeable layer of open graded material of clean aggregate with
a minimum thickness of 12 inches shall be installed between the
geomembrane and the subgrade or slab;
o A geotextile filter shall be utilized to prevent the introduction of
fines into the permeable layer;
o Perforated venting pipes shall be installed within the permeable
layer, and shall be designed to operate without clogging;
o The venting pipe shall be constructed with the ability to be
connected to an induced draft exhaust system;
o Automatic methane gas sensors shall be installed within the
permeable gas layer, and inside the building to trigger an audible
alarm when methane gas concentrations are detected; and
o Periodic methane gas monitoring shall be conducted inside all
buildings and underground utilities.
b. Supporting Explanation: Input to the MRF/TS would consist of
various materials including source separated and non-source separated materials such as single
stream curbside recyclables, separated cardboard loads, mixed residential, office, and
45635.01 S 17\5969390.3 34
commercial loads with high recyclable content, and other mixed waste loads. Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) would be transferred to semi-trailer transfer trucks and delivered to El Sobrante
Landfill in Corona, California. Green waste would be transferred to semi-trailer transfer trucks
for final processing at another location. Recyclable materials would be sorted on-site and
delivered to processing facilities for each type of waste. The HHWF would be available to area
residents for the safe drop-off and disposal of household hazardous waste (e.g., e-waste,
universal waste, etc.). Hazardous wastes would be prohibited at the proposed MRF/TS. The
unloading and processing areas would be continuously monitored for hazardous, toxic or
infectious wastes, and unacceptable e-wastes. Loads would be visually scanned during the floor
sorting process and load would be selected daily at random for further inspection. The Project
does not propose to receive, process, or transfer hazardous wastes at the MRF/TS, pursuant to
California Code of Regulations Sections 14 17407.5 and 17408.2. Notwithstanding, the potential
exists for hazardous wastes to be present in the waste stream that is received at the MRF/TS. In
the event hazardous wastes are discovered, they would be transferred by a licensed hauler to a
permitted disposal facility. Typical incidents that could result in the accidental release of
hazardous materials during MRF sorting operations may include accidental spills. The HHWF
would be permitted to process household hazardous waste. The household hazardous waste
would be sorted, aggregated, and shipped off-site for proper treatment. The potential exists for
accidental release of hazardous materials to occur during these processes. Therefore, operations
at the proposed HHWF could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. With the implementation of existing Federal, State, and local
regulations pertaining to hazardous materials handling and storage, impacts from reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions during the Project's long-term operations would be
less than significant. (EIR at 5.9-17 to 18.)
Potential Impacts Pertaining to Hazardous Materials Transport
Transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or
explosion. Accidental releases would most likely occur along transport routes leading to and
from the Project site. The City's street setback requirements minimize the direct damage that
may occur from transportation-related hazardous waste spills. Additionally, the DOT Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous
materials, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and implemented by Title
13 of the CCR. Appropriate documentation would be provided for all hazardous waste that are
transported during operations of the Project, as required for compliance with existing hazardous
materials regulations. Compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws related to the
transportation of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents
during transit, thereby ensuring that a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
(EIR at 5.9-17 to 19.)
Vapor Intrusion from Contaminated Groundwater
The intrusion of subsurface vapors into buildings is one of many exposure pathways that must be
considered in assessing the risk posed by releases of hazardous chemicals into the environment.
According to the PHMAR, perchlorate, PCE, and TCE in the.groundwater extend under the
western portion of the Project site as a result of the off-site San Gabriel Valley and San Gabriel
Valley (Area 2). Reported concentrations of perchlorate, PCE, and TCE are approximately 5 to 6
45635.018175969390.3 35
µg/l beneath the western portion of the Project site. These contaminates in the subsurface,
whether in groundwater, can migrate upward through the soil and enter into buildings, causing an
unacceptable chemical exposure for building occupants. Also, the historic landfill could result in
vapor intrusion into proposed on-site structures. Due to the depth to groundwater(approximately
172 feet or more bgs), it is unlikely that long-term worker safety would be compromised as a
result of vapor encroachment from the underlying contaminated groundwater. However, vapor
intrusion could occur as a result of the historic landfill. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
HAZ-6 would ensure that soil vapor conditions, if present, are minimized to less than regulatory
thresholds for the interior of proposed buildings. Mitigation Measure HAZ-6 would require
geomembrane systems, geotextile filters, perforated venting pipes, and automatic methane gas
sensors to be incorporated into proposed on-site buildings located within 1,000 feet of any
disposal area. With implementation of HAZ-6, potential accidental conditions during Project
operations resulting from the potential vapor intrusion would be reduced to less than significant
levels. (EIR at 5.9-17 to 19.)
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Water Quality: Short-Term Impacts (Threshold HWQ-1).
a. Finding: Grading, excavation, and construction activities
associated with the Project would have a less than significant impact on water quality with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ4,HWQ-2, and HWQ-3.
HWQ-1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance and as part of the project's compliance
with the NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be prepared
and submitted to the Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Board,
providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California
General Permit.
HWQ-2 The proposed project shall conform to, and implement, the requirements
of an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (to be
applied for during the Grading Plan process) and the NPDES Permit for
General Construction Activities No. CAS000002, Order No, 2009-0009-
DWQ, including implementation of all recommended Best Management
Practices (BMPs), as approved by the State Water Resources Quality
Control Board (SWRCB).
HWQ-3 The potential Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in Section 5.0
of the Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Study for the Waste
Management Material Recovery Facility, Transfer Station, and Household
Hazardous Waste Facility prepared by RBF Consulting (October 2010),
shall be included in the project's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) to the extent necessary to comply with the NPDES Permit for
General Construction Activities No. CAS000002, Order No. 2009-0009-
DWQ. All BMPs included in the SWPPP shall be implemented by the
applicant.
45635.01817\5969390.3 36
b. Supporting Explanation: There are three sources of short-term
construction-related storm water pollution associated with the proposed Project, which include
the following:
• Handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants;
• Maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and
• Earthmoving activities.
These sources, if not controlled, can generate soil erosion and on- and off-site transport via storm
run-off or mechanical equipment. In order to reduce the amount of on-site exposed soil, grading
would be limited to the extent feasible, and any graded areas would be protected against erosion
once they are brought to final grade. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would require
the Project to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Mitigation
Measure HWQ-2 would require the Project to comply with the NPDES Permit for General
Construction Activities No. CAS000002, Order No, 2009-0009-DWQ. The HWQTS identifies
potential BMPs that may be outlined in the Project's SWPPP (as approved by the Los Angeles
County Regional Water Quality Board ), required as part of Mitigation Measure HWQ-3.
These BMPs include, but are not limited to, minimizing the removal of trees, hydraulic
mulching, hydroseeding, silt fencing, sediment trapping, and construction road stabilization.
(EIR at 5.10-17 to 18.)
Construction activities for the proposed Project would be subject to inspection by the City
Department of Public Works and would be required to be in conformance with the General
Construction Permit (HWQ-2). Coverage under this permit must be obtained from the Los
Angeles County Regional Water Quality Board prior to start of construction. The General Permit
requires that non-storm water discharges from construction sites be eliminated or reduced to the
maximum extent practicable, that a SWPPP be developed governing construction activities for
the proposed Project, and that routine inspections be performed of all storm water pollution
prevention measures and control practices being used at the site, including inspections before and
after storm events. Thus, construction activities associated with the proposed Project would have
a less than significant impact on surface water quality with compliance with Mitigation
Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-3, which would ensure adherence to construction
requirements per the State. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through
HWQ-3, short-term water quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. (EIR
at 5.10-17 to 18.)
2. Long-Term Operational Impacts (Threshold HWQ-2).
a. Finding: The Project could result in increased runoff amounts and
degraded water quality, but implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-4 and HWQ-5
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
HWQ-4 In order to ensure the proposed project would not impact existing drainage
facilities (i.e., Arrowdale Drain) serving the project site, the Applicant
shall prepare a detailed design report that demonstrate the following prior
to the issuance of grading permits, to be reviewed and approved by the
Los Angeles County Public Works Department and the City Engineer:
45635.018 M5969390.3 37
• Post-development peak storm water run-off discharge rates shall be
mitigated to the existing conditions capacity (current design capacity,
as analyzed in the 2007 Irwindale Master Hydrology Study) of the
downstream Arrowdale Drain utilizing an onsite detention/retention
basin(s);
• All storm drain facilities, excluding detention basins, shall be designed
for 25-year storm event protection; and
• Detention facilities shall be designed for 50-year storm event
protection.
The approved drainage facility design report shall be implemented by the
applicant.
HWQ-5 The project Applicant shall prepare and implement a site-specific
Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for the proposed
project. Requirements for commercial/institutional developments
(including the proposed project) include the following to be implemented
by the Applicant and enforced by the City of Azusa Public Works
Department:
• Post-development peak storm discharge rates shall not exceed the
estimated predevelopment rate for developments where increased peak
storm water discharge rates will result in increased potential for
downstream erosion.
• Conserve natural areas by using cluster development, limiting clearing
and grading of native vegetation, maximize trees and other vegetation,
promote natural vegetation, and preserve riparian area and wetlands.
• Minimize storm water pollutants of concern by incorporating Best
Management Practices (BMPs) or combinations of BMPs best suited
to maximize the reduction of pollutant loadings in run-off to the
maximum extent practicable.
• Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential of slopes and
channels from eroding and impacting storm water run-off.
• Provide storm water drain system stenciling and signage.
• Properly design outdoor material storage.
• Properly design trash storage areas.
• Proper proof of ongoing BMP maintenance.
45635.0181715969390.3 38
• Comply with SUSMP standards for design of structural or treatment
control BMP's such as:
o Bioretention Basins
o Infiltration Trench/Basin
o Irrigation Retention
o Extended Detention Basins
o Vegetated Swales/Strips
o Media Filters
o Or other approved treatment control BMPs
• Properly design loading/unloading dock areas.
• Properly design repair/maintenance bays.
• Properly design vehicle/equipment wash areas.
• Design parking areas to reduce impervious land coverage, infiltrate
run-off, and treat run-off before it enters the storm drain system.
b. Supporting Explanation:
Proposed Land Uses
The analysis of the impacts from the proposed MRF/TS and HHWF facilities was separated into
two land uses: Solid Waste Disposal Facility and Maintenance Yards. Table 5.10-3 of the EIR
sets forth the proposed Land Use summary. (EIR at 5.10-19.)
Proposed Storm Water Drainage
The proposed Project would alter drainage patterns due to on-site grading as set forth in Table
5.10-4 of the EIR. However, the watershed of the Project site under proposed conditions would
be broken up into the same sub-watersheds as the existing conditions: W1, Ml, and E1. The sub-
watershed boundaries are illustrated in Appendix 15.10, Exhibit 3-1 (Proposed Conditions
Hydrology Map) of the Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Study in the EIR. The sub-
watershed analysis considers a 25-year hydrology analysis for the Project site under proposed
conditions. The HWQTS indicates that the proposed Project would result in an increase in flow
rate of 51.2 cfs for the 25-year storm under proposed conditions; refer to Table 5.10-5,
Comparison of 25-Year Hydrology. As depicted in Table 5.10-5, sub-watershed Ml would have
a significant increase in flow (an additional 11.3 cfs). However, this is because the Irwindale
Master Hydrology Study assumed zero run-off from sub-watershed M1. All other increases in
flow rate would be attributed to an increase in impervious area and changes in tributary area. As
a result of the increased flow rates, measures would be required to reduce the proposed flow
rates to less than existing conditions in order to mitigate impacts to downstream flows to the
45635.01817\5969390.3 39
Arrowdale Drain. Therefore, the Project proposes to include three infiltration and/or extended
detention basins (one for each sub-watershed) to reduce the discharge that ultimately would
impact the Arrowdale Drain. Per the California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA), a
dry extended detention basin is a basin whose outlets have been designed to detain the storm
water run-off from a water quality design storm for some minimum time to allow particles and
associated pollutants to settle. Therefore, the extended detention facilities would provide both
flood control and water quality mitigation. Additionally, the basins may be designed to infiltrate
I portion of the run-off to assist with the mitigation. Each basin would be designed to mitigate
the proposed flows of the 25-year event as well as a 50-year storm event, as required by the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works (LADPW) and included within Mitigation
Measure HWQ-4. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant
levels. (EIR at 5.10-20 to 21.)
Storm Water Quality
The anticipated and potential pollutants generated from a commercial/industrial development are
heavy metals, nutrients, pesticides, sediments, trash and debris, organic demanding substances
and oil and grease. To prevent harmful pollutants from being washed or dumped into an MS4,
the proposed Project must obtain a NPDES permit (Permit No. CAS004001, Order No. 01-182,
as amended by R4-2009-0130) and develop a storm water management program. The LADPW
considers the proposed Project to be a priority Project according to the Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Therefore, the Project would be required to prepare a
SUSMP (which would serve to satisfy the requirements of the NPDES permit), specific to the
proposed Project, as stipulated in Mitigation Measure HWQ-5. The SUSMP requirements
include, but are not limited to, minimizing peak storm discharge rates, conserving natural areas,
incorporating BMPs, protecting slopes, and properly designing vehicle/equipment washing areas.
The proposed Project would also include three infiltration and/or extended detention basins
which would provide additional water quality mitigation. Additionally, post-construction BMPs
suggested for the proposed Project are listed in Section 5.0 of the HQWTS. With implementation
of Mitigation Measure HWQ-5, operational water quality impacts would be reduced to less
than significant levels. (EIR at 5.10-20 to 22.)
I. Geology and Soils
1. Loss of Topsoil (Threshold GEO-1).
a. Finding: The Project's impacts to erosion from a loss of topsoil
would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
GEO-1 The project shall incorporate and implement all engineering
recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Investigation for the
Proposed Material Recovery Facility, Transfer Station, and Entrance
Improvements (Geotechnical investigation), prepared by Geocon West,
Inc., dated May 17, 2010, during project site design, construction, and
operations to reduce any potential geotechnical hazards at the project site.
These recommendations shall be stipulated in the construction contracts
and specifications. The Geotechnical Investigation is included in
45635.01817\5969390.3 40
Appendix 15.11, Geotechnical Investigation, of this EIR and is
incorporated by reference into this mitigation measure.
b. Supporting Explanation:. The Project site is characterized by
alluvial fan and stream channel deposits consisting of granular soils. The permeability is
expected to be high for the alluvial fan and stream channel deposits. Project construction would
involve grading activities over the entire Project site. There is a potential for erosion to occur
during the grading process during periods of heavy rainfall. Some portions of the subject site
have not been subject to development nor have been covered by pavement and impervious
surfaces. Runoff at the site is expected to increase during development as portions of the site are
graded and paved. Grading and excavation operations may result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil in the absence of mitigation. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would
require the Project to adhere to the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical
Investigation regarding erosion and runoff. On-site grading would be performed in such a
manner that alteration of runoff or erosion of graded areas would not occur. All areas of
construction would be fine-graded to direct water away from foundations and direct water to the
nearest available storm drain or to the street. The Project would also be required to comply with
all requirements set forth in the NPDES permit for construction activities, as enforced by the Los
Angeles RWQCB. Additionally, erosion and loss of topsoil as a result of wind (fugitive dust)
would be minimized with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2. With implementation
of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and AQ-2, and compliance with NPDES requirements, erosion
is not expected to be a significant impact to development and impacts would be less than
significant. (EIR at 5.11-5 to,6.)
2. Unstable Geologic Units (Threshold GEO-2).
a. Findin : The Project would be susceptible to settlement, distress,
and consolidation as a result of the historic landfill, but with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-1 (above), impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
GEO-1 See supra.
b. Supporting Explanation: The Project site is partially located within
the limits of a known buried landfill. Portions of the Bale Storage loading dock, access road,
parking lots, and scale facility that overlie the historic landfill could be subject to significant
settlement and distress. The continued consolidation, and decomposition of the buried waste
materials could result in a corresponding loss of volume, creating a potential for settlement in
areas where structures or compacted fill are planned within the limits of the buried landfill.
Based on these considerations, the probability of hazards associated with consolidation of these
waste materials within the limits of the buried landfill is considered very high. Mitigation
Measure GEO-1 would require the Project to incorporate all engineering recommendations
contained within the Geotechnical Investigation to reduce impacts related to settlement, distress,
and consolidation. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, periodically placing
paving overlays on the roadway to recreate a level surface, construct the scales in a manner that
would allow for mechanical leveling, utilizing a reinforced concrete mat foundation to support
the scales or use drilled piers. Additionally, Municipal Code Section 14-54 prohibits buildings
constructed within 1,000 feet of fills containing rubbish or other decomposable material unless
45635.01817\5969390.3 41
s
the building is designed according to the recommendations of a licensed civil engineer. Although
construction over portions of the landfill would increase maintenance costs, implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential settlement hazards. Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts regarding settlement, distress, and
consolidation at the Project site would be reduced to less than significant levels. (EIR at 5.11-6
to 7.)
SECTION 4: RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT
FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
A. Traffic/Transportation
1. Increase Traffic (Threshold TRA-1).
a. Finding: The Project's impact on traffic would be less than
significant for the study intersections under the Project plus Existing Conditions scenario with
the implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1 and TRA-2. Under the Project Forecast
Year 2014 (i.e., Project Opening) scenario, impacts at the intersection of Vincent Avenue and
Gladstone Street would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure
TRA-2. However, although implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1 and TRA-3
would reduce impacts at the intersections of Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street and
Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway, the City of Irwindale would have either shared or full
regulatory authority regarding implementation of these mitigation measures and thus the City
would not be able to ensure that these mitigation measures (TRA-1 and TRA-3) are implemented
and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at those intersections. ,
TRA-1 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (estimated to be I st quarter
of 2013), the Applicant shall install, at the intersection of Irwindale
Avenue and Gladstone Street, a second (new) southbound left turn lane (at
the southbound approach [north leg] of the intersection) and a second
(new) westbound right turn lane (for turns from Gladstone Street to
northbound Irwindale Avenue), along with acquiring the land dedication
required. However, should regulatory approvals not be granted by the City
of Irwindale by the date of Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall
provide funds in an interest bearing dedicated trust account held jointly
with the City of Azusa for the future installation of the identified
improvements as well as those identified in TRA-2 and TRA-3
(hereinafter referred to as Intersection Improvements). The estimated cost
of constructing the improvements at this intersection is $248,000.00,
which shall be further verified by the time the Certificate of Occupancy is
issued and adjusted if necessary by the mutual agreement of the Cities of
Azusa and Irwindale, and which shall be placed in trust for use by the City
of Irwindale.
If the City of Irwindale decides to allow or move forward with the
Intersection Improvements and grants, or enters into an agreement with
Waste Management or the City of Azusa to grant, all necessary approvals
45635.01817\5969390.3 42.
for construction of the Intersection Improvements prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, the fees and interest collected by the City of
Azusa and held in trust shall be provided to the City of Irwindale. In the
event that, five years after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
City of Irwindale has not opted to implement the Intersection
Improvements or has not granted the approvals needed to Waste
Management or the City of Azusa for the Intersection Improvements to
move forward, the Applicant shall be reimbursed for some or all of the
moneys collected for the Intersection Improvements that have not already
been spent.
TRA-2 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall install,
at the intersection of Vincent Avenue and Gladstone Street, three landfill
driveway approach lanes, a second (new) northbound left turn lane (with
protected phasing), a second (new) eastbound left turn lane (with protected
.phasing), and a new westbound protected left-turn phase, along with
acquiring the land dedication required.
TRA-3 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (estimated to be 1 st quarter
of 2013), the Applicant shall install, at the intersection of Irwindale
Avenue and Arrow Highway, a second (new) southbound left turn lane.
However, should regulatory approvals not be granted by the City of
Irwindale by the date of Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall
provide funds in an interest bearing dedicated trust account held jointly
with the City of Azusa for the future installation of the identified
improvements as well as those identified in TRA-1 and TRA-2
(hereinafter referred to as Intersection Improvements). The estimated cost
of constructing the improvements at this intersection is $203,000.00,
which shall be further verified by the time the Certificate of Occupancy is
issued and adjusted if necessary by the mutual agreement of the Cities of
Azusa and Irwindale, and which shall be placed in trust for use by the City
of Irwindale.
If the City of Irwindale decides to allow or move forward with the
Intersection Improvements and grants, or enters into an agreement with
Waste Management or the City of Azusa to grant, all necessary approvals
for construction of the Intersection Improvements prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, the fees and interest collected by the City of
Azusa and held in trust shall be provided to the City of Irwindale. In the
event that, five years after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
City of Irwindale has not opted to implement the Intersection
Improvements or has not granted the approvals needed to Waste
Management or the City of Azusa for the Intersection Improvements to
move forward, the Applicant shall be reimbursed for some or all of the
moneys collected for the Intersection Improvements that have not already
been spent.
45635.01817\5969390.3 43
b. Supporting Explanation: Table 5.3-7 of the EIR summarizes the
daily and peak hour trips that would be generated by the Project based on current per-hour
breakdowns of Waste Management truck activity. Employee trips are also provided in this Table,
and assumes that some carpooling arrangements would be undertaken. Table 5.3-8 summarizes
the PCE factors, which were based on Solid Waste Facility Permit information and CalRecycle.
The proposed Project would generate a total 4,294 daily vehicle trips, of which 372 trips would
occur during the a.m. peak hour (224 trips inbound, 148 trips outbound) and 720 trips would
occur during the p.m. peak hour(400 trips inbound, 320 trips outbound). (EIR at 5.3-17 to 20.)
Existing Conditions with Project Scenario
Table 5.3-10 indicates that the Project would create two significant impacts at the study area
intersections under this scenario: Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street (for both weekday am
peak hours and pm peak hours) and Vincent Avenue and Gladstone Street (for the weekday am
peak hour). Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 and TRA-2 would be required to
reduce impacts to less than significant. (EIR at 5.3-20 to 22.)
Forecast Year 2014 Plus Project Conditions: Table 5-3.11 summarizes the resulting Level of
Significance (LOS) values at the study intersections for the year 2014. Seven of the study
intersections would operate at LOS E or worse during weekday peak hours in year 2014, as
compared to year 2014 without Project conditions (EIR at 5.3-22 to 26):
• Irwindale Avenue/Foothill Boulevard. Would continue to operate at LOS F within both
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
• Azusa Avenue/I-210 Eastbound Off-Ramp. Would continue to operate at LOS E in the
p.m. peak hour.
• Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street. Would worsen from LOS E to F in the a.m. peak
hour and would worsen from LOS D to F in the p.m. peak hour.
• Vincent Avenue/Gladstone Street. Would worsen from LOS C to E in the a.m. peak hour.
• Azusa Avenue/Gladstone Street. Would continue to operate at LOS E in the p.m. peak
hour.
• Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway. Would continue to operate at LOS F within both the
a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
• Azusa Avenue/Arrow Highway. Would continue to operate at LOS E in the a.m. peak
hour and at LOS F in the p.m. peak hour.
However, changes in LOS, or lack thereof, do not necessarily define the occurrence of a
significant impact. Comparisons of the existing and Project forecast conditions and significant
impact determinations for the Project are set forth in Table 5.3-12. The Project would create
significant impacts at the following three study intersections:
• Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street (for both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours);
• Vincent Avenue/Gladstone Street (during the weekday a.m. peak hour only); and
• Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway (during the weekday p.m. peak hour only).
45635.01817\5969390.3 44
Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street
The southbound left turn movement would have a volume of more than 300 vehicles. The
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would reduce impacts at the intersection of
Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street. However, the intersection of Irwindale Avenue and
Gladstone Street has a shared jurisdiction between both the City of Azusa and the City of
Irwindale. Thus, as the City of Azusa would not be able to ensure that these intersection
improvements are implemented (as permitted by the City of Irwindale) at the intersection of
Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (EIR
at 5.3-22 to 26.)
Vincent Avenue/Gladstone Street
The northbound and eastbound left turn movements would have a volume of more than 300
vehicles upon Project implementation, and the southbound right turn movement (departing the
landfill) would have a volume of approximately 200 vehicles. Mitigation Measure TRA-2
would be implemented with removal of on-street parking on Vincent Avenue in the vicinity of
the northbound approach. The eastbound improvement would be accomplished via lane-width
reductions and restriping. The landfill driveway, in its ultimate configuration after Project
construction, would be required to have three approach lanes. \Vith implementation of the
recommended Mitigation Measure TRA-2, impacts at the intersection of Vincent Avenue and
Gladstone Street would be reduced to less than significant level at this intersection. (EIR at 5.3-
22 to 26.)
Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway
The intersection of Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway was calculated to have a volume of
more than 300 vehicles at the southbound left turn movement. The intersection of Irwindale
Avenue and Arrow Highway is subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Irwindale. The City of
Irwindale impact guidelines state that at LOS F, if a project adds more than 50 trips to the
location, any degradation in operations could create a significant impact. Mitigation Measure
TRA-3 would require an additional southbound left turn lane, which would provide for a total of
two southbound left turn lanes. This Mitigation Measure would be implemented without
widening or major construction work within the intersection. With implementation of the
recommended Mitigation Measure TRA-3, impacts at the intersection of Irwindale Avenue and
Arrow Highway (per City of Irwindale guidelines) would be reduced to less than significant
levels. However, the intersection of Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway is under the
jurisdiction of the City of Irwindale. Thus, as the City of Azusa would not be able to ensure that
these intersection improvements are implemented (as permitted by the City of Irwindale) at the
intersection of Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway, impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable. (EIR at 5.3-22 to 26.)
2. Long-Range Traffic Conditions—Year 2035 Plus Project (Threshold
TRA-2).
a. Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-2
(above) and TRA-4 (below), impacts at the intersection of Vincent Avenue and Gladstone Street
would be reduced to less than significant levels in the Buildout Year 2035. Although
implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1, TRA-3 (above), and TRA-4 would reduce
impacts at the intersections of Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street and Irwindale Avenue and
4563 5.01817\5969390.3 45
Arrow Highway, the City of Irwindale would have either shared or full regulatory authority
regarding implementation of these mitigation measures and, thus, the City would not be able to
ensure that these mitigation measures (TRA-1, TRA-3, and TRA-4) would be implemented and a
significant and unavoidable impact would remain for these intersections. Also, impacts at the
intersections of Irwindale Avenue and I-210 eastbound ramps would remain significant and
unavoidable, as no feasible mitigation measures have been identified for this intersection. (EIR
at 5.3-28 to 32.)
TRA-4 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (estimated to be 1 st quarter
of 2013), the project Applicant shall install an adaptive timing control
system at the Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street and Vincent
Avenue/Gladstone Street intersections that is compatible with the planned
City of Azusa traffic control system and synchronization program and
would interface with other neighboring cities. As part of the compatibility
requirement, radio communications equipment shall also be installed at the
existing signalized intersections of Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street
(maintained by the City of Irwindale) and Vincent Avenue and Gladstone
Street (maintained by the City of Azusa). However, should regulatory
approvals not be granted by the City of Irwindale by the date of Certificate
of Occupancy, the Applicant shall provide funds in an interest bearing
dedicated trust account held jointly with the City of Azusa for the future
installation of the adaptive timing control system at the Irwindale Avenue
and Gladstone Street intersection.
If the City of Irwindale decides to allow or move forward with the
adaptive timing control system indicated-above and grants, or enters into
an agreement with Waste Management or the City of Azusa to grant, all
necessary approvals for its installation prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, the fees and interest collected by the City of Azusa and held
in trust shall be provided to the City of Irwindale. In the event that, five
years after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City of
Irwindale has not opted to implement the adaptive timing control system
or has not granted the approvals needed to Waste Management or the City
of Azusa for the adaptive timing control system to move forward, the
Applicant shall be reimbursed for some or all of the moneys collected for
the adaptive timing control system that have not already been spent.
b. Supporting Explanation: The proposed Project would result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to future significant and adverse weekday traffic impacts
at the following four intersection locations in the buildout year 2035 (because of the increases in
V/Q:
• Irwindale Avenue/I--210 Eastbound On and Off Ramps. During the weekday p.m. peak
hour only);
• Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street. During both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours;
• Vincent Avenue/Gladstone Street. During the weekday a.m. peak hour only;
4 563 5.0181 7159693 90.3 46
• Irwindale Av n e/Arr w Highway. During the weekday p.m. peak hour only.
Irwindale Avenue/I-210 Eastbound On and Off Ramps
Mitigation measures were evaluated for this intersection that included an additional lane at the
eastbound off-ramp approach (west intersection leg) and a separate potential improvement that
included a new second southbound left turn lane and a new northbound right turn lane. These
improvements were determined to not fully mitigate the Project impact at this location. Thus, a
feasible mitigation measure was not identified for this location and the buildout year 2035 impact
at the intersection of Irwindale Avenue and 1-210 eastbound ramps would remain significant and
unavoidable. (EIR at 5.3-28 to 32.)
Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street
The recommended Mitigation Measure TRA-1 provides for an additional (second) southbound
left tum lane and an additional (second) westbound right turn lane. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure TRA-1, significant Project traffic impacts at this intersection would.be
partially reduced in the buildout-year 2035. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-4
would also help reduce traffic congestion by installing an adaptive timing control system at this
intersection. Widening of the intersection at the southeast comer would be necessary to further
mitigate the buildout-year Project impacts, but would be infeasible within the scope of the
proposed Project. Thus, as these impacts would not fully mitigate the Project's projected
buildout traffic contribution to less than significant levels, this impact at the intersection of
Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street would remain significant and unavoidable. (EIR at 5.3-
28 to 32.)
Vincent Avenue/Gladstone Street
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2 would require an improved landfill driveway
(north intersection leg) with three approach lanes (ideally as one right turn, one shared right/thru
lane, and one left lane), a second northbound left turn lane with protected phasing, and the
addition of a second eastbound left-tum lane (resulting in two left turn lanes with protected
phasing). Protected phasing would also be installed at for the westbound left-turn lane, as
required by Mitigation Measure TRA-2. The landfill driveway, in its ultimate configuration
after Project construction, would be required to have three approach lanes. In addition to
Mitigation Measure TRA-2, the Project would be required to include a traffic signal upgrade
that would include adaptive signal timing (adjusting at set time periods to varying approach
traffic volumes) (recommended Mitigation Measure TRA-4). The system would be required to
be compatible with the planned City of Azusa traffic control system and synchronization
program, which would interface with other neighboring cities. As part of this compatibility
requirement, radio communications equipment would be installed at the existing signalized
intersections of Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street (maintained by the City of Irwindale)
and Vincent Avenue and Gladstone Street (maintained by the City of Azusa). With
implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures TRA-2 and TRA-4, significant
traffic impacts at the intersection of Vincent Avenue and Gladstone Street at buildout year 2035
would be reduced to less than significant levels. (EIR at 5.3-28 to 32.)
45635.018 M59693903 47
Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway
Mitigation Measure TRA-3 would require an additional southbound left turn lane, which would
provide for a total of two southbound left turn lanes. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
TRA-3 would be implemented without widening or major construction work within the
intersection. With implementation of the Mitigation Measure TRA-3, impacts at the
intersection of Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway (per City of Irwindale guidelines) for
buildout year 2035 would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, the intersection of
Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway is under the jurisdiction of the City of Irwindale. Thus, as
the City of Azusa would not be able to ensure that these intersection improvements are
implemented (as permitted by the City of Irwindale) at the intersection of Irwindale Avenue and
Arrow Highway, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (EIR at 5.3-28 to 32.)
3. Congestion Management Program and CalTrans Facility Impacts
(Threshold TRA-3).
a. Finding: Pursuant to Caltrans' Highway Capacity Manual's
Critical Movement Analysis methodology, the freeway ramp intersections along the I-210 would
operate at LOS C or better in both the 2014 and 2035 scenarios, resulting in a less than
significant . However, the Project would result in significant impacts to I-210 freeway segments
and ramp capacity at the I-210 eastbound on-ramp located at Irwindale Avenue. The Project
would be required to implement Mitigation Measure TRA-5 to reduce the Project's potential
incremental impacts to traffic along the I-210 freeway and the indicated on-ramp. Because this
mitigation measure contemplates a fair share contribution by the Project applicant to reduce
impacts along the I-210 from the Project and since the I-210 and its on-ramps are under
CalTrans' jurisdiction and no fee program has yet been implemented for the I-210, impacts
would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation.
TRA-5 The project Applicant shall coordinate with the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), prior to issuance of a building permit, to pay its
pro-rated fair share for traffic improvement projects to the I-210 eastbound
on/off ramps from Irwindale Avenue during the P.M. peak period, and to
traffic along I-210. The pro-rated fair share fees shall be based on final
project approval, consultation with Caltrans, and consistent with the
Methodology for Calculating Equitable Mitigation Measures (Appendix
B) of Caltrans' Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies
(2002).
Timing: After issuance of the Conditional Use Permit and at the time that
specific highway capital improvement projects for this segment of I-210 or
eastbound ramps at Irwindale/I-210 are identified by Caltrans, or Caltrans
implements a specific fair-share mechanism for the capital improvements
to the I-210 eastbound/Irwindale Avenue ramps or mainline segment,
whichever occurs first.
b. Supporting Explanation: The freeway ramp study intersections at
the freeway ramps would operate at LOS C or better in the forecast year 2014. Thus, impacts to
45635.01817\5969390.3 48
the freeway ramp intersections would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
required. (EIR at 5.3-33.)
Freeway Impacts
The nearest CMP mainline freeway-monitoring location to the Project site is on the 1-210
(Foothill Freeway), west of the I-605 freeway. Based on the Project's trip distribution and traffic
assignment, the Project would result in primarily local traffic rather than regional traffic. This is
due, in part, to the nature of the MRF/TS Project which does not generate the need for municipal
solid waste collection, sorting and disposal, but would better accommodate waste and recyclable
materials that are already being generated by residents, businesses and projects within the area.
The waste must be transported and processed somewhere if not at the proposed Project site. The
traffic analysis indicated that impacts would be low, but because the Project applicant will be
required to coordinate with Caltrans regarding potential fair-share contribution fees for
improvements along 1-210 (Mitigation Measure TRA-5),, and Caltrans' activities is beyond the
scope of the City's jurisdiction, and since there is no adopted fee program in place, the Project's
impact would be significant and unavoidable. (EIR at 5.3-34.)
Freeway Ramp Capacity (Forecast Year and Buildout Year Impacts)
A storage length issue was identified within the analysis at the eastbound on-ramp to the I-210
freeway from Irwindale Avenue during the P.M. peak period. This issue was apparent in both the
forecast pre-Project and post-Project periods, but would not be caused solely by the proposed
Project. This would occur in both the forecast year and buildout year scenarios. Implementation
of Mitigation Measure TRA-5 would ensure that the Project Applicant would coordinate with
Caltrans, prior to issuance of a building permit, pertaining to potential fair-share contribution
fees toward the Project's storage length contribution at the eastbound on-ramp to the I-210
freeway from Irwindale Avenue during the P.M. peak period. Storage length issues were not
identified at the westbound onramps at the Irwindale Avenue interchange. However, because
Caltrans' facilities are outside the scope of the City's jurisdiction, even with implementation of
Mitigation Measure TRA-5, the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact to the eastbound on-ramp to the I-210 freeway from Irwindale Avenue during the P.M.
peak period. (EIR at 5.3-34 to 35.)
B. Air Quality
1. Short-Term (Construction) Air Emissions (Threshold AQ-1).
a. Finding: The Project's short-term construction-related activities
would result in air pollutant emissions impacts or expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. Specifically, construction activities would generate NOx emissions that
would require implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. But, even with mitigation, NOx
impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Fugitive dust emissions from construction,
however, would be reduced to a less than significant impact with the implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-2. Compliance with Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would
also reduce potentially significant impacts from diesel particulate matter to a less than significant
level.
45635.01817\5969390.3 49
AQ-1 The following measures shall be implemented during construction to substantially
reduce NOX related emissions. They shall be included in the Grading Plan,
Building Plans, and specifications. Reductions in particulate emissions shall also
be realized from the implementation of these measures as well as AQ-2 and AQ-
3.
• Off-road diesel equipment operators shall be required to shut down their engines
rather than idle for more than five minutes, and shall ensure that all off-road
equipment is compliant with the CARB in-use off-road diesel vehicle regulation
and SCAQMD Rule 2449.
• The following note shall be included on all grading plans: "During construction
activity, the contractor shall utilize California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier
II certified equipment or better for all on-site construction equipment to meet
EPA. Tier 2 or higher emissions standards according to the following:
o Thru December 31, 2011: All off-road diesel-powered construction
equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 2 off-road emissions
standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with
the BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used
by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than
what could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control
strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014: All off-road diesel powered
construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 off-road
emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be
outfitted with the BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions
control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions
that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions
control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB
regulations.
o Post-January 1, 2015: If applicable, all off-road diesel-powered
construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission
standards where available and commercially feasible.
o A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation,
and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided to the City at
the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
• The contractor and applicant, if the applicant's equipment is used, shall maintain
construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned and regularly serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
• Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. This is required by
SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2.
• Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when available. This measure
would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators.
• Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
• Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes and provide temporary traffic
controls such as a flag person during all phases of construction when needed to
maintain smooth traffic flow. Construction shall be planned so that lane closures
on existing streets are kept to a minimum.
4 563 5.018 M5969390.3 50
Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours to the best
extent when possible.
AQ-2 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the City Engineer and the Chief Building
Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and specifications
stipulate that, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District
Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular
watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District's Rules and Regulations. In addition, South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule 402 requires implementation of dust
suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site.
The following measures shall be implemented to reduce short-term fugitive dust
impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:
• All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive
amounts of dust;
• On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; All on-site roads shall
be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized;
• All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust; watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least.
twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day;
• Visible dust beyond the property line which emanates from the Project shall be
prevented;
• All material transported off-site shall be sufficiently watered and securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and
• All delivery truck tires shall be watered down and scraped down prior to
departing the job site.
a. Supporting Explanation:
Construction Exhaust Emissions
Construction activities would generate NOx emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Mass Daily Significance Thresholds, as shown in Table 5.4-5
of the EIR. The NOx emissions during construction would result in a significant impact. NOx
emissions arise largely from engine combustion in construction equipment, haul trucks, and
employee commuting. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be required to reduce NOx levels, but
it is not certain that emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level and are therefore
considered significant and unavoidable. (EIR at 5.4-11 to 16.)
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust (PM 10 and PM2.5) emissions that may have
a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance
to those living and working in the Project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land
clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways (including
demolition as well as construction activities). Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from
day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations and weather conditions.
Fugitive dust from demolition, grading, and construction is expected to be short-term and would
4 563 5.01817159693 90.3 51
cease upon Project completion. Additionally, most of this material is inert silicates, rather than
the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to
health. Implementation of dust control techniques (e.g., daily watering), limitations on
construction hours, and adherence to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (which require watering of
inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), would reduce fugitive dust. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, impacts related to PM10 and PM2.5 would be
less than significant since these emissions would be below SCAQMD Mass Daily Thresholds
and the localized significance thresholds. All applicable provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403 and
Rule 402 would be implemented. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would also require the
implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance
off-site pursuant to Rule 402. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 impacts
pertaining to fugitive dust emissions would be reduced to less than significant levels. (EIR at 5.4-
12 to 16.)
Diesel Particulate Matter and TAC Emissions
Particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (DPM) is a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). It is
assumed that the majority of the heavy construction equipment utilized during construction
would be diesel fueled and emit DPM. However, the equipment would use ultra low sulfur diesel
and diesel particulate traps, and would reduce emissions through compliance with Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 (above). Impacts from TAC's are related to cumulative exposure and
are assessed over a 70-year period. TACs are compounds that are known or suspected to cause
adverse health effects after short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic) exposure and include
DPM and other TACs from the internal combustion of internal combustion of diesel fuel in
various on-road and off-road vehicles. Cancer risk is expressed as the maximum number of new
cases of cancer projected to occur in a population of one million people due to exposure to the
cancer-causing substance over a 70-year lifetime (California Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment [OEHHA], Guide to Health Risk
Assessment, 2007). As shown in Table 5.4-6 of the EIR, upper limit estimates of cancer risk and
hazard index are less than the significance thresholds and diesel emissions would thus result in a
less than significant impact. (EIR at 5.4-13 to 16.)
2. Long-Term (Operational) Air Emissions (Threshold AQ-2):
a. Finding: The operation of the Project would result in significant
and unavoidable impacts on air emissions resulting from NOx emissions at both Project Opening
and Buildout, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3.
AQ-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit,_the project applicant shall prepare an
implementation program for the City's approval requiring the use of alternative
fuel vehicles under the following schedule, and consistent with Rule 1193:
a. Waste Management shall convert into alternative fuel vehicles solid waste
collection trucks, and transfer trucks that utilize the Facility and are owned
by Waste Management, its subsidiaries, or affiliated enterprises, according
to the following phase-in schedule:
45635.01917%5969390.3 52
i. By December 31, 2014, at least 70 percent of all aforementioned
vehicles shall be alternative fuel vehicles.
ii. By December 31, 2015, at least 85 percent of all aforementioned
vehicles shall be alternative fuel vehicles. . .
iii. By December 31, 2016, at least 100 percent of all aforementioned
vehicles shall be alternative fuel vehicles.
b. For the purpose of complying with this mitigation measure, alternative fuel
vehicles shall utilize alternative fuels that are consistent with
recommendations or regulations of CARB and SCAQMD Rule 1193.
C. Off-road equipment for on-site operations shall use model 2011 or later
diesel equipment that are fully compliant with Tier 4 emissions standards.
The Applicant shall implement the implementation plan and submit proof of
compliance for each of the milestones listed above by the designated date.
b. Supporting Explanation:
On-Site Proiect Emissions Regional Project Emissions, Alternative Fuel Emissions
The primary source of emissions from the operation of the Project would be from vehicles,
including collection trucks, landscaper trucks and employee vehicles. On-site Project emissions
are not expected to result in a significant localized air quality impact, as set forth in Table 5.4-8
of the EIR. However, the change in emissions (difference between the emissions with the Project
and without the Project) for opening conditions (year 2014) would exceed regional thresholds for
operational NOx emissions. All other criteria pollutants would be below thresholds. Vehicle
emissions are expected to decrease in future years due to fleet turnover and more stringent
emissions standards. The Project would result in a significant increase in NOx emissions. With
the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, NOx emissions would be reduced to the
greatest extent feasible, and would implement a program that would require the Applicant's
vehicles to meet CARB emissions requirements and to utilize alternative fuel engines by Project
Buildout (the end of 2016). Even so, however, NOx emissions at Project Buildout would still
result in a significant impact since the Applicant cannot ensure that all third-party trucks are
alternatively fueled. Impacts would therefore remain significant and unavoidable for both the
Project Opening and Project Buildout scenarios. (EIR at 5.4-16 to 29.)
Secondary Air Quality Impacts. The traffic study prepared for the Project identified three
intersections that would be significantly impacted by the proposed Project and require
mitigation. These intersections are; (1) Irwindale Avenue at Gladstone Street, (2) Vincent
Avenue at Gladstone Street, and (3) Irwindale Avenue at Arrow Highway. The mitigation
includes the addition, of at most, one turning lane in any direction at these intersections.
Implementation of the mitigation may require construction activities. Some of the improvements
may be able to be implemented through restriping without major construction and therefore
without related air emissions. Table 5.4-23 demonstrates that the intersection construction would
not result in a significant localized air quality impact as the emissions would be less than the
45635.01817\5969390.3 53
significance thresholds. The intersection improvements would likely occur at the same time as
construction of the overall Project. However, at this time it is not known when these
improvements would occur. All applicable provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403 and Rule 402
would be implemented. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would also require the use of dust
suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site pursuant to Rule
402. Table 5.4-24 shows that the intersection mitigation construction would contribute to the
NOX emissions from the Project construction identified to be significant, but would not increase
emissions from any other pollutant to greater than the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore,
intersection mitigation construction would not result in any additional significant impacts. If the
intersection mitigation construction occurred concurrently with Project construction periods
emitting more than 87.2 lbs/day of NOX, the intersection mitigation construction would result in
the total emissions exceeding the SCAQMD threshold and increasing the period of the
significant impact previously identified. (EIR at 5.4-16 to 29.)
SECTION 5: RESOLUTION REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
The City hereby finds as follows:
C. Land Use
1. Threshold: Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy or
Regulation of an Agency with Jurisdiction.
Finding: All development projects would be subject to SCAG IGR Section review and would be
required to comply with the relevant policies and strategies, and would.also be required to
comply with the General Plan and Zoning/Development Code of the respective jurisdictions.
Each project would also be analyzed to ensure compliance with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Azusa General Plan and the regulations and guidelines of the Azusa Development
Code. For the reasons herein stated and as discussed further in the EIR, the Project's cumulative
impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 2.1-23 to 24.)
Supporting Explanation:
Southern California Association of Governments. As outlined in Table 4-1 of the EIR,
Cumulative Projects List, and illustrated on Exhibit 4-1, Cumulative Project Locations, the
related projects and other possible development would occur in the cities of Azusa, Glendora,
Covina, Duarte, and Irwindale. Based on the projects identified in Table 4-1, cumulative
development would result in new residential, non-residential, institutional, and recreational uses,
as follows:
• Approximately 2,354 single-family dwelling units;
• Approximately 1,091 multi-family dwelling units;
• Approximately 3.6 million square feet of non-residential (i.e., industrial, light
industrial, commercial, retail, office);
• Approximately 345 hotel rooms;
45635.01817\5969390.3 54
• Educational facilities: approximately 420 grades K-12 students and approximately
3,424 college level students; and
• Recreational uses: a 5.5-acre park and 0.5 acres of community facilities.
SCAG's IGR Section is responsible for performing a consistency review of local plans, projects,
and programs with regional plans. Regionally significant projects are reviewed for consistency
with the 2008 RCP and the 2008 RTP. The criteria for projects of regional significance are
outlined in the CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15125 and 15206, and projects that directly relate to
the policies and strategies contained in the 2008 RCP and the 2008 RTP. (EIR at 5.1-23.)
Each cumulative project would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis, in order to determine
its regional significance, if any. Following the determination of regional significance, project
documentation is reviewed and an assessment is made on whether the project is consistent with
or supportive of a specific Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and/or 2008 RTP
policy. As all development would be subject to the SCAG IGR Section review, and would be
required to comply with the relevant policies and strategies, cumulative impacts with respect to
regional plans would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.1-24.)
General Plan and Zoning Code Consistency. As discussed above, cumulative development
would result in new residential, non-residential, institutional, and recreational uses. Development
of the Project site as proposed would not result in any cumulative land use impacts as other
projects are implemented within the City of Azusa, as well as the cities of Glendora, Covina,
Duarte, and Irwindale. Projects would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. Each proposed
project would undergo a similar plan review process as the proposed Project, in order to
determine potential land use planning policy and regulation conflicts. Each cumulative project
would be analyzed independent of other projects, within the context of their respective land use
and regulatory setting. As part of the review process, each project would be required to
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the applicable land use designation(s) and zoning
district(s). It is assumed that cumulative development would progress in accordance with the
General Plan and Zoning/Development Code of the respective jurisdictions. Each project would
be analyzed in order to ensure that the goals, objectives, and policies of the Azusa General Plan,
and regulations and guidelines of the Azusa Development Code are consistently upheld.
Analysis has concluded that impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. (EIR
at 5.1-24.)
D. Aesthetics /Light and Glare
1. Threshold: Scenic Views and Vistas
Finding: The Project's cumulative impact on scenic views and vistas would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.2-22.)
Supporting Explanation:
As outlined in Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List, and illustrated on Exhibit 4-1 of the EIR,
Cumulative Project Locations, the related projects and other possible development would occur
in the cities of Azusa, Glendora, Covina, Duarte, and Irwindale. Based on the projects identified
in Table 4-1, cumulative development would result in new residential, non-residential,
45635.01817\5969390.3 55
institutional, and recreational uses. The City of Azusa, as well as the surrounding cities of
Glendora, Covina, Duarte, and Irwindale, are nearly fully developed suburban communities.
(EIR at 5.2-22.)
The San Gabriel Mountains, located north of Azusa, Glendora, Covina, Duarte, and Irwindale are
scenic resources offering distant vistas of mountain backdrops. The Project-specific impacts to
scenic vistas are not cumulatively considerable, because there are no cumulative projects located
in the project viewshed and impacts to scenic vistas from cumulative development would be
unique to each respective site. The potential impacts of other projects on views of the San
Gabriel Mountains would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. (EIR at 5.2-22.)
2. Threshold: Short-Term Visual Character/Quality
Finding: The Project's cumulative construction-related impacts to visual character would be less
than significant and the Project would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is
required. (EIR at 5.2-23,)
Supporting Explanation:
The construction-related impacts to visual character are not cumulatively considerable, because
there are no cumulative projects located in the Project vicinity and impacts to visual character
would be unique to each respective development site. Additionally, construction-related impacts
to visual character would be dependant upon project- and site-specific variables, including
proximity to visually sensitive receptors, the visual sensitivity of the respective development
sites, and duration of demolition and construction. The potential construction-related impacts of
other projects on the visual character of a development site and its surroundings would be
evaluated on a project-by-project basis. It is assumed that cumulative development would
progress in accordance with the Zoning/Development Code of the respective jurisdictions. Each
Project would be analyzed in order to ensure the construction-related Zoning/Development Code
restrictions are consistently upheld. Cumulative construction-related impacts to visual character
would be less than significant, and the Project would not be cumulatively considerable. (EIR at
5.2-23.)
3. Threshold: Long-Term Visual Character/Quality
Findin : Cumulative impacts to long-term visual character and quality would be less than
significant and the Project would not cumulatively contribute to long-term visual impacts. (EIR
at 5.2-23 to 24.)
Supporting Explanation:
The long-term impacts to visual character are not cumulatively considerable, because there are
no cumulative projects located in the Project vicinity and impacts to visual character would be
unique to each respective development site. Additionally, the impacts to visual character would
be dependant upon Project- and site-specific variables, including proximity to visually sensitive
receptors, the visual sensitivity of the respective development sites, and the compatibility of a
Project's architectural style, scale, and setbacks with the surrounding land uses. The potential
impacts of other projects on the visual character of a development site and its surroundings
would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. It is assumed that cumulative development
45635.01817\5969390.3 56
would progress in accordance with the Zoning/Development Code of the respective jurisdictions.
Potential impacts to the visual character of a development site and its surroundings would be
minimized through the design of developments that incorporate architectural features (i.e.,
material, texture, color, form, type of construction, detail, and building system) and building
scales compatible with the surrounding land uses. Potential impacts would be further minimized
through incorporation of appropriate setbacks, landscaping design, and buffering and screening
techniques. The development review process for each respective jurisdiction would verify
compliance with Code requirements regarding elements that influence a development site's
character. Each Project would undergo design review and. be analyzed in order to ensure the
regulations of the relevant Zoning/Development Code are consistently upheld. Cumulative
impacts to long-term character/ quality would be less than significant, and the proposed Project
would not cumulatively contribute to long-term visual impacts. (EIR at 5.2-23 to 5.2-24.)
E. Traffic
1. Threshold: Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Ordinance
Establishing Measures for Circulation
Findini: The Project would implement Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through TRA-4 (above),
but the Project's incremental contribution to cumulative traffic impacts would be significant and
unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation at the intersections of Irwindale
Avenue/Glendale Street (for forecast year 2014 and buildout year 2035), Irwindale
Avenue/Arrow Highway (for forecast year 2014 and buildout year 2035), and Irwindale
Avenue/1-210 Eastbound On and Off Ramps (for buildout year 2035). (EIR at 5.3-28 to 40.)
Supporting Explanation:
In order to forecast background traffic conditions, traffic volumes from cumulative projects in
the vicinity of the Project were added to existing traffic volumes. A list of cumulative projects is
included in Table 4-1 of Section 4.0, Basis of Cumulative Analysis. In addition to future ambient
growth, traffic from cumulative projects (approved and pending) was also considered in the
forecast year 2014 and buildout year 2035 conditions. The analysis provided above within
Section 5.3.4 inherently includes cumulative impacts related to the identified cumulative projects
within Section 4.0, Basis of Cumulative Analysis. As determined in Section 5.3.4, the proposed
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable traffic impacts in regards to local
intersections, consistency with the Los Angeles County CMP, or State Highway intersections or
off-ramps, with the exception of the following:
Intersections. The proposed Project would cumulatively contribute to traffic impacts at the
following three study intersections in the forecast year 2014:
• Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street. For both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours;
• Vincent Avenue/Gladstone Street. During the weekday a.m. peak hour only;and
• Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway. During the weekday p.m. peak hour only.
As depicted in Table 5.3-13, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2, impacts at the
intersection of Vincent Avenue and Gladstone Street would be reduced to less than significant
levels in the Project year 2014. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1 and
45635.01817\5 969390.3 57
TRA-3 would reduce impacts at the intersections of Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street and
Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway, the City of Irwindale would have either shared or full
regulatory authority regarding implementation of these mitigation measures. Thus, as the City of
Azusa would not be able to ensure that these mitigation measures (TRA-1 and TRA-3) are
implemented, a significant and unavoidable impact would remain in.the Project forecast year
2014. The proposed Project would cumulatively result in significant weekday traffic impacts in
the buildout year 2035 for the following four intersections:
• Irwindale Avenue/I-210 Eastbound On and Off Ramps. During the weekday p.m. peak
hour only;
• Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street. During both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
• Vincent Avenue/Gladstone Street. During the weekday a.m. peak hour only.
• Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway. During the weekday p.m. peak hour only.
As depicted in Table 5.3-17, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-2 and TRA-4,
impacts at the intersections of Vincent Avenue and Gladstone Street would be reduced to less
than significant levels in the buildout year 2035. Although implementation of Mitigation
Measures TRA-1 and TRA-3 would reduce impacts at the intersections of Irwindale Avenue
and Gladstone Street and Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway, the City of Irwindale would
have either shared or full regulatory authority regarding implementation of these mitigation
measures. Thus, as the City of Azusa would not be able to ensure that these mitigation measures
(TRA-1 and TRA-3) are implemented, a cumulatively considerable significant and unavoidable
impact would remain in the Project buildout year 2035. Impacts at the intersection of Irwindale
Avenue and 1-210 eastbound ramps would also remain significant and unavoidable, as no
feasible mitigation measures have been identified for this intersection that would fully mitigate
these Project buildout impacts within the scope of the proposed Project. Thus, based upon
agency-established performance criteria, the proposed Project's incremental contribution to
cumulative traffic impacts would be significant and unavoidable (i.e., cumulatively considerable)
at the following three intersections:
• Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street (for both forecast year 2014 and buildout year 2035);
• Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway (for both the forecast year 2014 and buildout year
2035); and
• Irwindale Avenue/I-210 Eastbound On and Off Ramps (for buildout year 2035).
2. Threshold: Conflict with Congestion Management Plan
Finding: A storage length issue was identified at the eastbound on-ramp to the I-210 freeway at
Irwindale Avenue during the pm peak period. Mitigation Measure TRA-5 (above), which
requires that the Project applicant coordinate with CalTrans prior to the issuance of a building
permit for potential fair share contribution fees. Implementation of mitigation would reduce the
Project's cumulative impacts but not to a less than significant level. Cumulative impacts would
therefore remain significant and unavoidable. (EIR at 5.3-40 to 42.)
4563 5.01S17A5969390.3 58
Supporting Explanation:
Arterial Monitorin¢. The nearest CMP arterial monitoring intersection to the Project site is
Azusa Avenue/San Gabriel Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. No cumulative impacts are
anticipated to occur at this intersection at forecast year 2014 or buildout year 2035. Based on the
Project trip generation and the distance of these CMP routes from the study intersections, the
Project would not add 50 or more new trips per hour to this location. Thus, Project impacts to
CMP intersections are less than significant and are not cumulatively considerable. (EIR at 5.3-
40.)
Freeway Ramp Intersections. No cumulative impacts are anticipated to occur at the freeway
ramp study intersection at forecast year 2014 or buildout year 2035. The freeway ramp study
intersections at the freeway ramps would operate at LOS C or better in the forecast year 2014
and buildout year 2035 upon implementation of the proposed Project. Thus, Project impacts to
the freeway ramp intersections would be less than significant and are not cumulatively
considerable. (EIR at 5.3-40.)
Freeway Impacts. The nearest CMP mainline freeway-monitoring location to the Project site is
on the I-210 (Foothill Freeway), west of the 1-605 freeway. Cumulative impacts are anticipated
to result at Irwindale, Irwindale Avenue Interchange, as this segment functions an unacceptable
levels in the existing condition. The buildout year volumes calculated for the I-210 facility were
compared to the trips that would be generated by the Project, to provide an understanding of the
percent share of the Project's traffic. versus the mainline freeway flow. The maximum project
share of volumes, per Caltrans guidelines, on the analyzed mainline I-210 freeway segments,
would range from 2.7 to 4.8 percent. The Project Applicant would be required to coordinate with
Caltrans, prior to issuance of a building permit, pertaining to potential fair-share contribution
fees toward improvements along 1210 (Mitigation Measure TRA-5). With implementation of
Mitigation Measure TRA-5, the proposed Project would nevertheless result in a significant and
unavoidable cumulatively considerable impact. (EIR at 5.3-40 to 41.)
Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis. The Project would add 50 or more trips to the following
study area freeway access ramps on the I-210 facility during weekday peak hours:
• Irwindale Avenue Northbound, Westbound On-Ramp. 49 trips during a.m. peak hour, 90
trips during p.m. peak hour;
• Irwindale Avenue Southbound, Westbound On-Ramp. 0 trips in either a.m. peak hour or
p.m. peak hour;
• Irwindale Avenue, Westbound Off-Ramp. 92 trips during a.m. peak hour, 209 trips during
p.m. peak hour;
• Irwindale Avenue, Eastbound On-Ramp. 63 trips during a.m. peak hour, 165 trips during
p.m. peak Hour; and
• Irwindale Avenue, Eastbound Off-Ramp. 69 trips during a.m. peak hour, 113 trips during
p.m. peak hour.
A ramp capacity analysis was conducted at the Irwindale Avenue/I-210 freeway interchange,
where a majority of the Project trip assignment would occur to and from the I-210 freeway. (EIR
at 5.3-41.)
45635.01817\5969390.3 59
Forecast Year and Buildout-Year Impacts. A storage length issue was identified within the
analysis at the eastbound on-ramp to the I-210 freeway from Irwindale Avenue during the p.m.
peak period. This issue was apparent in both the forecast pre-Project and post-Project periods,
but would not be caused solely by the proposed Project. This would occur in both the forecast
year and buildout year scenarios. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-5 would ensure
that the Project Applicant would coordinate with Caltrans, prior to issuance of a building permit,
pertaining to potential fair-share contribution fees toward the Project's storage length
contribution at the eastbound on-ramp to the I-210 freeway from Irwindale Avenue during the
p.m. peak period. Storage length issues were not identified at the westbound onramps at the
Irwindale Avenue interchange. Thus, as the Project is anticipated to make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the significant cumulative freeway ramp capacity deficiencies, this
cumulative impact of the Project would be significant, even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure TRA-5.
3. Threshold: Hazards from Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
Finding: Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.3-42.)
Supporting Explanation:
No future projects are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site in part because the
surrounding area is already largely built-out. Thus, no overall cumulatively considerable hazards,
as a result of design features, would result. The proposed Project would include internal roadway
circulation that would allow trucks to safely enter the Project site from Gladstone, travel west
toward the proposed MRF/TS site, unload and load appropriate waste materials at the MRF/TS,
and then exit the Project site via the roadway back to the scale house and the exit driveway
located at the eastern portion of the Project site. Further, the Project would provide for a raised
median pull out along the proposed day laborers site for improved safety circulation along
Gladstone. Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and impacts in this regard
would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.3-42.) .
4. Threshold: Conflict with Adopted Plans, Policies or Programs
Regarding Public Transit
Findin : Implementation of the Project would not conflict with any adopted plans, policies, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities and the Project's cumulative
impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.3-42 to 44.)
Supporting Explanation:
Cumulative projects would be required to comply with the each respective City's adopted
policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities on a project-
by-project basis. Thus, the overall cumulatively considerable impacts would be less than
significant in this regard. Implementation of the proposed Project would not impede the existing
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Further, the proposed Project would construct a
new sidewalk along the northern portion of Gladstone Street, where sidewalk currently does not
exist. The proposed Project would not conflict with any of the applicable policies of the Mobility
45635.0 1 817\5969390.3 60
Element of the Azusa General Plan pertaining to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs that would result in a decrease of the performance or safety of public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities. Project impacts are less than significant in this regard and these Project
impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (EIR at 5.3-42 to 44.)
F. Air Quality
1. Threshold: Applicable Air Quality Plan
Findin : The Project is consistent with applicable air quality plan and thus cumulative impacts
are less than significant and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.4-36.)
Supporting Explanation:
The City of Azusa is subject to the SCAQMD's 2007 AQMP. Additionally, the City is
located within the Los Angeles County subregion of the SCAG 2008 RCP, which governs
population growth. The General Plan is consistent with the 2008 RCP, and since the 2008 RCP
is consistent with the 2007 AQMP, growth under the General Plan is consistent with the 2007
AQMP. Therefore, development in the City would not conflict or obstruct the 2007 AQMP.
Also, as the proposed Project would be consistent with the 2007 AQMP, the Project would not
cumulatively contribute to impacts in this regard. (EIR at 5.4-36.)
2. Threshold: Violate Air Quality Standards /Criteria Pollutants /
Sensitive Receptors
Finding: The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 to
help reduce construction-related impacts. However, Project-related construction activities in
combination with those from other projects in the area would deteriorate the local air quality and
lead to a cumulatively considerable impact that cannot be avoided with mitigation. Impacts
would therefore be significant and unavoidable. (EIR at 5.4-37.) Also, the Project's cumulative
operational impacts would be reduced with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3
(above). However, Project-related operational activities in combination with those from other
projects in the area would deteriorate the local air quality and lead to cumulative operational
impacts that would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. (EIR at 5.4-38.)
Supporting Explanation:
Construction Impacts. The SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative
construction or operational emissions, nor does it provide separate methodologies or thresholds
of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. Instead, the
SCAQMD recommends that a Project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be
assessed using the same significance criteria as those for Project-specific impacts. Therefore,
individual development projects that generate construction-related or operational emissions that
exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for Project-specific impacts would also
cause a cumulative considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is
nonattainment. (EIR at 5.4-37.)
4563 5.01S17\5969390.3 61
Of the projects that have been identified within the Project study area, there are a number of
related projects that have not been built or are currently under construction. Since the Project
Applicant has no control over the timing or sequencing of the related projects, any quantitative
analysis to ascertain the daily construction emissions that assumes multiple, concurrent
construction would be speculative. Based on the projects identified in Section 4.0, Basis of
Cumulative Analysis, the City anticipates several construction projects. The total .amount of
construction and development within the City would exceed the SCAQMD's recommended
thresholds of significance, resulting in a cumulative impact. (EIR at 5.4-37.)
With respect to the proposed Project's construction-period air quality emissions and cumulative
Basin conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions
outlined in the 2007 AQMP pursuant to FCAA mandates. As such, the proposed Project would
comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements, and implement all feasible mitigation measures.
In addition, the proposed Project would comply with adopted 2007 AQMP emissions control
measures. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant
impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance,
the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted 2007
AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects throughout
the Basin, which would include each of the related projects listed in Section 4.0, Basis of
Cumulative Analysis. (EIR at 5.4-37.)
Although compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would reduce construction-related
impacts, the Project-related construction emissions have been concluded to be significant and
unavoidable for NOX emissions during construction. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the
Project-related construction activities, in combination with those from other projects in the area,
would deteriorate the local air quality and lead to cumulative construction-related impacts. (EIR
at 5.4-37.)
Cumulative Operational Impacts. Due to the Basin's nonattainment status for 03, PM2.5, and
PM10, additional emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds under a long-term condition for
VOC, NOX, PM2.5, and PM 10 would be considered significant and unavoidable for cumulative
impacts. NOX emissions are projected to be above the significance thresholds for both the
opening and buildout conditions. Despite the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3,
Project-related operational emissions have been concluded to be significant and unavoidable for
NOX. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the Project-related operational activities, in
combination with those from other projects in the area, would deteriorate the local air quality and
lead to cumulative operational-related significant and unavoidable impacts, and that the Project's
contribution would be cumulatively considerable. (EIR at 5.4-38.)
3. Threshold: Objectionable Odors
Finding: The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AQ-4 and with
implementation the Project would not cumulatively contribute to short- or long-term odor
impacts. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (EIR at 5.4-38.)
45635.01817\5969390.3 62
Supporting Explanation:
Construction activities in accordance with the projects identified in Section 4.0, Basis of
Cumulative Analysis, and the proposed Project have the potential to generate airborne odors due
to the construction equipment. However, these emissions would occur during daytime hours and
would be isolated to the vicinity of the construction site. Therefore, odor impacts associated with
cumulative projects would not be cumulatively considerable. Additionally, the Project's
operational odors were determined to be less than significant with compliance with SCAQMD
Rule 410 and the preparation of an Odor Minimization Plan; refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-4.
Therefore, a limited number of people would be impacted and the proposed Project would not
cumulatively contribute short- or long-term cumulative odor impacts. (EIR at 5.4-38.)
G. Greenhouse Gas
1. Threshold: Direct/Indirect Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Findin : The Project's cumulative GHG emissions would be less than significant and no
mitigation beyond AQ-1 through AQ-3 are required. (EIR at 5.5-27 to 29.)
Supporting Explanation:
As stated above, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact regarding GHG
emissions, as the Project would result in a net increase of 7,828 MTCO2eq per year under
opening conditions, and 9,210 MTCO2eq per year under buildout conditions. This assumes all
the collection and, transfer truck trips are new trips rather than existing trips within the region
which already contribute to global GHG emissions. Therefore, Project-related GHG impacts
were determined to be less than significant as they were below the 10,000 MTCO2eq threshold.
The background and formulation of the GHG threshold that was utilized is described under
Section 5.5-3, Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria. Furthermore, the proposed Project
would include design features to reduce energy and water consumption and achieve LEED
certification. Off-site GHG reduction was considered, but found to be infeasible. For any off-site
GHG reduction measures to be considered mitigation for the purposes of a CEQA document they
must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding
instrument. While the Project Applicant has undertaken projects that result in the reduction of
GHG emissions, none of these projects satisfy the criteria to allow them to be considered a GHG
reduction for this Project. (EIR at 5.5-27 to 29.)
It is generally the case that an individual project of this size and nature (e.g., to accommodate
existing and future disposal and recycling needs) is of insufficient magnitude by itself to
influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory.
GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative
GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. In addition, as noted in Table 5.5-7,
the Project would contribute approximately 0.000028 percent to the GHG burden for the planet.
The additive effect of this amount GHG would not result in a reasonably foreseeable
cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. For the reasons discussed in
this section and because the Project incorporates GHG reduction measures and design features
and would implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, the Project's cumulative
GHG emissions would have a less than significant impact on the environment. (EIR at 5.5-27 to
45635.01817%5969390.3 63
5.5-29.)
2. Threshold: Conflict with Applicable Plan, Policy, Program for
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Findin : The Project would comply with the City's Geology Hazards Implementation Program
and thus would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact as concerns applicable plans,
policies, and programs. Impacts are therefore less than significant and no mitigation is required.
(EIR at 5.5-29.)
Supporting Explanation:
GEO 18 is the City's Geology Hazards Implementation Program (Interagency Coordination),
which intends to reduce the possibility of significant changes in climate, support international
efforts to protect the Earth's ozone layer, including policy to minimize or prevent the release of
greenhouse gases. Cumulative projects would be required to be consistent with this program to
avoid cumulatively considerable impacts. The proposed Project would not generate a significant
amount of GHGs. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable impact with regard to a conflict with the City's Geology Hazards Implementation
Program. There are no other applicable plans, policies, or regulations that have been adopted by
the City or other regulating agency for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases. (EIR at 5.5-29.)
H. Noise
1. Threshold: Permanent Noise Increase/Noise Generation
Finding: The Project's cumulative traffic and noise impacts would be less than significant with
the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2, above. (EIR at 5.6-35 to 39.)
Supporting Explanation:
Cumulative Traffic Noise. The cumulative mobile noise analysis is conducted in a two step
process. First, the combined effects from both the proposed Project and other projects are
compared. Second, for combined effects that are determined to be cumulatively significant, the
Project's incremental effects then are added. The Project's contribution to a cumulative traffic
noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception
level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The combined effect compares the "cumulative
with project" condition to "existing" conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise
increase from the Project generated in combination with traffic generated by.projects in the
cumulative projects list; refer to Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List. The following criteria have
been utilized to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase.
Combined Effects: The cumulative with Project noise level ("Buildout With Project") would
cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over existing conditions occurs and the
resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there
may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed Project in combination with other related
projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental
effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed
45635.018 k7\5969390.3 64
Project. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the incremental effect of the
cumulative noise increase. (EIR at 5.6-35 to 5.6-36.)
Incremental Effects: The "Buildout With Project" causes a 1 dBA increase in noise over the
"Buildout Without Project" noise level. A significant impact would result only if both the
combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized
phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only
proposed projects and growth due to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site would
contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Table 5.6-15, Cumulative Noise Scenario, lists the traffic
noise effects along roadway segments in the Project vicinity for "Existing Without Project",
"Buildout Without Project", and "Buildout With Project", including incremental and net
cumulative impacts. First, it must be determined whether the Cumulative With Project Increase
Above Existing Conditions (Combined Effects) is exceeded. Per Table 5.6-15, the criteria is
exceeded along four segments of Irwindale Avenue (between I-210 and Gladstone Street) and
two segments of Gladstone Street (east of Irwindale Avenue and west of Vincent Avenue). Next,
under the Incremental Effects criteria, cumulative noise impacts are defined by determining if the
ambient (Buildout Without Project) noise level is increased by 1 dB or more. (EIR at 5.6-35 to
5.6-36.)
Based on the results of Table 5.6-15, the same four segments of Irwindale Avenue and two
segments of Gladstone Street would experience noise level increase that exceed both the
combined and incremental effects criteria. However, commercial land uses are located along
Irwindale Avenue between I7210 and Gladstone Street, and industrial uses are located along
Gladstone Street east of Irwindale Avenue and west of Vincent Avenue. Traffic noise levels
along these segments would not be expected to generate noise levels exceeding the State's land
use compatibility standards for industrial and commercial uses; refer to Table 5.6-4. (EIR at 5.6-
35 to 5.6-36.)
Operation of the HHWF is not anticipated to attract enough traffic to considerably affect traffic
noise levels. Based on the annual operations at the County's busiest HHWF, the proposed
HHWF could attract as many as 1,500 vehicles per day when it operates. However, all of this
traffic would result in CNEL traffic noise level increases of less than 0.3 dB along Gladstone
Street and less than 0.5 dBA along Vincent Avenue because those who frequent a HHWF travel
by passenger cars. Therefore, operation of the proposed HHWF would not result in a significant
off-site traffic noise impact. (EIR at 5.6-35 to 5.6-36.)
Cumulative Operational Noise. Cumulative development would include some industrial and
commercial uses, which would generate operational noise. Operational noise associated with
these uses would be consistent with the existing uses in the surrounding area and would be
required to comply with the applicable noise standards. Additionally, operational noise would be
local and would not extend far beyond each project's boundaries. The proposed Project would
introduce the use of stationary equipment that would increase noise levels within the area. Based
on the analysis, with mitigation, on- and off-site impacts would be less than significant. The
proposed Project would not result in stationary long-term equipment that would significantly
affect surrounding sensitive receptors. Furthermore, future development proposals within the
City of Azusa would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which
would address potential noise impacts and identify necessary attenuation measures, where
45635.01817\5969390.3 65
appropriate. Thus, cumulative noise exposure for long-term operations would be considered a
less than significant impact. (EIR at 5.6-38.)
2. Threshold: Ground-borne Vibration
Finding: The Project's cumulative impact from ground-borne vibration would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.6-39.)
Supporting Explanation:
Based on the nature and intensity of the anticipated cumulative development, cumulative
construction and operations would not be cumulatively considerable. Ground-bome vibration
decreases rapidly with distance. Project-related vibration impacts would be less than significant,
based on their distance from sensitive receptors. Additionally, vibration impacts would not
interact with other cumulative projects due to distances between the sites. (EIR at 5.6-39.)
3. Threshold: Temporary Noise Increase
Findin : The Project's cumulative impact from construction noise impacts would be less than
significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1. (EIR at 5.6-39 to 5.6-40.)
Supporting Explanation:
Of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable related projects that have been identified within
the Project area, none are anticipated to involve construction at the same time as the proposed
Project such that there would be cumulatively considerable construction related noise impacts.
Neither the City nor the Project applicant have control over the timing or sequencing of
construction of other related projects. For these reasons, a quantitative analysis to ascertain any
daily cumulative construction noise level increase from multiple, concurrent construction would
be speculative. Construction noise is a localized activity that would affect only land uses located
in proximity to each respective cumulative project's construction site. Noise from construction of
the cumulative projects could expose adjacent receptors to noise levels between 70 and 90 dBA
at 50 feet from the noise source. (EIR at 5.6-39 to 5.6-40.)
The degree of impact would be site specific and would be dependent upon the distance between
the construction site and the nearest noise sensitive receptor. The City's exterior residential noise
standard (65 dBA) could be exceeded during the construction phase of the cumulative projects.
Construction noise impacts would cease upon completion of grading/construction activities.
Compliance with site-specific mitigation, as well as compliance with requirements of the Azusa
Municipal Code (Chapter 46, Article IX, Division 2, Section 46-401 through 45-415), would
serve to minimize the length of time noise-sensitive receptors are exposed to significant noise
levels. Additionally, because noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts .
from construction activities would be limited to each of the respective sites and their vicinities.
Project-related short-term construction impacts would be less than significant, and based on their
location, construction noise from cumulative projects would not interact with noise from the
proposed Project due to distances between the specific sites. Mitigation Measure N-1 would
reduce construction noise impacts by requiring equipment to be muffled and best management
practices for hauling activities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this
regard after implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1. (EIR at 5.6-39 to 5.6-40.)
45635.01817\5969390.3 66
I. Public Services and Utilities
1. Threshold: Water Supply
Finding: The Project's cumulative impact on water facilities would be less than significant as
discussed below and in this EIR and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.7-22.)
Supporting Explanation:
There are 37 projects proposed in the cities of Azusa, Covina, Glendora, Duarte, and Irwindale in
addition to the proposed Project. Implementation of cumulative projects would increase the
water demand of agencies serving these communities (i.e., ALW, SGVMWD, and MWD). The
main source of water for the region is the Main Basin. SGVMWD has indicated that the Main
Basin is expected to have adequate water supply through 2025. The Azusa General Plan also
notes that the City has an adequate water supply to serve anticipated growth until 2025. Future
projects would be evaluated by the responsible agency to determine the extent of impacts on
existing water facilities in the region. Additionally, developers may also be required to contribute
fees based on the project's proportional demand for new resources. Therefore, overall cumulative
impacts to water facilities would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.7-22.)
Project implementation would result in a long-term water demand for operational uses, including
restrooms, administrative uses, and landscaping. Operation of the Project would create a total
potable water demand of approximately 12,157 gpd on an average day and annual water demand
of approximately 13.63 AF per year.22 The Project's water demand would be served by ALW,
who anticipates the proposed Project would be accommodated with existing water supplies.
Although the proposed Project would require a Zone Code Amendment and General Plan
Amendment, the re-designation of land uses would not increase the population at the Project site
(thus, creating a greater water demand) from that analyzed in the Azusa General Plan. The
Applicant would be required to contribute fees based on the Project's proportional demand for
new resources, to be calculated by the Directory of Utilities, per Municipal Code Chapter 78,
Utilities, Article VI, Water, Division 5, System Development Fee. As such, with payment of
such fees, operation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact on water supply.
(EIR at 5.7-22.)
2. Threshold: Wastewater
Finding: The Project's cumulative impact on wastewater facilities would be less than significant
and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.7-23.)
Supporting Explanation:
Cumulative projects proposed within the City would increase demand on existing wastewater
facilities. The Azusa Sewer Master Plan maps the City and LACSD sewer pipelines within the
City boundaries. Wastewater is conveyed and treated at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation
Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant, which process capacities of 100 and 350 mgd,
respectively. Currently, the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant processes an effluent flow
of 87.5 mgd and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant treated an effluent flow of 284 mgd.23
The existing wastewater treatment plant capacity is designed to accommodate the average and
peak amounts of wastewater generated in the community through the year 2025. Cumulative
45635.01817%5969390.3 67
Project's compliance with Azusa Public Works regulations and the City's Municipal Code would
ensure the Project would have less than significant impacts on the existing sewer system.
Developers may also be required to contribute fees, on a project-by-project basis, for demand of
new resources. Therefore, overall cumulative project impacts to wastewater facilities would be
less than significant. (EIR at 5.7-23.)
The proposed Project is estimated to generate wastewater quantities of approximately 30 gpm
(43,200 gpd) on an average day and approximately 149 gpm (214,560 gpd) on a peak day. The
two pipelines that would serve the Project site carry an existing flow of 51 gpm, and have a
design flow capacity of approximately 227 gpm. Therefore, flows from the proposed Project
would not exceed the design capacities of these pipes. Also, the San Jose Creek Water
Reclamation Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant are anticipated to accommodate
wastewater flows through 2025 and would accommodate the Project's wastewater. The proposed
Project would be accommodated by existing sewer pipelines and wastewater treatment plants,
and would not require additional infrastructure to serve the Project. The proposed Project would
not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB, and Azusa Public
Works has not noted any assessment fees or other recommended mitigation measures for the
proposed Project. Project compliance with Azusa Public Works regulations and the City's
Municipal Code would ensure the Project would have less than significant impacts on the
existing sewer system. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts to wastewater
facilities would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.7-23.)
3. Threshold: Solid Waste
Finding: The Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact on solid waste
facilities and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.7-24.)
Supporting Explanation:
Solid waste generation from approved and foreseeable cumulative projects in the County of Los
Angeles would exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues in the future. That is, any additional
solid waste incrementally added to existing facilities would shorten the amount of time until they
reach maximum capacity. Implementation of each jurisdiction's SRRE measures would be
required on a project-by-project basis. Implementation of recycling measures and development
of MRF/TS facilities would partially address landfill capacity issues by diverting additional solid
waste, both at the source of generation and through recovery and consolidation. However, the
Districts have recognized the future need for out-of-County disposal capacity. To this end, the
Districts have pursued additional capacity through the use of a waste-by-rail system. The
Districts are currently in the process of designing and constructing the rail facilities necessary to
begin Waste-by-Rail operation by 2011/2012. The City of Industry approved the CUP for the
Puente Hills Intermodal Facility (PHIMF) in June 2008, which would be used for loading and
unloading rail-ready shipping containers for the Waste-by-Rail system. The containers would
then be transported to the Mesquite Regional Landfill in Imperial County for disposal. Therefore,
the proposed MRF/TS, in combination with other projects in the region and continued
implementation of each jurisdiction's SRRE measures, would be anticipated to have a less than
significant cumulative impact. (EIR at 5.7-24.)
45635.018175969390.3 68
All cumulative development within the Project vicinity and Los Angeles County would be
required to comply with all applicable Federal, State;and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste. This includes compliance with AB 939, which requires a 50 percent diversion of all
solid waste from disposal in local landfills. There is no cumulative impact related to compliance
with applicable regulations. (EIR at 5.7-24.)
4. Threshold: Police Protection Services
Finding: The Project's cumulative impact on police protection services would be less than,
significant and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.7-25.)
Supporting Explanation:
There are 10 additional projects proposed in the City of Azusa in addition to the proposed Project
which would be under the Azusa Police Department's jurisdiction. These projects propose
additional residential, institutional, commercial, and office uses that would require police
protection services from the Azusa Police Department. These projects would be required to
comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and development codes related to police protection
services. It is anticipated that existing police services would be adequate to serve the proposed
Project with the assumption that the projects pay the required developer fees. As service level
needs increase due to increased population or other factors affecting the community, the City
would determine whether or not additional police staff is needed. Therefore, overall cumulative
impacts would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.7-25.)
The proposed Project would generate new jobs in the City, but would not directly induce
population growth. The Azusa Police Department has indicated that implementation of the
proposed Project would not require the expansion of police facilities or services, and that
adequate services exist to serve the Project site. However, in order to ensure employee and
visitor safety at the Project site as well as overall site security, the Applicant would be required
to adhere to specific conditions related to safety and security specified by the Azusa Police
Department (Mitigation Measure PSU-1). Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation
Measure PSU-1, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
(EIR at 5.7-25.)
5. Threshold: Fire Protection Services
Finding: The Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to fire protection services
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (EIR at 5.7-25 to 26.)
There are 37 projects proposed in the cities of Azusa, Covina, Glendora, Duarte, and Irwindale in.
addition to the proposed Project which would be under the LACFD's jurisdiction. These projects
propose additional residential, institutional, commercial, office, hospital, and recreational uses
that would require fire protection services from LACFD. These projects would be required to
comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and development codes related to fire protection
and emergency services. It is anticipated that existing fire protection services would be adequate
to serve the proposed Project with the assumption that the projects pay the required developer
fees. As service level needs increase due to increased population or other factors affecting the
community, the City would determine whether or not additional fire protection staff is needed.
45635.01817A59693903 69
Therefore, overall cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.7-25 to 26.)
The proposed Project would generate new jobs in the City, but would not directly induce
population growth. The proposed Project would not result in a decrease to the City's ISO rating
and would not impact LACFD response times. The LACFD has indicated that implementation of
the proposed Project would not require the expansion of fire protection facilities or services, and
that adequate services exist to serve the Project site. Therefore, the Project's contribution to
cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.7-25 to 26.)
J. Cultural Resources
1. Threshold: Archaeological Resources
Finding: The Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant cultural resources impact
with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and thus impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation. (EIR at 5.8-10.)
Supporting Explanation:
Archaeological resources have been noted within the City. Cumulative development could
impact these resources as new development occurs. However, individual projects would be
evaluated on a project-by-project basis to determine the extent of potential impacts to
archeological resources. Adherence to State and Federal statutes, as well as project-specific
mitigation measures, cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less
than significant levels. (EIR at 5.8-10.)
The CHRIS records search within the Cultural Resources Constraints Study identified no cultural
resources within the Project area. The proposed Project would retain the industrial setting
currently present within and around the Project area. There are no known archaeological
resources occurring at the Project site. However, the proposed Project does have the potential to
impact previously unrecorded cultural resources during ground disturbances. In the event that
cultural resources are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities should
be halted in the immediate vicinity of the discovery. An archaeologist who meets the Secretary
of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (Secretary of the Interior 1983) should be
retained to evaluate the find's significance under CEQA. If the .discovery proves to be
significant, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and shall be
discussed in consultation with the lead agency (Mitigation Measure CUL-1). With
implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the Project would not cumulatively contribute
to substantial cultural resource impacts. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
(EIR at 5.8-10.)
2. Threshold: Paleontological Resources
Finding: The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2 to reduce
potentially significant impacts on paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation:
Based on the Azusa General Plan EIR, rock units present within the City include Mesozoic
plutonic rocks, Quartemary terrestrial sediments, and Tertiary marine sediments. These rock
45635.018 M59693903 70
units include formations (Pliocene Fernando and Miocene Topanga) that have been known to
contain fossiliferous materials, including remains of marine mammals. The Azusa General Plan
includes Implementation Program HR2, which identifies the necessary procedure to follow if
previously unknown resources are identified. Adherence to Implementation Program HR2 would
reduce cumulative impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant levels. (EIR at
5.8-11.)
The Project site has been previously disturbed with the construction of structures and related
infrastructure. Therefore, it is not anticipated that Project construction activities would uncover
unknown potential for paleontological resources within the Project site. Also, Implementation
Program HR2 of the Azusa General Plan identifies the necessary procedure to follow if
previously unknown resources are identified during construction. Adherence to Implementation
Program HR2 (Mitigation Measure CUL-2) would ensure the Project would not contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts. (EIR at 5.8-11.)
3. Threshold: Disturbance of Human Remains
Finding: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3, the Project would have a less
than significant cumulative impact relative to the disturbance of human remains. (EIR at 5.8-11
to 12.)
Supporting Explanation: Implementation Program HR2 of the Azusa General Plan requires
developers to contact the local coroner immediately in the event that human remains are
discovered during the implementation of a proposed Project. Both the Native American Heritage
Commission and any identified descendants should be notified, and recommendations received,
if the remains are determined to probe of Native well as State and Federal statutes, cumulative
projects would result in less than significant impacts with regard to the disturbance of human
remains. (EIR at 5.8-11 to 12.)
The Cultural Resources Constraints Study did not identify cultural resources or burial sites of
significance to Native Americans in the Project.vicinity. However, the proposed Project does
have the potential to impact previously unrecorded human remains during ground disturbances.
With adherence to Implementation Program HR2 of the Azusa General Plan, as well as State of
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as required by Mitigation Measure CUL-3,
the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts. (EIR at 5.8-11 to 12.)
K. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Threshold: Transport, Use, Disposal of Hazards / Release of
Hazardous Materials
Finding: The Project would comply with Federal, state, and local statutes and regulations relative
to the transport of hazardous materials. The Project's cumulative impact would thus be less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Supporting Explanation:
Cumulative development would include some industrial and commercial uses, which could
involve the use of various hazardous products in greater quantities. Residential development
45635.01817\5969390.3 71
would also increase the use of household-type hazardous materials. The use, storage, disposal,
and transport of hazardous materials could result in a foreseeable number of spills and accidents.
All construction and demolition activities, as well as all new development, would be subject to
compliance with hazardous materials regulations. Future development would be required to
evaluate their respective hazards and hazardous materials impacts on a project-by-project basis.
Compliance with all Federal, State, and local regulations during the construction and operation
of new developments would ensure that there are no cumulatively considerable significant
hazards to the public or the environment associated the routine transportation, use, disposal or
release of hazardous materials. (EIR at 5.9-20 to 21.)
The proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a contribution of contamination to the
groundwater, as the proposed Project would not result in the subsurface storage of hazardous
materials, such as the use of USTs. However, the Project could contribute, cumulatively
(although not significantly), to a hazard involving the transport of hazardous materials.
Compliance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, pertaining to the strict regulations
for the safe transportation of hazardous materials would be required for the Project. Appropriate
documentation would be provided for all hazardous waste that are transported during operations
of the Project. Also, the City's street setback requirements would further minimize the direct
damage that may occur from transportation-related hazardous waste spills. Compliance with all
applicable Federal and State laws related to the transportation of hazardous materials would
reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit, thereby ensuring that a less than
significant, cumulatively considerable, impact would occur in this regard. (EIR at 5.9-20 to 21.)
2. Threshold: Hazardous Materials Site
Finding: The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 relative to
groundwater contamination, and the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact relative to a hazardous materials site with mitigation. Impacts are therefore less than
significant. (EIR at 5.9-21 to 22.)
Supporting Explanation:
There are many sites located in the general area of the Project that are listed pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5, and have created a significant hazard to the public and the
environment. The San Gabriel Valley and San Gabriel Valley (Area 2) properties have reported
the presence of VOCs at or greater than the MCLs. A 7.5-mile long and 1.5-mile wide
groundwater contaminant plume has resulted that parallels the San Gabriel River to the west of
the.Project site (in the Baldwin Park area). This contamination plume has affected the public
water supplies. Noted contaminants include: carbon tetrachloride, PCE, TCE, and other
chlorinated solvents. Three of the four largest contributors to this contamination plume are
located within one mile up-gradient from the Project site. The existing Azusa Land Reclamation
landfill is reported by the EPA as a lesser contributor to the San Gabriel Valley Area plume.
These existing properties that have created this contamination plume have resulted in a
significant cumulative impact to the public and the environment. (EIR at 5.9-21 to 5.9-22.)
The existing Project site could be contributing to the San Gabriel Valley Area plume if USTs are
discovered to be at the site, although this contribution is not considered to be significant
compared to the contamination plume as a whole. Upon Project implementation, the Applicant
45635.01817\5969390.3 72
would be required to comply with the HHMD's Underground Storage Tank Program, including
obtaining the appropriate permit for UST removal (Mitigation Measure HAZ-3). When a UST is
closed, the owner must submit soil/groundwater testing results to rule out the presence of
regulated hazardous materials with a closure letter. Upon implementation of HAZ-3, the
Applicant would also be required to confirm that the removed USTs have not contaminated
groundwater. If groundwater contamination, as a result of the removed USTs, is present above
regulatory thresholds, then the Applicant would be required to remediate the groundwater
appropriately, as required by the HHMD. Thus, with implementation of HAZ-3, implementation
of the proposed Project may actually alleviate an existing condition. Therefore, the proposed
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact in this regard and impacts are less
than significant. (EIR at 5.9-21 to 5.9-22.)
L. Hydrology
1. Threshold: Water Quality Standards
Finding: The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HWQ 1 through
HWQ-3 and HWQ-5 and cumulative impacts related to water quality standards would be less
than significant with mitigation. (EIR at 5.10-23.)
Supporting Explanation:
Cumulative projects would have the potential to affect water quality during construction and
long-term operation. The projects would contribute storm water flows to the local and regional
drainage facilities. However, construction activities associated with cumulative projects would
have a less than significant impact on surface water quality with adherence to State-required
construction requirements. Each project would also be required to comply with existing water
quality standards, and include BMPs as necessary. Therefore, overall cumulative impacts would
be less than significant. (EIR at 5.10-23.)
Development of the proposed Project, along with related cumulative projects, would result in
increased potential for short-term construction and long-term operational water quality impacts
within the area. However, the proposed Project would adhere to NPDES requirements and
implement a SWPPP with specific BMPs, as required by Mitigation Measures HWQ-1
through HWQ-3 during construction activities. The Project would include three infiltration
and/or extended detention basins which would provide long-term operational water quality
mitigation at the Project site. Additionally, Mitigation Measure HWQ-5 would require the
preparation of a Project-specific SUSMP, which would further reduce operational water quality
impacts as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable, and impacts in this regard are less than significant. (EIR at 5.10-23.)
2. Threshold: Drainage and Erosion /Drainage and Runoff/Runoff
Findin : The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HWQ-4 and
cumulative impacts related to drainage would be less than significant with mitigation. (EIR at
5.10-24.)
4563 5.01S1715 9693 90.3 73
Supporting Explanation:
Cumulative projects would have the potential to affect hydrology and drainage of the area. The
projects would contribute storm water flows to the local and regional storm water system and
drainage facilities. However, each individual project would be required to submit. individual
analyses to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
Each analysis must illustrate how peak flows generated from each related project site would be
accommodated by the City's existing and/or proposed storm drainage facilities. Future projects
would also be required to comply with existing water quality standards, implement site-specific
improvements, and include BMPs as necessary. Therefore, overall cumulative impacts would be
less than significant. (EIR at 5.10-24.)
Implementation of the proposed Project, in conjunction with related cumulative projects, would
result in increased potential for hydrology and drainage impacts within the City. However,
although the Project would alter drainage patterns and increase the flow rate of run-off exiting
the Project site, the Project includes infiltration and/or extended detention basins which would
provide flood control, and may be designed to infiltrate a portion of.the run-off to assist with the
mitigation so that the Project would not increase run-off above existing conditions to the
Arrowdale Drain. The basins would mitigate the proposed water quality volumes and the 50-year
storm event, as required by the LADPW and included within Mitigation Measure HWQ-4.
Therefore, the Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts in this
regard are less than significant. (EIR at 5.10-24.)
M. Geology
1. Threshold: Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil
Findin : With the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and AQ-2, the Project's
cumulative impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
(EIR at 5.11-7 to 8.)
Supporting Explanation:
Portions of the City and surrounding areas contain soils that have erosion potential. Construction
of planned and future cumulative projects would facilitate soil erosion and loss of topsoil.
Grading activities leave soils exposed to rainfall and wind conditions that results in erosion. The
geotechnical characteristics of each cumulative project site would be evaluated on a project-by-
project basis, and appropriate mitigation measures would be required, as necessary, in addition to
Federal and State requirements for mitigating erosion. Therefore, assuming cumulative projects
implement project specific mitigation measures, cumulative soil erosion and loss of topsoil
impacts would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.11-7 to 8.)
Project construction would involve grading activities over the entire Project site. According to
the Geotechnical Investigation, there is a potential for erosion to occur during the grading
process of the proposed Project during periods of heavy rainfall. Grading and excavation
operations may result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil in the absence of
mitigation. The Project would be required to comply with all requirements set forth in the
NPDES permit for construction activities, as enforced by the Los Angeles RWQCB. Therefore,
in addition to the State and Federal requirements regarding erosion, Mitigation Measure GEO-
45635.01817\5969390.3 74
1 would require the Project to adhere to the engineering recommendations contained within the
Geotechnical Investigation regarding erosion and runoff. Additionally, erosion and loss of
topsoil as a result of wind (fugitive dust) would be minimized with implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-2. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. (EIR at 5.11-7 to 8.)
With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and AQ-2, as well as compliance with
NPDES requirements, the proposed Project's cumulative contribution to soil erosion and loss of
topsoil would be less than significant. (EIR at 5.11-7 to 8.)
2. Threshold: Unstable Soil
Finding: The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and impacts
related to unstable settlement, distress, and consolidation from unstable soil would be less than
significant. (EIR at 5.11-8.)
Supporting Explanation:
At this time, no future development is proposed in the vicinity of the historic landfill boundaries.
Thus, overall cumulative impacts are not considerable. Although the Project site would be
susceptible to settlement, distress, and consolidation due to the soil components at the Project
site, the Project would conform to applicable City criteria, adhere to standard engineering
practices, and incorporate standard practices of the UBC. Additionally, Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 would require the Project to incorporate all engineering recommendations contained
within the Geotechnical Investigation to reduce impacts related to settlement, distress, and
consolidation. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts and impacts in
this regard are not cumulatively considerable. (EIR at 5.11-8.)
SECTION 6: RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The City finds as follows:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) states that significant irreversible environmental
changes are those that would be caused by the Proposed Project if implemented. (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15126.2(c).) Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the
consumption of non-renewable energy resources and other impacts, which are considered
irreversible effects, even though the effects are not potentially significant. The irreversible
environmental changes may include (EIR at 6-1 to 2.):
• Commitment of land, which would be physically altered;
• Soil erosion due to grading and construction activities;
• Alteration of the human environment as a consequence of the development process and
the project's commitment to a MRF, TS, and HHWF, which intensifies land uses in the
project area;
• Utilization of various new raw materials, such as lumber, sand and gravel for
construction;
45635.0181715969390.3 75
• Consumption of energy to develop and maintain the project, which may be considered a
permanent investment; and
• Incremental increases in vehicular activity in the surrounding circulation system,
resulting in associated increases in air pollutant emissions and noise levels.
These environmental changes are not considered to be significant due to the relatively
small scope of the Project with regard to the commitment of resources, land, and energy
involved, with the exception of increases in traffic in the surrounding circulation system, which
are separately addressed in the FIR and in this resolution (see supra).
SECTION 7: RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The City finds as follows:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires an evaluation of growth inducing impacts
that may result from a proposed project. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2(d); EIR at 6-2.)
Growth inducing impacts can occur when a proposed project places additional stress on a
community by directly inducing economic or population growth that would lead to construction
of new development projects in the same area as the project.
In general terms, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a
geographic area if it meets any one of the following criteria(EIR at 6-2):
• Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., establishment of an essential public service
and provision of new access to an area);
• Fostering economic expansion or growth (e.g., changes in revenue base and employment
expansion);
• Fostering of population growth (e.g., construction of additional housing), either directly
or indirectly;
• Establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning, and
general plan amendment approval); or
• Development of or encroachment on an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being
distinct from an in-fill project).
Should a project meet any one of the above-listed criteria, it may be considered growth
inducing. The potential growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project are evaluated below.
The CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to "discuss the ways" a project could be growth inducing
and to "discuss the characteristics of some projects that may encourage...activities that could
significantly affect the environment." However, the CEQA Guidelines do not require that an EIR
predict (or speculate) specifically where such growth would occur, in what form it would occur,
or when it would occur. The answers to such questions require speculation, which CEQA
discourages (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145). (EIR at 6-2.)
Environmental Analysis
A project could induce population growth in an area either directly or indirectly. More
specifically, the development of new residences or businesses could induce population growth
45635.01817%5969390.3 76
directly, whereas the extension of roads or other infrastructure could induce population growth
indirectly. The Project is located within a fully developed, urbanized area. Project
implementation would result in the development of a new MRF, TS, and HHWF; refer to Section
3.0, Project Description. Based on the factors discussed below, Project implementation would
not result in significant growth-inducing impacts:
• Removal of an Impediment to Growth. The Project site and surrounding area are fully
developed and urbanized. Transportation and infrastructure exist to serve the range of
industrial, commercial, and residential uses in the Project vicinity. Given the built-out
nature of the Project area and developed infrastructure, the proposed Project would not
represent a removal of an impediment to growth. (EIR at 6-5 to 6.)
• Economic Growth. As stated above, the Project involves the development of a MRF, TS,
and HHWF. Economic growth of this nature would be consistent with the goals and
policies of the Azusa General Plan. Thus, the proposed Project would not be considered
growth inducing in this respect, as the Project is consistent with the City's plans for
economic growth at the Project site. Moreover, the Project represents the reuse of a
former industrial site, which itself was a source of economic growth within the City prior
to facility closure. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant economic growth
in the area. (EIR at 6-5 to 6.)
• Population Growth. Although the proposed Project does not include housing, it has the
potential to induce growth within the Project area due to the creation of employment
opportunities. The proposed Project would generate 75 jobs in the City, 65 more than
were provided by the former waste tire reclamation facility which previously occupied
the site. Estimating the number of future employees generated by the Project who would
choose to relocate to the City would be highly speculative, since many factors influence
personal housing location decisions (e.g., family income levels and the cost and
availability of suitable housing in the local area). Due to the uncertainty which exists
regarding the number of new employees who may choose to relocate to the City, a
conservative analysis of impacts associated with the City's permanent population is
provided. For analysis purposes, it is estimated that 50 percent of the future employees
would relocate to the City, and each future employee would have a household of 3.6
persons. This would result in a potential increase of approximately 135 persons. The
proposed Project would foster population growth within the City through employment
generation. As the City's January 2010 population is estimated at 49,174 persons, this
increase of approximately 135 persons represents an approximate 0.3 percent increase in
the total population within the City. As the potential growth associated with the proposed
Project would represent a minor increase over existing conditions, the Project would not
result in substantial growth-inducement impacts within the City. (EIR at 6-5 to 6.)
• Precedent-Settiny Action. As demonstrated in Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant
Planning, the proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation to Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use in order to allow the proposed
MRF/TS on a portion of the Project site designated Industrial. Several changes (i.e., land
use change and 24-hour operation) to the Zoning Code would be required to allow the
45635.0181715969396.3 77
MRF/TS and HHWF, as well as approval of multiple conditional use permits (CUPS) and
variances. However, due to the nature of the Project and the minimal amount of growth
the Project would contribute, it is not considered growth-inducing in this regard. (EIR at
6-5 to 6.)
• Development or Encroachment of Open Space. The proposed Project would not be
growth-inducing with respect to development or encroachment into an isolated or
adjacent area of open space. The Project is considered an infill development, as the site
has been previously disturbed and is surrounded by urbanized uses. Overall, Project
implementation would not be considered growth inducing, inasmuch as it would not
foster significant unanticipated economic expansion and growth opportunities. The
Project would not remove an existing impediment to growth and would not develop or
encroach into an isolated or adjacent area of open space. The proposed Project would not
foster significant unanticipated population growth in the Project area, as described above.
Development within the Project area would not require substantial development of
unplanned and unforeseen support uses and services. In addition to inducing growth, a
Project may create a significant environmental impact if it would displace substantial
numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere and/or displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. Implementation of the proposed Project would not
displace substantial numbers of existing housing or persons, as no dwelling units are
currently located at the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not result in an impact
with regard to the displacement of persons, housing, and businesses. (EIR at 6-5 to 6.)
SECTION 8: RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The City finds as follows:
A. THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Project(EIR at 3-13 to 14):
• Maximize the ability to receive, process and consolidate, for efficient transfer and
disposal, municipal solid waste within the San Gabriel Valley; thereby reducing regional
vehicle miles traveled (and related criteria air and greenhouse gas emissions) by trash
collection trucks to the maximum extent feasible.
• Implement a state-of-the art fully enclosed MRF/TS/HHWF within City limits that
reduces environmental impacts through project design (including noise, odors and air
emissions) and provides environmental benefits by facilitating consolidation of refuse
loads and transfer to other regional landfill sites while diverting recyclable materials for
transfer to recyclables processing facilities.
• Provide state-of-the-art recycling methods, cost-effective disposal, and MRF/TS/HHWF
services that will assist Los Angeles County and cities within the County to achieve local
and state mandated waste diversion goals, including those set forth in the California
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, and which further the Recycling and Waste/
4 563 5.01817159693 903 78
High Recycling Recommended Actions contained within CARB's Climate Change
Scoping Plan (2008).
• Provide expanded capacity to divert and process green and wood waste generated in the
San Gabriel Valley in order to promote increased recycling of such materials, and
diversion from landfills, consistent with the City, County, and State goals.
• Provide end uses that will serve the surrounding community.
• Maximize the creation of new well-paying jobs.
• Include facility design features that minimize environmental impacts on surrounding land
uses.
B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that an EIR must "describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly attain most of
the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15126.6[a].) Accordingly, the alternatives selected for review pursuant to the EIR
focus on: (a) the specific General Plan policies pertaining to the Project site and (b) alternatives
that could eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance,
consistent with the Project objectives (i.e. the alternatives could impede to some degree the
attainment of Project objectives). The alternatives analyzed in the following sections include:
• No Project/No Development Alternative;
• No Green Waste Facility Alternative;
• Reduced Tonnage Alternative;
• No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative; and
• Alternative Site Alternative
1. NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Description: The No Project/No Development Alternative would retain the Project site in
its current condition. The vacant waste tire reclamation processing facility occupying the
western portion of the site would remain as it exists and would not be demolished or removed.
The two large single-story industrial structures, concrete paved driveway, partially paved storage
area, and three landfill gas flares would not be removed. The eastern landscaped area that serves
as the entrance to the Azusa Land Reclamation landfill (Azusa Landfill) would not be modified.
Additionally, the central portion of the Project site would remain vacant.
None of the buildings or improvements proposed as part of the Project would be
constructed. Namely, the proposed Material Recovery Facility (MRF), scale house, transfer
45635.0181715969390.3 79
station (TS), and Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF) would not be constructed.
Additionally, none of the proposed hardscape (i.e., perimeter wall, entrance driveways, and
access roads) and landscape improvements would be installed. The existing entrance to the
Azusa Landfill (i.e., at the Gladstone Street and Vincent Avenue intersection) would not be
modified and a new paved road would not be constructed parallel to Gladstone Street. The
intersection improvements required in Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through TRA-4 would
also not be implemented.
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the 3,800 tons per day (tpd) of solid
waste that would be received, processed, and transferred at the proposed MRF/TS would not be
diverted, and instead would go directly to an alternative MRF/TS or to other area landfills for
disposal. This would include 2,500 tpd of municipal solid waste (MSW), 800 tpd of recyclables,
and 500 tpd of green waste that would not be recovered. Additionally, household hazardous
waste from area residents that would be sorted, aggregated, and shipped for treatment at the
proposed HHWF may not be diverted as completely. (EIR at 7-2.)
The following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with
the No Project/No Development Alternative, as compared to impacts from the proposed Project.
(EIR at 7-2 to 7-9.)
Environmental Analysis
Land Use and Relevant Planning. The Project site is designated Recreation/Landfill
Mixed Uses, except for the western comer of the site (i.e., northeast corner of the Irwindale
Avenue and Gladstone Street intersection), which is designated Industrial. The General Plan
Amendment proposed by the Project changing a portion of the site's land use designation from
Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use to Industrial would not be required with this Alternative.
The Project site is zoned District West End Light Industrial (DWL), except for the
western corner , which is zoned District West End Industrial (DW). The HHWF (i.e., a Large
Collection Facility) and MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) proposed by the Project would not
be constructed under the No Project/No Development Alternative. Therefore, the following
permits/approvals would not be required for this Alternative:
General Plan Amendment changing a portion of the site's land use designation from
Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use to Industrial;
• Minor Use Permit allowing the HHWF;
• Zone Change changing a portion of the site's zoning from DWL to DW;
• Zoning Code Amendment allowing 24-hour operations in the DW District with a Use
Permit;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) in the DW District;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) to operate 24 hours per day
in the DW District;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS parking to be fewer than required;
• Variance allowing the MRF/TS building to exceed the 55-foot height limit for the DW
District;
45635.0181715969390.3 80
• Variance allowing the decorative perimeter security wall along Gladstone Street and
Irwindale Avenue to exceed the 42-inch front setback height limit for the DW District;
• Variance allowing the MRF/TS outbound truck shipments to exceed the maximum
allowed per day; allowing the MRF/TS building to exceed the maximum allowed floor
area and allowing outdoor storage; and
• Design Review allowing the construction of the MRF/TS & HHWF.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the
proposed Project regarding land use and relevant planning, given its avoidance of the Project's
impacts. (Ibid.)
Aesthetics/Light and Glare. The existing visual character of the Project site is
illustrated on the following exhibits: Exhibit 5.2-3, Existing On-Site Conditions; Exhibit 5.2-4,
Existing Surrounding Conditions; and Exhibit 5.2-5, Viewpoints 3 and 4 - Existing Conditions.
Short-term visual impacts associated with grading and construction activities would not occur
with the No Project/No Development Alternative. Therefore, the Project's construction-related
impacts to the visual character/quality of the Project site and its surroundings would be avoided.
The long-term visual character of the Project site would not be altered with this
Alternative, because the existing building and improvements would not be demolished and new
buildings. and improvements would not be constructed. The existing degraded character on the
western portion of the Project site due to the abandoned waste tire reclamation facility would
remain.
The Project site is located in the viewshed of the San Gabriel River Bike Path scenic trail
(Viewpoint [VPj 1). Additionally, motorists traveling along Irwindale Avenue experience views
of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north (Viewpoint 2); refer to Exhibit 5.2-1, Viewpoint
Location Map. The existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains experienced from VPs 1 and 2
are illustrated on Exhibit 5.2-1, Viewpoints 1 and 2 - Existing Conditions. The existing views of
the mountains from VPs 1 and 2 would remain unimpaired with this Alternative, as with the
proposed Project.
Lighting currently generated at the Project site is from existing security lighting for the
landfill and temporary office uses. Lighting generated from surrounding areas are safety-oriented
exterior and interior lighting of commercial and industrial uses, and typical roadway sources
(i.e., car headlights, street lighting, and traffic signals). With this Alternative, the existing
lighting levels from the Project site and surrounding areas would remain unchanged. No new
buildings or improvements would be constructed; therefore, the increased lighting anticipated
with the Project, would not occur with this Alternative.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be neither environmentally superior
nor inferior to the proposed Project regarding aesthetics/light and glare, given it would avoid
short-term impacts, however, would retain the site's degraded character. (Ibid.)
Traffic and Circulation. Existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour operating
conditions were evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis; refer to Section 5.3, Traffic and
Circulation. Table 5.3-2, Summary of Intersection Performance Existing (2009) Conditions,
45635.0181715969390.3 81
provides the V/C ratios and LOS values for each study intersection, for the existing conditions
scenario. During the existing (Year 2009) conditions scenario, three of the 13 study intersections
operate at a deficient LOS (LOS E or worse) within the weekday peak hours.
These existing conditions would continue with the No Project/No Development
Alternative and may be further aggravated by additional growth in the area absent improvements
that would otherwise be required as mitigation under the Project. The increase in average daily
traffic (ADT) projected to occur with the proposed Project, and resultant significant unavoidable
impact at three intersections, would not occur with this Alternative, because the proposed
MRF/TS and HHWF would not be developed.
The diversion of third party truck trips from existing area landfills to the Project site
would not occur with this Alternative. Similarly, the Project's outgoing trips involving municipal
solid waste, recovered recyclables, and green waste would not occur. However, it should be
noted that six of the 13 study intersections would operate at a deficient LOS (LOS E or worse)
within one or both weekday peak hours for the forecast year.2014 without Project, and seven of
the 13 study intersections would operate at a deficient LOS (LOS E or worse) within one or both
weekday peak hours for the buildout year 2035 without Project conditions. Therefore, the
significant and unavoidable traffic impacts at three intersections that would occur with the
proposed Project would be avoided with this Alternative; however, seven of the 13 study
intersections would still operate at a deficient LOS (LOS E or worse) within one or both
weekday peak hours under forecast year 2014 without Project conditions.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the
proposed Project regarding traffic and circulation, given it would avoid the significant and
unavoidable traffic impacts at three intersections. However, it would not result in a decrease in
regional traffic conditions as the material would still need to be hauled, processed, and for
municipal solid waste, disposed of elsewhere. Depending on the location of the facilities that
would otherwise be used absent the Project, the No Project Alternative could, result in additional
vehicle miles traveled (and related air quality emissions) from collection truck trips on regional
highways, rather than truck trips which contain previously sorted and consolidated materials.
(Ibid.)
Air Quality. Short-term air quality impacts from demolition, grading, and construction
activities would not occur with the No Project/No Development Alternative. The Project's
construction-related NOX emissions would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) thresholds. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable short-term air quality
impacts that would occur with the proposed Project would be avoided with this Alternative.
Long-term air quality impacts from mobile and area source pollutant emissions would not
occur with the No Project/No Development Alternative. The Project's long-term combined
mobile and area source pollutant emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the
significant and unavoidable long-term air quality impacts that would occur with the proposed
Project would be avoided with this Alternative.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the
proposed Project regarding air quality, given it would avoid the significant and. unavoidable
45635.01817\5969390.3 82
short- and long-term air quality impacts. However, it would not result in an overall decrease in
regional air emissions as the material will continue to be generated irrespective of whether or not
the Project is approved. That material must still be hauled, processed, and either recycled or
disposed of elsewhere despite the Project. The No Project Alternative would not, therefore,
necessarily result in an overall regional decrease in air emissions related to waste disposal and
recycling. (Ibid.)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from construction and
operational activities would not occur with the No Project/No Development Alternative.
Comparatively, less than significant short-term and operational greenhouse gas emission impacts
would occur with the proposed Project, while no impacts would occur with this Alternative. The
Project's combined construction and operational greenhouse gas emissions would result in a less
than significant cumulatively considerable impact, whereas, this Alternative would result in no
greenhouse gas emissions.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be slightly environmentally superior
to the proposed Project regarding greenhouse gas emissions because no greenhouse gas
emissions would result from construction. As with traffic and air quality, however, the No
Project Alternative would not necessarily result in reductions in overall global greenhouse gas
emissions because the material proposed to be processed at the MRF/TS would need to be
processed elsewhere despite the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Noise. Short-term noise impacts from construction-related activities would not occur
with the No Project/No Development Alternative. Comparatively, less than significant short-term
noise impacts would occur with the proposed Project, while no short-term noise impacts would
occur with this Alternative. Long-term noise impacts from additional vehicular travel on the
surrounding roadway network would not occur with the No Project/No Development Alternative.
Comparatively, less than significant long term noise impacts from mobile sources would occur
with the proposed Project, while no impacts would occur with this Alternative. With this
Alternative, no new land uses would operate on the Project site and no increase in truck activities
would occur. Therefore, none of the Project's stationary noise impacts from tipping floor
activities, mechanical equipment, and slow moving trucks, which were concluded as less than
significant, would occur.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the
proposed Project regarding noise, as it would avoid the Project's short-term, operational mobile
source, and operational stationary noise impacts. (Ibid.)
Public Services and Utilities. The No Project/No Development Alternative would result
in none of the impacts associated with increased demand for fire and police protection identified
for the proposed Project, because no new land uses would be developed and thus, increased calls
for service would not occur. Additionally, this Alternative would not generate wastewater or an
increased demand for water supplies, as would occur with the Project.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the
proposed Project regarding public services and utilities, given it would avoid the Project's
impacts. (Ibid.)
4563 5.01817159693 90.3 83
Cultural Resources. There are no known historical or archaeological resources on the
Project site, although, the onsite rock units may contain fossilferous materials. The potential
exists for as yet undiscovered archaeological and paleontological resources to be present on the
Project site. With this Alternative, there would be no potential for impacts to
archaeological/paleontological resources, if any, given no ground-disturbing activities would
occur. Comparatively, less than significant potential impacts (with mitigation incorporated) to
archaeological/paleontological resources would occur with the proposed Project, while no
impacts would occur with this Alternative.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the
proposed Project regarding cultural resources, given it would avoid the potential for impacts.
(Ibid.)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Short-tern construction-related impacts involving
the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials (i.e., asbestos containing materials
(AGMs), lead-based paints (LBPs), underground storage tanks (USTs) would not occur with the
No Project/No Development Alternative, since buildings/improvements would not be
demolished/removed and ground-disturbing activities would not occur. Comparatively, less than
significant potential impacts (with mitigation incorporated) involving accidental release of
hazardous materials from construction activities would occur with the Project, while no impacts
would occur with this Alternative.
Long-term impacts involving accidental release of hazardous materials from spills during
storage or transport would not occur with the No Project/No Development Alternative, since no
new land uses would operate on the Project site. Comparatively, less than significant potential
impacts (with mitigation incorporated) involving accidental release of hazardous materials from
Project operations would occur with the Project, while no impacts would occur with this
Alternative.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the
proposed Project regarding hazardous materials, given it would avoid the potential impacts.
(Ibid.)
Hydrology and Water Quality. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not
result in short-term impacts to water quality associated with grading, excavation, and
construction activities, because site development would not occur. However, significant portions
of the Project site involve undeveloped pervious surfaces. The pre-construction BMPs that would
be constructed with implementation of the proposed Project would not be constructed with this
Alternative; thus, pollutants in existing storm water runoff would not be addressed. Additionally,
the erosion problems that exist on the Project site would remain unmitigated. The proposed
Project has the potential to result in significant construction-related impacts to water quality,
although, these would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated and, with
improvement of the existing erosion problems, would improve under Project conditions as
opposed to No Project conditions.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in long-term operational
impacts to water quality and quantity, because permeable surfaces would not be replaced with
45635.01817\5969390.3 84
impermeable surfaces, no new land uses would operate on the Project site, and no increase in
truck activities would occur. However, the post-construction BMPs and drainage improvements
that would be constructed with implementation of the proposed Project would not be constructed
with this Alternative; thus, pollutants in existing storm water runoff would not be addressed and
would be expected to continue in the foreseeable future. The proposed Project has the potential
to result in significant operational impacts to water quality and quantity, although, these would
be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the
proposed Project, as it would allow storm water runoff and related drainage problems to
continue. This Alternative would also be environmentally superior to the proposed Project
regarding hydrology and drainage, because it would avoid the Project's short-tern construction-
related impacts. Overall, the
No Project/No Development Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor
inferior to the proposed Project regarding hydrology and drainage. (Ibid.)
Geology and Soils. Significant portions of the Project site have not been developed or
covered. by impervious surfaces. Therefore, during periods of heavy rainfall, continued soil
erosion and loss of topsoil within pervious areas is anticipated with this Alternative. Soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil from grading and excavation operations would not occur with this
Alternative, because site development would not occur. Comparatively, less than significant
impacts (with mitigation incorporated) involving soil erosion would occur with the proposed
Project, while unmitigated soil erosion impacts would continue with this Alternative.
The Project site is susceptible to settlement, distress, and consolidation due to the onsite
soil components. Implementation of this Alternative would not expose additional people and
structures to potential adverse effects associated with settlement, distress, and consolidation,
since no new land uses would be developed on the Project site. Comparatively, a less than
significant impact (with mitigation incorporated) would occur with the proposed Project, while
no impacts would occur with this Alternative.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would be neither environmentally superior
nor inferior to the proposed Project regarding geology and soils, given it would avoid the long-
term impacts involving potential hazards, however, allow the existing conditions to continue
unmitigated. (Ibid.)
Finding: For the reasons set forth herein, and as discussed further in the EIR, the City
rejects the No Project/No Development Alternative because it would not meet any of the Project
objectives and, moreover, it would leave in place existing significant environmental impacts that
could otherwise be offset by the implementation of the Project in terms of, for example, the
reduction of waste disposal demand and the enhancement of waste diversion activities in the
County. The City finds that each of the stated grounds for rejecting the No Project/No
Development Alternative are independently sufficient to justify rejection of this Alternative.
Supporting Explanation. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not fulfill
any of the Project objectives and would fail to meet the Project's basic and fundamental
45635.01817\5969390.3 85
objective — to maximize the ability to receive, process, and consolidate, for efficient transfer and
disposal, municipal solid waste within the San Gabriel Valley; thereby reducing regional vehicle
miles traveled (and related criteria air and greenhouse gas emissions) by solid waste collection
trucks to the maximum extent feasible. (EIR at 7-8 to 7-9.)
The environmental benefits of load consolidation and transfer to other regional landfill
sites and extraction of recyclable materials for transfer to processing facilities would not be
obtained. Without the proposed MRF/TS/HHWF services that would be offered by the Project,
this Alternative would not be in furtherance of Los Angeles County and Los Angeles County
cities achieving local and state mandated waste diversion goals (i.e., the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989). With this Alternative, the capacities of existing landfills in the
County would not be maximized through the use of waste disposal options, as offered by the
Project (i.e., MRF/TS/HHWF). (EIR at 7-8 to 7-9.)
Furthermore, the Puente Hills landfill is currently permitted to receive 13,200 tpd of
MSW. When it closes in Oct 2013, insufficient disposal capacity will exist in the San Gabriel
Valley. Closure of existing solid waste landfills requires the availability of alternative waste
management strategies if, as here, other disposal options are limited. State of the art transfer
stations that can process, consolidate, and transport to market and landfills, the MSW,
recyclables, and green waste that are generated in the greater San Gabriel Valley will be
required. With no MRF/TS/HHWF services as proposed by this Alternative, San Gabriel Valley
disposal trucks would be required to travel a greater distance to MRF/TS/HHWF that are farther
away to process their wastes and recyclables. As recognized by the County of Los Angeles, one
solution to the shortage of permitted solid waste disposal facilities is the siting or expansion of
MRFs, such as proposed by the Project. With no MRF/TS/HHWF services, this Alternative
would not assist in reducing disposal demand and further enhance waste diversion activities in
the County. (EIR at 7-8 to 7-9.)
Additionally, the proposed MRF/TS would be a fully enclosed environmentally superior
LEED facility, as compared to existing facilities. The San Gabriel Valley's capacity to process
green and wood waste, in order to promote increased recycling of such materials, consistent with
the City, County, and State goals, would not be expanded with this Alternative. With no
MRF/TS/HHWF services, this Alternative would not provide end uses that would serve the
surrounding community. This Alternative would include facility design features that minimize
environmental impacts on surrounding land uses, including indoor processing/transfer and a
perimeter wall, among others. (EIR at 7-8 to 7-9.)
2. "NO GREEN WASTE FACILITY" ALTERNATIVE
Description. The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would exclude the Project's
proposed green waste loadout and processing component, as well as its associated break room,
and result in 19 fewer jobs than would otherwise be provided under the Project. This Alternative
would remove the proposed 1,877-square foot green waste facility with a capacity of 500 tpd
from the southwestern portion of the Project site. Additionally, the proposed approximate 1,100-
square foot break room (intended for use by the green waste facility staff) would be removed.
The two additional break rooms proposed by the Project (intended for use by the MRF and office
staff) would remain with this Alternative. All other proposed Project components (i.e., MRF/TS,
45635.01817\5969390.3 86
bale storage, glass loadout, offices, maintenance shop, scale house, and HHWF) would remain
unchanged under this Alternative. Additionally, this Alternative would not alter the Project's
proposed building footprint. Table 7-1, Comparison of Proposed Project and No Green Waste
Facility Alternative, compares the proposed Project and No Green Waste Facility Alternative.
Overall, this Alternative would result in a total building square footage of 127,066, based on a
2,977-square foot (approximately 2 percent) floor area reduction.I
Under this Alternative, vehicle access to the Project site would be similar to that
proposed by the Project. The existing entrance to the Azusa Landfill (i.e., at the Gladstone Street
and Vincent Avenue intersection) would be modified and.a new road would be constructed
parallel to Gladstone Street. This Alternative would result in 68 parking spaces (a reduction of 19
spaces) and 56 employees (a reduction of 19 employees), when compared to the proposed
Project. With the elimination of the green waste facility, this Alternative would generate 3,778
ADT, a reduction of 516 ADT (or approximately 12 percent), as compared to the proposed
Project (4,294 ADT).
Under this Alternative, exclusion of the green waste facility would reduce the Project's
overall capacity by 500 tpd. More specifically, a total 3,300 tpd of solid waste would be
received, processed, and transferred at the proposed MRF/TS under the No Green Waste Facility
Alternative, compared to 3,800 tpd for the proposed Project. This would include 2,500 tpd of
MSW and 800 tpd of recyclables. The 500 tpd of green waste that would not be recovered would
go directly to existing area landfills for daily cover or to alternative green waste processing
facilities. (EIR at 7-8 to 7-9.)
The following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with
the No Green Waste Facility Alternative, as compared to impacts from the proposed Project.
(EIR at 7-10 to 7-16.)
Environmental Analysis
Land Use and Relevant Planning. The General Plan Amendment proposed by the
Project changing a portion of the site's land use designation from Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use
to Industrial would also be required with the No Green Waste Facility Alternative. As with the
proposed Project, the HHWF (i.e., a Large Collection Facility) and MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing
Facility) would be constructed under this Alternative. Therefore, all of the permits/approvals
required for the Project would also be required for this Alternative, as follows:
• General Plan Amendment changing a portion of the site's land use designation from
Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use to Industrial;
• Minor Use Permit allowing the HHWF;
• Zone Change changing a portion of the site's zoning from DWL to DW;
• Zoning Code Amendment allowing 24-hour operations in the DW District with a Use
Permit;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) in the DW District;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) to operate 24 hours per day
in the DW District;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS parking to be fewer than required;
45635.01817\5969390.3 87
• Variance allowing the MRF/TS building to exceed the 55-foot height limit for the DW
District;
• Variance allowing the decorative perimeter security wall along Gladstone Street and
Irwindale Avenue to exceed the 42-inch front setback height limit for the DW District;
• Variance allowing the MRF/TS outbound truck shipments to exceed the maximum
allowed per day, allowing outdoor storage and the MRF/TS building to exceed the
maximum allowed floor area; and
• Design Review to allow the construction of the structures.
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor
inferior to the proposed Project regarding land use and relevant planning impacts, given it would
require the same permits and approvals, as the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Aesthetics/Light and Glare. Short-term visual impacts associated with grading and.
construction activities would occur with the No Green Waste Facility Alternative from
construction of the proposed buildings and improvements. Comparatively, the construction-
related impacts to the visual character/quality of the Project site and its surroundings would be
similar to the proposed Project, given this Alternative would only nominally decrease the overall
construction (i.e., a 2,977-square foot reduction).
The long-term visual character of the Project site would be altered with this Alternative,
because the existing building and improvements would be demolished, and new buildings and
improvements would be constructed. The long-term impacts to the visual character/quality of the
Project site and its surroundings under this Alternative would be similar to the Project, since this
Alternative would not alter the proposed building footprint.
The existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains experienced from VPs 1 and 2 would
remain unimpaired with this Alternative, as with the proposed Project, given this Alternative
would not alter the proposed building footprint, building heights, or building setbacks.
With this Alternative, the existing lighting levels from the Project site and surrounding
areas would increase similar to the proposed Project. New buildings and improvements would be
constructed; therefore, the increased lighting anticipated with the Project, would occur also with
this Alternative.
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor
inferior to the proposed Project regarding aesthetics/light and glare impacts. (Ibid.)
Traffic and Circulation. This Alternative would result in decreased traffic volumes, as
compared to the proposed Project. More specifically, with the elimination of the green waste
facility, this Alternative would result in 3,778 ADT, a reduction of 516 ADT (or approximately
12 percent), as compared to the proposed Project. The diversion of third party truck trips from
existing area landfills to the Project's green waste facility would not occur with this Alternative.
Similarly, the Project's outgoing trips involving green waste would not occur. However,
the significant unavoidable impacts that are anticipated with the proposed Project would occur
also with this Alternative, because the traffic volume reduction achieved by excluding the green
45635.01817\5969390.3 88
waste facility would not sufficiently lessen the impacts to the intersections.
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would be environmentally superior to the
proposed Project regarding traffic and circulation impacts due to decreased traffic volumes.
However, this Alternative would not avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts.
(Ibid.)
Air Quality. Short-term air quality impacts from demolition, grading, and construction
activities would occur with the No Green Waste Facility Alternative due to construction of the
proposed buildings and improvements. The Project's construction-related NOX emissions would
exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. Comparatively,
this Alternative's construction-related air quality impacts would be similar to the proposed
Project, given this Alternative would only nominally decrease the overall construction (i.e., a
2,977-square foot reduction) and would not alter the proposed building footprint. Therefore, the
significant and unavoidable short-term air quality impacts that would occur with the proposed
Project would occur also with this Alternative.
Long-term air quality impacts from mobile and area source pollutant emissions would
occur with the No Green Waste Facility Alternative, although to a lesser degree than the
proposed Project. More specifically, with the elimination of the green waste facility, this
Alternative would result in 3,778 ADT (a reduction of 516 ADT or approximately 12 percent)
and 127,066 square feet of floor area (a reduction of 2,977 square feet or approximately 2
percent), as compared to the proposed Project.
The Project's long-term combined mobile and area source pollutant emissions would
exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Although this Alternative would result in proportionately less
long-term air quality impacts from mobile and area source pollutant emissions (approximately 12
percent and 2 percent, respectively), the significant and unavoidable long-term air quality
impacts that would occur with the proposed Project would occur also with this Alternative. It
should be noted that this Alternative would use less electricity due to less sorting and grinding.
The mobile and area source pollutant emissions reductions that would be achieved by excluding
the green waste facility would not be sufficient such that the SCAQMD NOx thresholds would
not be exceeded.
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would be environmentally superior to the
proposed Project regarding air quality impacts due to decreased construction-related, mobile, and
area-source emissions. However, this Alternative would not avoid the Project's significant and
unavoidable short- and long-term NOx air quality impacts. (Ibid.)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from construction and
operational activities would occur with the No Green Waste Facility Alternative, although to a
lesser degree (an approximately 12 percent reduction in ADT and approximately 2 percent
reduction in floor area), than the proposed Project. The Project's combined construction and
operational greenhouse gas emissions would also result in less than significant impacts from a
cumulative perspective under this Alternative, although to a lesser degree than the proposed
Project.
45635.01817\5969390.3 89
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would be environmentally superior to the
proposed Project regarding greenhouse gas emissions due to decreased construction-related,
mobile, equipment, and stationary emissions. (Ibid.)
Noise. Short-term noise impacts from demolition, grading, and construction activities
would occur with the No Green Waste Facility Alternative due to construction of the proposed
buildings and improvements. The Project's construction-related noise impacts would not exceed
the established noise standards, thus, resulting in less than significant impacts. Comparatively,
this Alternative's construction-related noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project,
given this Alternative would only nominally decrease the overall construction (i.e., a 2,977-
square foot reduction) and would not alter the proposed building footprint. Therefore, the less
than significant (with mitigation incorporated) short-term noise impacts that would occur with
the proposed Project would occur also with this Alternative.
Long-term noise impacts from additional vehicular travel on the surrounding roadway
network would occur with the No Green Waste Facility Alternative, although to a lesser degree
than the proposed Project due to an approximately 12 percent reduction in ADT. Comparatively,
this Alternative's mobile source noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project, given
this Alternative would only nominally decrease the ADT (approximately 12 percent less).
Therefore, the less than significant (with mitigation incorporated) mobile source noise impacts
that would occur with the proposed Project would occur also with this Alternative.
With this Alternative, similar new land uses as the Project would operate on the Project
site and, although slightly reduced, truck activities would occur similar to the proposed Project.
Therefore, the Project's less than significant stationary noise impacts from tipping floor
activities, mechanical equipment, and slow-moving trucks, which were concluded as less than
significant, would occur also with this Alternative.
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would be environmentally superior to the
proposed Project regarding noise impacts due to decreased construction-related, mobile, and
stationary noise levels. (Ibid.)
Public Services and Utilities. Although. to a slightly lesser degree than the proposed
Project, the No Green Waste Facility Alternative would result in increased demands for fire and
police protection, and increased wastewater generation and demand for water supplies, because
new land uses would be developed and increased calls for service would occur. The Project's
impacts to public services and utilities would be less than significant. Comparatively, this
Alternative's impacts to public services and utilities would be similar to the proposed Project,
given this Alternative would only nominally decrease the total floor area (i.e., a 2,977-square
foot reduction). Therefore, the less than significant (with mitigation incorporated) impacts to
public services and utilities that would occur with the proposed Project would occur also with
this Alternative.
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor
inferior to the proposed Project regarding impacts to public services and utilities given the
decrease in total floor area would be nominal. (Ibid.)
45635.01817\5969390.3 90
Cultural Resources. The potential exists for as yet undiscovered archaeological and
paleontological resources to be present on the Project site. With this Alternative, the potential
impacts to archaeological/ paleontological resources would be similar to the proposed Project,
given similar ground-disturbing activities, only a nominal decrease in the overall construction
(i.e., a 2,977-square foot reduction) would occur, and this Alternative would not alter the
proposed building footprint. The less than significant impacts (with mitigation incorporated) to
archaeological/paleontological resources that would occur with the proposed Project would also
occur with this Alternative.
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor
inferior to the proposed Project regarding potential impacts to cultural resources, given it would
involve similar ground-disturbing and construction activities. (Ibid.)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Short-term construction-related impacts involving
the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials (i.e., ACMs, LBPs, and USTs) would
occur with the No Green Waste Faciliiy Alternative, similar to the proposed Project, since
buildings/improvements would be demolished/removed and ground-disturbing activities would
occur. Comparatively, less than significant potential impacts (with mitigation incorporated)
involving accidental release of hazardous materials from construction activities would occur with
the Project, as would occur with this Alternative, due to similar construction floor areas and
building footprint. Long-term impacts involving the potential for accidental release of hazardous
materials during sorting or transport would occur with the No Green Waste Facility Alternative.
Although no green waste would be received/processed (a 500-tpd or approximately 13 percent
reduction), the MSW received would be similar to the proposed Project. Comparatively, less than
significant potential impacts (with mitigation incorporated) involving accidental release of
hazardous materials from long-term operations would occur with the Project, as would occur
with this Alternative.
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor
inferior to the proposed Project regarding impacts involving the potential for accidental release
of hazardous materials. Although it would require similar construction activities and would
process no green waste, it would process similar MSW flows. (Ibid.)
Hydrology and Water Quality. The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would result
in short-term impacts to water quality associated with grading, excavation, and construction
activities. Comparatively, less than significant potential impacts (with mitigation incorporated)
involving water quality impacts from construction activities would occur with the Project, as
would occur with this Alternative, due to similar construction floor areas and building footprint.
The pre-construction BMPs that would be constructed with implementation of the proposed
Project would also be constructed with this Alternative; thus, pollutants in existing storm water
runoff would be addressed. Additionally, the erosion problems that exist on the Project site
would be mitigated with this Alternative, as with the proposed Project.
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would result in long-term operational impacts
to water quality and quantity, because permeable surfaces would be replaced with impermeable
surfaces, new land uses would operate on the Project site, and an increase in truck activities
would occur. The post-construction BMPs that would be constructed with implementation of the
45635.0181715969390.3 91
proposed Project would also be constructed with this Alternative; thus, pollutants in existing
storm water runoff would be addressed. Additionally, the Project's proposed drainage
improvements would be implemented with this Alternative. Comparatively, less than significant
operational impacts (with mitigation incorporated) to water quality and quantity would occur
with this Alternative, as with the proposed Project.
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor
inferior to the proposed Project regarding hydrology and water quality impacts, given it would
involve similar construction activities and facility operations, requiring similar BMPs and
drainage improvements. (Ibid.)
Geology and Soils. Soil erosion or the loss of topsoil from grading and excavation
operations would occur with this Alternative. Comparatively, less than significant impacts (with
mitigation incorporated) involving soil erosion would occur with the proposed Project, as would
occur with this Alternative, due to similar construction activities and floor areas/building
footprint.
Implementation of this Alternative would expose additional people and structures to
potential adverse effects associated with settlement, distress, and consolidation, since new land
uses would be developed on the Project site, with resultant new employment of persons.
Comparatively, this Alternative's impacts involving geology and soils would be similar to the
proposed Project, given this Alternative would only nominally decrease the total floor area (i.e.,
a 2,977-square foot reduction) and employment (i.e., 19 person reduction). Therefore, the less
than significant (with mitigation incorporated) impacts to geology and soils that would occur
with the proposed Project would occur also with this Alternative.
The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor
inferior to the proposed Project regarding geology and soils impacts, given it would involve
similar construction activities, floor areas/building footprint, and employment. (Ibid.)
Finding: For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the City rejects the No Green
Waste Facility Alternative because it would only meet some of the Project objectives, and would
also result in a deficiency in green waste processing services otherwise needed to attend to the
increase in demand arising from the closure of the Puente Hills Landfill. Furthermore, while the
significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project would be reduced under this Alternative, the
reduction would not be substantial and these impacts would still be significant. The City finds
that each of the stated grounds for rejecting this Alternative are independently sufficient to
justify the rejection of this Alternative.
Supporting Explanation: The No Green Waste Facility Alternative would only partially
fulfill the Project objectives, and would fail to meet a fundamental Project objective of
expanding capacity to divert and process green and wood waste generated in the San Gabriel
Valley. The environmental benefits of load consolidation and transfer to other regional landfill
sites and extraction of recyclable materials for transfer to recovered, rather would go directly to
existing area landfills for disposal. Without the proposed green waste facility services that would
be offered by the Project, this Alternative would be in furtherance of Los Angeles County and
Los Angeles County cities achieving local and state mandated waste diversion goals, however, to
45635.01817\5 9693 90.3 92
a lesser degree than the proposed Project. The San Gabriel Valley's capacity to process green
waste, in order to promote increased recycling of such materials, consistent with the City,
County, and State goals, would not be expanded. It is noted, the Puente Hills Landfill currently
receives approximately 1,000 tpd of green waste, which is used as alternative daily cover at the
Landfill. However, the Puente Hills Landfill is scheduled to close in October of 2013, which will
create an immediate demand for a new facility in the San Gabriel Valley to process, de-
contaminate, and transport the recovered green waste to a location for use as a product (i.e.,
composting, soil amendment, or energy). The 500 tpd green waste processing facility proposed
by the Project would meet the unmet demand resulting from closure of the Puente Hills Landfill.
Therefore, exclusion of the green waste processing facility, as proposed by this Alternative,
would result in deficient green waste processing services in the region. With no green waste
facility services, this Alternative would only partially provide end uses that will serve the
surrounding community (i.e., only those facilitated by the proposed MRF/TS/HHWF services).
(EIR at 7-15 to 7-16.)
3. "REDUCED TONNAGE" ALTERNATIVE
Description. The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would reduce the Project's accepted
waste by 1,000 tpd and would result in two fewer jobs than would otherwise be provided under
the Project. More specifically, a total 2,800 tpd of solid waste would be received, processed, and
transferred at the proposed MRF/TS under the Reduced Tonnage Alternative, compared to 3,800
tpd for the proposed Project (an approximately 26 percent reduction). This would include 1,500
tpd of MSW, 800 tpd of recyclables, and 500 tpd of green waste. The 1,000 tpd of MSW that
would not be recovered would go directly to existing area landfills for disposal.
All proposed Project components (i.e., MRF/TS, bale storage, break rooms, glass loadout,
offices, maintenance shop, scale house, and HHWF) would remain unchanged under this
Alternative.
Additionally, this Alternative would not alter the Project's proposed building footprint.
Table 7-2, Comparison of Proposed Project and Reduced Tonnage Alternative, compares the
proposed Project and Reduced Tonnage Alternative. As with the proposed Project, this
Alternative would result in a total building square footage of 130,043 square feet. (EIR at 7-16.)
Under this Alternative, vehicle access to the Project site would be similar to that
proposed by the Project. The existing entrance to the Azusa Landfill (i.e., at the Gladstone Street
and Vincent Avenue intersection) would be modified and a new road would be constructed
parallel to Gladstone Street. This Alternative would result in 85 parking spaces (a reduction of
two spaces) and 73 employees (a reduction of two employees), when compared to the proposed
Project. With the reduction of accepted waste, this Alternative would generate 3,091 ADT, a
reduction of 1,203 ADT (or approximately 28 percent), as compared to the proposed Project
(4,294 ADT).
The following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with
the Reduced Tonnage Alternative, as compared to impacts from the proposed Project. (EIR at 7-
17 to 7-22.)
45635.01817\5969390.3 93
Environmental Analysis
Land Use and Relevant Planning. The General Plan Amendment proposed by the
Project changing a portion of the site's land use designation from Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use
to Industrial would also be required with the Reduced Tonnage Alternative. The HHWF (i.e., a
Large Collection Facility) and MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing.Facility) would be constructed under
this Alternative, as with the proposed Project. Therefore, all of the permits/approvals required for
the Project would also be required for this Alternative, as follows:
• General Plan Amendment changing a portion of the site's land use designation from
Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use to Industrial;
• Minor Use Permit allowing the HHWF;
• Zone Change changing a portion of the site's zoning from DWL to DW;
• Zoning Code Amendment allowing 24-hour operations in the DW District with a Use
Permit;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) in the DW District;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) to operate 24 hours per day
in the DW District;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS parking to be fewer than required;
• Variance allowing the MRF/TS building to exceed the 55-foot height limit for the DW
District;
• Variance allowing the decorative perimeter security wall along Gladstone Street and
Irwindale Avenue to exceed the 42-inch front setback height limit for the DW District;
• Variance allowing the MRF/TS outbound truck shipments to exceed the maximum
allowed per day, allowing outdoor storage and the MRF/TS building to exceed the
maximum allowed floor area; and
• Design Review to allow the construction of the structures.
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding land use and relevant planning impacts, given it would require
the same permits and approvals, as the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Aesthetics/Light and Glare. Short-term visual impacts associated with grading and
construction activities would occur with the Reduced Tonnage Alternative from construction of
the proposed buildings and improvements. Comparatively, the construction-related impacts to
the visual character/quality of the Project site and its surroundings would be similar to the
proposed Project, given this Alternative would involve the same overall construction.
45635.0181715969390.3 94
The long-term visual character of the Project site would be altered with this Alternative,
because the existing building and improvements would be demolished, and new buildings and
improvements would be constructed. The long-term impacts to the visual character/quality of the
Project site and its surroundings under this Alternative would be similar to the Project, since this
Alternative would not alter the proposed floor area or building footprint.
The existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains experienced from VPs 1 and 2 would
remain unimpaired with this Alternative, as with the proposed Project, given this Alternative
would not alter the proposed building footprint, building heights, or building setbacks.
With this Alternative, the existing lighting levels from the Project site and surrounding
areas would increase similar to the proposed Project. New buildings and improvements would be
constructed; therefore, the increased lighting anticipated with the Project, would occur also with
this Alternative.
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding aesthetics/light and glare impacts. (Ibid.)
Traffic and Circulation. This Alternative would result in decreased traffic volumes, as
compared to the proposed Project. More specifically, with the reduction in accepted MSW, this
Alternative would result in 3,091 ADT, a reduction of 1,203 ADT (or approximately 28 percent),
as compared to the proposed Project. The volume of diverted third party truck trips from existing
area landfills to the Project's MRF/TS would be reduced with this Alternative. Similarly, a
reduced volume of outgoing trips involving MSW would occur. However, the significant
unavoidable impact that are anticipated with the proposed Project would also occur with this
Alternative, because the traffic volume reduction achieved by reducing the volume of accepted
MSW wouldbot substantially lessen the impacts to the intersections.
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed
Project regarding traffic and circulation impacts due to decreased traffic volumes. Although, this
Alternative would result in a slight reduction in the Project's significant and unavoidable impact,
this impact would still be significant and unavoidable and would not be substantially reduced as
compared to the Project's impact. (Ibid.)
Air Quality. Short-term air quality impacts from demolition, grading, and construction
activities would occur with the Reduced Tonnage Alternative due to construction of the proposed
buildings and improvements. The Project's construction-related NOX emissions would exceed
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. Comparatively, this
Alternative's construction-related air quality impacts would be similar to the proposed Project,
given this Alternative would not decrease the overall construction or alter the proposed building
footprint. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable short-term air quality impacts that would
occur with the proposed Project would occur also with this Alternative.
Long-term air quality impacts from mobile and area source pollutant emissions would
occur with the Reduced Tonnage Alternative, althoughto a lesser degree than the proposed
Project. More specifically, with the reduction of accepted MSW, this Alternative would result in
3,091 ADT (a reduction of 1,203 ADT or approximately 28 percent), as compared to the
45635.01817\5969390.3 95
proposed Project. The overall floor area would not change under this Alternative. The Project's
long-term combined mobile and area source pollutant emissions would exceed SCAQMD
thresholds. Although, this Alternative would result in similar long-term air quality impacts from
area source pollutant emissions, and proportionately less long-term air quality impacts from
mobile source pollutant emissions (approximately 28 percent), the significant and unavoidable
long-term air quality impacts that would occur with the proposed Project would also occur with
this Alternative. The mobile source pollutant emissions reductions that would be achieved by
reducing the volume of accepted MSW would not be sufficient such that the SCAQMD
thresholds would not be exceeded.
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed
Project regarding air quality impacts due to decreased mobile source emissions. However, this
Alternative would not avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable short- and long-term air
quality impacts. (Ibid.)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from construction and
operational activities would occur with the Reduced Tonnage Alternative, although to a lesser
degree (an approximately 28 percent reduction in ADT), than the proposed Project. The Project's
combined construction and operational greenhouse gas emissions would also result in less than
significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts from a cumulative perspective, whereas this
Alternative would result in further reduced impacts involving greenhouse gas emissions.
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed
Project regarding greenhouse gas emissions due to decreased mobile emissions. (Ibid.)
Noise. Short-term noise impacts from demolition, grading, and construction activities
would occur with the Reduced Tonnage Alternative due to construction of the proposed
buildings and improvements. The Project's construction-related noise impacts would not exceed
the established noise standards, thus, resulting in less than significant impacts. Comparatively,
this Alternative's construction-related noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project,
given this Alternative would not change the overall construction or alter the proposed building
footprint. Therefore, the less than significant (with mitigation incorporated) short-term noise
impacts that would occur with the proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative.
Long-term noise impacts from additional vehicular travel on the surrounding roadway
network would occur with the Reduced Tonnage Alternative, although to a lesser degree than the
proposed Project due to an approximately 28 percent reduction in ADT. Comparatively, this
Alternative would proportionately reduce the mobile source noise impacts (as the ADTs would
be reduced approximately 28 percent less). Therefore, the less than significant (with mitigation
incorporated) mobile source noise impacts that would occur with the proposed Project would
also occur, but to a lesser degree, with this Alternative. With this Alternative, similar new land
uses as the Project would operate on the Project site and similar, although reduced, truck
activities would occur. Therefore, the Project's less than significant stationary noise impacts
from tipping floor activities, mechanical equipment, and slow-moving trucks, which were
concluded as less than significant, would also occur with this Alternative.
45635.01817\5969390.3 96
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed
Project regarding noise impacts due to decreased mobile and stationary noise levels. (Ibid.)
Public Services and Utilities. The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would result in
increased demands for fire and police protection, and increased wastewater generation and
demand for water supplies, because new land uses would be developed and increased calls for
service would occur. The Project's impacts to public services and utilities would be less than
significant. Comparatively, this Alternative's impacts to public services and utilities would be
similar to the proposed Project, given this Alternative would not decrease the total floor area.
Therefore, the less than significant (with mitigation incorporated) impacts to public services and
utilities that would occur with the proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative.
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding impacts to public services and utilities due to a similar floor
area. (Ibid.)
Cultural Resources. The potential exists for as yet undiscovered archaeological and
paleontological resources to be present on the Project site. With this Alternative, the potential
impacts to archaeological/ paleontological resources would be similar to the proposed Project,
given similar ground-disturbing activities and overall construction would occur, and this
Alternative would not alter the proposed building footprint. The less than significant impacts
(with mitigation incorporated) to archaeological/paleontological resources that would occur with
the proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative.
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding potential impacts to cultural resources, given it would involve
similar ground-disturbing and construction activities. (Ibid.)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Short-tern construction-related impacts involving
the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials (i.e., ACMs, LBPs, and USTs) would
occur with the Reduced Tonnage Alternative, similar to the proposed Project, since
buildings/improvements would be demolished/removed and ground-disturbing activities would
occur. Comparatively, less than significant potential impacts (with mitigation incorporated)
involving accidental release of hazardous materials from construction activities would occur with
the Project, as would occur with this Alternative, due to similar construction floor areas and
building footprint.
Long-term impacts involving the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials
during sorting or transport would occur with the Reduced Tonnage Alternative, although to a
lesser degree than the proposed Project, since less MSW would be received/processed (a 1,000-
tpd or approximately 26 percent reduction). Comparatively, less than significant potential
impacts (with mitigation incorporated) involving accidental release of hazardous materials from
long-term operations would occur with the Project, as would occur with this Alternative, due to
similar waste flows.
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed
Project regarding impacts involving the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials,
45635.01817\5969390.3 97
given it would require similar construction activities, however, would process less waste,
although similar in nature. (Ibid.)
Hydrology and Water Quality. The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would result in
short-term impacts to water quality associated with grading, excavation, and construction
activities. Comparatively, less than significant potential impacts (with mitigation incorporated)
involving water quality impacts from construction activities would occur with the Project, as
would occur with this Alternative, due to similar construction floor areas and building footprint.
The pre-construction BMPs that would be constructed with implementation of the proposed
Project would also be constructed with this Alternative; thus, pollutants in existing storm water
runoff would be addressed. Additionally, the erosion problems that exist on the Project site
would be mitigated with this Alternative, as with the proposed Project.
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would result in long-term operational impacts to water
quality and quantity, because permeable surfaces would be replaced with impermeable surfaces,
new land uses would operate on the Project site, and an increase in truck activities would occur.
The post-construction BMPs that would be constructed with implementation of the proposed
Project would also be constructed with this Alternative; thus, pollutants in existing storm water
runoff would be addressed. Additionally, the Project's proposed drainage improvements would
be implemented with this Alternative. Comparatively, less than significant operational impacts
(with mitigation incorporated) to water quality and quantity would occur with this Alternative, as
with the proposed Project.
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding hydrology and water quality impacts, given it would involve
similar construction activities and facility operations, requiring similar BMPs and drainage
improvements. (Ibid.)
Geology and Soils. Soil erosion or the loss of topsoil from grading and excavation
operations would occur with this Alternative. Comparatively, less than significant impacts (with
mitigation incorporated) involving soil erosion would occur with the proposed Project, as would
occur with this Alternative, due to similar construction activities and floor areas/building
footprint. Implementation of this Alternative would expose additional people and structures to
potential adverse effects associated with settlement, distress, and consolidation, since new land
uses would be developed on the Project site, with resultant new employment of persons.
Comparatively, this Alternative's impacts involving geology and soils would be similar to the
proposed Project, given this Alternative proposes a similar floor area and only a slight reduction
in employment (i.e., 2 person reduction). Therefore, the less than significant (with mitigation
incorporated) impacts to geology and soils that would occur with the proposed Project would
also occur with this Alternative.
The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding geology and soils impacts, given it would involve similar
construction activities, floor areas/building footprint, and employment. (Ibid.)
Finding: For the reasons set forth herein and in the EIR, the City rejects the Reduced
Tonnage Alternative because this Alternative would only meet some of the Project objectives.
45635.01817\5969390.3 98
Furthermore, the Alternative would fail to satisfy the main objective for implementing the
Project, which entails maximizing the ability to receive, process, and consolidate solid waste.
This Alternative would also fail to meet anticipated demand arising from the closure in 2013 of
the San Gabriel MSW. Additionally, while the significant and unavoidable impacts of the
Project would be reduced under this Alternative, the reduction would not be substantial and these
impacts would still be significant. The City finds that each of the stated grounds for rejecting
this Alternative are independently sufficient to justify rejection of this Alternative.
Supporting Explanation. The Reduced Tonnage Alternative would only partially fulfill
the Project's objectives and would not meet the Project's basic and fundamental objective — to
maximize the ability to receive, process, and consolidate, for efficient transfer and disposal,
municipal solid waste within the San Gabriel Valley; thereby reducing regional vehicle miles
traveled (and related criteria air and greenhouse gas emissions) by trash collection trucks to the
maximum extent feasible.
The environmental benefits realized from load consolidation and transfer to other
regional landfill sites and extraction of recyclable materials for transfer to processing facilities
would also only be partially obtained. The 1,000 tpd of MSW that would not be consolidated
would go directly to existing area landfills for disposal. With the reduction in accepted MSW,
this Alternative would be in furtherance of Los Angeles County and Los Angeles County cities
achieving local and state mandated waste diversion goals, although to a lesser degree than the
proposed Project. It is noted, the Puente Hills landfill is currently permitted to receive 13,200 tpd
of MSW. When it closes in Oct 2013, insufficient disposal capacity will exist in the San Gabriel
Valley. State of the art transfer stations that can process, consolidate, and transport to landfills,
the MSW that is generated in the greater San Gabriel Valley will be required. Limiting the
MRF/TS to 1,500 tpd of MSW would require that certain San Gabriel Valley disposal trucks
travel a greater distance to a MRF/TS that is farther away to process their MSW. The San
Gabriel Valley's capacity to process green and wood waste, in order to promote increased
recycling of such materials, consistent with the City, County, and State goals, would be
expanded with this Alternative. With a reduction of accepted MSW, this Alternative would
provide end uses that would serve the surrounding community, although to a lesser degree than
the proposed Project. This Alternative would include facility design features that minimize
environmental impacts on surrounding land uses, including indoor processing/transfer and a
perimeter wall, among others. (EIR at 7-23.)
4. "NO HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY"
ALTERNATIVE
Description. The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would exclude the
Project's proposed 5,400-square foot HHWF from the eastern portion of the Project site (i.e., at
the northwest corner of the Gladstone Street/Mira Loma Avenue intersection). Under this
Alternative, vehicle access to the Project site would be similar to the Project, with certain
modifications. Namely, the existing landscaped area in the southeastern portion of the Project
site would remain in its current condition. However, the existing entrance to the Azusa Landfill
(i.e., at the Gladstone Street/Vincent Avenue intersection) would be modified and a new road
would be constructed parallel to Gladstone Street.
45635.01817\5969390.3 99
All other proposed Project components (i.e., MRF/TS, bale storage, break rooms, glass
loadout, offices, maintenance shop, and scale house) would remain unchanged under this
Alternative. Additionally, this Alternative would not alter the Project's proposed building
footprint. Table 7-3, Comparison of Proposed Project and No Household Hazardous Waste
Facility Alternative, compares the proposed Project and No Household Hazardous Waste Facility
Alternative. Overall, this Alternative would result in a total building square footage of 124,643,
based on a 5,400-square foot (approximately 4 percent) floor area reduction.
This Alternative would result in 81 parking spaces (a reduction of 6 spaces) and 69
employees (a reduction of 6 employees), when compared to the proposed Project. Given the
proposed HHWF would be available to area residents only on the weekends, there would be no
reduction in ADT. Therefore, despite the elimination of the HHWF, this Alternative would
generate 4,294 ADT, as would the proposed Project.
With the exclusion of the HHWF, the household hazardous waste from area residents that
would be sorted, aggregated, and shipped for treatment at the Project site would not be received.
The household hazardous waste would instead go to other household hazardous waste collection
facilities. This Alternative would not change the Project's overall capacity. The 3,800 tpd of
solid waste that would be received, processed, and transferred at the MRF/TS under the proposed
Project would occur also under the No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative. This
would include 2,500 tpd of MSW, 800 tpd of recyclables, and 500 tpd of green waste. (EIR at 7-
23 to 7-24.)
The following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with
the No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative, as compared to impacts from the
proposed Project. (EIR at 7-24 to 7-30.)
Environmental Analysis
Land Use and Relevant Planning. The General Plan Amendment proposed by the
Project changing a portion of the site's land use designation from Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use
to Industrial would also be required with the No Household Hazardous Waste Facility
Alternative. Under this Alternative, only the MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) would be
constructed, and not the HHWF (i.e., a Large Collection Facility), as proposed with the Project.
The Minor Use Permit allowing the HHWF in the DWL District would not be required under this
Alternative. The following permits/approvals required for the Project would also be required for
this Alternative:
• General Plan Amendment changing a portion of the site's land use designation from
Recreation/Landfill Mixed Use to Industrial;
• Zone Change changing a portion of the site's zoning from DWL to DW;
• Zoning Code Amendment allowing 24-hour operations in the DW District with a Use
Permit;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) in the DW District;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) to operate 24 hours per day
in the DW District;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS parking to be fewer than required;
45635.0181715969390.3 100
• Variance allowing the MRF/TS building to exceed the 55-foot height limit for the DW
District;
• Variance allowing the MRF/TS outbound truck shipments to exceed the maximum
allowed per day, allowing outdoor storage and the MRF/TS building to exceed the
maximum allowed floor area;
• Variance allowing the decorative perimeter security wall along Gladstone Street and
Irwindale Avenue to exceed the 42-inch front setback height limit for the DW District;
and
• Design Review to allow the construction of the structures.
The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would be neither
environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project regarding land use and relevant
planning, given it would require all except one permit/approval required for the Project. (Ibid.)
Aesthetics/Light and Glare. Short-term visual impacts associated with grading and
construction activities would occur with the No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative
from construction of the proposed buildings and improvements. Comparatively, the construction-
related impacts to the visual character/quality of the Project site and its surroundings would be
similar to the proposed Project, given this Alternative would only nominally decrease the overall
construction(i.e., a -5,400-square foot reduction).
The long-term visual character of the Project site would be altered with this Alternative,
because the existing building and improvements would be demolished, and new buildings and
improvements would be constructed. The long-term impacts to the visual character/quality of the
Project site and its surroundings under this Alternative would vary from the Project, since this
Alternative would exclude the HHWF building. This Alternative would not alter the proposed
MRF/TS building footprint.
The existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains experienced from VPs 1 and 2 would
remain unimpaired with this Alternative, as with the proposed Project, given this Alternative
would exclude the proposed HHWF and would not alter the proposed MRF/TS building
footprint, height, or setbacks.
With this Alternative, the existing lighting levels from the Project site and surrounding
areas would increase similar to the proposed Project. Exclusion of the proposed HHWF would
not decrease lighting levels, given the facility is proposed to operate only during the daytime on
weekends. New MRF/TS buildings and improvements would be constructed; therefore, the
increased lighting anticipated with the Project, would occur also with this Alternative.
The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would be neither
environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project regarding aesthetics/light and glare
impacts. (Ibid.)
Traffic and Circulation. This Alternative would not decrease traffic volumes when
compared to the proposed Project. Given the proposed HHWF would be available to area
residents only on the weekends, there would be no reduction in ADT. Therefore, despite the
elimination of the HHWF, this Alternative would generate 4,294 ADT, as would the proposed
45635.018 M5969390.3 101
Project. The diversion of third party truck trips from existing area landfills to the Project's
MRF/TS would occur with this Alternative, as with the proposed Project. Similarly, the Project's
outgoing trips involving MSW and green waste would occur. The significant unavoidable impact
at three intersections that is anticipated with the proposed Project would also occur with this
Alternative, because excluding the HHWF would not lessen the impacts to the intersections.
The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would be neither
environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project regarding traffic and circulation
impacts, given this Alternative would not change the traffic volumes or avoid the Project's
significant and unavoidable impacts. (Ibid.)
Air Quality. Short-term air quality impacts from demolition, grading, and construction
activities would occur with the No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative due to
construction of the proposed buildings and improvements. The Project's construction-related
NOX emissions would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
thresholds. Comparatively, this Alternative's construction-related air quality impacts would be
similar to the proposed Project, given this Alternative would only nominally decrease the overall
construction (i.e., a 5,400-square foot reduction) and would not alter the proposed MRF/TS
building footprint. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable short-term air quality impacts that
would occur with the proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative.
Long-term air quality impacts from mobile and area source pollutant emissions would
occur with the No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative, although to a lesser degree
than the proposed Project. Exclusion of the HHWF would not decrease traffic volumes.
However, this Alternative would result in 124,643 square feet of floor area (a reduction of 5,400
square feet or approximately 4 percent), as compared to the proposed Project. The Project's long-
term combined mobile and area source pollutant emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Although, this Alternative would result in similar long-term air quality impacts from mobile
emissions and proportionately less long-term air quality impacts from area source pollutant
emissions (approximately 4 percent), the significant and unavoidable long-term air quality
impacts that would occur with the proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative. The
mobile and area source pollutant emissions reductions that would be achieved by excluding the
HHWF would not be sufficient such that the SCAQMD thresholds would not be exceeded.
The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would be environmentally
superior to the proposed Project regarding air quality impacts due to decreased construction-
related and area-source emissions. However, this Alternative would not avoid the Project's
significant and unavoidable short- and long-term air quality impacts. (Ibid.)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from construction and
operational activities would occur with the No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative,
although to a lesser degree (an approximately 4 percent reduction in floor area), than the
proposed Project. This Alternative would result in similar greenhouse gas emissions from mobile
sources, and proportionately less greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operational
activities, compared to the proposed Project. The Project's combined construction and
operational greenhouse gas emissions would also result in less than significant greenhouse gas
emissions from a cumulative perspective.
45 63 5.0]S17\5969390.3 102
The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would be environmentally
superior to the proposed Project regarding greenhouse gas emissions due to decreased
construction-related and stationary emissions. (Ibid.)
Noise. Short-term noise impacts from demolition, grading, and construction activities
would occur with the No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative due to construction of
the proposed buildings and improvements. The Project's construction-related noise impacts
would not exceed the established noise standards, thus, resulting in less than significant impacts.
Comparatively, this Alternative's construction-related noise impacts would be similar to the
proposed Project, given this Alternative would only nominally decrease the overall construction
(i.e., a 5,400-square foot reduction) and would not alter the proposed building footprint.
Therefore, the less than significant (with mitigation incorporated) short-term noise impacts that
would occur with the proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative.
This Alternative would not decrease traffic volumes when compared to the proposed
Project. Given the proposed HHWF would be available to area residents only on the weekends,.
there would be no reduction in ADT. Therefore, despite the elimination of the HHWF, this
Alternative would not decrease long-term noise impacts from vehicular travel on the surrounding
roadway network, when compared to the proposed Project. Comparatively, this Alternative's
mobile source noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project, given this Alternative
would not lessen the traffic volumes. Therefore, the less than significant (with mitigation
incorporated) mobile source noise impacts that would occur with the proposed Project would
also occur with this Alternative. With this Alternative, operations at the proposed HHWF would
not occur (i.e., a 5,400-square foot reduction), although truck activities would occur at the
proposed MRF/TS, as would with the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project's less than
significant stationary noise impacts from tipping floor activities, mechanical equipment, and
slow-moving trucks would also occur with this Alternative.
The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would be environmentally
superior to the proposed Project regarding noise impacts due to a nominal decrease in
construction-related and stationary noise levels. (Ibid.)
Public Services and Utilities. Although to a slightly lesser degree than the proposed
Project, the No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would result in increased
demands for fire and police protection, and increased wastewater generation and demand for
water supplies, because new land uses (i.e., MRF/TS) would be developed and increased calls for
service would occur. The Project's impacts to public services and utilities would be less than
significant. Comparatively, this Alternative's impacts to public services and utilities would be
similar to the proposed Project, given this Alternative-would only nominally decrease the total
floor area (i.e., a 5,400-square foot reduction). Therefore, the less than significant (with
mitigation incorporated) impacts to public services and utilities that would occur with the
proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative. The No Household Hazardous Waste
Facility Alternative would be environmentally superior (although nominally) to the proposed
Project regarding impacts to public services and utilities due to a decrease in total floor area.
(Ibid.)
Cultural Resources. The potential exists for as yet undiscovered archaeological and
45635.01811\5969390.3 103
paleontological resources to be present on the Project site. With this Alternative, the potential
impacts to archaeological/paleontological resources would be similar to the proposed Project,
given a nominal decrease in ground-disturbing activities and overall construction (i.e., a 5,400-
square foot reduction) would occur, and this Alternative would not alter the proposed MRF/TS
building footprint. The less than significant impacts (with mitigation incorporated) to
archaeological/paleontological resources that would occur with the proposed Project would also
occur with this Alternative.
The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would be neither
environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project regarding potential impacts to
cultural resources, given it would involve similar ground-disturbing and construction activities.
(Ibid.)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Short-term construction-related impacts involving
the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials (i.e., ACMs, LBPs, and USTs) would
occur with the No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative, since
buildings/improvements would be demolished/removed and ground-disturbing activities would
occur. With this Alternative, the potential impacts involving accidental release of hazardous
materials from construction activities would be similar to the proposed Project, given a nominal
decrease in ground-disturbing activities and overall construction (i.e., a 5,400-square foot
reduction) would occur, and this Alternative would not alter the proposed MRF/TS building
footprint.
Long-term impacts involving the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials
during sorting or transport would occur with the No Household Hazardous Waste Facility
Alternative, although to a lesser degree than the proposed Project, since household hazardous
waste would not be received/processed. Comparatively, less than significant potential impacts
(with mitigation incorporated) involving accidental release of hazardous materials from long-
term operations would occur with the Project, as would occur with this Alternative, due to
similar waste flows.
The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would be neither
environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project regarding impacts involving the
potential for accidental release of hazardous materials, given it would require similar
construction activities and would process similar waste flows, although slightly less volumes.
(Ibid.)
Hydrology and Water Quality. The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility
Alternative would result •in short-term impacts to water quality associated with grading,
excavation, and construction activities. Comparatively, less than significant impacts (with
mitigation incorporated) involving water quality impacts from construction activities would
occur with the Project, as would occur with this Alternative, given a nominal decrease in ground-
disturbing activities and overall construction (i.e., a 5,400-square foot reduction) would occur.
The pre-construction BMPs that would be constructed with implementation of the proposed
Project would also be constructed with this Alternative; thus, pollutants in existing storm water
runoff would be addressed. Additionally, the erosion problems that exist on the Project site
would be mitigated with this Alternative, as with the proposed Project.
45635.01817\5969390.3 104
The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would result in long-term
operational impacts to water quality and quantity, because permeable surfaces would be replaced
with impermeable surfaces, new land uses would operate on the Project site, and an increase in
truck activities would occur. The post-construction BMPs that would be constructed with
implementation of the proposed Project would also be constructed with this Alternative; thus,
pollutants in existing storm water runoff would be addressed. Additionally, the Project's
proposed drainage improvements would be implemented with this Alternative. Comparatively,
less than significant operational impacts (with mitigation incorporated) to water quality and
quantity would occur with this Alternative, as with the proposed Project.
The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would be neither
environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project regarding hydrology and water
quality impacts, given it would involve similar construction activities and facility operations,
requiring similar BMPs and drainage improvements. (Ibid.)
Geology and Soils. Soil erosion or the loss of topsoil from grading and excavation
operations would occur with this Alternative. Comparatively, less than significant impacts (with
mitigation incorporated) involving soil erosion would occur with the proposed Project, as would
occur with this Alternative, due to similar construction activities and only a nominal decrease in
floor area. Implementation of this Alternative would expose additional people and structures to
potential adverse effects associated with settlement, distress, and consolidation, since the
MRF/TS would be developed on the Project site, with resultant new employment of persons.
Comparatively, this Alternative's impacts involving geology and soils would be similar to the
proposed Project, given this Alternative would only nominally decrease the total floor area (i.e.,
a 5,400-square foot reduction) and employment (i.e., 6 person reduction). Therefore, the less
than significant (with mitigation incorporated) impacts to geology and soils that would occur
with the proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative.
The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would be neither
environmentally superior nor inferior to the. proposed Project regarding geology and soils
impacts, given it would involve similar construction activities, floor areas, and employment.
(Ibid.)
Finding: For the reasons stated herein and in the EIR, the City rejects the No Household
Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative because the Alternative would only meet some of the
Project objectives. Furthermore, none of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts
would be avoided or substantially reduced by this Alternative. The City finds that each of the
reasons stated for rejecting this Alternative are independently sufficient to justify rejection of this
Alternative.
Supporting Explanation: The No Household Hazardous Waste Facility Alternative would
only partially fulfill the Project's objectives. The environmental benefits of load consolidation
and transfer to other regional landfill sites and extraction of recyclable materials for transfer to
processing facilities would only be partially obtained. The household hazardous waste would not
be consolidated, rather would instead go to other household hazardous waste collection facilities.
Permanent HHWF within Los Angeles County are located within San Pedro, Glendale, Playa del
Rey, Boyle Heights, Sun Valley, and West Los. Angeles. There are currently no permanent
45635.01817A5969390.3 105
HHWF located in the San Gabriel Valley. Excluding the HHWF under this Alternative would
require residents to travel to a HHWF located at a greater distance than the Project site due to the
lack of a HHWF in Los Angeles County. Without the proposed HHWF that would be offered by
the Project, this Alternative would be in furtherance of Los Angeles County and Los Angeles
County cities achieving local and state mandated waste diversion goals, however, to a lesser
degree than the proposed Project. The San Gabriel Valley's capacity to process green and wood
waste, in order to promote increased recycling of such materials, consistent with the City,
County, and State goals, would be expanded with this Alternative. With MRF/TS services, this
Alternative would provide end uses that would serve the surrounding community. This
Alternative would include facility design features that minimize environmental impacts on
surrounding land uses, including indoor processing/transfer and a perimeter wall, among others.
(EIR at 7-30.)
5. "ALTERNATIVE SITE" ALTERNATIVE
Description. It would be located on Gladstone Street in the eastern portion of the Project
site, and would involve the same size (i.e., 5,400 s.f) and scale, as the proposed Project. The
proposed MRF/TS would be constructed at an alternative site in the northwestern portion of the
City. The approximately 22-acre Alternative site is located at 1001 North Todd Avenue (APN
8617-001-080), northwest of the intersection of West 10th Street and North Todd Avenue. The
Alternative site was selected because it is a currently vacant, industrial site, located adjacent to
an existing mining plant with access to a designated truck route (i.e., North Todd Avenue).
Additionally, the site is buffered from residential and other sensitive land uses. Currently, the
Alternative site contains numerous vacant buildings totaling approximately 136,000 square feet.
Although currently unoccupied, the property was formerly occupied by Criterion Catalysts &
Technologies Company. Criterion is a supplier of hydroprocessing catalysts, which includes
catalysts for hydrotreating, hydrocracking, hydrogenation, isomerization, and naphtha reforming.
It is noted that the parent company of Criterion Catalysts & Technologies Company has recently
filed for a demolition permit with the City of Azusa. As of the publication date of this Draft EIR
the permit has not been finalized. However, the analysis for this alternative assumes that the site
would be vacant by the time it would be developed with the MRF/TS.
The MRF/TS, bale storage, break rooms, glass loadout, offices, maintenance shop, scale
house components would be constructed similar to the proposed Project at the Alternative site.
Table 7-4, Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternative Site Alternative, compares the
proposed Project and Alternative Site Alternative. Overall, this Alternative would result in a total
building square footage of 130,043, similar to the proposed Project, although at two locations.
This Alternative would result in 87 parking spaces and 75 employees (similar to the
proposed Project). Therefore, this Alternative would generate 4,294 ADT, as would the proposed
Project.
This Alternative would not change the Project's overall capacity. The 3,800 tpd of solid
waste that would be received, processed, and transferred at the MRF/TS under the proposed
Project would occur also under the Alternative Site Alternative. This would include 2,500 tpd of
MSW, 800 tpd of recyclables, and 500 tpd of green waste. (EIR at 7-31.)
45635.01817\5969390.3 106
The following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with
the Alternative Site Alternative, as compared to impacts from the proposed Project. (EIR at 7-32
to 7-30.)
Environmental Analysis
Land Use and Relevant Planning. The Alternative site is located in the West End Industrial
District (North Portion) and designated Light Industrial; refer to General Plan Figure CD-4, Land
Use Diagram. As with the proposed Project, a General Plan Amendment would be required. This
Alternative would involve changing -the Alternative site's land use designation from Light
Industrial to Industrial. The Alternative site is zoned District West End Light Industrial (DWL),
as depicted on the City of Azusa Zoning Classification Map. The proposed MRF/TS (i.e.,
Processing Facility) is not an allowed land use in the DWL district. As with the proposed Project,
a Zone Change would also be required changing the Alternative site's zoning from DWL to DW.
The following permits/approvals required for the Project would also be required for this
Alternative:
• Minor Use Permit allowing the HHWF;
• Zone Change changing the Alternative site's zoning from DWL to DW;
• Zoning Code Amendment allowing 24-hour operations in the DW District with a Use
Permit;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) in the DW District;
• Use Permit allowing the MRF/TS (i.e., a Processing Facility) to operate,24 hours per day
in the DW District;
• Variance allowing the MRF/TS building to exceed the 55-foot height limit for the DW
District;
• Variance allowing the MRF/TS outbound truck shipments to exceed the maximum
allowed per day, allowing outdoor storage and the MRF/TS building to exceed the
maximum allowed floor area; and
• Design Review to allow the construction of the structures. Additionally, this Alternative
would require a General Plan Amendment changing the Alternative site's land use
designation from Light Industrial to Industrial.
The Alternative Site Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding land use and relevant planning, given it would require
permits/approvals similar to the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Aesthetics/Light and Glare. Short-term visual impacts associated with grading and construction
activities would occur with the Alternative Site Alternative from construction of the proposed
buildings and improvements. Comparatively, the construction-related impacts to the visual
character/quality of the Project site and its surroundings would be similar to the proposed
Project, as this Alternative would result in similar overall construction.
The long-term visual character of the Project site would be altered with this Alternative,
because the existing Criterion Catalysts & Technologies facility would be demolished, and the
new MRF/TS and scale house would be constructed. The long-term impacts to the visual
45635.0 1817\5969390.3 107
character/quality of the alternative site and its surroundings under this Alternative would vary
from the Project, as the alternative site currently appears much more industrial in character than
the existing Project site.
Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the visible building height at the
alternative site. However, the proposed architectural and color treatments and building massing
of the proposed MRF/TS would appear more intact and unified than the existing vacant facility.
The HHWF would be constructed at the Project site, similar to the proposed Project.
The existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains experienced from recreational users
along the San Gabriel River Bike Trail as well as motorists using the northbound travel lane of
North Todd Avenue would be altered with implementation of this Alternative. Views from
recreational users at the Azusa Greens Public Golf Course are not affected as a result of existing
mature vegetation along the perimeter of the golf course. The proposed MRF/TS at the
alternative site would be required to undergo the City's design review process, similar to the
proposed Project.
With this Alternative, the existing lighting levels from the Project site and.surrounding
areas would increase similar to the proposed Project. Development of the proposed HHWF at the
existing Project site would result in similar impacts as the proposed Project. The new MRF/TS
buildings and improvements would be constructed; therefore, the increased lighting anticipated
with the Project, would occur also with this Alternative.
The Alternative Site Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding aesthetics/light and glare impacts. (Ibid.)
Traffic and Circulation. This Alternative would not decrease traffic volumes when compared
to the proposed Project. This Alternative would generate 4,294 ADT in the vicinity of the
Alternative Site Alternative and, as the proposed HHWF would be available to area residents
only on the weekends, there would be no increase in ADT within the vicinity of the proposed
Project site. The diversion of third party truck trips from existing area landfills to the alternative
site MRF/TS would occur with this Alternative as well as outgoing trips involving MSW and
green waste. The significant unavoidable impact at the intersection of Irwindale Avenue and
Gladstone Street that is anticipated with the proposed Project would be reduced with this
Alternative, but remain significant and unavoidable. Further, the additional 4,294 ADT within
the.vicinity of the alternative site could result in deficient levels of service at intersections
between the alternative site and 1-210.
According to Figure M-1, Street Classifications, of the Mobility Element of the Azusa
General Plan, Irwindale Avenue and Foothill Boulevard are designated as Principal Arterial,
Todd Avenue and Azusa Avenue are designated as Secondary Arterial, and San Gabriel Avenue
is designated as a Collector. According to Figure M-4, Truck Routes, Irwindale Avenue, Foothill
Boulevard, and Todd Avenue are designated Truck Routes.
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable
traffic impacts at three intersections for both forecast year 2014 and buildout year 2035.
Comparatively, implementation of the Alternative Site Alternative would result in significant and
45635.01817\5969390.3 108
unavoidable impacts at the same three intersections as well as the introduction of a potential new
significant and unavoidable impact at one intersection. Based on the Traffic Impact Study, refer
to Section 5.3, Traffic/Circulation, the following study intersections would operate at LOS E or
worse within the weekday peak hours, for both the forecast year 2014 and buildout year 2035
without Project conditions, and would also result in significant and unavoidable Project impacts:
• Azusa Avenue/I-210 Eastbound Off-Ramp. Would result in LOS E in the p.m. peak hour
for both forecast year 2014 and buildout year 2035 without Project conditions.
• Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street. Would result in LOS E in the a.m. peak hour for
forecast year 2014 without Project conditions and LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS
E in the p.m. peak hour for buildout year 2035 without Project conditions.
• Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway. Would result in LOS F in both the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours for both forecast year 2014 and buildout year 2035 without Project conditions.
With implementation of the Alternative Site Alternative, the majority of Project trips
would be shifted from south of I-210 to north of I-210. However, the same freeway intersections
(Irwindale Avenue and I-210 ramps and Azusa Avenue and I-210 ramps) would be utilized to
access the alternative site. Thus, similar to the proposed Project, this Alternative would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts at the intersection of Azusa Avenue and the I-210 ramps, as
no feasible mitigation measures are available.
Similar to the proposed Project, two percent of employee trips and 10 percent of route
truck trips may potentially access the alternative site through the City of Irwindale. Thus,
although the Project trips would mostly shift from south of I-210 to north of I-210, the Project
would still contribute to additional trips at intersections maintained by the City of Irwindale
(Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street and Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway) that would
operate at a deficient LOS at both forecast year 2014 and buildout year 2035. Although
implementation of mitigation measures would be able to reduce these impacts to a less than
significant level, the City of Irwindale would have either shared or full regulatory authority
regarding implementation of any mitigation measures.
As the City of Azusa would not be able to ensure that the required mitigation measures
are'implemented, a significant and unavoidable impact would remain for this Alternative, similar
to the proposed Project.
Further, the following intersection would experience a significantly greater number of
Project trips as a result of this Alternative compared to the proposed Project, thus resulting in
greater traffic impacts than that considered as a result of the proposed Project:
• Irwindale Avenue/Foothill Boulevard. Would result in LOS F within both the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours for both forecast year 2014 and buildout year 2035 without Project
conditions.
The Alternative Site Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed
Project regarding traffic and circulation impacts, given it would not substantially reduce traffic
related impacts. Additionally, this Alternative would not avoid the Project's significant and
unavoidable impacts and may increase the traffic impacts at a fourth intersection. (Ibid.)
45635:01817\5969390.3 109
Air Quality. Short-term air quality impacts due to construction of the proposed buildings and
improvements would be similar to the proposed Project. Thus, Project's construction-related
NOX emissions would likely exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
thresholds. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable short-term air quality impacts that would
occur with the proposed Project would also occur, to a similar extent, with this Alternative.
Long-term air quality impacts from mobile and area source pollutant emissions would
occur with the Alternative Site Alternative, similar to the proposed Project as a similar number of
trips and activities would occur. As with the proposed Project, the emissions generated by the
facilities at the alternative site would exceed the SCAQMD operational thresholds.
The Alternative Site Alternative would be neither environmentally inferior nor superior
to the proposed Project regarding air quality impacts. This Alternative would not avoid the
Project's significant and unavoidable short- and long-term air quality impacts. (Ibid.)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operational
activities would occur with the Alternative Site Alternative, similar to the proposed Project. The
resultant combined construction and operational greenhouse gas emissions associated with this
Alternative would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, as with the proposed Project. The
cumulatively considerable greenhouse gas emissions impacts would be similar to the proposed
Project.
The Alternative Site Alternative would be neither environmentally inferior nor superior
to the proposed Project regarding greenhouse gas emissions due to the. (Ibid.)
Noise. Short-term noise impacts from grading and construction activities would occur with the
Alternative Site Alternative due to construction of the proposed buildings and improvements.
The Project's construction-related noise impacts would not exceed the established noise
standards, thus, resulting in less than significant impacts.
This Alternative would not decrease traffic volumes when compared to the proposed
Project. Therefore, this Alternative would not decrease long-term noise impacts from vehicular
travel on the surrounding roadway network, when compared to the proposed Project. Therefore,
the less than significant (with mitigation incorporated) mobile source noise impacts that would
occur with the proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative.
With this Alternative truck activities would occur at the proposed MRF/TS, as would
with the proposed Project. The nearest sensitive receptors to the alternative site are residential
units (associated with the Azusa Greens Public Golf Course) located greater than 1,500 feet
northeast of the alternative site (compared to approximately 1,300 feet for the proposed Project).
Therefore, the less than significant mobile source noise impacts that would occur with the
proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative. Additionally, the MRF/TS' less than
significant stationary noise impacts from tipping floor activities, mechanical equipment, and
slow-moving trucks, which were concluded as less than significant with mitigation, would also
occur with this Alternative.
The Alternative Site Alternative would be neither environmentally inferior nor superior
to the proposed Project regarding noise impacts. (Ibid.)
45635.01817A5969390.3 110
Public Services and Utilities. The Alternative Site Alternative would result in increased
demands for fire and police protection, and increased wastewater generation and demand for
water supplies, similar to the proposed Project, because new land uses (i.e., MRF/TS and
HHWF) would be developed and increased calls for service would occur. The Project's impacts
to public services and utilities would be less than significant. Comparatively, this Alternative's
impacts to public services and utilities would be similar to the proposed Project, given this
Alternative would result in the same floor area as the proposed Project. Therefore, the less than
significant (with mitigated incorporated) impacts to public services and utilities that would occur
with the proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative.
The Alternative Site Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding impacts to public services and utilities. (Ibid.)
Cultural Resources. The potential exists for undiscovered archaeological and paleontological
resources to be present at the alternative site. Similar to the proposed Project, the alternative site
has been significantly disturbed as a result of past mining activities and the construction of the
existing Criterion Catalysts & Technologies facility. The less than significant impacts (with
mitigation incorporated) to archaeological/paleontological resources that would occur with the
proposed Project would also occur with this Alternative.
The Alternative Site Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding potential impacts to cultural resources, given it would involve
similar ground-disturbing activities. (Ibid.)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Short-term construction-related impacts involving the
potential for accidental release of hazardous materials (i.e., ACMs, LBPs, USTs, and other
potential contaminants) would occur with the Alternative Site Alternative, since the existing
Criterion Catalysts & Technologies facility would be demolished. According to the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), this property historically consisted of a pesticides
manufacturer for orange groves (1920's), a weapons manufacturing facility on the eastern side of
property (operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during World War II), an automotive
exhaust catalysts manufacturer for General Motors (in the 1970's), hydro treating catalysts
manufacturer for the oil refining industry (in the 1980's), used for chemical division and forms
Cytec Industries (in the 1990's by American Cyanamid), Fibre Fuel which processed wood chips
and fertilizer (in the 1990's), and finally operated by the existing Criterion Catalysts &
Technologies in 2000. Currently, this site is undergoing site assessment activities with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for potentially affected groundwater used for
drinking water supply. According to the RWQCB, the existing Criterion Catalysts &
Technologies facility includes a permitted UST as well.
With this Alternative, the potential impacts involving accidental release of hazardous
materials from construction activities would increase, compared to the proposed Project, given
the historical uses of the alternative site and potential for existing contamination to be present.
Long-term impacts involving the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials
during sorting or transport would occur with the Alternative Site Alternative, similar to the
proposed Project. Comparatively, less than significant potential impacts (with mitigation
45635.018175969390.3 ]]1
incorporated) involving accidental release of hazardous ,materials from long-term operations
would occur with the Project, as would occur with this Alternative, due to similar waste flows.
The Alternative Site Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed
Project regarding impacts involving the potential for accidental release of•hazardous materials
during construction, given the historical uses of the alternative site and potential for existing
contamination to be present. (Ibid.)
Hydrology and Water Quality. The Alternative Site Alternative would result in short-term
impacts to water quality associated with grading, excavation, and construction activities.
Comparatively, less than significant impacts (with mitigation incorporated) involving water
quality impacts from construction activities would occur with the Project, as would occur with
this Alternative. As with the proposed Project, the existing quality and quantity of stormwater
and urban runoff would be impacted with this Alternative, as the site would be altered from its
current condition. The alternative site is situated approximately 600 feet east of the San Gabriel
River. Due to the developed nature of the alternative site, this site is anticipated to be connected
to the City's storm drain system and is not anticipated to result in direct discharge to the San
Gabriel River, similar to the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, pre-construction
BMPs would be required to be constructed with implementation of the Alternative Site
Alternative; thus, pollutants in the storm water runoff would be addressed. Additionally,
potential erosion problems during construction of the Project would be mitigated with this
Alternative, as with the proposed Project.
The Alternative Site Alternative would result in similar long-term operational impacts to
water quality and quantity, as new land uses would operate on the Project site and an increase in
truck activities would occur. The post-construction BMPs that would be constructed with
implementation of the proposed Project would also be constructed with this Alternative; thus,
pollutants in the storm water runoff would be addressed. Additionally, drainage improvements,
similar to that proposed by the Project, would be required to be implemented with this
Alternative. Comparatively, less than significant operational impacts (with mitigation
incorporated) to water quality and quantity would occur with this Alternative, as with the
proposed Project.
The Alternative Site Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding hydrology and water quality impacts, given it would involve
similar construction activities and facility operations, requiring similar BMPs and drainage
improvements. (Ibid.)
Geology and Soils. Soil erosion or the loss of topsoil from grading and excavation operations
would occur with this Alternative. Comparatively, less than significant impacts (with mitigation
incorporated) involving soil erosion would occur with the proposed Project would also occur
with this Alternative, due to similar construction activities (redevelopment of a vacant facility).
The proposed Project would expose additional people and structures to potential adverse
effects associated with settlement, distress, and consolidation, since the MRF/TS would be
developed on the Project site, with the resultant new employment of persons. Comparatively, this
Alternative's impacts involving geology and soils would not result in instabilities associated with
45635.01817A5969390.3 112
underlying landfill materials. However, based on Figure GEO-4, Liquefaction Potential, of the
Natural Environment Element of the Azusa General Plan, the alternative site is susceptible to
liquefaction (although can be mitigated to less than significant levels), unlike the Project site.
Therefore, the less than significant (with mitigated incorporated) impacts to geology and soils
that would occur with the proposed Project would occur also with this Alternative.
The Alternative Site Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the proposed Project regarding geology and soils impacts, given it would result in similar
construction activities (redevelopment of vacant properties) and new employment, and reduce
impacts associated with underlying landfill materials, but increase impacts associated with
liquefaction. (]bid.)
Finding: For the reasons stated herein and in the EIR, the City rejects the Alternative Site
Alternative because the Alternative would result in more significant environmental impacts than
compared to the Project; specifically, an additional intersection (Irwindale Avenue/Foothill
Boulevard) would experience a potentially significant and unavoidable traffic impact.
Furthermore, the City rejects this Alternative on the basis that it is infeasible, in that the
Applicant does not own the site, but rather owns the Project Site, and thus could not and would
not build the Project at a different site. The City finds that each of the reasons stated for
rejecting this Alternative are independently sufficient to justify rejection of this Alternative.
Supporting Explanation. The Alternative Site Alternative would fulfill all of the
Project's objectives. The environmental benefits of load consolidation and transfer to other
regional landfill sites and extraction of recyclable materials for transfer to processing facilities
would be obtained. The San Gabriel Valley's capacity to process green and wood waste, in order
to promote increased recycling of such materials, consistent with the City, County, and State
goals, would be expanded with this Alternative. With MRF/TS services, this Alternative would
provide end uses that would serve the surrounding community. This Alternative would include
facility design features that minimize environmental impacts.on surrounding land uses, including
indoor processing/transfer and a perimeter wall, among others. However, it is noted that this
would not substantially improve environmental impacts as compared to the proposed Project.
(EIR at 7-39.)
6. "ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR" ALTERNATIVE
Table 7-5, Comparison of Alternatives, summarizes the comparative analysis presented
above (i.e., the alternatives compared to the proposed Project). Review of Table 7-5 indicates the
No Project/No Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, because it
would avoid or lessen the majority of impacts associated with development of the proposed
Project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), "No Project" Alternative, "if the
environmentally superior alternative is the "no Project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." Accordingly, an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives is identified below.
Among the other alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative is the Reduced
Tonnage Alternative, given it would achieve greater impact reductions in various environmental
issue areas. As concluded in the analysis presented above, the Reduced Tonnage Alternative
45635.01817\5969390.3 113
would generally lessen the impacts associated with development of the proposed Project,
because it would involve an approximately 26 percent decrease in processed MSW and an
approximately 28 percent decrease in traffic volumes. These decreases would result in
corresponding and proportionate decreases in the following issue areas:
• Traffic and Circulation (28 percent less operational traffic volumes);
• Air Quality (28 percent less mobile source emissions);
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (28 percent less mobile source emissions);
• Noise (26 percent stationary noise from tipping floor activities, 28 percent less stationary
noise from truck activities, and 28 percent less mobile source noise); and
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (26 percent less processing of MSW).
Both, the No Green Waste Facility Alternative and the No Household Hazardous Waste
Facility Alternative would also nominally lessen the impacts associated with development of the
proposed Project. However, these reductions would be to a lesser degree than those experienced
as a result of the Reduced Tonnage. While the Reduced Tonnage Alternative is the
Environmentally Superior Alternative, for the reasons outlined .above, the City rejects this
Alternative in favor of the Project.
SECTION 9: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council declares as follows:
That, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Council has balanced the
benefits of the Project against its potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts
in determining whether to approve the Project. As set forth in the preceding sections, the City's
approval of the MRF/TS Project will result in significant adverse environmental effects that
cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures; and there are no
feasible Project alternatives that would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts. (see Sections
4 and 5 above). Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the City Council, in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, chooses to approve the Project because, in its view, the
economic, social, and other benefits that the Project will produce will render the significant
effects acceptable.
The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding
Considerations that this Project has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on
the environment where feasible (including the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures),
and finds that the remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, which are described
above, are acceptable because the benefits of the Project set forth below outweigh it. Any one of
these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to
conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the Council would stand by
its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting
the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference
into this section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings.
45635.01817\5969390.3 114
After review of the entire administrative record, including, but not limited to, the Final
EIR, the staff reports, applicant submittals, and the oral and written testimony and evidence
presented at public hearings, the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social,
technological and other anticipated benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and
unavoidable impacts, and therefore justify the approval of this Project notwithstanding the
identified significant and unavoidable impacts. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081; CEQA
Guidelines, § 15093.) The City Council, after review of the entire administrative record, does
hereby determine that implementation of the Project as specifically provided in the Project
documents would result in the following substantial public benefits:
1. The Project will allow for efficient transfer and disposal of municipal solid waste
in the San Gabriel Valley, thereby reducing the number of vehicle miles currently
traveled by disposal trucks and residents to other facilities;
2. The Project enables Los Angeles County and the cities within the County to more
efficiently achieve current local and state-mandated waste diversion goals,
thereby facilitating compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act
(IWMA) and corresponding state regulatory diversion requirements;
3. The Project, given its proximity to solid waste generators, results in relatively low
economic costs to transport recyclables and refuse to the site, when compared to
transporting materials to other more distant sites;
4. The Project will reduce and/or eliminate the distance otherwise required for San
Gabriel Valley disposal trucks to travel to reach landfill and processing centers
capable of handling existing volumes of municipal solid waste, thereby reducing
regional air emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from fewer truck trips that
would otherwise occur irrespective of the Project and thereby providing
environmental benefits in the form of fewer regional air emissions, greenhouse
gas emissions, wear and tear on vehicles and roads;
5. The Project will help meet anticipated demand for green waste processing using a
new state-of-the-art facility following the close of the Puente Hills Landfill in
2013;
6. The Project would expand the San Gabriel Valley's ability to process green and
wood waste in order to promote increased recycling of such materials consistent
with City, Los Angeles County, and State goals.
7. The Project will increase the number of temporary construction jobs within the
City and would create 69 new permanent jobs, with full benefits, for long term
operation of the MRF/TS. These positions will not be created if the Project is not
approved..
8: The Project utilize state of the art technology, will be LEED certified, and will
thus minimize environmental impacts on surrounding land uses.
9. The Project would contribute over $5 million annually to the local economy
45635.01817\5969390.3 115
through a roughly $3.8 million dollar payroll (69 new full-time jobs at
approximately $55-60k per year average), and through the purchases of goods and
services from local vendors. Fees and property taxes paid and collected by Waste
Management would be a little over $ 2 million a year when operating at full
capacity to the City's General Fund (e.g., $2 million in host fees, and
approximately $50,000 in property taxes) as provided in the Project Development
Agreement.
The City Council hereby declares that it has balanced the above benefits and
considerations against the significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the
Project, and has concluded that the impacts are outweighed by these benefits, among others.
The City Council finds that each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those
impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION 10: CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
The City certifies as follows:
The City finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and
considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been
completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines and that the FIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
The City declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of
"substantial importance" as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 been received by
the City after circulation of the Draft EIR, which would require recirculation. -
Therefore, the City hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of
proceedings, including but not limited to the following findings and conclusions:
A. Findings
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will
require mitigation as set forth in Sections 4 and 5 of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a
level of less than significant:
• Traffic and Circulation: (1) Project-specific and cumulative intersection Level
of Service impacts to: Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street (Forecast Year 2014
and Buildout Year 2035), Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway (Forecast Year 2014
and Buildout Year 2035), and Irwindale Avenue/I-210 Eastbound On and Off
Ramps (weekday pm peak hours for buildout year 2035); (2) Project-specific and
cumulative impacts to 1-210 freeway segments; (3) Project-specific and
cumulative impacts to the capacity of the eastbound I-210 on-ramp at Irwindale
Avenue.
• Air Quality: NOx emissions under (1) Short-Term Construction Air Emissions,
45635.01817%5969390.3 116
(2) Long-Term Operational Air Emissions, (3) Short-Term Cumulative Air
Emissions, and (4) Long-Term Cumulative Air Emissions.
B. Conclusions
All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Project have been
identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified, will be
mitigated to a less than significant level, except for the impacts listed in subsection A above.
Other reasonable alternatives to the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of
the Project.
Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the
development of the Project override the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project
identified above.
SECTION 11: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City hereby adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project.. In the event of any
inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall
control.
SECTION 12: RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this
Resolution has been based are located at Azusa City Hall, 213 East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa,
California. The custodian for these records is the Director of Community Development. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
SECTION 13: RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION
City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County of
Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five (5)
working days of the City's final Project approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July 2011.
OSE H R. ROCHA, MAYOR
CITY OF AZUSA
45635.01817\5969390.3 117
A4MENDOZA,
VRK
CITY OF AZUSA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF AZUSA )
I, Vera Mendoza, City Clerk of the City of Azusa, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 11-C49 was adopted by the Council of the City of Azusa, California at a regular
meeting held on the 5lh day of July, 2011, and that same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GONZALES, CARRILLO, HANKS, ROCHA
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: MACIAS
VERA MENDOZA, CITY CLERK
CITY OF AZUSA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
yb+-�bll.w � • CGth(JGcQ.�1,><r
CITY ATTORNEY
45635.0181755969390.3 118
Exhibit A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
45635.0181715969390.3 119
Waste Management Material Recovery Facility
Transfer Station and Household Hazardous Waste Facility
Environmental Impact Report
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6,
which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and
ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As
stated in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code,
. . . the public agency shall adapt a reporting or monitoring program for the charges to the project which it
has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment."
Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and
indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project
implementation, shall be defined prior to final certification of the EIR.
The mitigation monitoring table below lists those mitigation measures that shall be included as
conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly
implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility
for monitoring each measure. The developer will have the responsibility for implementing the
measures, and the various City of Azusa departments will have the primary responsibility for
monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures.
Final 0 June 2011 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
t v °°
U p
U U y Y
O
GG (tl r
wwa a � a
o�
0
� U
0
c° o F
C �" FVC
71
� w 6 U � A o � v ❑u❑ a y agcqi
w Cl) 3 O
yy [S1 Z 0. 0. W O a o•
w W 9 O
•� Q O � ° 7
y ° w'� a �
'ZIW O G FiFi FPQ. F-. p F. Pv. O
.. U
p
WOF
rG .Ti
Z
� q -" �cyd u $ �, � •5 o t -9 .0
CW7.ApcG °" a aw
E ° Fx
Z ^/ C
O O R *CL c o . E u ,o c u o n "3 .7 0
xr n no
F F a 0 to - W c u c N n° o a v c v c v 0
W C W A. C) G u0 L•'' V u
'o h O va v 'b C O
CZ r
0 a4
W Na v g u w ?3 c ° u P ° o W E u m v
cn
d W Q v u ❑ " o v a ¢ 2 q
n ' oGc ' a s °c
0 V tc
ou O V O 7 u .m lei p 'V
u o CL, 7 V 0 0
O y v b •� O L w N
x o v a ro o ° y v F y v a o o
O N V R ❑ L' O b. 'D [ v 7 'b b0 u p 7
0 v m v u G L r'7 O 0 7i o V V u �--•
u n Q o E V C v ° 8 0 : u •
• N
V o c u v � 0 uu w o
V Q h •5 Q F'-+. v o "3 V .� °'�. � a �:d .. � °
:5z
F
wwa a � a
v
U
c � N
; x
M N V yon
W '
V7
F � N
N
C v
OA �
C
N
C 6 Q
C, � a
g ❑ o u E „ ° u "o 4
0
eon G a' n �,'.� g c o o, ° .Y '° :. G ° c ¢
v nO 5 a
k a
0 .5 p b "o ao .0 m b .D v o a v fi o
c v
y 4 y U V' L 'a ° L C
DO C 0 avi C K O w sJ ice v u ° m " C " C v v Ov .. '.[. ° �,.. v °
,� d ° 'd 'v-' die ce y .C-i v O O C S
P.. v
c o 'L v u p ,; v @ �,�-' ° .9 v U ruil c o n,
u B V v L o . o 6b o c .Son yo e"n u o N
C7 a. .S `d v O v .v., O .r�-I y O C N G 'u C v C y v v
`.. 0
°' °' `" �q v
Q N v v D d 7 v n v 'O L -E O R. v W C O v N v L ro v R S
" O
� z
v ro a
a a v
5
O V 4
rob C z o
chi c W .w, ro A
cu A
� o
� x y
ca �
� b
a
Y �
� C
cj o a E E
p. C
to
E+ ao �, RW RW
0 0 0 o ro ro S v � � a
u
u
W N W N N om ❑❑ p
p ° v p O u O w u o '� L'•
41
WO m
a � c am ° c .� O -SowF -5 P S S R �
„ n .� d WRQ a� o � abN �WGGRr ❑ � . S'� �
C v V
0a"3 y pO
U
P 'N' `J RP 'O b .t 'OO " bA h :� b V C ro v v .n "u
O ' o a 6v" p S u 4 a o
vR E WYV r vv -0w� v OCE
10'
9R .FIL4Ui -� N -ox d J'qO' .aSU+ .� 6❑U. RVR
w..
w
O v U � O � � u U V O' � A .� H C a ❑ R O W � v p v
p a"
CL u
N c v co n n.=" a o 3 o s
C v > R s ti y N c s .. o G y S u o v o s c
N o a ° a :9 u v" v ,"� g D R W v o o,�E ° E o •
• Y u oC u .o B u c o .� CL 0 6 c > a .n tj .� � m v
c
.c. asv. � .� �n. 3 ro a °J,¢�' .-i yxU w ,�J � :b .-a
m °�a°� U
N m
i
z
iy
W W a m a
U
m
� x
'ti G w i •L
� w � A •n
en
� o y
i � H
o. c a
a a �
i •y C o o yv C `n
° u u n
•Oma+ L`Cp. `� p u
6q b
C y p > C p W v u p
pb � N 'D 6. 0v CM ,v„ w •a u 'oV
91,
79
4 �+ � � N V+ U N W y p 4 N H N 4J N N N y C a+ •�
B .n3v •� � � � o >. Lo £ b „ SN n.^ a-c " � "' � o � E :�
.v, N w � O u Lv, � 4+ �7 C O � cy' LO p •p _C u O � � O O 'JGG � �'N
v U y u v CO .a
.n p v 'o o p,C� •a v v :" v •° v ��+ °'
�., •° - a a cam , L-- v v �'
N
pp c v v :14 o vr
0.i.. v U '° u Q a°+ y0
'Oc
o y 5 0 0 N a ,s' C v �A bCA N �' C v N ° ¢' O 'O '� v C GO
ro a A Q
.n .vn .� •o ¢' u o o ti
• v " � � a -o o
CL
.n 0 v v ^C 4E
V
C
A > > C
E m 0 O
� z
cV on
� c
v
V ✓ �
Qi N H W O
7 c3 � •�
O Y O
4
ca ro O F"
� � W � A •L
� o
� x
I � b
Y �
" m C + O
O
a a �
•C � b
0 0 �
.c v
G �
N
O Q O ti
O O +: p �.'O C O u "C O au, s > O u 0
X "Ja > 3 o v v y q 0 B' v v z v, ,�j 0 � •� v
tj
C '� C V 'D �i a u u v F u C V J v w W maa
"O v,.� u O OCA O uu C N W y v y u v i+ p r`a�, 0 t
-o c ° U c v c a o c �' v
�° .u _S 3 .n 'u v '� .o H�ca? c, C;o •Dw °
Loi' b p" N �A C Jam-+' v "O •p N n � �, '^
O $ T N i7 ''J i� 'G �a p C' •4
is Lr' a ?� C •�• .u, •v R p .Iy R.Vr�' •s O a y O y C
c W
o
S .S . c S a v > 2
a v o a S p N Y r� 0. v o c o wo S
�A C 'D �" B;, C 'D sui u p ,n �. O as S u u v C
v � . ? � O .Su
° o N' n w "3 0 CV oN, N obi o eo ° o eoCL aAv o
G `n 3j
0 -0 i +'Oy o O u y
p n 2 g o °oc ° W o oti v
o .v v •o 'du° ao'� v ° a �'y .n > aA.> •D ° > .n
C7 v S V o v n n a n v n v
v b v O ro v oo N .° o `v' ° v a V ... a S' °' v ea
S C7 v� " c"AU w° ° ° c
w
O
� z
a o.
O
o a3 fa � a
LYi q Y Q G
.G
OJ N Gni i-r O
O
F. G
a °
� x b
•a � G
v
wanN. c c�3 �v. ,G, F � C
ro
Y
F bA m m
•� a go � �
G
a a v
bp u a 60
w4 o
'� � '� a�'J p -O " vvi •D ie o m Oq � is � .� w .
uv
ro
c u w c� O D u p
O N N Q w ice 7 v n V O v w E O O
CJ
F O w u ' v ',�'
OA U YI II...v O N G.N •J' j.� fC �C! 4 �y
•� N ° ° H � Nl• G W ° � h S E ° p Y Ar� �
a py •o u vu U
C O bb
,� N 'c v u A q itl
• u il o P V
v Y a 0. C v a
w C u o
o
� z r
z v on
a s c z c
u 8 0
UM
o z
ao � o G
.o
ce v z
o �
x •5 U c
v
� o
� x
�y R
C
0 �
•R � G a v
R O W r O
w Q-1 A. O
R
H W m c
•w C o
°
Z � .
o 5W0007 `r
C c y 3 O Q c
o r
m
C � 0. � " � •� S `c" ^� � c w a
� y
TJ v •D b 'C •.� •O u
,'. 7 •p tt N S O �, v '^1 .b 'L OU u W N P-4
v v o a
°
H H yy (!
y
a'
w
0 ��.,� P� U O q GOA.b ^-o a+ H y
v v
O avi yN �.� .n be U H y".Gb9' 'O u
a N F ° to c
•�crn v .n � " o .ti H ;° o :: o n U v n
r4 to
0 ❑ b ❑ C,
O �u R .a C v q O N L W O 'il D N O v w P7 v~ v m ti
O w v u 0 ro
• � W .s iC s "tY w .� N
cy
Z
is b C z
v
OA 7
O
� x
v �
3
o �
w � a o
a �
L
C � �
y
o $ a
w
C � y
w
a a
O . 0 + 0 0 O 'D m ai y Hca Q.� v A O fyi
a'7 C >,
y
v C O y G v N y y 'D C u V u -p
v „ o v G Ca o 0 a.D 6 y c v o LE
v '� ;: a u 'en o 0 W 'a ro a 6 '� 0 7 w
� v > > R y a v '� o o uo o c '�x o a o 2 D
G N R y U p � N 5 ✓� y t1 0 7 M n
a C o m b °i a o ro ° o b g u
`n 'D d C1 v u Q y .DEl E W u O v 77
.yA v 7) ,L'"'.,
rte,. o a 5bF ou o u v u .,' .n o
v
C
0
•
• � R
C
w
o
� z
U U y Y
1w O
f. LLQ'
.. v
� o ❑�❑ z °
.� N ❑ O •O
o
� ,� W a q •°Yr°
u
o
� x
v �
m
oY
Y
C N
C �
� � w
A O U
� ova
Lr N R y � R R
u
� 'a O'
a R 7 n o
aJCJ^ C a-C
v U U u wO R O 7a
.c° v o c o a o ' .
D-s ao
�
a � v � s � o o. � � v v .. 'o G u v ,� u C a❑❑n � v
R v p o d a R o p 3 0
• O RA. O w C 'b 'O (Vi1 P ' pR" q �C C >. C 3uy .d R. yv O ti
.�l
.V.
" a'
KEuLu ° ice 704 ° c
c
w
0
� z
c c
c " �
.4
v
� � N
.y .�
a0
C �
Y
Y C L •yOj 7 .L `� .� Fi
M A O�W
r
� U.. LI
CA A y C w 'q C ap C
w ro
$.uo
c o v o oo.S v u
.
o u o v w o u nn c L' y vto
zs
E a or [ v o O ril" d x 0C, -a
a'J .!� h x v M U N « w 7
U O C' .k - r-
0
O U
a � v � o v q° � p o" b :: ¢ o s � a c
c v o ° ro
o v ° D ro p A o W o Pa ao,a o 7 o co
u O
V V
[ ti q o =
_ .n c c u c U o ,�' cG o .S 'n z w°
0 Lr o s Etj a c o R v W .0 0 o a ° $ v Q n u u
nn v b G c ° 3 a u 'E b x o ti m �! b va E v y .a
N N •� VV N Ov u R —E30L to
Gq v .y 'O N q au P. v p"' pA CO
w .c W W c v v U p N b v ro .n
c c u 3 m p W v c
e ro y W
O ca ro C v 0 U u i.., .`9 q 'a v
U b b -0 c � -5 � V x w e R c E � B y o v u °
° W ° &o > ro E we •
• n � .a CL
.14 L' v E v 'So �ov a E c
N
� z
a
v
4
z °
•v � a o .o
U o
ao a
ca o
v �
� o
o
C �
ed
F" on w
•u O
o �
w
C v
Q � y
C C 'v C O h C bA is
:a b O v v v w
'C Sb
v
u
o c
P m v
m VO
p., E L p-' O O b 'q " Cvv C R. O
u M W v N W y O
k O W �' v i P u a vCi y •� v
m y O m u v v b B A A
v a c
0
� z
U U y Y
rx" � � w •�
O
aC z o
� b
v "
� o
x .L
VI
O $ uP. o
a 7OW Q0
w
CA bA b ro o
n
•y..+ ttl �+ N � O u O
a Pi a P.
'O O
y �'� cCa .� K C 'q a• W G C
ro o U v B 3 ro m o N o 0
a v A v E D o w ; 8
m
cc y E 7 0 v w v Utlo
u v y A. £+ ° y ° N G y N
vuN N u N u U iU-I N
tC .O FJ u C C v .� C aJ v v CC v C .� °: v C v v v v ?,
u C m bq p.+ 7 `" u u .u., u u u q n. u u
v v v To v v o
• � � .� nc". o 'B .ti � °N' c v ° " � �o cn a > > c0 a � � cC ,— > > N
a v
¢ v o c [ P3 a 5p o a
° £ v
• ' O v -'' O, u " ttl is
w
c
W4 °
ww a cs a
v
O C w
O
" x„ � A •a
on
ea o y
� x
a a cGn
w
H ons 0 C
W °° u W
v O v �'O k0 O ti
p O u F V 'b m .S r4 u
.0 m
O F y �oF wAO Q '❑ F h
CQ V Q
OA � ❑ w
° m nis
5
.4 R d C y > O N `� y 0 o a
S a
N W v N A Vi y W b y N v C y Q b N W
° ° s o `u b °
6)).h, u ° K; o o o ti p
n NN ro u Q. c v A v c ro [ v u o
v C C
o y v ° o ° °0 : ' a o o ° u
E N n. O .o
O o 9 f. y y F v L
'm v O.. -Ts
W v ° 'L7 N N A
u ° v
d vU u ° M o y
ao n N " cv a a aV . v . '� vv F °
n u u en v v v
y ,.M. ON u W N y
GG v C
m p v
w° u U O o ° ° N v v w e C7 .°-
u c E o 0 0
w
� � z z r
a � o a
CL
v
c a p a C
U
A
v
N O
� o
Y
0 a
v
s�
eu �
0
o � qc° 0 c
0
� nu = '•b q�q �,
Y u C9 U 'D
v c y u a A b
bD
D 0
n 00" 'ro u O L p p
u 6 v o aoU G r c c
N Lam' �d G v b❑❑A� O 'J v w Zi' u [� u O
!L y D
°J
cC O s O p 'Ci� O C h Cr " 0.1 O p :; ro y v u
u
C14 0
w bb U V E' A+
ti
O Q W W
O
� z
ww � a ro a
v
U O R
� xs c
� x N
R
•. O •a C C
a�
•y C o v � o ° v °° ew'a
o
C P.
y0
p
O F e
J
F C w v � � Fes`. •O C .tb
V
t 'il 'C N bCA'O `� C O C `R" C q ° C .R". R 'b by v
oo, 0v 'o g.d' ..� a u �; ,a c C a..n P .G
U . a v v
acn ° cto
to
3 a ° u cn P w u
t � b °"'oro uW, °''° aq � � .a� � ° 0 5 S0�
�r
0 V •O YJ bp'p P v a. ami b.0'C
O ❑❑ .� ❑ .Gvi•�
•L ° h " .9 M N ° ° R
.� v b.0 v SvRi .+ H d O00 . C vi P CL •� w
0 7s u o7j —M lj .� .n
R v '^ „ c
a v w a ° d
p ❑ 'ti y v ,� P �.,.O s U CL
LZ
SA
a C Fl 5 a ° "o w
~ U
� bv
z
a °
x N
v �
y y Y O o
A �Or a•� u o y v oU
C C
h0'A N
O s q u CC
0 Q O Q O
GbA y OOL J O V p v C p t° v b
•� C '° '° .3 v 'v m •o .� O �.a b 'o v 4s o �.b A u
Q o u V u o o o . Z o o u U S . o
0C1 OQ's epi •° ° "' ° oW o �'v C '� va
U � C4 UU U N � �
U -O •' v U 'LJ Y OA U N O N •n v +' v v v '• U N v v G
s s W s . .a ra v o q ° .n
y .,
O +N 4 U a Op `'� '�' 7 C) api i ,Vi, p O
N o W °~"
u •p '� •� u v p ^p
a M c o a g ° 3 'S v R a W Ln
4 V a E s o
ro u p C :� E
� +. 2 v u u a N x' s saNi ° W � +uN. a' api v v wt O c
O O u G O .bA cl
p k,,rj v >, u A o 0.+ ., O v� v N Y y .0 v .� v p
on E o a n a o > v o v41 X
>
u N •'r7 G ti
y3o � ioo � b � s � � � o^ su ° Nom oEao a °
'cN
p 0 v 0 0 .O 'SAN m
C14
.Ec'�va '.❑c. C��.. C .. � . .. v p ,eO Cv . u Cr '�u up ,
, 7 p vOO � c7 ONpC v v y v ° s vR
3U � u u
° Aw ° du N V V) (4
uu h m o
w
N M
� z V U
t: v
ii �+� 'ter y Chi
C
i6 b y z a
v
cwa � H
v
Cx N
� b •Y
v �
vl w c QO
V 9w o a v a •d v o '°A
E
E
u
ami
let
OA m
� a
z
ctiUz w
G cC . c n o a a o
cW N o �] v •= .n u c u 0 .c
O m s� ++ C Zi E C E 'D .�, 7 CL:� w N 3 v E a .v. O
E is , v ;; 'd a .O p W d �a 'D cs
v 2 c S o cv �v m v E c v o e o n d E H
E 8 A H " OV u c Y m O v m "o v u v a c ° u o
u o eu
° c " Q x a W vao v ac N W 'w
O .t v u
'D u L' u
o v E v o c c i c v > E G v c a q c
CC G y0 k cCtl L C C ... Q `< 'O O 'J E Gv' C u R v E O N
L p CL
y a ° c° v k r, E A ] c v °pp ° v E v c
R v v av, v m C u O O v
CI1 (n p W G N V V •� U p ..r ��C' 'a YO (G V _ N V 4 Li 'b yN S
u�
G iu .�uCy mC o o
Ns �, � v o CWO ° ° G °
u
C m C N O a.W E v m E Q u Q O v G ro u
Fy � tyb u '17 N a
aV .EvvcvAyalloz � P � Upd .So ' ._0
N
o �
U
0 y
� x
i � pC m u p � � v Wqq q u y O u w❑ .Gv .� O '��+ p
w m a w .O o �a b W C 0 0 � 7 'C d p G ❑ 'G 'x `� G Q
F (j x
4
u P4
Ku " C7
C
ao y a oc
c o a o m fi o u u o ro a
'n" B o to o a v _. a s 4,5 x '° v o U 71
'b Y W 'a H
�i v O�ti w O u Oy tai. '5 v r- C O
q y oA
'b .d p .� 7 p"� O r M w ^n O.� v m 'v" Ou
o a > xb cxH � � .a > v 2 c c
o o ° 'n N x w c oa a c 3 2 0 _ ro Cj o oc ?9 n°
v w v
_v
M,
CL
wOu 'CTti7i G6 WpvO "vw . .�Lp�-1"Qv oe ❑v�N
p
b O aO5 O E
° L1
�Qp vj
tz
vv
5 v m -Z3
° o'n a� ° v x a ° U
N h ° V N
B F a s c c u v v u
'= 7 v '
v o c u v o o a p o d o p ocrU c ti
• o ury vc o
o N
� z �
v
CG c O a
•� ro � p 'c
� U o
� x
y
y � •u C E v e \ N :^ C C9 r.1 O n o C
E 'er
C a 5^ U Uqq a' Uv�i � 'S U
sr
by w
C N C M O
• C C� � C
o°u'A C p q
c o °
Oqc�
N c en
m
F o eA oo s o q°0 T .S o °e
u C F O
d o u 4 ti y
7 ovA R' O O m O w ,�', G s
48 a. ; a u. o °'
C14 @)� m I c u x° ° r� � w c� E a
v 2� O P.4 v ti A ro O C O O O
� .o ❑ o v q � c u a u a c a m oCL 'a 6
R ° rr O. R+ v v V v 0 v O A y O a " �` �+. ° C 'V° o G E
Lrl
c &ca o.2 cy apb ° y aoEa v av7 °q yo ° o
c a, o o `;, ti o vCL
d a ° x ° v o a a x" o ?0 w . hk
u EC C x C a u 0 v 0 ie r+
m v 'd ti' " p " ^p U v '""' .ti O w by ,� C F •r
•,�" .a s o^ o v '�° csi> :o v C o `�° N v w °: a ..pa 3 v N
p c v
CL c '
C N O cA U O V b . O C 'O y 0 y C E v O sv, ti
F :U bjj.v y :U u SQA v7 v u d cCa y v V .� vCa o. '�qv] .'v.�' C D •
• fL gym+ +v p,D k
O'Lr` O V u .�J /-. P.
o N N
� z � �
c c
W c O g
•Y
•� N � p "a
Aso H �
Y
� U o
u •«
� v '
C o
� x
C
Y � H
•.% .n a �' ° C ,� ; a E �• v a to v
Y Y E E o
4 O
w as c o " va � xF " Q - w " a ; wro '� v
� V
L
VJ C
W
� ❑ O V v O. ro n v W KA m aq n0
•� m 0. w a o .a �v7 '� � � � P�
Do
cua
m o o m p. �
a ^y U w or u
a x e
a
w
o v ca s" v Q o '� $ u .° u o °' LZ r ri r s
c o
ci
o u E4° u aui x � °Y' .aU 'o w � '� °•yam cw °o aV
u ro u ro v V v y is a.0CL v C N G 3
Sil m `S u X.7 O m �.' A Y q �[. i +.� Y v .v, H ❑ u v ttO. N
to a •" '� .d u q Y ... �' u Q C ca C
o a o z n W z x x V N C Q o a u
n �
•uv "a u u a N u ro •
O CL
X � 'q dC
u L'
O N
� z �
7 ) 2
& § \ k
} { )
to \
) k
» _ �
a � E\ %
/ A ,
\ \ } � } \
ƒ2 $ § ~ � ) 7 u 72 * \ 3 - ) f2
_ ( : �
� \ \ \ \� k � E\ ` } \ \
a \2 $ ° E ® ® K ) ( ® ~ ) ee ± a % ) ® � r
\ \ ƒ9r $ ) ® \ § 7 a®1 \ \
ƒ
, � v § � f
) � % ai ± 2 . a : u
/\ \ }\ } j \\ () ) \ : w ) \ %± ± ƒ (4 \ / « #
k § : � uu
.. ) } }
. j
) )
U 7 G O R
ago H �
02 . c
jm
A
�+ C
'� A C � � y u 4 n m p i v y '� •�
C o 0''0 o v aCr� S ❑�❑ 0 7 v
cC O p ca c a o Cq �C O L DA 7 d R
z
u F
m o c co o t4
R
•� C. y q v VJ v C � q v �n v
• � p rj w F F.5
Q R «
F F
F
G .Sk � oW � vDa q ° A 0- '-o
^d
�y p " ❑ ac0
y0 R+ CCO F
ai 7 r�-J2I
a v °o$ E O u F u Cua v o a v CDC)
CA O'N uMv'
u S G R
u aoc [
6Dso u ro n c °o F o o 'nmu
U c n o Zo "
n cn ti
0
to to ow G
O v n^ Q p� bCA 'O F� r•�
a
O
N
U U a N
wwa a R xow
Ca c� b
V 43 G O tOtl
�A
rbc z o
OW A
� x
C
�j •O ,� pp " o,
v k Q :. C O u Qq
a.
'O
.Ob •� v oar oq Z
•p R y 0 « w v �
C4 v m u
.a 3� o' �„ O � 'L..• W7. � P � .� axJ O 'u cOa P m P O � � � h C W
v
4 mu9 a o oumy v
o W n �o m� U W .� S .S 'n
v a
�o '' �n .�.o"
o a n. N v ao ° o a °0
CL CI-
n o V z ❑ u � °c° CL4 o p o« Ca w ° c
� CU2vac0
q ate+ U P+ v (V u 'O O UQ w ❑ P d C b P.•� N u
p,�� � ° b u p C w o .S ,[, � °"v � cEi 0 •° Q G �, � u ro
M �
yi y> 0 U cn
n v a
v
� cYa O c
o C
y� u w is v
-°'0
T3 a
� o
� x
Ln
W Cr LYS CO �� Y
w
F en m
H
F+
v u v Y xO
-b
� -a �° a ups "° v v ro ,`� W� v
v v a :: t� u o v ^
a y c
94 CC T
Czj
L
o.a o u ons o19 v
19v wm Wa s > s � c ro � � o � 3 .5u0
E ❑ -oate . pas .. o � a v a a o c
o t o v v v v o
Q u Y C CL4 d ,u L Y y, uCL
CL\ o p .� .0 C o bD
N (� w° o,. o v � 'a � �oQ a°O v 'n � .�' vv -o 5n � c u u
v oE A
A .g •
• • v v o Eu 0 o • • • d
a °° 91 r � w
N
o a
� z �
2
§ /
\/ / u \
. k ; l § °
& Qk § )
HN2 ¥ /
) / G ;
® � \
(\
2 ] :
cn
) _
\ � �
) )
) 7 \ /
/ A ~
# e a y u ) !
\ \ z ` k ^ ® \ {
\ t
( ) 4 \ f ƒ s a u % \
u g _ / ) \ } »
) ) eeel : \ - § ] ; } ) } \ \ ® ) a r \ ( )
) \ u a . « + ) ° /Duu
ƒ E « : ) / rso b ƒ % / ®s !
` § § 41 � § § § \ I ee . e � z ± , � -0 �L � \ } mow
\ eajj ± « gte ~ & § i % \ t ƒ \ 327 ° 2 e
. f ., ® = . f � � 0 v ; ° , u
° ` ; � .E ® » 3a = u > 7o : - t [
\ ƒ \ \ ) ) n7 « ( Z ° CL Ea CLK-C) 0
23 £ 4 $ ) 2 / ) zt \P-4 -0 " " " / -0P%P— .( )
. !
) )
C% m
O
> ro a p a a
O D3 U
� b
0
5
4
eD a
C O w
� x
v �
� a
n m 0 4 0 7 w
v
w
OA w m
•� Q O O u pp N
C C z �� u
w
«"• C7
u
O aCr p C v
-O A
0 0 ..u. ,W ❑ y POaa P
G' Q+.y
•O o s. � u .v O is u0 is
w N a p O a .� n .N
4M.0 y u N
N a m P Q
O �i 'C O N
.i o C E ti4: AuQi
.r
.a
Oti CL N a y s •J C � }J o
73
•ti C
Ln u . a •
C
�" P bA v tt D C ai R,
CL
C7 H a°i 'a W .� o" u a'y ° .� ti
f3,
O r,
� z �