Exhibit A to CUP Reso - 2009 EDCO EIR — Signal Hill City Council, June 11, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

Exhibit A

EDCO RECYCLING AND TRANSFER FACILITY
Final Environmental Impact Report
Signal Hill, CA

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009

Prepared for:

City of Signal Hill
2175 Cherry Avenue
Signal Hill, CA 90755-3799

Prepared by:

RGP Planning & Development Services
8921 Research Drive
Irvine, CA 92618

Applicant:

EDCO
224 S. Las Posas Road
San Marcos, CA 92078
February 2009

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Final Environmental Impact Report
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009

Introduction
CEQA Requirements........................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Final EIR .................................................................................................... 1 Final EIR Contents.............................................................................................................. 2 Part 1 Draft EIR and Technical Appendices
Part 2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Part 3 Draft EIR Errata and Modifications
Part 4 Revised Air Quality Technical Appendix
Attachments
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B. Draft Environmental Findings
C. Resolution No. 2009-02-5746 (EIR Certification)
D. Notice of Determination (filed February 19, 2009)
E. California Department of Fish & Game Environmental Filing Fee Receipt

Final Environmental Impact Report
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page 1

INTRODUCTION

CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Before approving a project, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Lead Agency to prepare and certify a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines lists the required contents of a Final EIR as follows:

The Final EIR shall consist of
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency
The City of Signal Hill, as the Lead Agency, must also provide each public agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the City’s response to those comments at least ten days before certifying the Final EIR. Members of the public and commenting agencies may review the Final EIR prior to certification.

PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to support approval of the Proposed Project, either in whole or in part. The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15089[b]) state that the review of a final EIR should focus on the responses to comments on the Draft EIR.

After completing the Final EIR, and before approving the Project, the City of Signal Hill (Lead Agency) must certify the following pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines:
(1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body (City Council) of the City of Signal Hill, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and
(3) The final EIR reflects the City of Signal Hill's independent judgment and analysis.

These certifications, the Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are included in separate documents that will be submitted to the City of Signal Hill for consideration prior to approval of the Proposed Project.

Final Environmental Impact Report
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page 2

FINAL EIR CONTENTS
Part 1 – Draft EIR and Technical Appendices
The Draft EIR dated November 2008 describes the existing environmental conditions in the City of Signal Hill; analyzes potential impacts on those conditions due to the Proposed Project; identifies mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of significant impacts; evaluates cumulative impacts that would be caused by the Project in combination with other future projects or growth that could occur in the region; analyzes growth-inducing impacts; and provides a full evaluation of the alternatives to the Proposed Project that could eliminate, reduce, or avoid projectrelated impacts.

The Appendices are not reproduced in the print version of the Final EIR. Those documents are provided as PDF files on the CD attached to the inside cover of the Final EIR. They also remain available for review in hardcopy format at the following address:

City of Signal Hill
2175 Cherry Avenue
Signal Hill, California 90755-3799
Contact: Gary Jones, Director of Community Development
(562) 989-7345
[email protected]
Part 2 – Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
A period of 45 days (November 13 to December 29, 2008) was established for public review of the Draft EIR for the EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility. Copies were sent to the State Clearinghouse for transmittal to all trustee, responsible, and other State agencies that may have an interest in the project. The Draft EIR was also distributed to organizations and individuals with an interest in the project, and to the local library to widen accessibility to the Draft EIR. In addition, the Notice of Availability of where the Draft EIR could be reviewed was published in the Signal Hill Tribune Newspaper. During the public review period, the City received six written comment letters on the Draft EIR.

This part contains a complete list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR; copies of the comment letters received by the City on the Proposed Project, and the Lead Agency’s responses to those comments.

Part 3 – Draft EIR Errata and Modifications
This part contains all text and graphics changes to the Draft EIR, most of which are in response to comments on the Draft EIR. Modifications to the Draft EIR text are depicted as follows:

Black underline indicates text additions
Gray strikethrough indicates text deletions
It is important to note that neither the errata nor the modifications change the conclusions regarding potentially significant effects or the ability of mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce those effects to a level that is less than significant.

Final Environmental Impact Report
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page 3
Part 4 – Revised Air Quality Technical Appendix
During the preparation of Responses to Comments, Air Permitting Specialists revised the Technical Appendix to the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Draft EIR Appendix D) dated October 14, 2008. As indicated in the Responses to Comments, the Draft EIR analysis, conclusions, and mitigation measures remain unchanged by the Air Quality Technical Appendix revisions.

PART 1
Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, November 2008
Appendices are not reproduced in the print version of the Final EIR. Those documents are provided as PDF files on the CD attached to the inside cover of the Final EIR.

EDCO RECYCLING AND TRANSFER FACILITY
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Signal Hill, CA

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009

Prepared for:

City of Signal Hill
2175 Cherry Avenue
Signal Hill, CA 90755-3799

Prepared by:

RGP Planning & Development Services
8921 Research Drive
Irvine, CA 92618

Applicant:

EDCO
224 S. Las Posas Road
San Marcos, CA 92078
November 2008

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility Draft EIR
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009

Executive Summary
ES.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ES-1 ES.2 Project Summary........................................................................................................................ES-1 ES.3 Summary of Project Impacts .....................................................................................................ES-7 ES.4 Summary of Project Alternatives...............................................................................................ES-8 ES.5 Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved............................................................................ES-8 ES.6 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................ES-8

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Overview...........................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose and Use of the EIR.........................................................................................................1-2

1.3 Notice of Preparation...................................................................................................................1-3

1.4 EIR Scoping ..................................................................................................................................1-3

1.5 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved.......................................................................1-3

1.6 Availability and Review of the Draft EIR......................................................................................1-4

1.7 Incorporation by Reference.........................................................................................................1-5

1.8 Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................1-5

2.0 Project Description

2.1 Project Location ...........................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................2-3

2.3 Site History ...................................................................................................................................2-4

2.4 Project Description.......................................................................................................................2-4

2.4.1 Land Use Approvals and Zoning Modifications............................................................2-4

2.4.2 Facility Operations .........................................................................................................2-5

2.5 Public Agency Approvals ............................................................................................................2-12

3.1 Environmental Analysis

3.1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.2 Organization and Content.........................................................................................................3.1-2

3.2 Land Use & Planning

3.2.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.2-9

3.2.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.2-9

3.2.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3.2-16

3.2.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................................... 3.2-16

3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3.2-16

3.2.7 Public/Agency Comments on Land Use and Planning Issues............................................. 3.2-17 Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page ii

3.3 Traffic & Circulation

3.3.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.3-4

3.3.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.3-6

3.3.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3.3-21

3.3.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................................... 3.3-21

3.3.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3.3-21

3.3.7 Public/Agency Comments on Traffic Issues......................................................................... 3.3-21

3.4 Noise

3.4.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.4-5

3.4.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.4-6

3.4.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3.4-10

3.4.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................................... 3.4-10

3.4.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3.4-10

3.4.7 Public/Agency Comments on Noise Issues.......................................................................... 3.4-10

3.5 Air Quality

3.5.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.5-8

3.5.3 Impacts Found to Be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.5-8

3.5.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3.5-18

3.5.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................................... 3.5-18

3.5.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3.5-18

3.5.7 Public/Agency Comments on Air Quality Issues................................................................... 3.5-18

3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials

3.6.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.6-2

3.6.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.6-3

3.6.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................3.6-6

3.6.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................................................................................3.6-9

3.6.6 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................3.6-9

3.6.7 Public/Agency Comments on Hazards Issues.........................................................................3.6-9

3.7 Aesthetics

3.7.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.7-3

3.7.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.7-3

3.7.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................3.7-5

3.7.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................................................................................3.7-5

3.7.6 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................3.7-5

3.7.7 Public/Agency Comments on Aesthetic Issues .......................................................................3.7-5

3.8 Biological Resources

3.8.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.8-3

3.8.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.8-4

3.8.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................3.8-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page iii

3.8.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................................................................................3.8-6

3.8.6 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................3.8-6

3.8.7 Public/Agency Comments on Biological Resources Issues....................................................3.8-6

3.9 Cultural Resources

3.9.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.9-3

3.9.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.9-3

3.9.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................3.9-4

3.9.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................................................................................3.9-6

3.9.6 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................3.9-6

3.9.7 Public/Agency Comments on Cultural Resource Issues.........................................................3.9-6

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.10.1 Existing Setting....................................................................................................................... 3.10-1

3.10.2 Impact Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. 3.10-6

3.10.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ......................................................................... 3.10-7

3.10.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................................3.10-14

3.10.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................................................................3.10-14

3.10.6 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................................3.10-14

3.10.7 Public/Agency Comments on Hydrology & Water Quality..................................................3.10-15

3.11 Mineral Resources

3.11.1 Existing Setting....................................................................................................................... 3.11-1

3.11.2 Impact Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. 3.11-1

3.11.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ......................................................................... 3.11-1

3.11.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3.11-2

3.11.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................................... 3.11-2

3.11.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3.11-2

3.11.7 Public/Agency Comments on Mineral Resource Issues ...................................................... 3.11-2

4.0 Project Alternatives

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................................4-2

4.4 Description of Project Alternatives..............................................................................................4-2

4.5 Criteria for Analysis of Alternatives .............................................................................................4-3

4.6 Alternatives Analysis ....................................................................................................................4-3

4.7 Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration.............................................................................4-14

5.0 Long-Term Implications of the Proposed Project

5.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.....................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ........................................................................5-1

5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts.............................................................................................................5-1

6.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted

6.1 Lead Agency: City of Signal Hill ...................................................................................................6-1

6.2 EIR and Technical Consultants ...................................................................................................6-1

7.0 References ................................................................................................................................................. 7-1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page iv

APPENDICES
The following technical appendices are provided in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document File (PDF) format on the CD at the back of the Draft EIR. Hard copy appendices are also available for review at the City of Signal Hill Community Development Department, 2175 Cherry Avenue, Signal Hill, California 90755.

Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and EIR Scoping Documents Appendix B Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix C Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix D Air Quality Impact Analysis
Appendix E Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F Human Health Risk Assessment
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page v

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures .........................................ES-9 Table 2-1 Public Agency Approvals.................................................................................................2-12 Table 3.2-1 Adjacent Land Uses.......................................................................................................3.2-2 Table 3.2-2 Vicinity Land Uses..........................................................................................................3.2-2 Table 3.3-1 ICU Summary – Existing Conditions .............................................................................3.3-4 Table 3.3-2 ICU Summary – 2010 Background (No Project) Conditions .................................... 3.3-10 Table 3.3-3 Related Projects Summary......................................................................................... 3.3-11 Table 3.3-4 Hourly Distribution of Project Vehicles ...................................................................... 3.3-13 Table 3.3-5 Trip Generation Summary .......................................................................................... 3.3-14 Table 3.3-6 Trip Generation PCE Summary .................................................................................. 3.3-14 Table 3.3-7 ICU Summary – 2010 With Project Conditions......................................................... 3.3-17 Table 3.3-8 ICU Summary – 2010 Cumulative Conditions .......................................................... 3.3-18 Table 3.3-9 HCM Delay Summary – 2010 With Project Conditions ............................................ 3.3-18 Table 3.4-1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments......................................3.4-4 Table 3.4-2 Project Vicinity Noise Monitoring Results (dBA)...........................................................3.4-5 Table 3.4-3 Site Access Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 Feet to Centerline)...................3.4-8 Table 3.4-4 Transfer Station Site Perimeter Noise Monitoring Summary (dBA)............................3.4-9 Table 3.5-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................................................................3.5-3 Table 3.5-2 Attainment Status..........................................................................................................3.5-5 Table 3.5-3 Long Beach Air Quality Monitoring Results 2005 - 2007 ...........................................3.5-6 Table 3.5-4 Localized Significance Thresholds................................................................................3.5-8 Table 3.5-5 Summary of Construction Related Emissions..............................................................3.5-9 Table 3.5-6 Summary of BMPs Implemented During Construction Activities............................. 3.5-10 Table 3.5-7 Operational Emission Sources and Analysis Methodologies ................................... 3.5-10 Table 3.5-8 Summary of Daily and Annual Operational Emissions ............................................. 3.5-11 Table 3.5-9 Summary of CO2 Emissions....................................................................................... 3.5-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1 Regional Location Map...................................................................................................ES-2 Figure ES-2 Project Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ES-2 Figure ES-3 Aerial Overview & Site Photos........................................................................................ES-3 Figure ES-4 Illustrative Site Plan........................................................................................................ES-5 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map.....................................................................................................2-1 Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity Map ..........................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2-3 Illustrative Site Plan..........................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2-4 Representative Architectural Elevations .........................................................................2-7 Figure 2-5 Aerial View of Proposed MRF/TS in Plan View...............................................................2-8 Figure 2-6 Aerial View of Proposed MRF/TS From the Southeast...................................................2-8 Figure 2-7 Aerial View of Proposed MRF/TS from the Southwest ...................................................2-9 Figure 2-8 Aerial View of the Proposed MRF/TS from the Northeast..............................................2-9 Figure 3.2-1 Assessor's Parcel Map...................................................................................................3.2-4 Figure 3.2-2 Existing General Plan Land Uses ..................................................................................3.2-6 Figure 3.2-3 Existing Zoning...............................................................................................................3.2-8 Figure 3.3-1 Study Area Intersection Locations................................................................................3.3-3 Figure 3.3-2 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes.........................................................................3.3-3 Figure 3.3-3 Site Circulation Plan ......................................................................................................3.3-7 Figure 3.3-4 Off-Site Circulation: Arrival Routes................................................................................3.3-8 Figure 3.3-5 Off-Site Circulation: Departure Routes .........................................................................3.3-9 Figure 3.3-6 Related Projects Location Map.................................................................................. 3.3-12 Figure 3.3-7 Project Trip Distribution -- Trucks............................................................................... 3.3-15 Figure 3.3-8 Project Trip Distribution – Self-Haul Vehicles and Employees................................. 3.3-15 Figure 3.3-9 Project-Generated AM Peak Hour Trips (PCE)........................................................... 3.3-16 Figure 3.3-10 Project-Generated PM Peak Hour Trips (PCE)........................................................... 3.3-16 Figure 3.3-11 LBUSD School Location Map ..................................................................................... 3.3-19 Figure 3.4-1 Common Noise Sources and A-Weighted Noise Levels ..............................................3.4-2 Figure 3.4-2 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels .........................................3.4-7 Figure 3.5-1 Spatial Variation of Residential Cancer Risk ............................................................ 3.5-15 Figure 3.7-1 Project Site Photographs – Existing Conditions...........................................................3.7-2 Figure 3.8-1 Aerial Overview & Site Photos.......................................................................................3.8-2 Figure 3.10-1 Existing Site Topography ............................................................................................ 3.10-4 Figure 3.10-2 Preliminary SUSMP Map and Grading Plan .............................................................. 3.10-9 EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
This Executive Summary has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15123 which states than an EIR should contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its consequences, and should identify:
• “Each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect;
• Areas of controversy known to the lead agency including issues raised by the agencies and the public; and
• Issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.”
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed materials recovery/transfer station (MRF/TS) facility project.

ES.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
ES.2.1 Project Location
The ±3.75-acre Project Site is at the northwest corner of California Avenue and Patterson Street in the City of Signal Hill, County of Los Angeles. Figure ES-1 identifies the Regional Location and Figure ES-2 provides a Project Vicinity Map. The Proposed Project study area is the entire block bounded by Patterson Street to the south, California Avenue to the east, and the 28th Street and Olive Avenue rights-of-way (unimproved) to the north and west, respectively. Figure ES-3, Aerial Overview & Site Photos, illustrates existing environmental conditions.

ES.2.2 Project Objectives
Development of the Proposed Project will satisfy two different objectives:
• Objective 1: Redevelopment of a blighted area of the City of Signal Hill Objective 1 will be satisfied through implementation of the goals and objectives outlined in the City’s General Industrial Specific Plan 19 (SP-19).1 The purpose of SP-19 is to guide the physical development of a blighted geographic area within the City suited for the development of jobproducing industrial uses, but constrained by existing zoning designations, small lot sizes, environmental conditions, and/or leaseholds that prevent or discourage development. • Objective 2: Continuation of the reduction of quantities of waste deposited in landfills by increasing waste diversion activities
Objective 2 will be satisfied by extending the City’s municipal solid waste recycling and diversion programs in support of Assembly Bill 939 (Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989), which requires local governments in California to increase waste diversion activities to conserve space in current landfills. Development of the Proposed Project would extend the City’s municipal solid waste recycling and diversion programs and the City would continue to meet the AB 939 objective.

1 City of Signal Hill Municipal Code, Chapter 20.39, SP-19 General Industrial Specific Plan, Section 20.39.010 (C) Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page ES-2
FIGURE ES-1

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

FIGURE ES-2

PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page ES-3 FIGURE ES-3 AERIAL OVERVIEW & SITE PHOTOS
zC
zA zB
zD
Patterson St.
28th St.

Ca
lifor
n
ia
Ave
.
zA z
O
li
veAve
.
zD
zC
B
FIGURE ES-3

AERIAL OVERVIEW
& SITE PHOTOS
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page ES-4
ES.2.3 Project Description
Project Development Components
The Proposed Project is the development of a ±68,000 square foot recycling and transfer facility on a 3.75-acre site in the City of Signal Hill (City). The state-of-the art materials recovery/transfer station (MRF/TS) facility will serve as a point to accept, process, recover and transfer mixed municipal waste and residue following diversion activities to an appropriate permitted disposal facility. As shown on Figure ES-4 (Illustrative Site Plan), the MRF/TS will be composed of the following areas:
• Office and administration area
• Employee area
• Operations, material recovery facility, transfer/self haul/load out area • Green waste area
• Construction debris area
• Maintenance area
All buildings will conform to the City of Signal Hill Site Plan and Design Review Guidelines. The facility will be sized to handle up to 1,500 tons per day, although the actual amount processed per day may be less than this maximum. The facility will have the following multiple functions and processes:
• Transfer station (TS) for refuse collection and transfer. The transfer station will include a below grade load out area to allow for the transfer vehicles to be top-loaded through load out ports at the tipping floor. A portion of the transfer station would also be dedicated for selfhaul use. • Material recovery facility (MRF) for diversion of recyclable products from commercial and residential customers. The recyclable products would be baled within the building and transferred to recyclable load out vehicles at the exterior recyclable load out dock. Residue from the diversion process would be conveyed to the adjacent transfer station for load out. • A buyback operation allowing the public to drop off recyclables and receive compensation (certified CA redemption center).
• A green waste area would accommodate collection of green waste. The green waste would be transferred to outgoing delivery vehicles.
• A construction debris area would be utilized for collection, sorting and recyclable load out of construction material debris. The incoming material would be screened, sorted and diverted to containers. The containers would be transferred to outgoing recyclable load out vehicles. • An office area for administrative support functions. This area may include an education area for use by local students in demonstrating the activities of the facility. • An employee area/control area would include restrooms, a break area and offices. The upper level control area may be used to accommodate the operational control functions of the facility. The employee area/control area may be linked to the office area via an upper level observation gallery.
• A separate maintenance building would include two service bays and an adjacent office/parts area.

Site improvements may also include fueling operations, a truck wash area, truck scale and scale house, load out ramps, truck loading docks, driveways, employee and operation vehicle parking, and landscaping. The Project will also construct roadway improvements to 28th Street between California Avenue and Olive Avenue in order to provide site circulation. The Project will also include parkway improvements along all street frontages.

Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page ES-5 Source: JRM&A, 2008
FIGURE ES-4

ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page ES-6
Project Design and Environmental Controls
Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) provides detailed information about environmental control systems for dust and odor control, litter control, noise reduction and other matters of site design and facility construction to ensure compatibility with existing and planned adjacent land uses. The Project will employ “green building” design concepts, including the use of recycled construction products, energy efficient environmental control systems, and natural day lighting.

Operations Schedule
As waste volumes dictate, EDCO anticipates that the Facility may be open up to seven (7) days a week. Specific functional activities would have different hours of operation. EDCO anticipates that the transfer function will need to accommodate load-out and transfer out operations up to 24 hours per day, provided the operations comply with the City’s ordinances.

On-Going Oil Production
The proposed project will allow maintenance of six enclosed portions of property under separate ownership within the project site. These property enclosures total approximately 0.34 acres and will continue being used for oil production (oil wells). These separate properties are shown on Figure ES4, Illustrative Site Plan. The company managing these sites will be provided with access onto the EDCO property in order for them to access and operate the oil wells.

ES.2.4 Project Approvals
The Proposed Project includes the following land use entitlements and approvals by the City:
• Zone change from Commercial General (CG) to General Industrial Specific Plan 19. This Zoning Ordinance amendment will revise the Zoning Map.
• Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to add a new planning area, Planning Area 3 (Recycling and Transfer Station), to Specific Plan 19 at Section 20.39.030 (Land Use). • Vacation of a 'paper alley' right-of-way that bisects the site between Olive and California Avenues
• Vacation of Olive Avenue right-of-way between 28th and Patterson Streets • Lot merger
• Conditional Use Permit
• Site Plan and Design Review
• Disposition and Development Agreement
• Amendment to the Non Disposal Facility Element
• Amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan
Other public agency approvals are listed in Table 2-1 of the Project Description (Chapter 2.0).

Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page ES-7
ES.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
Issues and concerns raised in the NOP comments and addressed in Chapter 3.0 of this EIR include:
• Land use and land use compatibility
• Traffic
• Noise
• Air quality and Odors
• Hazardous materials and hazardous waste
• Aesthetics
• Biological resources
• Cultural resources
• Hydrology and water quality
• Mineral resources
The following six environmental topics are not addressed in detail in this EIR:
• Agricultural Resources – There are no agricultural resources on the Proposed Project site or in the Proposed Project vicinity.
• Geology and Soils – The Proposed Project is located in an urbanized area and will comply with all applicable geotechnical requirements of the Uniform Building Code and other City requirements. This compliance will reduce any geology and soils impacts to less than significant.
• Population and Housing – There is no housing in the immediate area of the Proposed Project Site. No homes or persons will be displaced by the Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts to population and housing will be less than significant.
• Public Services – The Proposed Project is in an urban area with available public services. As an industrial land use, public service impacts are limited to police and fire protection services. The Proposed Project is not expected to cause significant impacts to the police and fire protection services.
• Recreation – The Proposed Project is an industrial use. This use does not create a demand for recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation will be less than significant. • Utilities and Service Systems – The Proposed Project is served by utilities and service systems provided by the City of Signal Hill and other utility/service providers. The Proposed Project will utilize these same utilities and service systems. Therefore, impacts to utilities and services systems will be less than significant.

Table ES-1 at the end of this chapter summarizes the environmental topics with potentially significant adverse impacts and the recommended mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. No impacts are considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation.

Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page ES-8
ES.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, Chapter 4.0 of this EIR includes an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Proposed Project and evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative, as summarized below.

ES.4.1 No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(1) states, “the purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of not approving the proposed project.” The State CEQA Guidelines specifically advise that No Project is “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” The No Project Alternative for the Proposed Project involves a continuation of the existing conditions and land use designations on the Project site with potential future development under the existing General Plan designation of 4.2 General Industrial and zoning designation of CG (Commercial General). If the City chooses to not approve the Proposed Project and takes no action (No Project) to create a MRF/TS, the City under State law must still continue to collect solid waste and dispose of this waste at a landfill and/or process this waste for recycling. Under the No Project Alternative, the City would continue to transport most of its waste to the La Puente Landfill.

ES.4.2 Alternative Site Location
The Alternative Site Location alternative would be another site in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood in the City of Signal Hill. This neighborhood contains the single largest vacant land area remaining in the City. Per the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, this neighborhood has remained vacant because of overwhelming constraints to development including: ongoing oil production activities, primarily independent oil operations; contaminated soils including sumps and past refining facilities; small lot sizes and fragmented ownership patterns; lack of infrastructure; and topographical constraints including steep slopes and a ravine north of Columbia Street.

ES.4.3 Smaller Facility Alternative
The Smaller Facility Alterative would reduce the square footage of the proposed facility on the same project acreage. A smaller facility would downsize and/or eliminate some of the recycling programs offered by the Proposed Project such as the community buy-back program which allows the public to bring recyclables to the facility and receive compensation for their recyclables.

ES.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 3.3.3 (Summary of Project Impacts) listed the issues and concerns raised in the NOP comments. No comments were made at the Draft EIR scoping meeting held on September 11, 2008 at the City Council Chambers. No additional areas of controversy or issues were identified during the EIR scoping process.

ES.6 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental topics with potentially significant adverse impacts, the recommended mitigation measures to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, and the level of significance remaining after mitigation.

Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page ES-9 TABLE ES-1

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Potential Impacts

Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After
Mitigation

3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.6-1: The Proposed Project would be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

MM 3.6-1: A soil management plan shall be prepared to provide guidance to building contractors in the event discolored or odiferous soils are discovered during onsite excavation and grading activities
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Impact 3.6-2: Three unknown oil wells (Damron 4, RC-6, and RC-5) have not been located at the Proposed Project Site.

MM 3.6-2a: If any previously unknown wells or pipelines are encountered at any time during grading activities, all work shall immediately cease until clearance is received from the City of Signal Hill. MM 3.6-2b: Records of wells previously abandoned in accordance with State of California, DOGGR regulations shall be reviewed in order to determine if they comply with current abandonment regulations. Any such wells shall be re-abandoned in conformance with current DOGGR regulations.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Impact 3.6-3: Rough grading activities associated with the Proposed Project have the potential to release methane gas.

MM 3.6-3: A methane assessment shall be conducted on-site within 30 days of completion of rough grading to determine if methane concentrations warrant mitigation (i.e., installation of a vapor barrier and passive vapor).

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Impact 3.6-4: Since 1923, the Proposed Project Site has been associated with oil field activities, including oil derricks, a tank farm, and wells.

MM 3.6-4: Should any previously unknown underground storage tanks be discovered during the Project Site preparation phase, removal of these tanks would require a plan check from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Impact 3.6-5: Construction activities could disrupt underground utility systems.

MM 3.6-5: The Project proponent shall obtain a “Dig Alert” identification number two working days in advance of commencement of excavation activities.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page ES-10

Potential Impacts

Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After
Mitigation

3.8 Biological Resources
Impact 3.8-1: Since marginal foraging, roosting and nesting vegetation habitat exists on and adjacent to the Project Site, the removal of ornamental trees and shrubs has the potential to impact wildlife.

This survey should be carried out within one week prior to initiation of grading activities. If bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513 are found nesting within 150 feet of the Project disturbance area, it is recommended that a qualified biologist monitor the nests daily during all phases of construction to ensure that the Project does not impact the nests. Clearing and grading activities shall not be allowed within 150 feet of active nests. If an active nest is discovered on-site or within 150 feet of the Project disturbance area, then clearing and/or grading activities will be delayed in areas within 150 feet of nests until it has been determined by a qualified biologist that the chicks have fledged.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

3.9 Cultural Resources
Impact 3.9-1: The Proposed Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

MM 3.9-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified archaeologist, experienced with Native Americans and Native American resources will be retained by the City of Signal Hill. The archaeologist shall be present at a pre-grading conference with the contractor and shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance and work stoppage if cultural resources are encountered. Should buried cultural resources be encountered by the contractor during construction activities, work in that area must be halted until the archaeologist is notified and can evaluate the nature and significance of the find and if necessary, coordinate the appropriate efforts for handling and/or disposition of these materials. The City of Signal Hill Community Development Department shall be immediately if cultural resources are encountered.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Impact 3.9-2: The Proposed Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

MM 3.9-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist will be retained by the City of Signal Hill. The paleontologist shall be present at a pre-grading conference with the contractor and shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance and work stoppage if paleontological resources are encountered. Should buried paleontological resources be encountered by the contractor during construction activities, work in that area Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page ES-11

Potential Impacts

Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After
Mitigation
must be halted until the paleontologist is notified and can evaluate the nature and significance of the find and if necessary, coordinate the appropriate efforts for handling and/or disposition of these materials. The City of Signal Hill Community Development Department shall be notified immediately if paleontological resources are encountered Impact 3.9-3: The Proposed Project has the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

MM 3.9-3: If human remains are encountered during construction-related activities, in conformance with State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, disturbance of the immediate area near the remains shall be immediately halted until the Los Angeles County Coroner has made a determination regarding the origin and disposition as required by California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If encountered remains are determined to be of Native notified American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified within one business day of discovery and the Gabrielinos/Tongva Tribal Nation shall be notified within one business day of discovery.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Proposed Project is the development of a ±68,000 square foot recycling and transfer facility on a

3.75-acre site in the City of Signal Hill (City). The state-of-the art materials recovery/transfer station (MRF/TS) facility will serve as a point to accept, process, recover and transfer mixed municipal waste and residue following diversion activities to an appropriate permitted disposal facility.

The Proposed Project will provide the following benefits to the City of Signal Hill and the surrounding communities that include:
• Recycling of City Refuse – The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 directed all local jurisdictions to promote recycling and to maximize the use of feasible source reduction, recycling and composting options in order to reduce the amount of solid waste required to be disposed of by land disposal. The Proposed Project will result in more recycling of local trash consistent with the California Integrated Waste Management Act Assembly Bill (AB 939) goals.
• State-of-the-Art Facility – The Proposed Project will be a state-of-the-art facility equipped with emission control systems that will protect the residents of the City from environmental impacts including, but not limited to, traffic congestion, noise, vectors, odor, and dust. • Rate Freeze – The collection component of the trash haul contract rates for residents, including for multi-family units, will be frozen for three years. • Household Hazard Waste – The Proposed Project will provide a location for City residents to dispose of e-waste free of charge. Additionally, the applicant will endeavor to establish a permitted Household Hazardous Waste disposal facility on-site which will be contingent on funding through the County of Los Angeles.
• Community-wide Clean Up - The applicant will cooperate with the City in holding four community-wide clean up days per year when all municipal waste collected from City residents may be disposed of at the Facility without charge. Two of the community-wide clean up days will be curb-side and two will be for bulky items on-call. • Disposal of City Refuse – All refuse gathered from City facilities or from City operations may be deposited at the Proposed Project site without charge. • Redevelopment of Blighted Land Use – The Proposed Project will be built on a site which has been undeveloped for decades and is in a blighted condition due to past oil field operations with former sumps, pipelines, abandoned and active oil wells, and environmental contamination.
• Public Education and Information – The Proposed Project will include a detailed Public Education and Information Program.

A detailed description of the Proposed Project can be found in Chapter 2.0, Project Description.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 1-2

1.2 PURPOSE AND USE OF THE EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the foundation for environmental law and policy in California. CEQA sets broad policy statements that encourage environmental protection. CEQA’s main objectives are to disclose to decision makers and the public significant environmental effects of proposed projects and to require agencies to avoid or reduce the environmental effects of proposed projects by implementing feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.

CEQA applies to discretionary public and private activities that must be approved by California public agencies, including state, regional, county, city, and other local agencies. CEQA requires all of these California public agencies to comply with both procedural and substantive requirements.

CEQA requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) when there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment. The purpose of the EIR is to provide decision makers, public agencies, and the general public with an objective and informational document that fully discloses the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project.

This Draft EIR has been prepared by the City of Signal Hill (the Lead Agency) to evaluate the potential significant short- and long-term environmental impacts associated with planning approvals, construction, and development of the Proposed Project. The EIR process also requires investigation and development of feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant adverse environmental effects of the Proposed Project to a level of less than significant. CEQA requires that a lead agency neither approve or implement a project as proposed unless significant environmental impacts have been reduced to an acceptable level (CEQA Guidelines §15091) or the lead agency states in writing (Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations) the reasons for approving a project with significant impacts that cannot be fully mitigated.

The Draft EIR is also meant to facilitate discussions with other agencies regarding the implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA is specific about providing disclosure where “[t]he EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological impacts of its action…” (CEQA Guidelines §15003[d]). With these guiding principles in mind, the intended uses of this Draft EIR are to:
• Inform the decision makers, public, and agencies about the project; • Analyze the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project using an environmental baseline of a blighted predominantly vacant site with former sumps, pipelines, abandoned and active oil wells, and environmental contamination;
• Identify and implement feasible mitigation measures and project alternatives; • Provide notice to Responsible Agencies of pending required permits; and • Incorporate analyses to allow Responsible Agencies to make CEQA findings pursuant to this Draft EIR.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 1-3

1.3 NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City of Signal issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Proposed Project on August 5, 2008 with a 30-day public review period that ended on September 8, 2008. The NOP, distribution list, NOP comment letters, and the NOP comment/response summary are included in Appendix A. The following agencies commented on the NOP:
• City of Long Beach
• Long Beach Unified School District
• California Department of Toxic Substances Control
• California Integrated Waste Management Board
• County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
• California Department of Transportation, District 7
• California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources • County of Los Angeles Fire Department
• Southern California Edison

1.4 EIR SCOPING
In compliance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Signal Hill has taken steps to maximize opportunities for the public and public agencies to participate in the environmental review process.

The Signal Hill Tribune Newspaper announced a Notice of Scoping meeting for the Proposed Project on September 4, 2008. The scoping meeting was held on Thursday, September 11, 2008 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers located in City Hall at 2175 Cherry Avenue, Signal Hill, California. One representative attended from the Long Beach Unified School District1, but did not present oral testimony or written comments. Therefore, the August 2008 NOP comments were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in this Draft EIR. All scoping comments and responses to these comments have been included in Appendix A. In addition, all comments presented are addressed in each environmental topic subsection as applicable.

1.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Issues and concerns raised in the NOP comments and addressed in this EIR include:
• Land use compatibility impacts
• Traffic impacts
• Noise impacts
• Air quality and odor impacts
• Hazardous materials and hazardous waste impacts
• Aesthetic impacts
• Biological resources impacts
• Cultural resources impacts
• Hydrology and water quality impacts
• Mineral resources impacts

1 Ms. Susan Ahn, Facilities Planner, LBUSD Facilities Development & Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 1-4
As discussed in the NOP, six environmental topics are not addressed in this Draft EIR for the following reasons:
• Agricultural Resources – There are no agricultural resources on the Proposed Project site or in the Proposed Project vicinity.
• Geology and Soils – The Proposed Project is located in an urbanized area and will comply with all applicable geotechnical requirements of the Uniform Building Code and other City requirements. This compliance will reduce any geology and soils impacts to less than significant.
• Population and Housing – There is no housing in the immediate area of the Proposed Project Site. No homes or persons will be displaced by the Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts to population and housing will be less than significant.
• Public Services – The Proposed Project is in an urban area with available public services. As an industrial land use, public service impacts are limited to police and fire protection services. The Proposed Project is not expected to cause significant impacts to the police and fire protection services.
• Recreation – The Proposed Project is an industrial use. This use does not create a demand for recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation will be less than significant. • Utilities and Service Systems – The Proposed Project is served by utilities and service systems provided by the City of Signal Hill and other utility/service providers. The Proposed Project will utilize these same utilities and service systems. Southern California Edison responded to the NOP advising “the City of Signal Hill and the project developer that the electrical loads of this project have been determined to be within the parameters of the projected load growth which SCE is planning to meeting in this area.”2 Therefore, impacts to utilities and services systems will be less than significant.

1.6 AVAILABILITY AND REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR
This Draft EIR was published and circulated for public review on November 13, 2008. Copies were sent to the State Clearinghouse for transmittal to all trustee, responsible, and other State agencies that may have an interest in the project. The Draft EIR was also distributed to organizations and individuals with an interest in the project, and to the local library to widen accessibility to the Draft EIR. In addition, the Notice of Availability of where the Draft EIR could be reviewed was published in the Signal Hill Tribune Newspaper.

A period of 45 days (November 13 to December 29, 2008) is established for public review of the Draft EIR for the EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility. Agencies, organizations, and individuals are invited to comment on the information presented in the Draft EIR during this period. Comments should focus on the scope and adequacy of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing possible significant environmental impacts and how these impacts may be avoided or mitigated. Commenters should explain the basis for their comments and support these comments with substantial evidence such as data, references, expert opinion, or other facts.

2 Southern California Edison letter to City of Signal Hill dated September 8, 2008.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 1-5
The Draft EIR technical appendices are included on a CD in a pocket located at the back of the Draft EIR. Hard copies of these technical studies are also on file at the City Community Development Department at the address listed below.

Comments on the Draft EIR may be submitted by mail, fax or email to the following City contact:

Gary Jones, Director of Community Development
City of Signal Hill
2175 Cherry Avenue
Signal Hill, California 90755-3799
(562) 989-7345
(562) 989-7393 (FAX)
[email protected]
All comments must be received by the above City contact or designee by December 29, 2008.

Following the 45-day public review period, the City will prepare responses to comments and will compile these comments and responses into a Final EIR. In addition, the City will hold public hearings on the Proposed Project before the Planning Commission and City Council.

1.7 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Chapter 7.0, References, provides a listing of documents utilized in the preparation of this Draft EIR that are a matter of public record or are generally available to the public. These documents are incorporated by reference into this Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15150. Where a document is incorporated by reference, its pertinent sections will be briefly summarized and referenced in the discussions in this Draft EIR. Copies of the documents incorporated by reference may be reviewed at the City of Signal Hill Community Development Department, 2175 Cherry Avenue, Signal Hill, California.

1.8 ACRONYMS
AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act Assembly Bill 939 Ac Acre
ACOE Army Corp of Engineers
ADP Area Drainage Plan
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQ Air quality
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AST Aboveground storage tank
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
bgs Below ground surface
BMP Best Management Practices
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 1-6
CAA Clean Air Act
Cal-EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDHS California Department of Health Services
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CHSSL California Human Health Screening Levels
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Signal Hill
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNEL Community noise equivalent level
CO Carbon monoxide
CRHR California Registry of Historic Resources
CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board
CWA Clean Water Act
CY Cubic yards
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB Decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DO Dissolved oxygen
DOGGR Department of Conservation - Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EB Eastbound
EDCO EDCO Transport Services
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EW East/west
Facility Material recovery facility/transfer station
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
g Ground acceleration
GIS Geographic Information System
GP General Plan
GPA General Plan Amendment
gpd Gallons per day
HA Hydrologic area
HAS Hydrologic sub-area
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HHW Household Hazardous Waste
HHRA Human health risk assessment
Hz Hertz
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 1-7
Km Kilometer
LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Ldn Day-night average sound level
Leq Equivalent sound level
LBUSD Long Beach Unified School District
LOS Level of Service
MDP Master Drainage Plan
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
MRF Material Recovery Facility
MRF/TS Material Recovery Facility/Transfer Station
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSL Mean sea level
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
Municipal Waste All “municipal solid waste” including putrescible and non-putrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, street sweepings, recyclables, and catch basin residue
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NB Northbound
ND Not detected in concentrations greater than the reporting limit NOA Notice of Availability
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWP Nationwide Permit
O3 Ozone
OES California Office of Emergency Services
Pb Lead
PDF Project Design Feature
PH Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Peak Hour This refers to the hour during the AM peak period (typically 7 AM to 9 AM) or the PM peak period (typically 4 PM to 6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are traveling on a given roadway
PM2.5 Particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter PM10 Particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
PRG Preliminary remediation goals
RCP Reinforced concrete pipe
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
ROG Reactive organic gases
R-O-W/ROW Right-of-way
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB 18 Senate Bill 18
SB Southbound
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 1-8
SCA Standard condition of approval
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SFHA Special flood hazard area
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx sulfur oxides
SP-19 Specific Plan 19
SR -1 State Route 1/Pacific Coast Highway
SRA State Responsibility Area
SVOC Semi-volatile organic compounds
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TBD To be determined
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TDS Total dissolved solids
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons
TPH-d Total petroleum hydrocarbons – diesel range
TPH-g Total petroleum hydrocarbons – gasoline range
TPR Transfer Processing Report
TS Transfer station
TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration
UBC Uniform Building Code
URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio
Vector Health and/or nuisance biological species (mammalian, avian, and/or invertebrates)
VOC Volatile organic compounds
VPD Vehicles per Day
WB Westbound
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WWMP Water & Wastewater Management Plan
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 2-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Signal Hill (City) is located in the South Bay area of the greater Los Angeles region. The incorporated City of Long Beach surrounds the City. Other incorporated cities near the City include Los Angeles, Seal Beach, Carson, and Lakewood. The proposed site for the EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility (Project) is about one mile south of U.S. Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway); approximately one mile east of U.S. Interstate 710 (Long Beach Freeway); and approximately one mile north of State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway). The site is approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the Port of Long Beach, one mile east of the Los Angeles River, and one mile west of the Long Beach Airport. Primary access to the proposed site is from California Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway) via exit 30A, Atlantic Avenue.

The ±3.75-acre Project Site is at the northwest corner of California Avenue and Patterson Street in the City of Signal Hill, County of Los Angeles. Figure 2-1 identifies the Regional Location and Figure 2-2 provides a Project Vicinity Map. The Proposed Project study area is the entire block bounded by Patterson Street to the south, California Avenue to the east, and the 28th Street and Olive Avenue rights-of-way (unimproved) to the north and west, respectively.

FIGURE 2-1

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page 2-2 FIGURE 2-2

PROJECT

VICINITY
MAP
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 2-3

2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Development of the Proposed Project will satisfy two different objectives:

Objective 1: Redevelopment of a blighted area of the City of Signal Hill Objective 2: Continuation of the reduction of quantities of waste deposited in landfills by increasing waste diversion activities
Objective 1 will be satisfied through implementation of the goals and objectives outlined in the City’s General Industrial Specific Plan 19 (SP-19).1 The purpose of SP-19 is to guide the physical development of a blighted geographic area within the City suited for the development of jobproducing industrial uses, but constrained by existing zoning designations, small lot sizes, environmental conditions, or leasehold that prevent or discourage development. The goals and objectives outlined in SP-19 are:
• Encourage the development of privately sponsored, jobs producing, industrial development • Encourage the consolidation of existing substandard lots into parcels of suitable size for contemporary planned industrial development with adequate parking and good access to major arterial roads and the freeway system
• Apply design standards that result in quality development and achieve streetscapes with attractive buildings, enclosed industrial yards and well landscaped yards that provide an aesthetically pleasing buffer for passers-by and neighboring land uses • Preserve the quality appearance of an industrial area by providing good quality landscaping initially and by the establishment of controls requiring good quality maintenance thereafter • Provide for the development of safe and secure industrial facilities with adequate infrastructure improvements to promote safe and efficient vehicular traffic flows of goods and materials, and assure security through lighting and alarm systems and site designs that discourage vandalism, theft and other criminal activities.

The Proposed Project will satisfy Objective 2 by extending the City’s municipal solid waste recycling and diversion programs. The State of California requires local government agencies to make adequate provisions for handling solid waste to protect public health and well-being.

Before 1989, municipal solid waste management programs were limited to generally providing safe and economic collection of garbage from residences and businesses and disposing the waste at a sanitary landfill. In 1989, Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939), Integrated Waste Management Act, became law and required local governments in California to increase waste diversion activities to conserve space in current landfills.

Since 1989, the City has developed current municipal solid waste programs that adequately meet AB 939 provisions for safely collecting and disposing of solid waste. Development of the Proposed Project would extend the City’s municipal solid waste recycling and diversion programs and the City would continue to meet the AB 939 objective.

1 City of Signal Hill Municipal Code, Chapter 20.39, SP-19 General Industrial Specific Plan, Section 20.39.010 (C) Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 2-4

2.3 SITE HISTORY
Since approximately 1923, the Proposed Project Site has been associated with oil field activities. By 1953, the site had oil derricks, a tank farm, storage of aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and a surface impoundment associated with oil field activities. By 1962, the site no longer had oil derricks, but had operating oil wells. Until 1973, the site retained the tank farm, ASTs, 55-gallon drums, and surface impoundment. By 1981, the surface impoundment and tank farm were no longer present at the site, although ASTs and 55-gallon drums remained onsite until 1994. From 1994 until present, no improvements have occurred at the site and the area is in a blighted condition with significant environmental contamination. The photographs in Figure 3.7-1 in Aesthetics show the blighted condition of the Proposed Project Site.

The Proposed Project Site is located in one of the City’s oldest (1964) commercially designated zoning areas known as the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood sub-planning area. Per the City of Signal Hill General Plan Land Use Element, the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood contains the single largest vacant land area remaining in the City and remains largely vacant due to the multiple constraints to development such as: on-going oil production activities that are primarily independent oil operations; contaminated soils including sumps and past refining facilities; small lot sizes and fragmented ownership patterns; lack of infrastructure; and topographical constraints including a ravine north of Columbia Street.

Additionally, the Proposed Project Site is located within the City’s Redevelopment Project Area. The purpose of the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area is to eliminate blighted conditions and encourage redevelopment of land and economic revitalization.

2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.4.1 Land Use Approvals and Zoning Modifications
Section 3.2 (Land Use and Planning) describes the Project's land use entitlements, which include the following:
• Zone change from Commercial General (CG) to General Industrial Specific Plan 19 (SP-19).

This Zoning Ordinance amendment will revise the Zoning Map. • Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to add a new planning area, Planning Area 3 (Recycling and Transfer Station), to Specific Plan 19 at Section 20.39.030 (Land Use). The Unlisted Uses Prohibited (20.39.030.D) will be amended by removing “recycling center” from that list of expressly prohibit uses.
• Vacation of a paper alley right-of-way that bisects the site between Olive and California Avenues
• Vacation of Olive Avenue right-of-way between 28th and Patterson Streets • Lot merger
• Conditional Use Permit
• Site Plan and Design Review
• Disposition and Development Agreement
• Amendment to the Non Disposal Facility Element
• Amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 2-5

2.4.2 Facility Operations
The Proposed Project is the development of a ±68,000 square-foot Materials Recovery Facility/Transfer Station (MRF/TS) on a 3.75-acre site in the City of Signal Hill. The facility will serve as a point to accept, process, recover, and transfer mixed municipal waste (MW) and residue with subsequent diversion activities to an appropriate permitted disposal facility.

Figure 2-3 shows an Illustrative Site Plan, and Figure 2-4 shows architectural elevations. Figure 2-5 shows a rendering of the project in plan view, while Figures 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8 present aerial perspective views of the proposed MRF/TS from the southeast, southwest and northeast, respectively.

The MRF/TS will be composed of the following areas:
• Office and administration area
• Employee area
• Operations, material recovery facility, transfer/self haul/load out area • Green waste area
• Construction debris area
• Maintenance area
All buildings will conform to the City of Signal Hill Site Plan and Design Review Guidelines. The facility will be sized to handle up to 1,500 tons per day, although the actual amount processed per day may be less than this maximum. The facility will have the following multiple functions and processes:
• Transfer station (TS) for refuse collection and transfer. The transfer station will include a below grade load out area to allow for the transfer vehicles to be top-loaded through load out ports at the tipping floor. A portion of the transfer station would also be dedicated for selfhaul use. • Material recovery facility (MRF) for diversion of recyclable products from commercial and residential customers. The recyclable products would be baled within the building and transferred to recyclable load out vehicles at the exterior recyclable load out dock. Residue from the diversion process would be conveyed to the adjacent transfer station for load out. • A buyback operation allowing the public to drop off recyclables and receive compensation (certified CA redemption center).
• A green waste area would accommodate collection of green waste. The green waste would be transferred to outgoing delivery vehicles.
• A construction debris area would be utilized for collection, sorting and recyclable load out of construction material debris. The incoming material would be screened, sorted and diverted to containers. The containers would be transferred to outgoing recyclable load out vehicles. • An office area for administrative support functions. This area may include an education area for use by local students in demonstrating the activities of the facility. • An employee area/control area would include restrooms, a break area and offices. The upper level control area may be used to accommodate the operational control functions of the facility. The employee area/control area may be linked to the office area via an upper level observation gallery.
• A separate maintenance building would include two service bays and an adjacent office/parts area.
• Site improvements may include fueling operations, a truck wash area, truck scale and scale house, load out ramps, truck loading docks, driveways, employee and operation vehicle parking, and landscaping.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page 2-6 Source: JRM&A, 2008
FIGURE 2-3

ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page 2-7 Source: JRM&A, 2008
FIGURE 2-4

REPRESENTATIVE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 2-8
Source: JRM&A, 2008
Source: JRM&A, 2008
FIGURE 2-5

AERIAL VIEW OF PROPOSED MRF/TS IN PLAN VIEW
FIGURE 2-6

AERIAL VIEW OF PROPOSED MRF/TS FROM THE SOUTHEAST
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 2-9
Source: JRM&A, 2008
Source: JRM&A, 2008 FIGURE 2-7

AERIAL VIEW OF PROPOSED MRF/TS FROM THE SOUTHWEST
FIGURE 2-8

AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPOSED MRF/TS FROM THE NORTHEAST
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 2-10
Environmental Control Systems
The project applicant will implement the following environmental control systems:
• Compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidelines for operations of similar facilities. An exhaust ventilation system will be used in the transfer, materials recovery, construction debris, and green waste areas to contain dust and odor. The ventilation system will include mechanical filters to retain dust and avoid visible dust plumes exiting from exhaust vents.
• Compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) guidelines for similar facilities, including a Transfer Processing Report (TPR) that will be developed and maintained on-site. This will include operating procedures for odor reduction, formulated and tested for effectiveness by first-hand experience at EDCO's existing facilities, and will be in place from and followed from the first day of operation. • The facility will be fully enclosed with powered roll-up doors that can be closed in accordance with the environmental mitigation conditions.
• A misting system will be installed to minimize odor and dust generation within the building. • Minimized building openings will assist in odor control and noise reduction of interior operations.
• EDCO will enforce measures to assure that the designated access corridors are used in connection with the operation of the Facility. EDCO will implement daily litter pick up on-site; along adjacent properties and adjacent streets; and along the designated transportation corridors to ensure that litter resulting from EDCO’s operation (including EDCO’s customers delivering waste to the Site) will be removed. The transportation corridors (with those designated for litter control) are as follows:
o Willow Street – City limit to City limit
o Spring Street – City limit to City limit (Litter Control Cherry to Atlantic) o Cherry Avenue – City limit to City limit
o California Avenue – Willow Street to Spring Street (Litter Control) o Orange Avenue – Spring Street to 32nd Street (Litter Control) o Pacific Coast Highway – City limit to City limit
• All commercial deliveries to and from the Facility will be adequately covered to eliminate spillage.
• Waste collection vehicles will be enclosed and free of debris prior to leaving the site. • Refuse will be moved off-site within 48 hours of delivery. • All site lighting will be shielded to avoid off-site glare. • On-going hazardous waste exclusion and monitoring program will be conducted in accordance with local and state regulations.
• The Facility will be developed to use and will use reclaimed water when available.

Additional mitigation measures, if determined necessary during the CEQA process, will be included in the Agreements with the City’s Redevelopment Agency. The facility will also implement various measures in compliance with the SCAQMD to minimize any potential air quality impacts. In addition to the dust, odor and noise minimization and/or avoidance measures, EDCO will use “green building” design concepts, including the use of recycled construction products, energy efficient environmental control systems, and natural day lighting. EDCO will work with Southern California Edison to obtain grants for solar power systems, variable speed motors and other energy efficiency measures.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 2-11
Operations Schedule
As waste volumes dictate, EDCO anticipates that the Facility may be open up to seven (7) days a week. Specific functional activities would have different hours of operation. EDCO anticipates that the transfer function will need to accommodate load-out and transfer out operations up to 24 hours per day, provided the operations comply with the City’s ordinances.

Facility Construction
EDCO anticipates that the majority of the Facility will be steel framed to accommodate the large clear spans required for the operation. The steel frames would be clad on the exterior with a variety of materials consistent with City design guidelines. The Facility will incorporate design features as necessary to comply with the City’s design guidelines. The entire Facility will incorporate a buffer of screen walls, fencing and landscaping around the Site.

On-Going Oil Production
The proposed project will allow maintenance of six enclosed portions of property under separate ownership within the project site. These property enclosures total approximately 0.34 acres and will continue being used for oil production (oil wells). These separate properties are shown on Figure 2-3, Illustrative Site Plan. The company managing these sites will be provided with access onto the EDCO property in order for them to access and operate the oil wells.

Offsite Improvements
Offsite improvements will be provided pursuant to the City’s standard development requirements.

The project will construct roadway improvements to 28th Street between California Avenue and Olive Avenue in order to implement the Site Circulation Plan. The Project will include parkway improvements along all street frontages.

Transfer Truck Routes
Specific truck routes will be designated for the use of trucks traveling to and leaving the Facility, as approved by City. EDCO will develop internal operating measures to enforce use of such designated routes. Refer to Figure 3.3-4, Off-Site Circulation Arrival Routes, and Figure 3.3-5, Off-Site Circulation Departure Routes.

Community Benefits
The Facility will provide the following special benefits to the community and the City:
• Rate Freeze – The collection component of the trash haul contract rates for residents, including for multi-family units, will be frozen for three years; • Household Hazard Waste – The Facility shall provide a location for City residents to dispose of e-waste free of charge. In addition, the applicant will endeavor to establish a permitted Household Hazardous Waste disposal facility on-site which will be contingent on funding through the County of Los Angeles.
• Community-wide Clean Up – The applicant shall cooperate with the City in holding four community-wide clean up days when all municipal waste collected from City residents may be disposed of at the Facility without charge. Two of the community-wide clean up days will be curb-side and two will be for bulky items on-call.
• Recycling of City Refuse – This Facility will result in more recycling of local trash (consistent with AB 939 goals).

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 2-12
• Disposal of City Refuse – All refuse gathered from City facilities or from City operations may be deposited in the Facility without charge.

2.5 PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS
The Project includes, but is not limited to, the public agency permits and approvals listed below.

TABLE 2-1

PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
Certification of CEQA document
Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending the General Industrial Specific Plan (SP-19)
Zoning Ordinance Amendment designating the site SP-19, Planning Area –3, on the Official Zoning Map
Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Design Review
Lot Merger
Disposition and Development Agreement
Vacation of an unimproved alley right-of-way between California and Olive Avenues
Vacation of Olive Avenue right-of-way between Patterson and 28th Streets
Grading Permit / Proof of compliance with NPDES requirements (SWPPP and SUSMP)
Right-of-way encroachment permit
City of Signal Hill
Amendment to Non Disposal Facility Element
South Coast Air Quality Management District Authority to Construct Conformance with Rule 410 (Odor Control Plan)
State of California, Department of
Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources
Site Plan (approval only related to oil and gas wells)
County of Los Angeles, Fire Protection
Services
Plan Check
County of Los Angeles, Public Health Amendment to Solid Waste Management Plan Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County,
Sanitation District No. 5
Permit to Connect (sewer connection fee)
California Integrated Waste Management
Board
Permit to Operate
Approval of Transfer Processing Report
Emergency Response Preparedness Plan
Odor Control Plan
Vector Control Plan
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.1-1

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

3.1.1 INTRODUCTION
The following sections of the Draft EIR provide discussions of the environmental impacts found to be potentially significant and/or of sufficient public controversy to warrant inclusion in this Draft EIR.

The environmental topics addressed in this Draft EIR include:
• Land Use and Planning
• Traffic and Circulation
• Air Quality
• Noise
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Aesthetics
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Mineral Resources
Six environmental topics are not addressed in this Draft EIR. These topics are:
• Agricultural Resources – There are no agricultural resources on the Proposed Project site or in the Proposed Project vicinity.
• Geology and Soils – The Proposed Project is located in an urbanized area and will comply with all applicable geotechnical requirements of the Uniform Building Code and other City requirements. The Proposed Project is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. This compliance will reduce any geology and soils impacts to less than significant. • Population and Housing – There is no housing in the immediate area of the Proposed Project Site. The Proposed Project will displace no homes or persons. Therefore, impacts to population and housing will be less than significant.
• Public Services – The Proposed Project is in an urban area with available public services. As an industrial land use, public service impacts are limited to police and fire protection services. The Proposed Project is not expected to cause significant impacts to the police and fire protection services.
• Recreation – The Proposed Project is an industrial use site. This use does not create a demand for recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation will be less than significant.
• Utilities and Service Systems – The Proposed Project is served by utilities and service systems provided by the City of Signal Hill and other utility/service providers. The Proposed Project will utilize these same utilities and service systems. Southern California Edison responded to the NOP advising “the City of Signal Hill and the project developer that the electrical loads of this project have been determined to be within the parameters of the projected load growth which SCE is planning to meeting in this area.”1 Therefore, impacts to utilities and services systems will be less than significant.

1 Southern California Edison letter to City of Signal Hill dated September 8, 2008. (See Appendix A).

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1 Environmental Analysis EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.1-2

3.1.2 ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT
To assist the reader in comparing information about the various environmental issues, each analysis section in Chapter 3.1 presents information under the following headings:
• Existing Setting – This introductory section describes the existing conditions, or environmental baseline, of the Project Site and in the project vicinity. In accordance with Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and regional settings are discussed, as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published. The NOP for the Proposed Project was published in August 2008. The environmental baseline is the basis for documenting the nature and extent of impacts anticipated to result from project implementation.

The environmental baseline for the Proposed Project is the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood sub-planning area, located between Atlantic and California Avenues and the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and Willow Street. This area is the single largest vacant land area remaining in the City and remains largely vacant due to the multiple constraints to development. These constraints include on-going oil production activities that are primarily independent oil operations; contaminated soils including sumps and past refining facilities; small lot sizes and fragmented ownership patterns; lack of infrastructure; and topographical constraints.

Existing land uses include a mix of medical offices and related facilities that support the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center along Atlantic Avenue, and commercial and residential uses along Willow Street.
• Impact Significance Criteria – Section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR "identify and focus on the significant environmental effects" of a proposed project. "Effects" and "impacts" are synonymous under CEQA and are used interchangeably in this EIR (Guidelines §15358). A "significant effect" or "significant impact" on the environment means "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project" (Guidelines §15382).

Impact significance criteria, or thresholds of significance, are used to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant environmental effect. Thresholds are an analytical tool for judging significance, and may vary with different project characteristics and environmental settings. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 encourages each public agency to “develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.” However, in the absence of published and adopted thresholds in the City of Signal Hill, this Draft EIR relies on direction provided in Thresholds of Significance (OPR 1994). That document states that thresholds are quantitative or qualitative, and “may be based on standards such as the following:
• A health-based standard such as air pollutant emission standards, water pollutant discharge standards, or noise levels.
• Service capacity standards such as traffic level of service, water supply capacity, or waste treatment plant capacity.
• Ecological tolerance standards such as physical carrying capacity, impacts on declared threatened or endangered species, loss of prime farmland, or wetland encroachment.
• Cultural resource standards such as impacts on historic structures or archaeological resources.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1 Environmental Analysis EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.1-3
• Other standards relating to environmental quality issues, such as those listed in the Guidelines' Initial Study Checklist or Appendix G of the Guidelines.” In determining whether an impact is "significant" within CEQA's definition, this Draft EIR relies on adopted General Plan policies, environmental quality standards of the State CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G), and relevant standards of regulatory agencies (e.g., SCAQMD). An effort has been made to avoid overly subjective significance criteria that are not based on specific CEQA policies and/or generally accepted thresholds upon which significance can be determined. Each of the significance criteria serves as the basis for the determination whether a project impact is significant.
• Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant – Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that “an EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” Based on the impact significance criteria and supporting data for a given issue, this section of the environmental analysis includes a determination that the Proposed Project will either have no measurable impact or it will have a potential impact that is less than significant.
• Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Environmental analysis may determine that the Proposed Project may have potential impacts (direct, indirect, short-term, and/or long-term).

Where the analysis in this section demonstrates (without undue speculation) that the Proposed Project may have a substantial or potentially substantial adverse impact on physical conditions within the area affected by the project, that conclusion is noted and:
o Feasible Project-specific mitigation measures are identified that will minimize the significant effects and, in most cases, reduce them to less than significant levels; and/or
o Where there are no feasible mitigation measures that can reduce the significant effects to less than significant levels, the significant effect will be identified as one that will result in "significant unavoidable adverse impacts." • Level of Significance after Mitigation – For impacts requiring mitigation, this discussion summarizes the level of significance of each impact after the mitigation measures are applied.
• Cumulative Impacts – Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines "cumulative impacts" as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130(a) of the Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Section 15130(a) further provides that " Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not ‘cumulatively considerable,’ a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable."
Section 15065(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines defines "cumulatively considerable" as meaning that “the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Guidance regarding the scope of the cumulative impacts discussion is provided in Section 15130(b)(1), which indicates that an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts must be predicated on either:

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1 Environmental Analysis EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.1-4
1) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including applicable projects outside the control of the lead agency; or 2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

This Draft EIR uses both of these methods in the analysis. The determination of which method is more appropriate is based on the information available for each impact area and which method would produce the best analysis.

By their nature, some cumulative effects might vary in their geographic scopes and may encompass few or none of the related projects. Therefore, each subsequent section of this environmental analysis identifies the geographic scope of the area of potential cumulative effects.
• Public/Agency Comments on Environmental Issues – This section identifies specific environmental issues comments to the August 2008 Notice of Preparation (NOP) submitted by members of the public and/or by public agencies.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-1

3.2 LAND USE & PLANNING

3.2.1 EXISTING SETTING
CEQA requires that the Proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts be compared to the onthe-ground conditions in the Project area at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is issued or at the time the analysis of such impacts is commenced. These on-the ground conditions are considered the environmental or CEQA “baseline.” The environmental baseline setting for the purposes of this Draft EIR are the predominately-blighted land conditions of the Proposed Project Site and the commercial and industrial use of land that surrounds the proposed site.

3.2.1.1 Existing and Surrounding Conditions
The City of Signal Hill (City) encompasses 2.2 square miles and is surrounded by the incorporated City of Long Beach. Other incorporated cities near Signal Hill include Los Angeles, Seal Beach, Carson, and Lakewood.

Patterson Street borders the Proposed Project Site on the south, Olive Avenue on the west, 28th Street on the north, and California Avenue on the east. Only Patterson Street and California Avenue are improved streets. Olive Avenue is partially asphalt-paved and 28th Street is primarily unpaved.

The Proposed Project Site is located in one of the City’s oldest commercially designated zoning areas, zoned in 1964, and identified in the General Plan as the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood area. This area is located between Atlantic and California Avenues and the Interstate 405 Freeway and Willow Street (see Figure 2-2 in the Project Description). The Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood area contains the single largest vacant land area remaining in the City of Signal Hill. Since 1964, the majority of the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood area has failed to develop into viable commercial uses due to oil production activities from independent oil operations, contaminated soils, small lot sizes, fragmented ownership patterns, and the absence of convenient access to Interstate 405.1 Adjacent and surrounding land uses along Atlantic Avenue (west of the Proposed Project Site) are medical offices and related facilities that support the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, as well as oil operation activities, including the production and storage of oil, and the storage of oil field equipment on vacant land areas.

Property east of California Avenue, across from the Proposed Project Site, is owned by the City of Long Beach. The City of Long Beach has plans to develop a 26-acre pay-for-play Sports Park, east of California Avenue between Willow and Spring Streets. Much of the property south of the Proposed Project Site, across Patterson Street and east of Olive Avenue, is occupied by a new A&A Ready Mix Concrete Batch Plant. Property to the north, along 28th Street, is primarily used for the storage of oil field equipment. Table 3.2-1 shows adjacent land uses and Table 3.2-2 shows the surrounding land uses (within 1.5 miles) the Proposed Project Site.

1 City of Signal Hill General Plan, Land Use Element, June 2001.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-2
TABLE 3.2-1

ADJACENT LAND USES
Land Use Direction
Production and storage of oil and field equipment West
Proposed Long Beach Sports Park East
Storage of oil field equipment North
A&A Ready Mix Concrete Batch Plant and oil field South
Source: Google Earth, 2008
TABLE 3.2-2

VICINITY LAND USES
Land Use Direction Distance± Jurisdiction
Institutional Land Uses
Convalescent home at Atlantic & Patterson West 0.10 miles Long Beach Long Beach Day Nursery West 0.12 miles Long Beach
Long Beach Memorial Medical Center West 0.23 miles Long Beach Pacific Hospital West 0.50 miles Long Beach
Shelter Inn Jr. Retirement Home South 1.05 miles Long Beach Transportation Land Uses
San Diego Freeway (I-405) North 0.50 miles Long Beach
Signal Hill
Los Angeles County Transportation Authority (Metro):

Blue Line Willow Station West 0.41 miles Long Beach
Blue Line Wardlow Station Northwest 1.09 miles Long Beach Long Beach Airport Northeast 1.09 miles Long Beach
Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1) South 1.14 miles Long Beach Signal Hill
Long Beach Freeway (I-710) West 1.36 miles Long Beach
Educational Land Uses
Oakwood Academy West 0.45 miles Long Beach
Oakwood Preschool West 0.55 miles Long Beach
Robinson Elementary School West 0.57 miles Long Beach
Burnett Elementary School South 0.59 miles Long Beach
Comprehensive Child Development School Southwest 0.66 miles Long Beach Holy Innocents Elementary School Southwest 0.68 miles Long Beach Burroughs Elementary School North 0.73 miles Signal Hill Signal Hill Elementary School Southeast 0.77 miles Signal Hill Lafayette Elementary School Southwest 0.81 miles Long Beach Long Beach City College South 0.91 miles Long Beach
Butler Elementary School Southeast 1.14 miles Signal Hill Polytechnic High School South 1.14 miles Long Beach
Pacific Baptist School Northwest 1.14 miles Long Beach
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-3
Land Use Direction Distance± Jurisdiction
Recreational Land Uses
Veterans Memorial Park Northwest 0.45 miles Long Beach
Reservoir Park North 0.80 miles Signal Hill
Daryle W. Black Memorial Park South 0.86 miles Long Beach Signal Hill Park Southeast 0.91 miles Signal Hill
Hilltop Park Southeast 1.00 miles Signal Hill
Martin Luther King Jr. Park South 1.00 miles Long Beach Chittick Field Park Southeast 1.02 miles Long Beach
Daisy Avenue Greenbelt Southwest 1.14 miles Long Beach
Wrigley Greenbelt West 1.25 miles Long Beach
Discovery Well Park Southeast 1.39 miles Signal Hill
Raymond Arbor Park Southeast 1.41 miles Signal Hill
Commercial Land Uses
Wrigley Marketplace West 0.50 miles Long Beach
Town Center East East 0.86 miles Signal Hill
Industrial Land Uses
A&A Ready Mix Batch Plant South 0.1 miles Signal Hill
Enviroserve – hazardous waste haulers South 0.2 miles Signal Hill Jenkins Construction Yard South 0.2 miles Signal Hill
Miscellaneous Land Uses
Residential Neighborhood South 0.25 miles Signal Hill
Sunnyside Cemetery Southeast 0.07 miles Long Beach
Los Angeles River West 1.27 miles Long Beach
Source: The Thomas Guide of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, 2006 Google Earth, October 2008
Long Beach Unified School District, District Map, October 2008 Great Schools website 2008
Switchboard.com website (www.switchboard.com), July 2008 California Association of Health Facilities website (www.cahf.org), October 2008 Land Parcels
The Proposed Project Site includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 7207-022-43 through 48 with originally numerous ownerships as shown on Figure 3.2-1, Assessor's Parcel Map. The Proposed Project Site is currently in four ownerships. The project applicant has leased the site from these property owners. The property owners with active oil wells will continue to operate and maintain these active oil wells in accordance with City and state regulations and policies. An unimproved rightof-way, or 'paper alley,' bisects the site in an east-west direction between Olive Avenue and California Avenue. The paper alley and the Olive Avenue right-of-way will be vacated by the City and become a part of the Proposed Project Site.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-4
FIGURE 3.2-1

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAP
Environmental Conditions
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted at the Proposed Project Site in March 2001 to evaluate whether historical and/or current site operations, as well as operations conducted within a one-mile radius, had caused adverse environmental impacts to the site and surrounding areas.2 Based on the Phase I ESA findings briefly summarized below, a Phase II ESA was conducted on-site in 2007.

According to the Phase I ESA, since approximately 1923, the Proposed Project Site has been associated with oil field activities. By 1953, the site had oil derricks, a tank farm, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), 55-gallon oil drums, and a surface impoundment associated with oil operations. By 1962, the site no longer had oil derricks, but had operating oil wells and 55-gallon oil drums. Removal of the surface impoundment and tank farm from the site occurred by 1981, although ASTs and 55-gallon drums remained until approximately 1994.

Soil contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) from oil operations has been documented as originating from the Proposed Project Site. A 1990 environmental investigation reported concentration of diesel range hydrocarbons at 7700 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) at 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) database lists a spill of crude oil on June 6, 1991 that most likely originated from the site. The location of the spill is recorded at Patterson and California Avenue, the southeast border of the Proposed Project Site.

2 Mearns Consulting LLC. October 2007. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3.287-Acre Vacant Land, Signal Hill, California.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-5
Based on those recorded incidents, the Phase I ESA recommended further subsurface soil investigation from 0.5 feet bgs to a maximum depth anticipated by future construction activities.

Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials discusses additional soil investigation that has occurred at the Proposed Project Site (i.e., the Phase II ESA), as well as the findings of a 2008 Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA).

3.2.1.1 Land Use Planning
The Proposed Project Site is located in one of the City’s oldest (1964) commercially designated zoning areas, the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood sub-planning area. This area is located between Atlantic and California Avenues and the Interstate 405 Freeway and Willow Street. Per the City of Signal Hill General Plan Land Use Element, the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood contains the single largest vacant land area remaining in the City and remains largely vacant due to the multiple constraints to development such as: on-going oil production activities that are primarily independent oil operations; contaminated soils including sumps and past refining facilities; small lot sizes and fragmented ownership patterns; lack of infrastructure; and topographical constraints including a ravine north of Columbia Street. Additionally, the Proposed Project Site is located within the City’s Redevelopment Project Area. The purpose of the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area is to eliminate blighted conditions and encourage redevelopment of land and economic revitalization.

General Plan Designation
The City of Signal Hill General Plan, Land Use Element (pp. 44-45) designates the Proposed Project Site as General Industrial (4.2), which is illustrated on Figure 3.2-2, Existing General Plan Land Uses, and defined as follows:
“The General Industrial land use category (4.2) provides opportunities for heavy industrial uses that can coexist with adjacent light industrial and commercial development. A variety of manufacturing, machine shop, auto repair (excluding auto body and paint), warehousing and distribution, assembly, outdoor storage uses, lumber yard, roofing yard, etc. The general industrial category may include heavy industrial uses subject to conditional use permit approval such as, but not limited to, large recycling centers, hazardous waste management facilities, concrete ready mix plants, outdoor storage yards, oil field service equipment storage yards, lumber yards, contractors' storage yards and manufacturing and assembly.

Conditionally permitted uses shall be required to demonstrate that they can operate safely and compatibly with surrounding existing and planned land uses and that they can mitigate environmental impacts including, but not limited to noise, vibration, smoke, odor, dust, glare, radiation or other environmental impacts.

Certain heavy industrial uses are not to be permitted including petroleum refining, bulk storage of petroleum products, waste water treatment, bulk storage or processing, cargo container storage yard, tractor-trailer size truck storage yard, transportation vehicle storage yard or repair facility, auto body shop with or without painting, forge or foundry, raw materials processing, and meat, fish or poultry processing. The evaluation of conditionally permitted land uses in the General Industrial area shall consider how well the proposal addresses the aesthetic impacts on the surrounding community by incorporating landscaping, high quality architecture and setbacks into the site design.”
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-6
Source: adapted from City of Long Beach Sports Park EIR, 2004 EDCO Site
City of Long Beach General Plan
City of Signal Hill General Plan
FIGURE 3.2-2

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USES
The Land Use Element (p. 28) recommended the following City actions for the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood:
• The City should prepare a Specific Plan and rezone the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood for General Industrial and Commercial use
• The City should seek grants to study and develop the infrastructure necessary for the development of the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood
• The City should see federal and/or state grants and other tax revenues targeted toward “brownfield” development opportunities.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-7
As discussed in “Zoning” below, the City has adopted Specific Plan 19 (SP-19) per the above recommendation. Although SP-19 was adopted to guide the overall development of the Project vicinity, this specific plan zoning is being applied to individual development project sites such as the new 2007 A&A Concrete Batch Plant south of the Proposed Project Site. The City is using this approach to allow SP-19 to adapt to the unique and variable site conditions of individual properties in relation to individual development proposals in this area.

The City of Long Beach property (proposed Sports Park) on the east side of California Avenue has City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Designations 3A – Townhomes, N – Shopping Nodes/Districts, and 7 – Mixed Use Districts as shown on Figure 3.2-2, Existing General Plan Land Uses.

Zoning
The City’s Official Zoning Map, revised January 2006, classifies the Proposed Project Site as Commercial General (CG) as shown on Figure 3.2-3, Existing Zoning. The CG district is intended to provide for a wide variety of service and retail uses, many of which are highway-oriented. The property to the north of the Project Site across 28th Street is zoned Commercial Office (CO). The properties to the south and west of the Project Site are also zoned CG with the exception of most of the block surrounded by Patterson Street on the north, California Avenue on the east, 27th Street on the south, and Olive Avenue on the east. Most of this block is zoned SP-19 for the new A&A Concrete Batch Plant as shown on Figure 3.2-3, Existing Zoning.

Currently, SP-193 applies to Area 1 – Concrete batch plant, the location of the A&A Ready Mix Concrete Batch Plant, and Area 2 – for proposed industrial buildings and includes a listing of General Industrial uses or similar uses "as may be approved by the Director of Community Development."4 SP-19 Section 20.39.160 states:
“Within the specific plan area, it is envisioned that there may be different planning areas and additional industrial uses may be permitted. Rather than establish all such uses initially, the intent is to permit uses to be proposed and then be analyzed environmentally to determine mitigation and appropriate land use conditions.

Accordingly, property within the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood and designated 4.2 general industrial on the general plan land use element, generalized land use map, Figure 3, may be designated as planning areas of SP-19, and Section 20.39.030 will be amended to designate the planning area and the permitted uses, and other appropriate amendments may be made to this specific plan to regulate such uses.

Principal uses, which may be considered within additional planning areas include but are not limited to manufacturing, machine shop, auto repair, auto body and paint, warehousing and distribution, assembly, outdoor storage, lumber yard, roofing yard, light and heavy recycling facilities, hazardous waste management facilities, solid waste transfer stations, and utility distribution or generation facilities.

3 City of Signal Hill Municipal Code, Chapter 20.39 SP-19 General Industrial Specific Plan. Accessed at http://www.amlegal.com/library/ca/signalhill.shtml
4 Ibid., Section 20.39.030 Land use.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-8
Source: City of Signal Hill
However, nothing herein would currently permit such uses within SP-19 except through an amendment of SP-19, which would include the performance of appropriate environmental analysis of the appropriateness of such use.”
The City of Long Beach property on the east side of California Avenue has City of Long Beach zoning designations CCA –Community Commercial Auto-Oriented, P –Park, and I –Institutional as shown on Figure 3.2-3, Existing Zoning.

FIGURE 3.2-3

EXISTING ZONING
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-9

3.2.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist), significant land use and planning impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
• Physically divide an established community
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect • Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan

3.2.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
• The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

The Proposed Project includes the following land use entitlements and approvals:
- Zone change from CG to SP-19
- Amendment to SP-19
- Vacation of a paper alley that bisects the site between Olive and California Avenues - Vacation of Olive Avenue between 28th and Patterson Streets - Lot merger
- Conditional Use Permit
- Site Plan and Design Review
- Disposition and Development Agreement
City of Signal Hill General Plan Consistency
A large recycling center is among the list of conditionally permitted uses allowed for development under the City’s General Industrial Land Use designation (4.2). Therefore, development of the recycling and transfer plant on the Proposed Project Site will be consistent with and will not result in any conflicts with the City’s General Plan.

The following is a consistency analysis of the Proposed Project with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies.

GOAL 1: Manage growth to achieve a well-balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing, commercial and industrial land, open space, and community facilities and services, while maintaining a healthy, diversified economy adequate to provide future City revenues.

Policy 1.1: Encourage and manage growth in order to accommodate year 2010 moderate growth population, household and employment projections.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-10
Analysis: The development of the Proposed Project will provide employment for employees of the recycling and transfer project and help the City achieve year 2010 employment projection.

Policy 1.5: The distribution and intensity of land uses shall be consistent with the land use map and descriptions for each of the land use categories in Section VI of the Land Use Element.

Analysis: The 2001 City of Signal Hill General Plan, Land Use Element, designated the Proposed Project Site as 4.2 General Industrial. This designation allows a large recycling center subject to a conditional use permit. Therefore, a recycling and transfer plant is consistent with the description of intended land uses.

Policy 1.6: Ensure an adequate supply of commercial and industrial land for potential commercial and industrial expansion and development.

Analysis: The Proposed Project Site and other similar adjacent properties were zoned Commercial General from 1964 to the present. Under that designation, the land failed to develop into a viable commercial use, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses, ownership fragmentation, and site contamination. The revised zoning designation, General Industrial per Specific Plan 19, ensures an adequate supply of land for industrial expansion and development.

Policy 1.7: Broaden the City's tax base by attracting commercial and industrial development to the City that will provide economic and employment benefits to the community while ensuring compatibility with other general plan goals and policies.

Analysis: The development of a recycling center and transfer station will provide economic and employment benefits to the City of Signal Hill.

Policy 1.9: Provide incentives to encourage lot consolidations and large parcel land assemblage to provide expanded opportunities for coordinated development and redevelopment.

Analysis: The Proposed Project consolidates several small size lots into a larger parcel of land and provides the opportunity for coordinated development of the Project Site as a general industrial area.

GOAL 2: Ensure that new development is consistent with the City's circulation system, availability of public facilities, existing development constraints, and the City's unique characteristics and natural resources.

Policy 2.5: Ensure an orderly extension of essential services and facilities and preservation of a free-flowing circulation system, by requiring the provision of essential services and facilities at the developer's cost where these systems do not exist or are not already part of the City's financed annual Capital Improvement Program.

Analysis: Conditions of approval require the extension and upgrading of streets and essential services serving the Proposed Project Site and ensure that subsequent development in the area will occur in an orderly fashion.

Policy 2.6: Encourage the development of oil field areas through the removal or relocation of wells and pipelines, or with site plan designs that encourage the joint use of land for oil production and other urban uses while maintaining essential access to petroleum resources.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-11
Analysis: The Proposed Project Site was previously used for oil production. The applicant has investigated all existing oil wells and will satisfy the abandonment or reabandonment requirements of the State Division of Oil and Gas as a prerequisite to development of the property.

GOAL 3: Assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses.

Policy 3.2: Enhance the interface between existing and future development and oil production activities to protect the access to the resource while mitigating adverse impacts of oil field operations with an urban area.

Analysis: The Proposed Project has consolidated property ownership for the blighted block between Patterson Street, California Avenue, 28th Street, and Olive Avenue. The site plan accommodates existing oil wells that may or may not continue oil production.

Policy 3.4: Promote mixed-use development and ensure compatible integration of adjacent uses to minimize conflicts.

Analysis: The Proposed Project implements the General Industrial Specific Plan 19 which allows land uses currently permitted in the CG and CO zones. The purpose of SP-19 is to ensure an adequate supply of industrial land for industrial expansion and development. The recycling and transfer project is an industrial use.

Policy 3.6: Provide for undesirable or hazardous commercial or industrial uses while avoiding concentrating those uses in close proximity to schools or residential neighborhoods, and ensure adequate monitoring of those uses, which involve hazardous materials to avoid industrial accidents, chemical spills, fire, and explosions.

Analysis: The proposed recycling and transfer project is not located in proximity to schools or residential areas. The Proposed Project also does not involve hazardous materials (chemical spills, chemical fires, and/or explosives). The Proposed Project includes a litter control, vector control, and odor management programs to minimize any impacts associated with litter, vectors, and odor to a level of less than significant for surrounding land uses.

Policy 3.10: Encourage the revitalization and redevelopment of older commercial and industrial areas.

Analysis: This development revitalizes and redevelops one of the City’s oldest commercial areas in accordance with the purpose of SP-19.

Policy 3.11: Maintain and improve, where necessary, the City’s infrastructure and facilities.

Analysis: The proposed project will improve the City’s below standard existing infrastructure and facilities adjacent to the project site.

Policy 3.12: Encourage and promote high quality design and physical appearance in all development projects.

Analysis: The architecture of the proposed project represents a high quality design which will result in an improved physical appearance on the project site.

Policy 3.18: Minimize the impacts of storm water runoff, to the maximum extent practicable, on the biology, water quality and integrity of natural drainage systems and water bodies Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-12
Analysis: The new facility incorporates best management practices in its design to recover storm water runoff and minimize impacts on water bodies.

Policy 3.19: Maximize, to the extent practicable, the percentage of permeable surfaces to allow more percolation of storm water runoff into the ground.

Analysis: The new facility includes permeable surfaces to allow for percolation of storm water runoff into the ground.

Policy 3.20: Minimize, to the extent practicable, the amount of storm water directed to impermeable areas and to the municipal separate storm water system. Build storm water pollution prevention systems into all development projects including maximizing landscaped areas and providing areas for storm water storage and sedimentation.

Analysis: The new facility’s design includes best management practices to contain storm water on site and allow for sedimentation and ground water recharge.

Policy 3.21: Require new projects to include permanent controls to reduce storm water pollutant loads from development sites including parking lots, to the maximum extent practicable.

Analysis: The new facility includes permeable surfaces to allow for percolation of storm water runoff into the ground.

GOAL 4: Ensure that future land use decisions are the result of sound and comprehensive planning.

Policy 4.1: Consider all general plan goals and policies, including those in other general plan elements, in evaluating proposed development projects for general plan consistency.

Analysis: The Proposed Project was evaluated for general plan consistency as indicated above.

In addition, the City’s General Plan Land Use Element includes an Implementation Program that provides a coordinated set of action plans/objectives designed to carry out the land use plan goals and policies for specific neighborhoods, including the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood. The Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood recommendation is that "The City should prepare a Specific Plan and rezone the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood for General Industrial and Commercial Use." The corresponding policies to implement this recommendation are policy numbers: 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9,

2.5, 2.6, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, and 3.10. Analysis of the Proposed Project’s consistency with the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood corresponding goals/policies and other land use policies was presented above.

City of Signal Hill Industrial Specific Plan 19
City Charter Section 608 (General Land Use Authority) requires the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the City of Signal Hill General Plan Land Use Element. Per City Charter Section 608, a General Industrial (4.2) designation allows a large recycling center. The existing zoning, Commercial General, does not permit a transfer facility station or recycling center.5

5 City of Signal Hill Municipal Code, Chapter 20.20 Commercial Districts, Section 20.20.020 Use Classifications.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-13
There are two zoning components for the Proposed Project. One is a zone change to SP-19 and the other is an amendment to SP-19 in conformance with SP-19 Section 20.39.160 which states:
“Within the specific plan area it is envisioned that there may be different planning areas and additional industrial uses may be permitted. Rather than establish all such uses initially, the intent is to permit uses to be proposed and then be analyzed environmentally to determine mitigation and appropriate land use conditions.

However, nothing herein would currently permit such uses within SP-19 except through an amendment of SP-19, which would include the performance of appropriate environmental analysis of the appropriateness of such use.”
The amendment to SP-19 would designate the Proposed Project Site as Area 3.6 The zone change to SP-19 - Area 3 amendment will permit an additional industrial use on the Proposed Project Site following environmental analysis. This Draft EIR serves as the environmental analysis. Per the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project will not result in any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, including land use and planning impacts. Implementation of the Proposed Project will not result in any conflicts with the City’s General Plan or Industrial Specific Plan 19 (Zoning Ordinance). Therefore, no long-term impacts will result from Project implementation.

Chapter 20.56 of The City’s Municipal Code also includes information specific to recycling facilities:
“The purpose of this chapter is to make redemption and recycling of reusable material convenient to the customer in order to reduce litter and increase the recycling of reusable materials, and to encourage the provision of recycling services by adopting a comprehensive and easily understood program of permitting and regulation such uses, as required by the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act.” The Chapter requires recycling facilities permitted by zoning and/or a conditional use permit to comply with the applicable criteria and standards listed. The standards for a large collection facility and a discussion of the compliance of the Proposed Project with each standard are as follows:

Standard 1: The facility shall not abut a property zoned or planned for residential use.

This standard is not applicable because there is no residential zoning or planned residential use abutting the Proposed Project Site

6 Signal Hill Municipal Code, Title 20 Zoning, Chapter 20.39 SP-19 General Industrial Specific Plan, Section 20.39.030.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-14
Standard 2: The facility shall operate in an enclosed building with outdoor storage prohibited.

The MFR/TS facility will operate in an enclosed building and there will be no outdoor storage.

Standard 3: Setbacks, height, lot coverage and landscape requirements shall be those provided for the zoning district in which the facility is located.

Setbacks, height, lot coverage and landscape requirements for the Proposed Project will be as established per amended SP-19 – Area 3.

Standard 4: The site shall be maintained free of litter, pests, vermin and other undesirable materials at all times and shall be cleaned of loose debris on a daily basis.

The Proposed Project will comply with this requirement per applicable state, regional, and local regulations. An Odor Management Minimization Plan will be implemented, as part of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permitting process (Rule 410). A Vector Control Program will also be implemented.

Standard 5: Noise levels shall not exceed sixty a-weighted decibels (dBA) as measured at the property line of a residentially zoned property, or otherwise shall not exceed seventy dBA.

Per the Noise Study, the Proposed Project will not exceed seventy dBA.

Standard 7: If the facility is located within five hundred feet of property zoned, planned or occupied for residential use, it shall not be in operation between seven p.m. and seven a.m.

The Proposed Project is not located within five hundred feet of any residential uses.

Standard 8: Any containers provided for after-hours donation of recyclable materials will be at least fifty feet from any property zoned or occupied for residential use, shall be sturdy, rustproof construction, shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate materials collected, and shall be secure from unauthorized entry or removal of materials
There is no residential property within fifty feet of the Proposed Project Site. The Proposed Project will comply with the above requirements for containers.

Standard 9: Donation areas will be kept free of litter and any other undesirable material, and the containers will be clearly marked to identify the type of material that may be deposited; the facility shall display a notice stating that no material shall be left outside the recycling contains. Violation of this provision shall be subject to the city’s public nuisance provision. Chapter 8.12.

The Project applicant will comply with this standard.

Standard 10: The facility will be clearly marked with the name and phone number of the facility operator and the hours of operation; and the identification and informational signs will meet the standards of the zone in which the facility is located.

The Project applicant will comply with this standard.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-15
Standard 11: Power-driven processing, including aluminum foil and can compacting, bailing, plastic shredding or other light processing activities shall be prohibited.

Specific Plan 19 - Area 3 amendment will permit power-driven processing and the Proposed Project will be permitted as a heavy processing facility as indicated in the standards for a processing facility.

Standard 12: Outdoor storage is prohibited. Will there be outdoor storage? The Project applicant will comply with this standard.

The standards for a processing facility are the same with the exception of the following standards:

Standard 3: Power-driven processing shall be permitted, provided all noise level requirements are met. Light processing facilities are limited to baling, briquetting, crushing, compacting, grinding, shredding and sorting of source-separated recyclable materials and repairing of reusable materials
Specific Plan 19 - Area 3 amendment will permit power-driven processing and the Proposed Project will be permitted as a heaving processing facility.

Standard 4: A processing facility may accept used motor oil for recycling from the generator in accordance with Sections 25250.11 and 25143.2(b)(4) of the California Health and Safety Code.

Standard 7: Space shall be provided on site for the anticipated peak load of customers to circulate, park and deposit recyclable materials. If the facility is open to the public, space will be provided for a minimum of ten customers or the peak load, whichever is higher, except where the planning director determines that allowing overflow traffic is compatible with surrounding business and public safety.

The Project site plan demonstrates compliance with this condition. Parking requirements for the Proposed Project will be established in the Specific Plan 19 - Area 3 amendment.

Standard 8: One parking space will be provided for each commercial vehicle operated by the processing center. Parking requirements will otherwise be as mandated by the zoning district in which the facility is located.

Parking requirements for the Proposed Project will be established in the Specific Plan 19 – Area 3 amendment.

Standard 9: Noise level…shall not exceed seventy dBA. Noise levels are measured with a sound level meter by a certified acoustical engineer upon receipt of a complaint by the director of planning
The Noise Study indicated that the noise level associated with the Proposed Project will not exceed seventy dBA. If the City receives a complaint, a certified acoustical engineer will be retained to measure project-related noise levels.

Standard 10: The facility will be administered by on-site personnel during the hours the facility is opened.

Security and onsite personnel will be on the Proposed Project Site whenever the facility is open.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-16
Standard 14: No dust, fumes, smoke, vibration or odor above ambient levels may be detectable on neighboring properties (Ord. 87-11-988 § 3 (part).

The Proposed Project will comply with this standard.

The Proposed Project will also be in conformance with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 20.56 Recycling Facilities through the E Area amendment.
• The Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community The Proposed Project Site occupies ±3.75-acres located entirely within the City corporate limits and within the boundaries of the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood sub-planning area. Additionally, no modification of any area roadways that would affect the integrity or cohesiveness of the City or the neighborhood sub-planning area is proposed or required. The leasing of the entire site for the MRF/TS will not divide an established community. The vacation of Olive Avenue and the paper alley will have no affect on surrounding land use. Therefore, no long-term Project-level impacts related to the division of established communities will result from Project implementation. • The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan
There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans applicable to the Proposed Project Site.

3.2.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts associated with land use and planning are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.2.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts associated with land use and planning are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.2.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As discussed in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, vacant land remains Signal Hills’ most important resource. Any new development will need to occur within the vacant oil field areas and to a lesser extent in-fill development in established neighborhoods.7 The Proposed Project does not result in cumulative impacts to land use and planning for other land uses in the Project vicinity. The Proposed Project is located to the west of California from the City of Long Beach’s proposed Sports Park on the east side of California. Therefore, land uses in the Project vicinity are governed by two political jurisdictions: the City of Signal Hill and the City of Long Beach.

Each project will be required to be developed in conformance with the mandatory land use controls related to each jurisdiction’s general plan and zoning. Implementation of the Project will not result in

7 City of Signal Hill General Plan, Land Use Element, June 2001.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Land Use and Planning EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.2-17
cumulative impacts related to the land use and planning resource area. The Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan policies and objectives as discussed above.

3.2.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ON LAND USE AND PLANNING ISSUES The following agencies commented on land use issues during the NOP comment period and requested that the following issues and/or concerns be addressed in the Draft EIR:
• California Integrated Waste Management Board
o Requested the Draft EIR identify the proposed facility’s surrounding land use with a description of the density of the occupancy for commercial and residential areas See analysis above.
o The City must make a finding that the proposed facility is consistent with the General Plan and is identified in the most recent County Solid Waste Management Plan If the Proposed Project is approved by the City, the City will make a finding that the MRF/TS is consistent with the General Plan and revise the City’s Non Disposal Facility Element (NDFE) to included the Proposed Project. The City will then apply to the County for an amendment to the County’s Solid Waste Management Plan identifying the Proposed Project.

These actions will occur prior to the issuance of a permit to operate by the CIWMB. • Long Beach Unified School District
o Include analysis of all potential impacts to LBUSD
See analysis above.
• City of Long Beach Department of Development Services o Clarify if the zone change to Specific Plan 19 will be limited to the Project Site or applied to any other parcels surrounding the Project Site
o The proximity of the proposed project to sensitive land uses as the Memorial Hospital and an approved Sports Park.

See analysis above.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-1

3.3 TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION
The transportation data and analysis in this section are based on the City of Signal Hill EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic Analysis) prepared by Austin-Foust Associates in November 2008. The Traffic Analysis was prepared for the following purposes:
• Document existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; • Evaluate traffic conditions for year 2010 (i.e., project completion), both without and with the Proposed Project, including traffic growth from background sources and related projects in Signal Hill and Long Beach; and
• Determine whether on-site and/or off-site traffic mitigation improvements or other system management actions are needed to achieve applicable level of service (LOS) requirements under year 2010 with-project conditions.

The analysis uses criteria from the City of Signal Hill, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of the County of Los Angeles, and Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The complete Traffic Analysis with methodology and appendices (i.e., traffic count worksheets, traffic signal warrants, intersection analysis worksheets) is included as Appendix B on the CD attached at the back of the Draft EIR. Copies are also available for review at the City of Signal Hill Planning Department.

3.3.1 EXISTING SETTING

3.3.1.1 Regional Highway System
The Project site is situated about one mile south of U.S. Interstate 405 (I-405, or San Diego Freeway), approximately one mile east of U.S. Interstate 710 (Long Beach Freeway), and approximately one mile north of State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway).

The I-405 provides primary regional access to the project site. It is a major highway facility extending through the County of Los Angeles and linking Long Beach with the neighboring communities of Westminster, Seal Beach, Lakewood, and Carson, as well as more distant locations such as the nearcoastal areas of Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes exist on the I-405 throughout Los Angeles and Orange County. In the project vicinity, there is one HOV lane in each direction for a total of 10 travel lanes on the I-405.

Freeway access to the project site is provided via the Atlantic Avenue/I-405 interchange, Orange Avenue/I-405 southbound ramps interchange, and the 32nd Street/I-405 northbound ramps interchange. Major arterials that provide access to the Project site include Atlantic Avenue and Spring Street.

3.3.1.2 Local Roadway System
The principal local network of streets serving the proposed project includes Atlantic Avenue, California Avenue, Spring Street and Willow Avenue, each of which is described below. • Atlantic Avenue – The portion of Atlantic Avenue in the study area is all within the City of Long Beach and is a four-lane divided roadway oriented in the north-south direction, with a raised center median providing two lanes of travel in each direction. Parking is not permitted along the east side of this roadway, but it is permitted on the west side. North of Spring Street, curbside parking is prohibited on both sides of Atlantic Avenue. On-street parking is Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-2
permitted along either side of this roadway south of signal-controlled intersections on Atlantic Avenue at Wardlow Road, I-405 southbound ramps, Spring Street, Columbia Street, 28th Street, Patterson Street (Memorial Medical Center), Willow Street, and Hill Street. • California Avenue – California Avenue is a two-lane roadway oriented in the north-south direction. The roadway lies within the City of Signal Hill adjacent to the Project site and is designated in the City of Signal Hill Circulation Element as a Secondary Modified Highway with a 70-foot right-of-way requirement and a 60-foot paved width south of Spring Street. It is designated a local Collector north of Spring Street. California Avenue at Spring Street and California Avenue at Willow Street are controlled by two-phase traffic signals. Parking is not permitted on either side of this roadway in the project vicinity, and the posted speed limit is 40 mph.
• Spring Street – Spring Street is a four-lane divided roadway oriented in the east-west direction. Though it borders the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center to the north, parking is not permitted on either side of Spring Street in the vicinity. The posted speed limit is 40 mph east of Long Beach Boulevard. Traffic signals control the intersections on Spring Street at Atlantic Avenue, California Avenue, Olive Avenue (Gateway Shopping Center), Orange Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and Cherry Avenue.
• Willow Street – Willow Street is a six-lane divided roadway oriented in the east-west direction, with a raised median providing three travel lanes in each direction. In general, parking is permitted along either side of this roadway. The posted speed limit on Willow Street is 35 mph west of Atlantic Avenue and 40 mph east of Atlantic Avenue.

The project site is bounded on the north by the 28th Street right-of-way (unimproved), on the east by California Avenue, on the south by East Patterson Street, and on the west by the Olive Avenue rightof-way (unimproved).

3.3.1.3 Traffic Analysis Study Area Definition
Based on the analysis guidelines for State, regional, and local transportation facilities (see Section

3.3.2, Impact Significance Criteria) and discussion with City of Signal Hill staff, 10 intersections are in the project’s area of traffic influence. The intersections listed below and illustrated on Figure 3.3-1 were analyzed for project-related impacts during the AM and PM peak hours:1

1. Atlantic Avenue and I-405 Northbound 6. Orange Avenue and 32nd Street

2. Atlantic Avenue and I-405 Southbound 7. I-405 Northbound and 32nd Street

3. Atlantic Avenue and Spring Street 8. Orange Avenue and I-405 Southbound

4. California Avenue and Spring Street 9. Orange Avenue and Spring Street

5. California Avenue and Willow Street 10. Cherry Avenue and Spring Street

3.3.1.4 Operational Characteristics
Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Existing (July 2008) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for local roadways are shown on Figure 3.3-2.

Freeway ADT volumes are from the most recent (2007) traffic counts available from Caltrans.

1 Peak Hour refers to the hour during the AM peak period (typically 7 AM - 9 AM) or the PM peak period (typically 4 PM - 6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are traveling on a given roadway.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-3
FIGURE 3.3-1

STUDY AREA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
FIGURE 3.3-2

EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, 2008
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, 2008
ADT volumes in
thousands (000)
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-4
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Existing (July 2008) AM and PM peak hour intersection turn movement volumes are shown on Figures 2-2 and 2-3 of the Traffic Study, respectively. Table 3.3-1 summarizes the ICU analysis of those data and indicates that study area intersections operate at acceptable LOS2 during both peak hours.

TABLE 3.3-1
ICU SUMMARY – EXISTING CONDITIONS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS

1. Atlantic & I-405 NB .51 A .64 B

2. Atlantic & I-405 SB .51 A .48 A

3. Atlantic & Spring .66 B .77 C

4. California & Spring .37 A .50 A

5. California & Willow .41 A .52 A

6. Orange & 32nd .54 A .73 C

7. I-405 NB & 32nd .30 A .36 A

8. Orange & I-405 SB .36 A .36 A

9. Orange & Spring .59 A .61 B

10. Cherry & Spring .66 B .84 D
Level of service ranges: .00 – .60 A
.61 – .70 B
.71 – .80 C
.81 – .90 D
.91 – 1.00 E
Above 1.00 F

3.3.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

3.3.2.1 Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines
A project that contributes 50 or more peak hour trips to a State highway facility experiencing noticeable delay (i.e., approaching unstable traffic conditions at LOS C or D) is subject to Caltrans analysis and mitigation guidelines.3 Under those guidelines, the acceptable LOS for freeway roadway segments and ramps is LOS C to mid LOS D. An impact is considered to be significant if a project causes an intersection to change from LOS A, B, or C to LOS D, E, or F during the peak hours.

3.3.2.2 Los Angeles County CMP Analysis Criteria
The goals of the CMP are to reduce traffic congestion and provide a mechanism for coordinating land use development and transportation decisions. Each development project is required to be analyzed for impacts from measurable project-generated traffic and determine if the impacts will cause CMP

2 LOS (Level of Service) – A scale used to evaluate circulation system performance based on intersection seconds of delay or volume/capacity ratios of arterial segments. The levels range from A to F, with LOS A representing free flow traffic and LOS F representing severe traffic congestion.
3 From Table 1-1 of the Caltrans Guide for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, State of California, December 2002.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-5
intersections or links to exceed their LOS standards requiring feasible mitigation measures to maintain the adopted LOS standard.

The Los Angeles County CMP establishes a minimum LOS standard of E, meaning that a project impact is considered to be significant if the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by two percent of capacity (V/C change greater than or equal to 0.02) and causes or worsens LOS F (ICU > 1.00) at a CMP study location.

No identified CMP monitoring intersections are located in the vicinity, and the San Diego Freeway (I405) is the only CMP Highway or Principal Arterial in the project study area. However, the threshold for analysis of freeway segments under the CMP is 150 vehicles, and the project adds fewer than 50 vehicles to I-405. Therefore, a study of I-405 mainline freeway impacts is not required and the Traffic Analysis provides no further freeway impact analysis, per CMP methodology.

3.3.2.3 Local Analysis Criteria
For this analysis, the definition of an intersection deficiency is based on the City of Long Beach guidelines, which use the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology for impact analysis, and consider level of service (LOS) D (ICU = .90) to be the least acceptable LOS. An impact is considered significant if the project changes the ICU value more than .02, causing or worsening LOS E or LOS F (ICU > .90). Traffic flow quality for each LOS is described in the Traffic Analysis (Table A-1, Appendix A).

In addition to the locally adopted thresholds of significance, the traffic and circulation criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) indicate that significant traffic and circulation impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
• Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). • Result in inadequate emergency access.
• Result in inadequate parking capacity.
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-6

3.3.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

3.3.3.1 Project Circulation and Roadway Improvements
The project consists of a 68,000 square foot (s.f.) recycling and transfer facility on 3.75 acres. The materials recovery facility/transfer station (MRF/TS) will serve as a point to accept, process, recover, and transfer mixed municipal waste and residue following diversion activities to an appropriate permitted disposal facility. The project is designed and will be permitted for a maximum of 1,500 tons per day, though it is anticipated that the facility will actually operate at less than this amount on an ongoing basis.

The Site Circulation Plan on Figure 3.3-3 illustrates internal routing, access drives, and directional distribution onto adjacent roadways. As shown, all heavy vehicle ingress routes will be via 28th Street from California Avenue, and egress routes will be via Patterson Street to California Avenue. Only employee vehicles and self-haul/residential buyback and household hazardous waste customers will access the site from California Avenue. Figures 3.3-4 and 3.3-5 show the arrival and departure routes that trucks will use in the Cities of Signal Hill and Long Beach.

The project will construct full width roadway improvements to 28th Street between California Avenue and Olive Avenue in order to implement the Site Circulation Plan. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and other street improvements will be provided on Patterson Street and California Avenue, including a sidewalk on California Avenue. The Project will include parkway improvements along all frontage streets. All north-south vehicular circulation from 28th Street to Patterson Street will be via a 24-foot-wide driveway along the western boundary, formerly the east half of the Olive Avenue right-of-way. An 8- foot-high masonry screen wall and 5-foot-wide landscape area will provide a buffer between the Project Site and unimproved commercially zoned property located to the west.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-7 Source: JRM&A, 2008
FIGURE 3.3-3
SITE

CIRCULATION
PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-8
FIGURE 3.3-4
OFF-SITE CIRCULATION: ARRIVAL ROUTES
Source: JRM&A, 2008
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-9
FIGURE 3.3-5
OFF-SITE CIRCULATION: DEPARTURE ROUTES
Source: JRM&A, 2008
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-10

3.3.3.2 Short-Term Construction Impacts
The Traffic Analysis evaluated the impacts of building the project. During the temporary construction phase, traffic will result from construction workers and construction vehicles (i.e., trucks carrying materials and equipment). The typical construction shift is 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM with construction workers arriving before the shift starts and leaving at the end of the shift. Construction-related trucks arrive and depart throughout the shift. However, the total trips from construction traffic would be fewer than the trips generated by project operations, which represents the worst-case trip generation.

3.3.3.3 2010 Traffic Conditions Without Project
Background Traffic Scenario
The Traffic Analysis determined 2010 background traffic volumes (ambient volumes without the project) by applying a one percent ambient growth factor to the existing 2008 volumes. The 2010 noproject AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are illustrated on Figures 2-4 and 2-5 of the Traffic Analysis, respectively. Corresponding ICU values assuming existing lane configurations are summarized in Table 3.3-2, which shows that the study area intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS under 2010 no-project conditions.

TABLE 3.3-2
ICU SUMMARY – 2010 BACKGROUND (NO PROJECT) CONDITIONS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS

1. Atlantic & I-405 NB .52 A .64 B

2. Atlantic & I-405 SB .51 A .48 A

3. Atlantic & Spring .67 B .78 C

4. California & Spring .38 A .51 A

5. California & Willow .42 A .53 A

6. Orange & 32nd .55 A .75 C

7. I-405 NB & 32nd .31 A .36 A

8. Orange & I-405 SB .39 A .38 A

9. Orange & Spring .60 A .61 B

10. Cherry & Spring .67 B .85 D
Level of service ranges: .00 – .60 A
.61 – .70 B
.71 – .80 C
.81 – .90 D
.91 – 1.00 E
Above 1.00 F
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-11
Cumulative Traffic Scenario
The cumulative traffic scenario results when the 2010 background traffic growth is added to the traffic from other planned, approved and/or recently constructed projects (i.e., "related projects").

This scenario is used to evaluate the individual effects of the proposed Project in the context of cumulative traffic impacts resulting from other on-going development.

The Cities of Signal Hill and Long Beach provided related projects to be evaluated, as shown in Figure 3.3-6 and summarized in Table 3.3-3. The total traffic added by the related projects is approximately 120,000 daily trips, of which 7,500 will be generated during the AM peak hour and 12,000 will be generated during the PM peak hour. Figures 4-2 and 4-3 in the Traffic Analysis illustrate the resulting AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes, respectively, at study area intersections with traffic from these related projects.

TABLE 3.3-3

RELATED PROJECTS SUMMARY
Project* Description
City of Long Beach

1. Kroc Community Center 170,500 sq. ft. Recreational Community Center

6.0 acres Sports Park

2. Douglas Park 2,500 Dwelling Units
3,150,000 sq. ft. Commercial/Office
150,000 sq. ft. Retail
400 Rooms Hotel

3. Long Beach Sports Park 55.0 acres Sports Park
30,000 sq. ft. Office
3 Hole/8 Tee Youth Golf Center
City of Signal Hill

4. North-East Area 25 Dwelling Units
100,000 sq. ft. Industrial

5. Atlantic-Spring Area 371,000 sq. ft. Commercial
184,000 sq. ft. Industrial

6. Central Area 268,000 sq. ft. Commercial
846,000 sq. ft. Industrial

7. Westside Area 35,000 sq. ft. Commercial
134,000 sq. ft. Industrial

8. Civic Center Area 150 Dwelling Units
260,000 sq. ft. Commercial
347,000 sq. ft. Industrial

9. Hilltop Area 122 Dwelling Units

10. South-East Area 65 Dwelling Units
25,000 sq. ft. Commercial
23,000 sq. ft. Industrial
* See Related Projects Location Map (Figure 3.3-6) on the following page.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-12
FIGURE 3.3-6

RELATED PROJECTS LOCATION MAP

3.3.3.4 2010 Traffic Conditions With Project
• The Project would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections).

Project Trip Generation
As discussed in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description), the proposed 68,000-square-foot recycling and transfer facility will accept, process, recover, and transfer mixed municipal waste and post-diversion residue to an appropriate permitted disposal facility. The facility is comprised of an office/administration area, material recovery facility, transfer/self-haul/load out area, green waste area, construction debris area, and maintenance area. The Project is designed and will be permitted to handle a maximum of 1,500 tons per day, though it is anticipated that the facility will actually operate at less than this amount on an ongoing basis.

Source: Austin-Foust Associates, 2008
See Table 3.3-3 for list of
project names and details
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-13
To evaluate "worst-case" traffic conditions and potential impacts, the Traffic Analysis is based on the maximum daily capacity of 1,500 tons per day beginning in 2010, which yields a total trip generation of 1,178 daily trips from 589 total vehicles accessing the site and distributed as follows:
• 300 self-haul vehicles -- approximately 300 tons per day with an assumed vehicle capacity of one ton per vehicle;
• 171 collection trucks -- 1,200 tons per day brought to the site with a capacity of seven tons per truck;
• 68 transfer trucks -- 1,500 tons per day of material hauled away with an assumed capacity of 22 tons per vehicle; and
• 50 employee vehicles for all shifts.

The peak hour trip generation is derived from the expected hourly distribution of vehicles based on similar facilities. Table 3.3-4 summarizes the expected hourly distribution of vehicles based on the maximum capacity of 1,500 tons per day.

TABLE 3.3-4

HOURLY DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT VEHICLES
Time
Collection
Trucks
Self-Haul
Vehicles
Transfer
Trucks
Staff
Vehicles
Total
Vehicles
3:00 – 4:00 AM 0 0 4 2 6
4:00 – 5:00 AM 2 0 6 2 10
5:00 – 6:00 AM 5 0 6 21 32
6:00 – 7:00 AM 5 10 5 0 20
7:00 – 8:00 AM 10 15 4 0 29
8:00 – 9:00 AM 12 25 5 0 42
9:00 – 10:00 AM 20 30 5 0 55
10:00 – 11:00 AM 15 35 4 0 54
11:00 – 12:00 PM 12 45 4 0 61
12:00 – 1:00 PM 15 30 5 0 50
1:00 – 2:00 PM 15 35 5 2 57
2:00 – 3:00 PM 15 30 5 2 52
3:00 – 4:00 PM 15 25 5 21 66
4:00 – 5:00 PM 15 20 2 0 37
5:00 – 6:00 PM 10 0 2 0 12
6:00 – 7:00 PM 5 0 1 0 6

Total 171 300 68 50 589
Shading indicates the peak hours with the highest total vehicle volumes.

As shown in Table 3.3-4 above, employee shifts will be scheduled so that employees do not arrive or depart during the peak hours. The resulting trip generation for the proposed project is summarized in Table 3.3-5, which indicates that the project will generate 1,178 trips daily.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-14
TABLE 3.3-5

TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vehicle Type In Out Total In Out Total ADT
Collection Truck 12 12 24 15 15 30 342
Self-Hauler 25 25 50 20 20 40 600
Transfer Truck 5 5 10 2 2 4 136
Employee 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
TOTAL 42 42 84 37 37 74 1,178
For the impact analysis, however, each collection truck and transfer truck trip was given more weight by applying the passenger car equivalent (PCE) factor of 2.0 contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The PCE factor is used because vehicles larger than passenger cars and pickup trucks have a proportionately greater effect on traffic flow since they occupy more roadway space.

Their performance characteristics are also inferior to passenger cars, which leads to less efficient use of roadway capacity at intersections. Self-haul vehicles and employee vehicles are not factored by a PCE. Table 3.3-6 summarizes the trip generation with the PCE factor.

TABLE 3.3-6

TRIP GENERATION PCE SUMMARY
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vehicle Type PCE In Out Total In Out Total ADT
Collection Truck 2.0 24 24 48 30 30 60 684
Self-Hauler 1.0 25 25 50 20 20 40 600
Transfer Truck 2.0 10 10 20 4 4 8 272
Employee 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
TOTAL 59 59 118 54 54 108 1,656
Project Trip Distribution
The trips generated by the proposed project will be made up of a variety of vehicles, and the different vehicle types will have different geographic distribution patterns. Collection trucks will bring mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and recyclables to the facility for processing. Transfer trucks consist of tractor/trailer combinations that take processed materials to end use markets for beneficial reuse and residue to final disposal sites. The collection trucks and transfer trucks will be restricted to specific routes with approximately 40 percent of trips oriented toward the I-405 Freeway. Figure 3.3- 7 illustrates the general distribution of truck traffic.

Public self-haul vehicles consist of vehicles that the general public will use to bring MSW to the facility for processing, and employee vehicles consist of the facility staff’s private vehicles. Self-haul vehicles and employee vehicles will not be restricted to assigned routes and are distributed based on levels and locations of development in relation to the location of the proposed project. Figure 3.3- 8 illustrates the general distribution of self-haul vehicles and employees. Figures 3.3-9 and 3.3-10 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour project PCE volumes of all project trip types, respectively.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-15
FIGURE 3.3-7

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION -- TRUCKS
FIGURE 3.3-8
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION – SELF-HAUL VEHICLES AND EMPLOYEES Source: Austin-Foust Associates, 2008
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, 2008
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-16
FIGURE 3.3-9

PROJECT-GENERATED AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (PCE)
FIGURE 3.3-10

PROJECT-GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (PCE)
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, 2008
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, 2008
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-17
2010 Background Plus Project Traffic
The 2010 background plus project volumes were derived by adding the project (PCE) volumes to the 2010 no-project AM and PM peak hour volumes presented earlier. These volumes are illustrated in Figures 3-5 and 3-6 of the Traffic Analysis. Table 3.3-7 shows ICU values and intersection LOS for 2010 conditions assuming existing lane configurations. All intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project trips; therefore, no intersection mitigation is required by the proposed project. Moreover, since the Project will contribute fewer than 50 peak hour trips to any segment of the I-405, no CMP analysis of freeway impacts is required.

TABLE 3.3-7
ICU SUMMARY – 2010 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
2010 No-Project 2010 With Project

AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour Change
Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM

1. Atlantic & I-405 NB .52 A .64 B .53 A .65 B .01 .01

2. Atlantic & I-405 SB .51 A .48 A .51 A .48 A NC NC

3. Atlantic & Spring .67 B .78 C .67 B .79 C NC .01

4. California & Spring .38 A .51 A .39 A .53 A .01 .02

5. California & Willow .42 A .53 A .45 A .54 A .03 .01

6. Orange & 32nd .55 A .75 C .55 A .75 C NC NC

7. I-405 NB & 32nd .31 A .36 A .31 A .37 A NC .01

8. Orange & I-405 SB .39 A .38 A .39 A .40 A NC .02

9. Orange & Spring .60 A .61 B .61 B .61 B .01 NC

10. Cherry & Spring .67 B .85 D .67 B .85 D NC NC
NC = No Change
Level of service ranges: .00 – .60 A .81 – .90 D
.61 – .70 B .91 – 1.00 E
.71 – .80 C Above 1.00 F
Project Contribution to Cumulative Traffic
• The Project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values for 2010 cumulative conditions are presented below in Table 3.3-8 (actual ICU calculations are included in Appendix A of the Traffic Analysis). The table reveals that four study area intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour with the addition of cumulative projects. However, the project’s incremental contribution to those impacts (i.e., the Project-related change over 2010 No-Project conditions) is less than significant at those intersections. Therefore, no project mitigation is required to alleviate a future intersection deficiency resulting from cumulative traffic.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-18
TABLE 3.3-8
ICU SUMMARY – 2010 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
2010 With Project
2010 With Project Plus
Related Projects
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Project Change* Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM

1. Atlantic & I-405 NB .53 A .65 B .56 A .72 C .01 .01

2. Atlantic & I-405 SB .51 A .48 A .58 A .62 B NC NC

3. Atlantic & Spring .67 B .79 C .72 C 1.03 F NC .01

4. California & Spring .39 A .53 A .42 A .70 B .01 .02

5. California & Willow .45 A .54 A .51 A .67 B .03 .01

6. Orange & 32nd .55 A .75 C .70 B 1.07 F NC NC

7. I-405 NB & 32nd .31 A .37 A .36 A .50 A NC .01

8. Orange & I-405 SB .39 A .40 A .54 A .64 B NC .02

9. Orange & Spring .61 B .61 B .77 C .96 E .01 NC

10. Cherry & Spring .67 B .84 D .77 C 1.03 F NC NC
* Project change over 2010 no-project conditions (see Table 3.3-2) NC = No Change
Level of service ranges: .00 – .60 A .81 – .90 D
.61 – .70 B .91 – 1.00 E
.71 – .80 C Above 1.00 F

3.3.3.5 Caltrans Freeway Ramp Intersections
The Caltrans analysis methodology (i.e., HCM delay) was applied to the I-405 Freeway ramp intersections at Atlantic Avenue and at Orange Avenue in the study area. Peak hour delay for those intersections is summarized in Table 3.3-9 (intersection delay calculations are included in Appendix B of the Traffic Analysis). As indicated previously, a significant impact to Caltrans intersections is defined as a change from LOS A, B, or C to LOS D, E, or F as a result of the proposed project. The delay table shows that the Project would not have a significant impact on Caltrans intersections.

TABLE 3.3-9
HCM DELAY SUMMARY – 2010 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
2010 No-Project 2010 With Project
Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Change Intersection Type Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM

2. Atlantic & I-405 SB Signal 7.9 A 7.7 A 8.0 A 7.7 A NC NC

6. Orange & 32nd Signal 7.8 A 11.1 B 7.8 A 11.3 B NC NC

7. I-405 NB & 32nd Stop 10.2 B 14.2 B 10.2 B 14.2 B NC NC

8. Orange & I-405 SB Stop 18.6 C 44.4 E 19.2 C 47.8 E NC NC NC = No Change
Level of Service ranges:

Signalized Stop-Controlled

0.0 – 10.0 sec/veh A 35.1 – 55.0 sec/veh D 0.0 – 10.0 sec/veh A 25.1 – 35.0 sec/veh D

10.1 – 20.0 sec/veh B 55.1 – 80.0 sec/veh E 10.1 – 15.0 sec/veh B 35.1 – 50.0 sec/veh E

20.1 – 35.0 sec/veh C Above 80.0 sec/veh F 15.1 – 25.0 sec/veh C Above 50.0 sec/veh F Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-19

3.3.3.6 Project-Related Traffic Effects on Schools
Three schools were identified in the Traffic Analysis as potentially affected by project-generated truck traffic. The three schools are discussed below and their locations are shown on Figure 3.3-11. • John Burroughs Elementary School is located along Orange Avenue between 32nd Street and 33rd Street. Truck traffic adjacent to the school will be limited to the section of 32nd Street between Orange Avenue and the northbound I-405 Freeway on- and off-ramps.

Examination of the truck distribution presented in Figure 3.3-7 shows that approximately 10 percent of the collection trucks and transfer trucks will use the Orange Avenue ramps to access the northbound I-405 Freeway and 10 percent will use Orange Avenue to access the southbound I-405 Freeway. During the hour when students are arriving at school, approximately four project trucks will travel along 32nd Street to and from the northbound freeway ramps. Throughout the school day, an average of four project trucks per hour will travel along 32nd Street to and from the northbound freeway ramps, with a maximum of six project trucks per hour (i.e., approximately one project truck every 10 minutes). Students do not access the school from 32nd Street and classrooms are oriented toward 33rd Street.

Since there is little or no actual conflict with school traffic, project trucks will not adversely affect John Burroughs Elementary School.
• Juan Bautista Alvarado Elementary School and the future middle school (GTE site) are located on Cherry Avenue at 21st Street and 20th Street, respectively. As illustrated in Figure

3.3-7, a nominal amount of project truck traffic will travel along Cherry Avenue south of Willow Avenue. As a result, project-generated truck traffic will not adversely affect Juan Bautista Alvarado Elementary School or the future middle school (GTE site).

FIGURE 3.3-11

LBUSD SCHOOL LOCATION MAP
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, 2008
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-20

3.3.3.7 Traffic Signal Warrant Results
The tee-intersection of California Avenue and Patterson Street is currently controlled by a stop sign on the eastbound leg. The Site Circulation Plan (Figure 3.3-3) for project traffic shows trucks and public self-haul vehicles entering the site via 28th Street on the north side and exiting via Patterson Street on the south. Employees may enter and exit via 28th Street, Patterson Street, or directly from California Avenue.

Given the existing and proposed local circulation patterns, the Traffic Analysis evaluated the need for a signal at the intersection of California Avenue and Patterson Street. The Peak Hour Signal Warrant for that intersection is illustrated in Figure 3-8 of Appendix B. The signal warrant is based on year 2010 With-Project volumes, and includes traffic from the A&A Ready Mix Batch Plant on the south side of Patterson Street in the minor street volume. Based on peak hour volumes, a traffic signal is not warranted at the intersection of California Avenue and Patterson Street. Although a signal would help slow-moving trucks exit Patterson Street, the volume of traffic on California Avenue does not satisfy the need for a traffic signal at this location.

3.3.3.8 Traffic Safety Hazards
• The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses.

The project would comply with all applicable City design requirements and would not increase hazards due to a design feature. Project entrances will be reviewed for conformity with sight distance standards in order to ensure safe vehicular turning movements.

3.3.3.9 Emergency Access
• The project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

The project would comply with all City and County design criteria for police and fire emergency access requirements. The Project will not present any constraints to emergency access.

3.3.3.10 Parking capacity
• The project would not result in inadequate parking capacity.

All parking will be accommodated on-site. The project would comply with Municipal Code parking requirements, and no parking capacity issues would result.

3.3.3.11 Alternative Transportation
• The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

The project would have no effect on transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities or routes, nor would it conflict with any related plans or programs.

3.3.3.12 Air Traffic Patterns
• The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.

The proposed site is approximately one mile west of the Long Beach Airport. However, it has no potential to affect air traffic patterns or place residents at risk.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-21

3.3.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant impacts will result; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.3.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No mitigation measures are required.

3.3.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative traffic impacts were analyzed previously in the discussion of 2010 conditions that included traffic from the project, background growth, and related projects. As summarized from that section, four study area intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour with the addition of related projects in 2010. However, the project’s incremental contribution to those cumulative traffic conditions is less than significant at each of the four locations.

3.3.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ON TRAFFIC ISSUES
Public agencies provided comments on traffic issues during the NOP review period. Those agencies requested that the Draft EIR address the following traffic data and/or concerns:
• California Integrated Waste Management Board
o Prepare a traffic study including a cumulative analysis of traffic impacts The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. in November 2008 included an evaluation of cumulative traffic impacts. The complete Traffic Analysis with methodology and appendices is included as Appendix B on the CD attached at the back of the Draft EIR. See also Sections 3.3.3.3 (2010 Traffic Conditions Without Project) and

3.3.3.4 (2010 Traffic Conditions With Project) for analysis of the Project's contribution to cumulative traffic conditions.
• California Department of Transportation, District 7
o Recommended that the truck traffic analysis address the following:
Pavement and base sections break-down by heavy trucks Slower truck vehicle access onto a highway due to weight Turning radii
Shoulder widths
Sight distance
Cargo spill clean-up
Truck route compatibility with frequent pedestrian use such as schools Signal timing and placement
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. in November 2008 prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis for the City of Signal Hill, EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility. This analysis included any potential impacts from truck traffic. Specific analysis relating to truck traffic is discussed in the analysis above.
o Recommended that the traffic study include:
Trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, trip assignments, and passenger car equivalents
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Traffic and Circulation EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.3-22
Traffic volumes, level-of-service calculations for major intersections and for affected freeway on/off-ramps
Existing project, cumulative, and project plus cumulative traffic analysis All issues raised by Caltrans were evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. in November 2008, as summarized in the preceding analysis. The analysis included potential impacts from the project, as well as the project's contribution to cumulative impacts.
o Include traffic mitigation measures if applicable
See analysis above.
o Use HCM methodology rather than the County CMP criteria The Highway Capacity Manual and methodology was used in the Traffic Impact Analysis. o Limit truck trips on State highways to off-peak commute periods and avoid platooning of trucks at freeway on/off-ramps and on mainline freeway lanes See analysis above.
o Transport of over-size or over-weight vehicles on State highways will need a Caltrans Transportation Permit.

So noted.
• Long Beach Unified School District
o Evaluate the potential traffic impacts on schools
o Analyze traffic based at the maximum 1,500 tons per day capacity o Analyze short-term and long-term traffic impacts
o Analyze cumulative traffic impacts
o Identify traffic mitigation measures if necessary
All issues raised by LBUSD were evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. in November 2008, as summarized in the preceding analysis. The analysis included potential impacts from the project, as well as the project's contribution to cumulative impacts.
• City of Long Beach Department of Development Services o Identify what 1,500 tons of refuse translates into truck trips and provide the anticipated average number and the maximum number of truck trips per weekday, weekend day, etc.

See analysis above.
o Identify how far trucks will be traveling to the Proposed Project and whether customers will be both local and regional. Identify the radius for the anticipated customer base.

See analysis above.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.4-1

3.4 NOISE
The information and analysis in this section is based on the “Noise Impact Analysis for EDCO Recycling & Transfer Facility,” (NIA) prepared by RGP Planning & Development Services and dated November 2008. The technical components of the NIA were prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Noise Element of the City of Signal Hill General Plan, and the City of Signal Hill Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code). The NIA was prepared to identify and address any potentially adverse noise impacts for the Proposed Project.

The complete NIA is included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR (see attached CD in the back of the Draft EIR). Copies are also available for review at the City of Signal Hill Planning Department.

3.4.1 EXISTING SETTING

3.4.1.1 Noise Descriptors
Sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These logarithmic units are referred to as “decibels” and are commonly abbreviated as dB. Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported in this analysis are “Aweighted” sound pressure levels stated in decibels, denoted as “dBA.” A-weighted decibels are commonly used in community noise analysis because A-weighting de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner that is most similar to how the human ear perceives sound. Any further reference to decibels written as "dB" should be understood to be A-weighted.

The “LEQ,” or “equivalent sound level,” descriptor is used in this report for any single-value descriptions of average noise levels in any given hour. In addition, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor is used in this report for any descriptions of average noise levels throughout a 24-hour period. CNEL values are calculated from hourly LEQ values, with the LEQ values for the evening period (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) artificially increased by 5 dBA and nighttime period (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) artificially increased by 10 dBA to reflect the greater disturbance potential that occurs with nighttime noise.

Decibels
Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dB. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Conversely, reducing the traffic volume by one-half or reducing speed by one-half will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dB.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Noise
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.4-2
A-Weighting
The frequency or pitch of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the intensity of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the human ear. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. The A-scale approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. Figure 3.4-1 shows a range of noise levels associated with common indoor and outdoor activities.

FIGURE 3.4-1

COMMON NOISE SOURCES AND A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVELS
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Noise
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.4-3

3.4.1.2 Applicable Noise Standards
Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code)
The City of Signal Hill Municipal Code (Section 9.16.020) establishes ambient noise levels as a basis for noise exposure standards to prevent noise from excessively impacting the quality of life of its citizens. Noise ordinance standards are typically stated in terms of the "LEQ" metric, or in terms of allowable exposures over stated short time periods. In the absence of actual measured ambient noise levels, the following levels are presumed for three land use zones in the City:

Ambient Base Noise Level
Zone
Night
(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Day
(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
50 60
70 60
65 70
Noise from industrial activities affecting off-site uses are generally subject to the noise exposure standards in Section 9.16.060 of the Municipal Code, which limit the allowable noise levels at the property line of the transmitter/generator. Section 9.16.060 states that on-site machinery and equipment shall not "…create any noise which would cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient noise level by more than five decibels." Therefore, noise from on-site equipment operations, as measured at the adjacent property line(s), is restricted as follows:1 7 a.m. – 10 p.m. 10 p.m. – 7 a.m.

Residential 65 dB 55 dB
Commercial 70 dB 65 dB
Industrial 75 dB 75 dB
Since the SP-19 General Industrial Specific Plan will be amended to include the Project Site, Chapter

20.39 regulating land uses in SP-19 also applies. As it relates to noise from new development in industrial zones, Section 20.39.130 removes the 70 dB ambient noise standard in Section

9.16.020; therefore, the industrial property line standard is not enforced. This is because the industrial uses in and adjacent to SP-19 are not noise-sensitive.

General Plan Noise Element
The most common noise sources are from vehicles (i.e., cars, trucks, trains and airplanes); however, those mobile sources are preempted from local regulation. Rather, the City's discretionary land use decisions control receiver exposure to such sources of noise. The land use decision standards articulated in the Noise Element of the General Plan use the weighted 24-hour CNEL. The State model guideline is the basis for the City’s noise compatibility criteria (see Table 3.4-1).

1 Calculated by adding five dB to the presumed ambient noise levels for each zone (Section 9.16.060) Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Noise
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.4-4
TABLE 3.4-1

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS An industrial facility such as a transfer station and materials recovery facility (TS/MRF) is not considered noise-sensitive. Siting standards for such a facility are the least stringent. Levels up to 80 dB CNEL are generally considered an acceptable noise environment for such uses. Whereas the residential standard of 65 dB CNEL is designed to limit speech intrusion, levels of 80 dB CNEL generally require shouting or voice amplification for effective communication. A level of 85 dB is the trigger level for requiring an occupational hearing conservation program.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Noise
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.4-5

3.4.1.3 Existing Noise Environment
Ambient Noise Measurements
The project site is already moderately noisy from truck traffic and the adjacent ready-mix concrete batch plant. Noise measurements were taken at three locations near the project site on September 17, 2008. The results are shown in Table 3.4-2.

TABLE 3.4-2

PROJECT VICINITY NOISE MONITORING RESULTS (DBA)
Parameter Site Entrance
50 Feet South of
Spring Street
50 Feet North of
Willow Street
Leq 63 66 63
Lmax 78 80 76
Lmin 48 49 48
L10 64 69 65
L50 61 62 60
L90 56 52 51
Source: LDL Model 700B Digital Sound Level Meter, 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., 09/17/08.

Traffic volumes are considerably lower on California Avenue than on Willow or Spring Streets.

However, the combination of a high fraction of heavy trucks and industrial noise sources produces on-site noise levels that are similar to those along more heavily traveled arterials.

3.4.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
In addition to analyzing the Proposed Project against the City’s Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards, the Noise Impact Analysis also evaluates the Proposed Project’s potential to substantially increase ambient noise levels at off-site receptors. Although the term “substantial” is not defined in the City’s noise guidelines, research into the human perception of sound level increases indicates the following:2
• A 1 dBA, or less, increase is difficult to perceive;
• A 3 dBA increase is just perceptible;
• A 5 dBA increase is clearly perceptible, and
• A 10 dBA increase is perceived a being twice as loud.

Therefore, under typical outdoor ambient conditions, where constantly varying noise levels are occurring over time, people typically cannot clearly perceive increases in ambient noise levels until they reach approximately +3 dBA. Therefore, 3 dBA is generally accepted as the threshold beyond which increases to ambient noise levels resulting from projects are considered “substantial.”

2 Egan, David. Architectural Acoustics. McGraw-Hill, 1988.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Noise
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.4-6
For purposes of this analysis, an increase of 3 dB that creates an area of noise/land use incompatibility, or that worsens an existing excessive noise situation, would be considered adverse and potentially significant.

3.4.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

3.4.3.1 Short-Term Impacts
Construction-Related Noise
Temporary construction noise will result during demolition, grading, site preparation and building assembly. Construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used which changes during the course of the project. Construction noise tends to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by demolition and/or earth-moving sources and later for finish construction. As shown in Figure 3.4-2, heavy equipment noise can exceed 90 dBA and averages about 85 dBA at 50 feet from the source when the equipment is operating at typical loads. Most heavy equipment operates with varying load cycles over any extended period of time. The upper end of the noise generation range shown in Figure 3.4-2 thus represents short-term effects, while the longer term averages are most representative of the lower end of the indicated noise curves.

Point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The loudest construction may require 500 feet of distance between the source and a nearby receiver to reduce the average 85 dBA source strength to a generally acceptable 65 dB exterior exposure level. These estimates are for clear line of sight conditions. Irregular site topography during initial grading will restrict direct line-of-sight propagation. The noise impact “envelope” will therefore be much smaller than its theoretical maximum.

The City’s noise ordinance considers construction activities to be exempt from numerical noise ordinance standards if they are conducted during hours of lesser noise sensitivity. The hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. from Monday through Friday are the allowed hours (9.16.050.B). Construction may be authorized outside these hours (such as working on Saturday) by a permit from the City’s building official. The issuing official must determine that work outside the normally allowed hours will not produce noise that would interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of persons occupying surrounding properties (9.16.050.E.1).

In summary, construction noise sources are short-term and will not create long-term noise exposure effects in the project vicinity. Construction impacts are less than significant.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Noise
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.4-7
Source: EPA PB 206717, U.S. EPA, December 31, 1971, “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations.” FIGURE 3.4-2

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE GENERATION LEVELS

3.4.3.2 Long-Term Impacts
Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts
Truck traffic may create increased noise away from the project site. An off-site noise impact from truck traffic could be considered significant if it causes a substantial noise level increase, as defined previously in Section 3.4.2 (Impact Significance Criteria).

Project-related traffic noise was calculated by combining the results of the project traffic study (Austin-Foust 2008) with the federal highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD 77-108).

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Noise
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.4-8
Background traffic noise was calculated for no-project conditions, and the truck noise increment was then superimposed upon the background noise conditions.

The calculated CNELs at 50 feet from the centerlines of local roadways are shown in Table 3.4-3. The maximum traffic noise increase would be +1.5 dB CNEL along California Avenue south of Spring Street and +0.8 dB north of Willow Street. As project traffic spreads out on the roadway network, the noise increment becomes progressively smaller. The noise increment along Spring Street is +0.3 CNEL both east and west of California Avenue. Very small traffic noise increments of +0.1 dB CNEL will occur along Atlantic Avenue and Orange Avenue between Spring Street and the freeway.

Similarly, traffic noise will increase by +0.1 dB CNEL along Willow Street east and west of California Avenue. The significance threshold is +3.0 dB. Therefore, Project-related traffic noise will be lessthan-significant at any off-site land use.

TABLE 3.4-3

SITE ACCESS NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
(dBA CNEL AT 50 FEET TO CENTERLINE)
Roadway/Segment Existing
Existing
With Project
2010
No Proj.
2010
w/ Project
Atlantic Ave.

N of Spring St 73.0 73.1 73.1 73.2
California Ave.

S of Spring St. 65.2 66.7 65.3 66.8
N of Willow St 64.7 65.5 64.7 65.5
Orange Ave.

N of Spring St 71.0 71.1 71.1 71.2
Spring St.

W of California 69.8 70.1 69.9 70.2
E of California 70.2 70.5 70.3 70.6
Willow St.

W of California 72.4 72.5 72.5 72.6
E of California 72.5 72.6 72.6 72.7
Source: FHWA-RD-77-108.

Concerns had been raised that truck traffic noise could adversely affect noise-sensitive land uses such as the approved recreational park along Spring Street and California Avenue, or at Memorial Hospital along Atlantic Avenue. With regard to the hospital, there is no anticipated truck use along that particular segment of Atlantic Avenue. With regard to a future recreational use nearby, the project-related noise increase of +0.3 dB CNEL along Spring Street and California Avenue would be imperceptible, particularly in an environment where competitive recreation may generate its own noise. Therefore, no noise-sensitive land uses will be adversely affected from truck traffic noise.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Noise
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.4-9
On-Site Noise Impacts
For uses in the SP-19 General Industrial Specific Plan area, the industrial property line standard is not enforced. In the absence of an industrial property line noise standard (20.39), and without residential zoning within any reasonable distance, potential project-related noise impacts would derive only from site access traffic, as evaluated previously.

A detailed noise measurement program was previously conducted at the CR Transfer Station in Stanton, California, in 1994. Similar to the proposed Project, that facility was also an indoor transfer and indoor sorting facility. Unlike the EDCO project, however, that facility was surrounded by residences on several sides. The CR Transfer Station also had a history of noise complaints. Noise observations at the perimeter of that facility were considered representative of the activities and vehicular traffic levels that will be present on the proposed Project site. The comparison with the 1994 Stanton data remains relevant because acoustics is unlike other environmental sciences (such as biological resources) where field data may quickly become irrelevant as conditions change. With acoustics measurements, most of the data that acoustics professionals rely on daily is 20 to 30 years old, and still applicable to evaluating present-day noise issues.

Table 3.4-4 summarizes the Stanton noise measurement data at four locations around the MRF/TS property perimeter. All readings were well below the industrial property line noise ordinance standard of 70 dB. To the extent that the Stanton noise measurement data are representative of the proposed project, site perimeter noise levels would be well below the noise ordinance level if that threshold were to apply to the project.

TABLE 3.4-4

TRANSFER STATION SITE PERIMETER NOISE MONITORING SUMMARY (DBA) Location L50 L25 L10 Lmax Leq
Site A 53 56 64 82 62
Site B 56 59 62 85 58
Site C 48 50 54 72 50
Site D 56 59 61 69 58
CRT Transfer Station, Stanton, CA, 1994.

Additionally, noise generated from sorting, baling, and grinding operations are not an issue because they will occur inside the building. Given that the building will provide a minimum 20 dB of reduction in sound levels (and more likely a 25 dB reduction), there is no potential that they will cause significant impacts at the identified thresholds. They will be well below 60 dB, which is supported by the measurements referenced from the 1994 Stanton study since those readings incorporate the noise sources of truck tipping, sorting, baling, etc.

Vibration
The effects of vibration on adjacent uses are predominantly experienced where construction activities or operations will involve the use of heavy equipment within a threshold distance of adjacent residents. In such cases, vibration effects can be pronounced when the source(s) and Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Noise
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.4-10
receptor(s) are within a minimum of 50 to 60 feet. In this instance, however, no vibration-sensitive uses are within a zone of potential impact; therefore, no impacts are expected.

Just as the Project will not create significant vibration impacts, it will not be adversely affected by ongoing oil production facilities. Section 16.20.110 of the Municipal Code requires that vibration from oil production equipment must be kept to a minimum level, and in such cases as it is required, vibration dampening equipment of the best available technology must be installed. Insofar as this requirement is subject to periodic inspection (Ord. 90-08-1074 §4), impacts are expected to remain less than significant.

3.4.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project will not result in potentially significant noise impacts. No mitigation measures are required.

3.4.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
All impacts will be less than significant without the use of mitigation measures. No unavoidable significant impacts would result.

3.4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The analysis of long-term traffic noise impacts relied on year 2010 traffic data that included the Project, background growth, and related projects. Collectively, those data represent cumulative traffic conditions. Since off-site traffic noise impacts are less than significant, the project will contribute to a cumulatively considerable noise increase.

3.4.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ON NOISE ISSUES
Agencies commenting on NOP noise issues included the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the City of Long Beach Department of Development Services. These agencies requested that the following noise data and/or concerns be addressed in the Draft EIR:
• CIWMB
o Describe the design features to attenuate for noise
Project design features planned to attenuate for noise are discussed in Environmental Control Systems in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) and in the analysis above. o Prepare a noise study addressing short-term, operations-related, and cumulative impacts if local receptors are impacted
The Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the project is summarized in this section and is included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR.
• City of Long Beach Department of Development Services o Analyze truck traffic noise impacts on recreational park uses See analysis above.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-1

3.5 AIR QUALITY
The air quality data and analysis in this section are based on the EDCO Transfer Station Air Quality Impact Analysis (Air Quality Analysis) prepared by Air Permitting Specialists in October 2008. The Air Quality Analysis was prepared for the following purposes:
• Evaluation of potential air quality impacts associated with all phases of the Proposed Project, including demolition, grading/construction, and operations; • Identification of potential for greenhouse gas emissions • Identification of potential impacts from odors
Although the Air Quality Analysis Report references specific mitigation measures, the mitigation measures discussed are not Project specific, but general construction best management practices and required air emission controls by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

Therefore, the referenced mitigation measures are discussed in context of best management practices and SCAQMD requirements.

The complete Air Quality Analysis with appendices (i.e., URBEMIS computer model output, SCAQMD Rule 403, CO Analysis emissions factors, LST calculations, and ISC3 summary output) is included as Appendix D on the CD attached at the back of the Draft EIR. Copies are also available for review at the City of Signal Hill Planning Department.

3.5.1 EXISTING SETTING

3.5.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State and Federal Clean Air Acts
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 (amended 1977), established ambient air quality standards for various air pollutants, referred to as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the agency responsible for subsequently establishing the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The U.S. EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of the CARB. In addition to establishing federal air quality standards, the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies future dates for achieving compliance with the NAAQS, and mandates that States submit and implement State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards.

Regional Air Quality Planning and Implementation
The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is within the jurisdictional area of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles, consisting of the four-county Basin (Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties), and the Riverside County portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin and Mojave Desert Air Basin. The South Coast Air Basin is generally bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-2
By statute, the SCAQMD is required to adopt an air quality management plan (AQMP) that outlines plans and programs to achieve compliance with federal and state AAQS for all areas within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, the SCAQMD must adopt and enforce air pollution control rules and regulations that carry out the AQMP.

Ambient Air Quality Standards
As indicated above, ambient air quality standards are established at the federal and the State levels.

Both sets of standards (shown in Table 3.5-1) are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. Areas in California where ambient air concentrations of pollutants are higher than the State or Federal standard are considered to be in “non-attainment” status for that pollutant.

The Basin is considered non-attainment for the State and Federal Ozone (O3), PM10, PM2.5, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). The SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the State and Federal ambient air quality standards. The most recent version of the AQMP was adopted by SCAQMD in August of 2003. The CARB subsequently adopted the plan as part of the California State Implementation Plan in October of 2003 and submitted its recommended modifications to the EPA for approval. EPA adopted the 2003 AQMP in April 2004. State law mandates the revision of the AQMP at least every three years, and federal law specifies dates certain for developing attainment plans for criteria pollutants.

The pollutants of greatest concern in Los Angeles County are CO, O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Following is a summary of the primary sources, characteristics, and health effects of the regulated air pollutants that are discussed throughout this section:
• Carbon Monoxide (CO): Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, and toxic gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO interferes with the blood's ability to carry oxygen to the body's tissues and results in numerous adverse health effects. CO is a criteria air pollutant.
• Sulfur Oxides (Oxides of Sulfur or SOx): Sulfur oxides are typically strong smelling, colorless gases that are formed by the combustion of fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and other sulfur oxides contribute to the problem of acid deposition. SO2 is a criteria pollutant.
• Nitrogen Oxides (Oxides of Nitrogen, or NOx): Gaseous nitrogen oxides consist of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and are formed when nitrogen gas (N2) combines with oxygen gas (O2). The gases lifespan in the atmosphere ranges from one to seven days for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, to 170 years for nitrous oxide. Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes, and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition. NO2 is a criteria pollutant, and may result in numerous adverse health effects. The gas absorbs blue light, resulting in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. • Ozone (O3): A strong smelling, pale blue, reactive toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. Ozone is a product of the photochemical process involving the sun's energy. Ozone exists in the upper atmosphere ozone layer as well as at the earth's surface. Ozone at the earth's surface may cause numerous adverse health effects. Ozone is a criteria air pollutant and a major component of smog.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-3 TABLE 3.5-1

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
California Standards Federal Primary Standards Air Pollutant Concentration/ Averaging Time Concentration/ Averaging Time Most Relevant Effects
Ozone 0.09 ppm, 1-hr. avg >*
(O3) 0.07 ppm, 8-hr. avg >

0.08 ppm, 8-hr. avg > (a) Short-term exposures: (I) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals. (2) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (b) Long-term exposures: Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (c) Vegetation damage; (d) Property damage Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm, 8-hr avg. > 9.0 ppm, 8-hr avg. > (CO)

20.0 ppm, 1-hr avg. > 35.0 ppm, 1-hr avg. >
(a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment of central nervous system functions; (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)

0.25 ppm, 1-hr avg. > 0.053 ppm, ann. avg. > (a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; (c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration
Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm, 24-hr avg. > 0.03 ppm, ann. avg. > (SO2) 0.25 ppm, 1-hr avg. > 0.14 ppm, 24-hr avg. >
(a) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma.

Suspended Particulate
Matter (PM10)
20 µg/m3, ann. geometric mean >
50 µg/m3, 24-hr average >
150 µg/m3, 24-hr average >
Suspended Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
12 µg/m3, ann. geometric mean > 15 µg/m3, ann. arithmetic mean > 65 µg/m3, 24-hr average >**
(a) Excess deaths for short-term exposures and exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory disease; (b) Excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; ( c) Increased risk of premature death from heart or lung diseases in elderly Sulfates 25 µg/m3, 24-hr avg. ≥ No Federal Standards (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c) Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility; (f) property damage Lead 1.5 µg/m3, 30-day avg. ≥ 1.5 µg/m3, calendar quarter ≥ (a) Increased body burden; (b) Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction Visibly Reducing Particles Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer – visibility of ten miles or more (0.07 – 30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent.

No Federal Standards Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity is less than 70 percent * For reader's convenience in picking out standards quickly, concentration appears first; e.g. "0.09 ppm, 1-hr avg.>" means 1 hour average > 0.12 part per million (ppm) ** There is no separate 24-hour PM2.5 standard in California; however, the U.S. EPA promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 ambient air quality standard of 65 µg/m3 Source: California Air Resources Board, October 15, 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-4
• PM10 (Particulate Matter less than 10 micrometers): A major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles (10 microns or smaller, about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. PM10 also causes visibility reduction and is a criteria air pollutant. • PM2.5 (Particulate Matter less than 2.5 micrometers): Air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles which are 2.5 micrometers or smaller (which is often referred to as fine particulates). Fine particles are formed in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions that include sulfates formed from SOx (released from power plants and industrial facilities) and nitrates formed from NOx (released from power plants, automobiles and other types of combustion sources). The chemical composition of fine particles depends on location, time of year, and weather conditions.

Air Toxics Program
The CARB’s Toxic Air Contaminant Identification Program establishes a process for identification and control of toxic air contaminants. The Program includes provisions for public awareness of significant toxic exposures as well as provisions for reducing public health risk. Under the Program, the state has identified compounds that involve potential health risks. These substances were subjected to risk assessment, which was open to public review. At the conclusion of this process, a draft regulation was adopted that formally identified Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). Substances identified as TACs related to the Proposed Project are diesel particulate matter.

Atmospheric Inversions
During the summer, a shallow layer of cool marine air undercuts warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion that prevents vertical mixing of air pollution and effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire Basin. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.

A second inversion type that dominates in the winter forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains at night, followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions that are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as NOx and CO from vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward.

Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline.

3.5.1.2 Existing Air Quality
Existing air quality is measured based upon the current California and federal ambient air quality standards that were presented in Table 3.5-1. The determination of whether a region’s air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to the state standards and federal standards presented in Table 3.5-1. The air quality in a region is considered to be in attainment if:

1. The measured ambient air pollutant levels for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, and PM10 are not exceeded and all other standards are not equaled or exceeded at any time in any consecutive three-year period.

2. The federal standards (other than O3, PM10, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not exceeded more than once per year.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-5

3. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest eight-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard.

4. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.

Table 3.5-2 shows the Basin’s attainment status for various criteria pollutants.

TABLE 3.5-2

ATTAINMENT STATUS
Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone - 8 hour standard Non-attainment - Severe 17 Non-attainment Ozone - 1-hour standard Non-attainment - Extreme Non-attainment Carbon Monoxide Non-attainment Attainment
PM10 Serious Non-attainment Non-attainment
PM2.5 Non-attainment Non-attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment

Regional Air Quality
The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 30 monitoring stations throughout the air district. In 2005, the federal and state standards for ozone (O3) at most monitoring locations exceeded the threshold on one or more days. No areas of the Basin exceeded federal or state standards for NO2, SO2, CO, sulfates or lead.

Emission trends since 1975 indicate that emission levels for CO, NOx and ROG have been decreasing in the Basin. Emissions are projected to continue to decrease through 2020. The decreases are predominantly due to motor vehicle controls and reductions in evaporative emissions. In the Basin, mobile-source emissions are the largest contributors to CO and NOx emissions.1 Population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have been growing since 1980 and are expected to grow through 2020. While high growth rates are typically linked to increases in emissions and pollutant concentrations, aggressive emission control programs in the Basin have resulted in emission decreases and a continuing improvement in air quality.2 Local Air Quality
The nearest SCAQMD air quality monitoring station is the North Long Beach Air Station located approximately 1 mile from the Proposed Project Site. Air quality is monitored for CO, ozone, PM10, fine particulate matter, and PM2.5, ultra-fine particulate matter. Table 3.5-3, Long Beach Air Quality Monitoring Results, shows the Long Beach air quality monitoring results from 2005-2007. The data presented in Table 3.5-3 are for the latest three years with available data for the full year.

The SCAB, including Los Angeles County, has been classified as a non-attainment area for O3 because concentrations of this pollutant often exceed the state and federal standards. As shown in Table 3.5-3, the state O3 standard has been exceeded once at the North Long Beach Air Station.

1 California Air Resources Board Almanac. 2005.
2 Ibid.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-6
Los Angeles County is considered a non-attainment area for PM10. Table 3.5-3 shows the PM10 standard has been exceeded several times during the last three-year monitoring period at the North Long Beach Station.

Los Angeles County is considered non-attainment for the federal PM2.5 standards. Monitoring data show three violations of the federal standard during the last three-year monitoring period at the North Long Beach station.

The entire South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), including Los Angeles County, has been designated a nonattainment area for the CO air quality standards. However, as shown in Table 3.5-3, the North Long Beach station has not exceeded CO air quality standard for the three-year period.

TABLE 3.5-3
LONG BEACH AIR QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS 2005 - 2007
Pollutant Concentration
Pollutant State Standard 2005 2006 2007
Carbon Monoxide
Highest 8-Hour Average (ppm) 9 3.51 3.36 2.59
Second Highest 8-Hour Average (ppm) 9 3.07 3.31 2.44
Days > State Standard -- 0 0 0
Ozone
Highest 1-Hour Average (ppm) 0.09 .091 .081 0.099
Second Highest 1-Hour Average (ppm) 0.09 .084 0.077 0.083 Highest 8-Hour Average (ppm) 0.08* 0.069 0.058 0.073
Second Highest 8-Hour Average (ppm) 0.08* 0.068 0.057 0.068 Days > State Standard -- 0 0 1
Days > Federal Standard -- 0 0 0
PM10
Highest 24-Hour Average (μg/m3) 50 66 78 232
Second Highest 24-Hour Average (μg/m3) 50 61 64 75
Days > State Standard -- 4 5 6
PM2.5
Highest 24-Hour Average (μg/m3) 65 53.8 58.5 82.8
Second Highest 24-Hour Average (μg/m3) 65 52.6 49.8 59.4 Days > Federal Standard -- 0 0 1
Source: California Air Resources Board Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov Note: ppm = part per million
μg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter
* Indicates Federal Standard

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-7
Applicable Rules and Regulations
SCAQMD has adopted several rules and regulations that would be applicable to the Proposed Project. These include:
• District Rule 401 – Visible Emissions: Applies to visible emissions for more than three (3) minutes within any given hour from a stationary or mobile source • District Rule 402 – Nuisance: Applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. This rule is applicable to the Proposed Project if at any time, the Project creates a public nuisance.
• District Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust: A series of rules designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including building and road construction, bulk materials storage, and landfill operations. This rule is applicable to the Proposed Project during the construction phase and during operational activities. • District Rules 404 and 405 – Particulate Matter Concentration & Weight: Limits the amount of particulate matter that can be discharged into the atmosphere. This rule is applicable to the operational activities at the Transfer Station at the Proposed Project. • District Rule 407 – Liquid and Gaseous Air Contaminants: Limits the amount of CO and sulfur compounds such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) that can be discharged into the atmosphere.

This rule is applicable to the Proposed Project during the construction phase and during operational activities.
• District Rule 409 – Combustion Contaminants: Limits the amount of CO2 that can be discharged into the atmosphere. This rule is applicable to the Proposed Project during the construction phase and during operational activities.
• District Rule 410 - Odors from Transfer Stations and Material Recovery Facilities:

Establishes odor management practices and requirements to reduce odors from transfer stations and material recovery facilities. This rule is applicable to the Proposed Project. • District Rule 473 - Disposal of Solid and Liquid Wastes: Requires the burning of waste be incinerated in devices approved by an Air Pollution Control Officer. • District Regulation IX - Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources: Requires that all new stationary sources comply with the most stringent standards, criteria, and requirements of the SCAQMD. This regulation is applicable to the operational activities of the Proposed Project
Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has established localized significance thresholds (LSTs) that can be used to assess air quality impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The LSTs are listed in terms of allowable NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 daily emission rates and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. A sensitive receptor is any location where individuals live or work (e.g., homes, commercial and industrial businesses). LSTs exclude offsite emissions associated with mobile sources. For PM10 emissions, the LSTs are based on requirements in SCAQMD Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-8
For the Proposed Project, the nearest receptors are located 275 feet west of the property line between Olive and Atlantic Avenues. Table 3.5-4 shows the LSTs at 275 feet.

TABLE 3.5-4

LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Criteria Pollutant Construction Impacts (lbs/day) Operational Impacts (lbs/day) NOx 101 99
CO 1,180 1,100
PM10 29 7
PM2.5 18 3
Source: Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, SCAQMD, Revised July 2008

3.5.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on significance criteria established by the SCAQMD in conjunction with the air quality criteria presented in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist), potentially significant impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people

3.5.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
• The Proposed Project will not conflict or obstruct implementation of the 2003 AQMP The 2003 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board of on August 1, 2003. The purpose of the 2003 Revision to the AQMP was to set forth a comprehensive air quality program that will lead to compliance with all federal and state air quality planning requirements. Specifically, the 2003 AQMP revision was designed to satisfy the California Clean Air Act tri-annual update requirements and fulfill the SCAQMD’s commitment to update transportation emission budgets based on the latest approved motor vehicle emissions model and planning assumptions.

The 2003 AQMP sets forth programs that require the cooperation of all levels of government: local, regional, state, and federal. The AQMP represents each level of government by the appropriate agency or jurisdiction that has the authority over specific emissions sources. Accordingly, each agency or jurisdiction is associated with specific planning and implementation responsibilities. The AQMP control measures and related emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-9
characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Conformance with the AQMP for development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections.

The City of Signal Hill General Plan, Land Use Element designates the Proposed Project Site as General Industrial Land Use. The Proposed Project is consistent with and does not propose or require an amendment to the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the Air Quality Analysis was prepared in conformance with SCAQMD guidelines and thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project will not conflict with or result in an obstruction to the 2003 AQMP.

3.5.3.1 Construction Emissions
• The Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project will result in emissions of criteria pollutants. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Demolition
• Grading
• Paving
• Building Construction
• Construction Workers Commuting
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized in Table 3.5-5, Summary of Construction Related Emissions. Emissions resulting from construction activities form the Proposed Project do not exceed the threshold of significance for any criteria pollutant.

TABLE 3.5-5

SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED EMISSIONS
During construction, best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to ensure particulate emissions are kept in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Table 3.5-6 provides a summary of the BMPs that will be used during construction activities.

Pollutant Construction Emissions Threshold of Significance lbs/day lbs/day
Impact Significant?
NOx 17.5 101 NO
CO 16.5 1,180 NO
PM10 0.98 29 NO
PM2.5 0.91 18 NO
SO2 0.02 No Threshold N/A
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-10
TABLE 3.5-6

SUMMARY OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IMPLEMENTED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Construction Activity Best Management Practice
Land Clearing and Backfilling • Pre-watering to maintain soil stability Soil Disturbance/Earth Moving
Activities/Trenching
• Watering before and during soil disturbances.
• Suspend activities if wind speed exceeds 25 mph
Stockpiles/Bulk Material Handling • Stabilize stockpiles with water or non-toxic dust suppressants Truck Loading • Pre-water material prior to loading
• Ensure freeboard exceeds 6 inches
Miscellaneous • Limit Traffic Speeds to 15 mph
• Remove soil and dirt from adjacent public roadways every 24 hours

3.5.3.2 Operational Emissions
Criteria Pollutants
The Proposed Project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants from operation of on-site equipment, material handling, and off-road vehicles that transport recyclable materials to and from the facility. Table 3.5-7, Operational Emission Sources and Analysis Methodologies, lists the sources and processes that have the potential to emit criteria air pollutants. Table 3.5-8 provides a Summary of Daily and Annual Operational Emissions. Individual categories of emissions as related to the Proposed Project are discussed below.

TABLE 3.5-7

OPERATIONAL EMISSION SOURCES AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES Activity or
Process
Source of
Emissions
Types of
Emissions
Calculation
Methodology
Material Transport -
To and from facility
Truck Emissions Vehicle Exhaust EMFAC
Emissions Model
Material Unloading Truck Idling
Unloading Equipment
Vehicle Exhaust
Fugitive Dust EPA AP-42
Material Handling –
Sorting/Bailing
Conveyor belt motors Fugitive Dust EPA AP-42
Load-out of Municipal Solid Waste
& Greenwaste
Loading Equipment Fugitive Dust EPA AP-42
Employee transportation Cars and Light Trucks Vehicle Exhaust EMFAC Emissions Model
Maintenance
Employee Building Operation
Cleaning and Maintenance
Materials
Evaporative
Emissions URBEMIS
Notes:

EMFAC Emissions Model – Developed by California Air Resources Board. CARB website: www.arb.ca.gov EPA AP- 42 – Emissions Factors for various industries and processes. EPA website: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief URBEMIS – Model for estimating emissions from construction and operation of various facilities. Website:
www.urbemis.com
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-11
TABLE 3.5-8

SUMMARY OF DAILY AND ANNUAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
PM10 PM2.5 NOx ROG CO

EMISSIONS
CATEGORY lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr

ON SITE EMISSIONS
Dust Emissions
(From Material
Handling) 3 0.57 0.32 0.058 -- -- -- -- -- --
Exhaust
Emissions
(On-Site
Equipment) 0.156 0.852 Note 1 Note 1 1.78 6.80 0.861 0.119 12.6 1.6 Truck Idling 0.053 0.010 Note 1 Note 1 4.95 0.90 0.44 0.081 2.61 0.48

TOTAL ON-SITE
EMISSIONS 3.36 1.43 0.32 0.06 6.73 7.70 1.30 0.20 15.2 2.08 Operational
Threshold of
Significance 7.00
No
Threshold 3.00
No
Threshold 99.0
No
Threshold
No
Threshold
No
Threshold 1,100
No
Threshold
Impact
Significant? No -- No -- No -- -- -- No --

OFF-SITE EMISSIONS
Off-Site Truck
Emissions 3.26 0.59 Note 1 Note 1 308.5 56.1 4.03 0.73 44.9 8.17 Employee Travel 0.0044 0.0008 Note 1 Note 1 0.432 0.079 0.048 0.009 4.74 0.86

TOTAL OFF-SITE
EMISSIONS 3.26 0.59 -- -- 308.9 56.2 4.08 0.74 49.7 9.0 Note 1: PM2.5 emissions are included in PM10. A separate emission factor for PM2.5 is not available Material Transport to and from Facility
The principal air pollutants associated with material transport are CO, NOx and ROG. Transport of recyclable materials to the facility potentially includes refuse, greenwaste and construction debris.

These recyclable materials would be transported to the Project Site by heavy-duty diesel fuelled trucks. Transport of refuse, recyclables, and processed greenwaste from the Project Site would also occur by the use of heavy-duty diesel fuelled trucks. Public self-haul would be primarily from light and medium duty trucks. All trucks would comply with SCAQMD and CARB’s fleet rules that limit NOX and PM10 emissions.

According to the Traffic Impact Analysis Report,3 1,178 vehicles per day would be entering or leaving the Proposed Project Site. This analysis includes 340 collection trucks, 600 self-haul vehicles, and 136 transfer trucks. The remaining vehicles are for employees traveling to and from the Proposed Project Site.

Emissions from trucks are summarized in Table 3.5-8, Summary of Daily and Annual Emissions Operations. These emission estimates assume an average trip length between 10 and 50 miles depending on the vehicle and occur off-site of the Proposed Project Site. In accordance with SCAQMD guidance (Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008), off-site emissions are excluded from determining the significant emissions from Project impacts.

3 Air Permitting Specialists. October 2008. EDCO Transfer Station Air Quality Impact Analysis.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-12
The Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, because emissions generated from waste and recyclable transport are already existing emissions. If the Proposed Project were not built, the waste materials would require transport to another transfer station or to an appropriate landfill. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in criteria pollutants from material transport, since emissions from current transport activities are already present.

Material Unloading
Emissions from material unloading are associated with vehicle idling (NOx, CO and ROG) and dumping of material onto the tipping floor in the transfer station (PM10, PM2.5). Delivery trucks would unload refuse and greenwaste at multiple tipping areas provided within the transfer station.

Emissions estimates assume an average daily receipt of 1,500 tons per day of recyclable materials including refuse, greenwaste, and construction debris totaling 547,500 tons per year. These emissions are summarized in Table 3.5-8, Summary of Daily and Annual Emissions Operations.

To reduce exhaust emissions from vehicle idling, all trucks would comply with SCAQMD and CARB’s fleet rules that limit NOX and PM10 emissions. Additionally, all diesel-fueled equipment would conform to CARB’s emissions standards for off-road equipment. To minimize particulate emissions in the transfer station, the Proposed Project’s ventilation system will include mechanical filters to retain dust and avoid visible dust plumes exiting from exhaust vents. In addition, misting systems will also be used to control dust.

With the use of Project controls and well as compliance with CARB’s and SCAQMD’s rules, the Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As shown in Table 3.5-8, total on-site emissions for NOX are 6.73 pounds per day. The NOX LST is 99 pounds per day. The Proposed Project is well under the LST for NOX. The LST for CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are 1,100, 7, and 3 pounds per day, respectively. The total onsite emissions for CO, PM10, and PM2.5 for the Proposed Project are 15.2, 3.36, and 0.32 pounds per day, respectively. Each of these generated emissions is well under the LST for each pollutant.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
Material Handling and Sorting
Recyclable materials would be sorted by type and suitability. Municipal solid waste (MSW) that is destined for a landfill would be top loaded onto transfer trucks. MSW would be sorted manually and then mechanically once sorting equipment is installed. Primary emissions from this activity would be fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) from conveyor belts and on-site equipment, such as loaders.

Emissions from the onsite equipment are summarized in Table 3.5-8, Summary of Daily and Annual Emissions Operations.

All diesel-fueled equipment would conform to CARB’s emissions standards for off-road equipment. To minimize particulate emissions in the transfer station, the Proposed Project’s ventilation system will include mechanical filters to retain dust and avoid visible dust plumes exiting from exhaust vents. In addition, misting systems will also be used to control dust. As shown in Table 3.5-8, total on-site emissions for NOX are 6.73 pounds per day. The NOX LST is 99 pounds per day. The Proposed Project is well under the LST for NOX. The LST for CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are 1,100, 7, and 3 pounds per day, respectively. The total on-site emissions for CO, PM10, and PM2.5 for the Proposed Project are 15.2,

3.36, and 0.32 pounds per day, respectively. Each of these generated emissions is well under the LST for each pollutant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-13
Load Out of Refuse, Greenwaste and Recyclables
Principal emissions from loading are CO, NOx, and ROG from vehicle idling and fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) from material handling. Transfer trucks would be loaded with refuse at a below grade load out area. Greenwaste and recyclable materials would be loaded on trucks using front endloaders. Under current state regulations, vehicle idling would be limited to a maximum of five minutes. A maximum of 136 transfer truck trips per day would be used to transport material from the facility. Emissions associated with loading operations are summarized in Table 3.5-8, Summary of Daily and Annual Emissions Operations.

All diesel-fueled equipment would comply CARB’s emissions standards for off-road equipment. To minimize particulate emissions in the transfer station, the Proposed Project’s ventilation system will include mechanical filters to retain dust and avoid visible dust plumes exiting from exhaust vents. In addition, misting systems will also be used to control dust. As shown in Table 3.5-8, total on-site emissions for NOX are 6.73 pounds per day. The NOX LST is 99 pounds per day. The Proposed Project is well under the LST for NOX. The LST for CO, PM10 and PM2.5 are 1,100, 7, and 3 pounds per day, respectively. The total on-site emissions for CO, PM10, and PM2.5 for the Proposed Project are 15.2,

As shown in Table 3.5-8, NOX emissions for from employee travel are 0.432 pounds per day. Total off-site emissions that include off-site truck and employee travel are 308.9 pounds per day. The NOX LST is 99 pounds per day. The Proposed Project is well under the LST for NOX. The LST for CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are 1,100, 7, and 3 pounds per day, respectively. Total off-site emissions generated from employee travel for CO and PM10/PM2.5 is 4.74 and 0.0044 pounds per day, respectively. Total offsite emissions that include off-site truck and employee travel for CO and PM10/PM2.5 are 49.7 and

3.26 pounds per day respectively. Both emissions from employee travel as well as emissions from off-site truck trips are well below under the LST for each pollutant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
Toxic Air Pollutants
• The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
The main toxic air pollutant associated with operational activities from the Proposed Project would be diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust consists of diesel particulate matter and various gaseous air pollutants such as benzene and formaldehyde. Diesel exhaust would be released on-site (from equipment and truck idling) and off-site from transport trucks.

Off-site emissions would be released from transport trucks along the highways and roadways. Air quality and health impacts associated with off-site emissions are insignificant since they would be distributed and diluted over a relatively wide area (100 square miles, or greater).

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-14
On-site emissions would be localized to the 3.4-acre Project Site. These emissions would be released from equipment such the wood grinder, loaders and skid steers as well as trucks idling on the property. Since these emissions are concentrated in a small area, there is potential for emissions to impact nearby residences and businesses.

To evaluate potential health risks to the community, both cancer risk and non-cancer hazard index were quantified. The emission rates of diesel particulate from on-site equipment and truck idling are summarized in Table 3.5-8, Summary of Daily and Annual Operational Emissions. The emissions calculated are current emissions. However, emissions averaged over the next 70 years would be small fraction of current emissions.

For analysis, an assumption was made diesel particulate emissions would remain the same for the next 70 years. Per the AQMP, diesel particulate emissions would be 80% to 90% lower than current emissions due to state regulations that require 75% reduction in diesel exhaust emissions over the next 10 years. The majority of the diesel exhaust would occur into the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and transfer station (TS). These emissions would be released into the atmosphere from vents located at the roof of these buildings.

An air dispersion model was used to calculate the concentration of diesel particulate emissions within 2 kilometers (0.9 mile) of the Proposed Project Site. The concentrations were multiplied by the unit risk factor for diesel particulate to obtain 70-year residential cancer risk. The nearest homes are located 500 feet south of the Proposed Project Site, South of East Willows Street.

Results from the risk analysis indicate that the maximum cancer risk at the nearest residences would be between 0.5 to less than 0.01 cancers per million depending on location. The maximum cancer risk at the nearest business location would be 0.1 cancers per million. The nearest business is located 150 feet west of the MRF. The spatial variation of residential cancer risk near the project site is shown in Figure 3.5-1.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-15
FIGURE 3.5-1

SPATIAL VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL CANCER RISK
Source: Air Permitting Specialists, 2008
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-16
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)
In light of the growing scientific consensus and public awareness of global climate change, and the passage of Assembly Bill 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), the potential impact of the Proposed Project on global warming was evaluated. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt a reduction strategy of rules and regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from baseline emissions from 1990 by 2020.

Presently, CARB has not adopted a reduction strategy and 1990 GHG baseline emissions have not determined for Los Angeles County. Additionally, SCAQMD and/or the county of Los Angeles have not established thresholds of significance for GHG emissions.

Although no regulatory guidance is available, GHG emissions were calculated for the Proposed Project and summarized in Table 3.5-9, Summary of CO2 Emissions. The majority of GHG emissions are associated with transportation of refuse and recyclables.

TABLE 3.5-9
SUMMARY OF CO2 EMISSIONS
Emissions
Source Usage
CO2 Conversion
Rate lbs/day tons/yr4
% of
Total
On-Site Equipment1
81 to 450 hp
1,500 hrs/yr 1.15 grams/hp-hr 4.38 0.80 0.01%
Trucks/Self Haul Vehicles2
3,420 to 6,800
miles/day
394 to 1,397
grams/mile 36,282 6,622 88%
Employee Vehicles2
2,000
miles/day 290 grams/mile 1,278 233 3%
Electric Power Consumption3 7,500 kw/day 0.5 lbs/ kwh 3,750 684 9% Totals 41,314 7,540
Notes:

1. Emission Factor from AP-42, Table 3.3-1, 10/96

2. Emission Factor based on EMFAC model results

3. CO2 emissions from PG&E. 2004 Second Annual Corporate Responsibility Report, Page 66

4. Annual emissions based on operations 365 days/year
To place the above emissions in perspective, the statewide CO2 emissions in 2004 were approximately 390 million tons. The Proposed Project emissions represent 0.0019 percent of statewide emissions.

The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The above CO2 emissions are already existing emissions. If the Proposed Project were not built, refuse and recyclables would have to be landfilled. This would lead to higher GHG emissions since individual refuse trucks would travel to the landfill. This would increase the total miles traveled and total emissions. Additionally, new emissions would result from landfill of recyclables. The volume of waste generated locally and the demand to dispose of this waste are not Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-17
driven by the Proposed Project. As a result, the Proposed Project would relocate emissions from other locations to the Project Site. Globally, there would be a reduction in emissions because of the Proposed Project due to decreased miles traveled and less landfill of recyclable materials.

Odor Emissions
• The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people
The handling of refuse, greenwaste, and recyclable material has the potential to release odors.

These materials will be processed inside the MRF/TS. The Proposed Project is subject to SCAQMD permit requirements and specifically Rule 410 (Odor Management for MRF/TS). Rule 410 limits the size of building openings and requires the installation of a ventilation system. The Proposed Project would prepare an Odor Management Minimization Plan in accordance with Rule 410 and other applicable SCAQMD guidelines.

The buildings would be constructed to limit openings to between 2 and 5 percent of the exterior walls. The building would be equipped with a misting system that would spray water and odor neutralizers to mitigate dust and odors. The Proposed Project includes installation of fans that would achieve an inward face velocity of 200 feet per minute at building openings. Additionally, the building ventilation system would include roof mounted exhaust fans equipped with filters to retain dust.

Additionally the Proposed Project would employ to following BMPs during operational activities for odor control:
• All doors would be kept closed unless actively accepting waste • The tipping floors would be washed and cleaned as required to remove any build-up of waste residue. Records of cleaning schedules, including dates and times, would be maintained at the Project Site.
• The outside areas would be cleaned and swept daily to remove accumulated waste and dust.

The sweeper would be equipped with water and odor neutralizers. Records of cleaning schedules, including dates and times, would be maintained at the Project Site. • Bales of odorous recycled materials, such as food containers, would be sprayed with neutralizers prior to shipment
The Project applicant would use the following administrative measures to address potential odor complaints:
• A protocol to handle odor complaints would be developed • Signs would be installed listing contacts at the facility, SCAQMD, and the Local Enforcement Agency
• A log of odor complaints would be maintained at the Proposed Project Site Since operational processes would occur inside the enclosed buildings designed to control and neutralize odor, uncontrolled odors would not migrate off-site. The Proposed Project building features would effectively treat odors and dust prior to discharge into the atmosphere.

Additionally, the Proposed Project’s BMPs would enhance the control of odors and employ a process to handle odor complaints. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-18

3.5.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts associated with air quality are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.5.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts associated with air quality are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.5.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The only cumulative impact to air quality from development of the Proposed Project is the potential for GHG emissions. However, because of the AB 32 goal to reduce GHG emissions, if the Proposed Project were not developed, refuse and recyclables would have to be landfilled. This would lead to higher GHG emissions since individual refuse trucks would travel to the landfill. This would increase the total miles traveled and total emissions. Additionally, new emissions would result from landfill of recyclables. The volume of waste generated locally and the demand to dispose of this waste are not driven by the Proposed Project. As a result, the Proposed Project would relocate emissions from other locations to the Project Site. Globally, there would be a reduction in GHG emissions due to decreased miles traveled and less landfill of recyclable materials. Therefore, the Proposed Project reduces cumulative impacts on GHG emissions.

3.5.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ON AIR QUALITY ISSUES
Commenting agencies on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for air quality issues included the California Department of Transportation, California Integrated Waste Management Board, City of Long Beach Department of Development Services, Department of Toxic Substance Control, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. These agencies requested that the following air quality issues and/or concerns be addressed in the Draft EIR:
• California Integrated Waste Management Board
o Requested the Draft EIR describe features to attenuate for odor and dust See analysis above.
o Requested the facility prepare an Odor Impact Minimization Plan The Proposed Project is subject to SCAQMD permit requirements and specifically Rule 410 (Odor Management for MRF/TS). Rule 410 limits the size of building openings and requires the installation of a ventilation system. The Proposed Project would prepare an Odor Management Minimization Plan in accordance with Rule 410 and other applicable SCAQMD guidelines.
o Requested the Draft EIR be specific regarding the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor(s)
An air dispersion model was used to calculate the concentration of diesel particulate emissions within 2 kilometers (0.9 mile) of the Proposed Project Site. The nearest homes are located 500 feet south of the Proposed Project Site, South of East Willows Street. The nearest business is located 150 feet west of the Material Recovery Facility.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-19
o If the Proposed Project is located within a non-attainment air basin, cumulative impacts affecting the projected federal attainment dates may be significant and unavoidable A discussion of air quality impacts from implementation of the Proposed Project within the South Coast Air Basin is addressed in the above analysis. • South Coast Air Quality Management District
o Identify potential adverse air impacts from all phases of the project Implementation of all phases of the Proposed Project does not create any adverse air quality impacts.
o Identify potential air quality impacts from construction and operations See analysis above.
o Quantify particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometer (PM2.5) emissions and compare to PM2.5 significance thresholds
See analysis above.
o Identify localized air quality impacts and compare to localized significance thresholds (LSTs) A discussion of LSTs in relation to potential air quality impacts is addressed in the above analysis.
o Perform a mobile source health risk assessment
Emissions from trucks were modeled at the Proposed Project Site where the highest health risk would occur. All emissions from stationary sources and idling trucks would occur within a small area at the Proposed Project Site. When the trucks leave the Project Site, emissions would be distributed and diluted and occur tens of square miles on different roadways. As a result, health risk would be minimal once the trucks leave the Project Site. o Include a discussion of mitigation measures to alleviate air quality impacts The Proposed Project does not create any adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, no mitigation measures were identified.
• California Department of Transportation, District 7
o Ensure emissions systems of older trucks meet current SCAQMD standards All trucks would comply with SCAQMD and CARB’s fleet rules that limit NOX and PM10 emissions
• Long Beach Unified School District
o The Proposed Project, including air emissions from truck traffic to and from the facility, may have adverse air quality impacts to LBUSD schools. Potential impacts to schools should be evaluated in the Draft EIR
See analysis above.
o The air quality study should be prepared for the Proposed Project in accordance with the SCAQMD guidelines and thresholds. It should identify sensitive receptors near the Project and the designated access corridors and proposed truck routes. The study should also include a Health Risk Assessment to determine the potential impacts to sensitive receptors, including impacts from Diesel Particulate Matter.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-20
See analysis above. An air dispersion model was used to calculate the concentration of diesel particulate emissions within 2 kilometers (0.9 mile) of the Proposed Project Site. The nearest homes are located 500 feet south of the Proposed Project Site, South of East Willows Street. The nearest business is located 150 feet west of the Material Recovery Facility.
o A CO Hot Spot Analysis should be performed to determine if any localized concentrations of CO would result from Project implementation.

See analysis above.
o Potential impacts of odor on schools should be evaluated.

The Proposed Project is subject to SCAQMD permit requirements and specifically Rule 410 (Odor Management for MRF/TS). Rule 410 limits the size of building openings and requires the installation of a ventilation system. The Proposed Project would prepare an Odor Management Minimization Plan in accordance with Rule 410 and other applicable SCAQMD guidelines.
• City of Long Beach Department of Development Services o Requested the Draft EIR include an analysis of the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts on active recreational park use
An air dispersion model was used to calculate the concentration of diesel particulate emissions within 2 kilometers (0.9 mile) of the Proposed Project Site. This distance included all sensitive receptors within 0.9 mile of the Proposed Project Site. Implementation of the Proposed Project does not create any adverse air quality impacts. Air dispersion modeling results are included as Appendix D of the Draft EIR.
o Requested the Draft EIR provide details regarding the best management practices that will be required as part of the applicant’s Odor Management Plan for SCAQMD Rule 410 The Proposed Project is subject to SCAQMD permit requirements and specifically Rule 410 (Odor Management for MRF/TS). Rule 410 limits the size of building openings and requires the installation of a ventilation system. The Proposed Project would prepare an Odor Management Minimization Plan in accordance with Rule 410 and other applicable SCAQMD guidelines.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-1

3.6 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The information and analysis in this section is based on a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) prepared by Mearns Consulting LLC in October 2007 and September 2008, respectively.1,2 The Phase II ESA and HRA are included in Appendices E and F of the Draft EIR, respectively (see attached CD in the back of the Draft EIR). Copies are also available for review at the City of Signal Hill Planning Department.

A Phase I ESA was conducted at the Proposed Project Site in March 2001 to evaluate whether historical and/or current site operations, as well as operations conducted within a one-mile radius, had caused adverse environmental impacts to the site and surrounding areas.3

3.6.1 EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project Site lies within the Coastal Plain of the Los Angeles Basin in southern California. Structurally, the Project area is characterized by an uplift caused by movement along the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone, specifically the Cherry Hill Fault which separates continental crustal rocks on the north side of the site from oceanic crustal rocks on the south side of the site. The Project Site appears to be located on the north flank of the Long Beach Anticline. Surface outcrops are composed of Upper Pleistocene sand and gravel. Surface soil logged in the top 25 feet at the site are composed of clay and silt in the top 5-10 feet below ground surface (bgs) and very fine-fine sand to approximately 20-25 bgs. Some locations have silt at 25 bgs.

The Long Beach Oil Field underlies the general vicinity of the Proposed Project Site and was extensively explored and developed in the early 1900's. Current and past oil field activities characterize the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Site consists of approximately 3.287-acres of oil fields with two operating oil wells, one purportedly “plugged” oil well, 14 “abandoned” oil wells, and one “plugged dry hole onsite (DOGGR). An operating oil well is located adjacent to the site on two, 25-foot parcels within the configuration of the site.

The adjacent properties are a mix of oil fields, vacant land used for the storage of oil field equipment and vacant land that was previously oil fields. East 28th Street lies north of the Project Site and the

1 Mearns Consulting LLC. September 2008. Human Health Risk Assessment, 3.287-Acre Vacant Land, Signal Hill, California.
2 Mearns Consulting LLC. October 2007. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3.287-Acre Vacant Land, Signal Hill, California.
3 Ibid.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-2
property north of East 28th Street is used for the storage of oil field equipment. California Avenue lies east of the project and the property east of California Avenue is owned by the City of Long Beach.

Olive Street is west of the site and the property west of Olive is occupies and owned by Oil Operators Inc. There are ASTs on this property. Graner has an operating oil well west of the site and north of the Oil Operators, Inc. ASTs. Patterson Street is south of the site and the property south of Patterson has a recently built concrete batch plant (A&A Ready Mix).

There are two 25-foot parcels that are not part of the site, although they are bounded by the Proposed Project Site and Patterson Street. Two of these 25-foot parcels are located adjacent to the operating Cockriel well at the southeastern property boundary and are occupies by Berstein well 33.

The Bernstein well is separated from the site by chain link fence.

The federal ERNS database lists a spill of crude oil in June 1991 that most likely originated from the site or impacted the site, as the location is recorded as Patterson Street and California Avenue and the site is bound to the south and east by Patterson Street and California Avenue, respectively.

Soil contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) has been documented onsite and most likely is due to the historic and current operations of the site as an oil field. Concentrations of diesel range hydrocarbons at 7700 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) at 5 feet bgs were detected during an environmental investigation conducted in 1990.

Approximately 50-100 feet of alluvium covers the rock formations below. Rock units include the Lakewood Formation that is underlain by the San Pedro Formation. The Gage, Hollydale, Jefferson, Lynwood, Silverado and Sunnyside Aquifers are found starting at depths of approximately 50-100 feet bgs. Extensive oilfield activities have impaired groundwater quality so that the near surface aquifers are not considered for potable water. Groundwater was not encountered during this investigation.

Forty-nine (49) soil samples were collected from 12 boring locations as part of the Phase II ESA.

These soil samples were analyzed for: (1) volatile organic compounds (VOCs); (2) semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs); (3) total petroleum hydrocarbons – gasoline range (TPH-g) – diesel range (TPHd) and speciated carbon chains.

3.6.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist), significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
• 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.
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-3
• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
• Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if the project is located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.
• Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if the project is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

3.6.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

3.6.3.1 Hazardous Materials
• The Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

The Proposed Project does not propose the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials during the short-term construction period and the long-term operational period. Therefore, no impacts related to hazardous materials will result from Project implementation. • The Proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the Proposed Project Site.4 The closest school is the Oakmont Academy located approximately 0.45 miles west of the Project Site. Therefore, because the Project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials and is not located within the identified significance threshold distance for a school, no project-level impacts to schools from hazardous materials will result from Project implementation during either the short-term construction period or the long-term operational phase.

3.6.3.2 Vector Control
Vector control is an important component of a material recovery facility/transfer station (MRF/TS). A vector is any insect or arthropod, rodent or other animal of public health significance capable of harboring or transmitting the causative agents of human disease, or capable of causing human discomfort or injury.

4 Great Schools website. Accessed at http://www.greatschools.net Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-4
Vectors have the potential to arrive at a MRF/TS through the routine transport of trash/recyclables and/or may be attracted to the MRF/TS facility because of the trash/recyclables. Vectors typical to the refuse industry include mammalian, avian, and invertebrate. Mammalian vectors include rodents such as rats, ground squirrels, and mice. Other mammals such as cats and dogs may traverse the site occasionally. However, cats and dogs are not regarded as vectors in the refuse industry. Avian vectors include seagulls and pigeons. Other smaller birds (i.e., sparrows, doves, etc.) may enter the site briefly, but are quickly discouraged by larger birds. Invertebrate vectors typically include cockroaches, mosquitoes and flies. Other insect species, including ants, are considered more of a nuisance than a vector.

In general, vectors are minimized and/or eliminated by minimizing the amount of time that municipal solid waste (MSW) remains on site. There are two types of vector control strategies used for MSW; operational controls and target controls. Operational controls are set by State Minimum Standards and Solid Waste Facility Permits that prescribe a 48-hour time limit for non-recyclable materials.

However, overnight or one business day is more typical in a day-to-day operation in which MSW material is deposited into the transfer trailers for removal to a landfill. Rotation procedures for waste removal include rapid circulation within the facility. Rodent, insect and bird problems are practically eliminated by this procedure of rapidly “turning over” any materials arriving in the facility. This procedure is augmented by an active abatement program that uses traps and other control devices that eliminate vectors.

Targeted controls minimize rodents through a combination of facility design and pest control devices.

The Proposed Project minimizes open grass/dirt areas immediately adjacent to areas where MSW is stored or handled. The utilization of concrete ground cover in these areas reduces the proximity of rodent burrows and nesting areas. For device control, Liqui-Tox feeders are effective for rats when placed at key points within the facility and near the food source area (i.e., MSW storage piles, loading/transfer areas, etc.). Bait station areas are also placed throughout the facility and are effective at controlling the propagation of ground squirrels, mice, and rats.

Seagulls are best minimized using facility design. Taking into consideration the prevailing wind directions and the most common angles of approach for seagulls trying to reach foot sources, fine stainless steel wires will be hung in a semi-horizontal spanning pattern between the highest points of the buildings in the approach paths. The other ends of the wires are then secured to anchor points across the yard near the perimeters. Additional wires can be added as the seagulls adapt and learn new angles of approach. This approach rarely results in harm to the seagulls because they see and/or feel the wire which discourages them from attempting to fly into the facility.

Pigeons are best minimized using a biological control. OvoControl P, produced by Innolytics, LLC, is widely regarded as the most humane method on the market to control the propagation of pigeons.

Unlike poisons, this product contains nicarbazin, which when ingested, reduces a pigeon flock's ability to produce eggs that are capable of developing after fertilization. OvoControl P must be applied near on-site feeding areas in a structure method by an approved pest control management company.

Insects are minimized with a combination of facility design and pest control devices. Cockroaches and general insect pests are best managed by spraying, using granules (during rain) and placing baits/gels through the facility, including common areas, break areas, and offices. Mosquitoes are Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-5
addressed with best management practices (BMPs). Ponding of water will be eliminated at all times with consistent sweeping and regular inspections of water sources for leaks. If waste tires are handled, they must be stored per California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) standards so that water cannot accumulate inside the tires. Flies are best managed by spraying MSW piles and other attractants. Any effective control products will be safely applied by trained personnel wearing proper personal protective equipment.

Implementation of Project design features, BMPs, and biological controls as appropriate, will reduce any vector control impacts to a level of less than significant.

3.6.3.3 Other Safety Issues
• The Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if the project is located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.

The Project Site is within two miles of the Long Beach Municipal Airport, a public use airport, but outside of the adopted Planning Boundary/Airport Influence Area.5 Over-flights on the Project Site by commercial and private aircraft and emergency helicopters accessing the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center will occur. However, most accidents occur during approaches and departures within the established flight zones. Therefore, exposure to persons working on the Proposed Project Site from aircraft operations during the short-term construction phase or the long-term operational phase will result in less than significant impacts.
• The Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if the project is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

The Proposed Project Site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no project-level impacts from operations of a private airstrip will result from implementation of the Project during the short-term construction phase or the long-term operational phase. Therefore, these impacts will be less than significant.
• The Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The Proposed Project does not propose to realign or vacate any roadways in the vicinity of the Project Site that would be used by the City of Signal Hill for emergency evacuations. Therefore, implementation of the Project will not impair or physically interfere with any emergency evacuation plans and no Project-level impacts during either the short-term construction period or long-term operational period will result.

The Proposed Project will remove the existing barricade across 28th Street at California Avenue.

Removal of this barricade will allow improved vehicular access in the Project vicinity. This will be considered a beneficial long-term impact.

5 County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Influence Area, Long Beach Airport. May 13, 2003.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-6
• The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

There are no wildlands adjacent to or in close proximity to the Project Site.6 Therefore, structures and workers on the Project Site will not be exposed to risks from wildland fires.

3.6.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
• The Proposed Project would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

The Phase II ESA compared detected concentrations of chemicals in the onsite soils to Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs), and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) Clean-up Standards. PRGs are risk-based tools for evaluating and cleaning up contaminated sites. They are intended to streamline and standardize all stages of the risk decision-making process. Chemical concentrations greater than these PRG values would not automatically designate a site as “dirty” or trigger a response action. However, exceeding the PRG values does imply that further evaluation of the potential risks that may be posed by site contaminants is appropriate.

The CHHSLs were developed as a tool to assist in the evaluation of contaminated sites for potential adverse threats to human health. The presence of a chemical at concentrations in excess of a CHHSL does not indicate that adverse impacts to human health are occurring or will occur, but suggests that further evaluation of potential human health concerns is warranted.

The soil sampling on the Proposed Project Site found detected concentrations of the following constituents: benzene, sec-butylbenzene, isopropylbenzene, p-isopropyltoluene, naphthalene, npropylbenzene, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, TPH-g, TPH-d, speciated carbon chains, and TTLC (Total Threshold Limit Concentration) metals. These constituents are indicative of the historic use of the site as oil fields.

The Phase II ESA recommendations were:
• Prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
• The abandoned oil wells, plugged dry hole, and plugged completed oil well should be located on a site plan and submitted to DOGGR for review. These wells should be tested and reabandoned pursuant to the current DOGGR guidelines and specifications if warranted as determined by DOGGR staff.

Both of these recommendations have been implemented. A HRA was prepared in September 2008 and a search of oil wells has been undertaken in accordance with DOGGR guidelines and specifications. All wells on the site were located using the digging and magnetron methods requested by DOGGR, with the exception of three wells: Damron 4, RC-6, and RC-5.

6 State of California, Teale Data Center, Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire) Maps. Map NHD-10. January 2006.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-7
• The Proposed Project 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.

The objective of the 2008 HRA was to evaluate potential adverse health risks to human receptors posed by concentrations of constituents detected at least one time in the soil matrix and the constituent detected in soil vapor underlying the project site. The HRA assessed the potential risk and hazard attributable to exposure to seven carcinogenic and 30 non-carcinogenic constituents, including lead.

The results of the 2008 HRA indicate that the estimated individual risks of the seven carcinogenic constituents are less than 1 x 10-5 the target risk value, except for arsenic. The estimated risk for arsenic via the oral and dermal contact exposure routes is 3.32 x 10-5. It appears that 94 percent of the arsenic detected in onsite soils may be naturally occurring and that the majority of the estimated risk due to exposure to arsenic in onsite soils may be attributable to naturally occurring arsenic.

The oral and dermal contact exposure routes assume an adult is onsite consuming soil for 250 days for 25 years, respectively. As the site is currently vacant land and the Proposed Project is a recycling facility and transfer station, the likelihood of this exposure route is very low. Additionally, the estimated risk due to exposure to arsenic in the soil matrix via the oral and dermal contact routes is within USEPA’s “safe and protective of public health” risk range of 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6 (Federal Register 56(20):3535, 1991). Therefore, this Proposed Project Site does not pose an unacceptable adverse impact to current or future construction or facility workers.

The potential to encounter previously unknown oil wells also may exist due to the historic use of the Project Site for oil production and related activities. Should excavation equipment contact any unknown oil wells during site-grading, hazardous materials may be released into the environment in an uncontrolled manner. In addition, previous abandonment of oil wells may not have been in conformance with the requirements of DOGGR.

All information on each onsite well has been obtained from DOGGR files. In addition, to date, 11 of the 14 oil wells have been daylighted and surveyed in order to verify the locations of the wells for placement on the site plan.

Three oil wells have not been located. Therefore, the applicant is performing magnetometer surveys to locate the three missing wells and verify the locations of two oil wells. If the three missing oil wells are not found in the magnetometer surveys, DOGGR has requested that the applicant excavate at their presumed locations and submit the site plan with the daylighted oil wells surveyed and plotted and the magnetometer survey report. After a leak test, the DOGGR technician will inform the applicant the oil wells that will require re-abandonment to current specifications, in addition to the wells (presumably 5) that require re-abandonment to current specifications regardless of the leak test results. These 5 wells are either beneath the Proposed Facility or are within a 10-foot circumference of the Proposed Facility. It is estimated that it will require two weeks for each oil well to be properly re-abandoned pursuant to current DOGGR specifications. All of these DOGGR requirements will be met prior to grading and construction of the Proposed Project.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-8
The following mandatory project requirement is consistent with the City of Signal Hill Municipal Code, shall be implemented and will ensure that impacts related to compliance with oil well abandonment procedures are followed:
• The Project proponent shall abandon oil wells on the Project Site in conformance with the Oil Well Abandonment Procedures outlined in the City of Signal Hill Project Development Guide.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures (MM) will reduce potentially significant projectlevel impacts to a less than significant level for both the short-term construction period and the longterm operational period.

Impact 3.6-1
The Proposed Project would be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

MM 3.6-1
A soil management plan shall be prepared to provide guidance to building contractors in the event discolored or odiferous soils are discovered during onsite excavation and grading activities.

Impact 3.6-2
Three unknown oil wells (Damron 4, RC-6, and RC-5) have not been located at the Proposed Project Site.

MM 3.6-2a
If any previously unknown wells or pipelines are encountered at any time during grading activities, all work shall immediately cease until clearance is received from the City of Signal Hill.

MM 3.6-2b
Records of wells previously abandoned in accordance with State of California, DOGGR regulations shall be reviewed in order to determine if they comply with current abandonment regulations. Any such wells shall be re-abandoned in conformance with current DOGGR regulations.

Impact 3.6-3
Rough grading activities associated with the Proposed Project have the potential to release methane gas.

MM 3.6-3
A methane assessment shall be conducted on-site within 30 days of completion of rough grading to determine if methane concentrations warrant mitigation (i.e., installation of a vapor barrier and passive vapor).

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-9
Impact 3.6-4
Since 1923, the Proposed Project Site has been associated with oil field activities, including oil derricks, a tank farm, and wells.

MM 3.6-4
Should any previously unknown underground storage tanks be discovered during the Project Site preparation phase, removal of these tanks will require a plan check from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works.

Impact 3.6-5
Construction activities could disrupt underground utility systems.

MM 3.6-5
The Project proponent shall obtain a “Dig Alert” identification number two working days in advance of commencement of excavation activities.

3.6.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of all applicable standard local, State, and federal regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials and the above mitigation measures governing human health hazards, risk of upset and emergency preparedness would reduce public health and safety impacts to less than significant levels.

3.6.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Existing conditions in the region include past and present oil field activities and various types of commercial and industrial development. These activities have resulted in an extensive amount of oil wells of various types (i.e., extraction, injection, monitoring, etc.), uncontrolled releases of hazardous materials, and routine transportation of hazardous materials. Development of any related projects with previous oil production operations will be required to conform to State-required operation and abandonment of oil wells, State and local laws related to transportation of hazardous materials, and any soil remediation activities that may be required. As a result, the existing environmental cumulative baseline conditions are not significantly affected.

The Project identified less than significant impacts with the recommended mitigation measures and the mandatory project requirement. Due to this, the addition of the Project to the existing cumulative baseline environmental conditions is not significant. Therefore, less than significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials will result from Project implementation.

3.6.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ON HAZARDS ISSUES
Public agencies provided comments on public health and hazardous materials during the NOP review period. Those agencies requested that the Draft EIR address the following hazard issues/or concerns:

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-10
• California Integrated Waste Management Board
o Requested the Draft EIR indicate specific types of waste the facility will accept as well wastes that will be excluded
A discussion of the types of waste accepted at the Project Site is addressed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR.
o Discuss load checking and screening procedures
On-going hazardous waste exclusion and monitoring program will be conducted in accordance with local and state regulations
o Describe procedures for handling hazardous waste and/or hazardous waste that may come in self-haul and commercial loads that are not detected through load checking See analysis above.
o Describe policies and procedures for handling Universal Waste and e-waste See analysis above.
o Describe any “free dump” days when the peak permitted tonnage might be exceeded and the public might bring in items otherwise not normally acceptable, such as Household Hazardous Waste, tires or batteries, etc.

The Proposed Project includes community-wide clean up days. The Project applicant shall cooperate with the City of Signal Hill in holding four community-wide clean up days when all municipal waste collected from City residents may be disposed of at the Facility without charge. Two of the community-wide clean up days will be curbside and two will be for bulky items on-call. The facility will not accept household materials or hazardous waste that does not comply with permitted conditions.
o Discuss the transfer station’s ability to handle and process all received materials A discussion of the operation procedures is addressed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR.
o Describe the design and construction of the buildings where municipal solid waste, green waste, and construction and demolition material will be handled A discussion of the Project’s design features and is addressed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR.
o Describe where and how material will be received, processed, stored, and shipped A discussion of operational procedures is addressed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description and in the analysis above.
o Discuss where salvaged/recyclable material that is removed from the waste stream will be stored and for how long
Refuse will be moved off-site within 48 hours of delivery. Household hazardous waste will be stored onsite in the Household Hazardous Waste Facility for a period of time that complies with permitted conditions.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-11
o Requested the Draft EIR reference and briefly describe an Emergency Response Preparedness Plan with appropriate mitigation measures
The Emergency Response Preparedness Plan for the Proposed Project will be prepared as part of the Transfer and Processing Report filed with the CIWMB as part of the Permit to Operate.
• California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources o Requested that all active, idle, plugged and abandoned wells be identified o Remedial plugging operations may be required
o If idle or plugged and abandoned well can’t be avoided by development, it may be necessary to plug or re-plug wells to current DOGGR specifications The Phase II ESA recommended “abandoned oil wells, plugged dry hole, and plugged completed oil wells should be located on a site plan and submitted to DOGGR for review.

These wells should be tested and re-abandoned pursuant to the current DOGGR guidelines and specifications if warranted as determined by DOGGR staff.” This recommendation has been implemented. A search of oil wells has been undertaken in accordance with DOGGR guidelines and specifications. All wells were located with the exception of three oil wells; Damron 4, RC-6, and RC-5. • California Department of Toxic Substances Control
o Evaluate historic uses of the proposed project site to determine prior use and waste of hazardous substances
A discussion of historic uses of the Proposed Project Site is addressed in Section 3.2, Land Use and Planning as well as in the analysis above.
o Requested an ESA be prepared for the project site in accordance with applicable standards that identifies any prior release of hazardous wastes/substances and remediation if appropriate
o Evaluate the proposed project for use and release of hazardous substances and waste A Phase II ESA was prepared for the subject property in October 2007. A Human Health Risk Assessment was prepared in September 2008. The results of these studies are summarized above. The Executive Summaries of these documents are included in the Technical Appendices to this Draft EIR. The complete reports are included on a CD of this Draft EIR. A Phase I ESA was prepared in 2001. This document is on file at the City of Signal Hill Planning Department.
o Prepare a program that identifies the regulatory agency that will provide oversight for investigation and remediation if the proposed project site were to become hazardous in the future
o Evaluate proposed project site conditions for potential threat to human health and the environment
o Proper investigation, sampling, and remedial actions should be conducted prior to new development or construction
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.6-12
Soil sampling was performed during the preparation of the 2007 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and soil vapor sampling was performed as part of the 2008 Health Risk Assessment (HRA). This HRA evaluated the potential adverse health impacts due to exposure to both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic constituents. The findings of these reports are summarized above. The 2008 HRA found that this site does not pose an unacceptable adverse impact to current or future construction or facility workers. Therefore, no mitigation measures were required or suggested by the 2008 HRA.
• California Department of Transportation, District 7
o Prepare a spill prevention plan that addresses accident prevention and cleanup A spill prevention plan will be prepared as part of final engineering and grading plans.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.7-1

3.7 AESTHETICS

3.7.1 EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project Site is located within the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood sub-planning area, which is between Atlantic and California Avenues and Interstate 405 and Willow Street. This Neighborhood contains the single largest vacant land area remaining in the City of Signal Hill (City) and remains largely vacant due to multiple development constraints. These constraints include ongoing oil production activities that are primarily independent oil operations, contaminated soils including sumps and past refining facilities, small lot sizes and fragmented ownership patterns, lack of infrastructure, and topographical constraints
Existing land uses include a mix of medical offices and related facilities that support the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center along Atlantic Avenue, and commercial and residential uses along Willow Street. The new A&A Concrete Batch Plant (2007) is located on the southeast corner of Patterson and Olive across from the Proposed Project Site.

The adoption of the Signal Hill Oil Code in 1986 resulted in a dramatic visual change to the City’s oil production areas. At this time, the City mandated that operators paint all pumping units and tanks and plant five trees and seven shrubs for each pumping unit and tank. Drought tolerant trees and plants were selected for landscaping because many field areas lacked water for irrigation. As this landscaping has matured, it has improved the appearance of the oil field.

The Olive Avenue and 28th Street roadways adjacent to the west and north of the Project Site, respectively, are unimproved. Olive Avenue consists of partially paved asphalt and dirt. 28th Street is dirt over asphalt. Only Patterson Street, adjacent to the south of the Project Site, is an improved roadway with curbing. Patterson Street does not contain any street lighting.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted at the Proposed Project Site in March 2001 to evaluate whether historical and/or current site operations, as well as operations conducted within a one-mile radius, had caused adverse environmental impacts to the site and surrounding areas.1 According to the Phase I ESA, since approximately 1923, the Proposed Project Site has been associated with oil field activities. By 1953, the site had oil derricks, a tank farm, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), 55-gallon oil drums, and a surface impoundment associated with oil operations. By 1962, the site no longer had oil derricks, but had operating oil wells and 55-gallon oil drums. Removal of the surface impoundment and tank farm from the site occurred by 1981, although ASTs and 55-gallon drums remained until approximately 1994.

Figure 3.7-1 shows the Project Site and surrounding land use conditions. See also Figure 3.8-1 (Aerial Overview & Site Photos) depicting site vegetation coverage in Section 3.8 (Biological Sources).

1 Mearns Consulting LLC. October 2007. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3.287-Acre Vacant Land, Signal Hill, California.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Aesthetics
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.7-2
FIGURE 3.7-1
PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Aesthetics
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.7-3

3.7.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist), significant aesthetics impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:

• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

3.7.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
• The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

The Land Use Element of the City of Signal Hill General Plan2 identifies views from the “Hilltop Area” of the City as a scenic vista.3 The “Hilltop Area” is centered on the intersection of Skyline Drive and Hill Avenue, approximately 1.8 miles southeast of the Project Site. The City has established policies related to the preservation of views from this area. Due to the distance from the “Hilltop Area” and the fact that the Project Site is approximately 300 feet lower in elevation, development of the project site does not have the potential to obstruct views from the “Hilltop Area” or conflict with the City policies related to the obstruction of views. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project will not result in any short-term construction-related or long-term operational-related project-level impacts to designated scenic vistas.
• The Proposed Project will not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

The Project Site is not located within or adjacent to a State-designated or State-eligible scenic highway.4 The Project Site is located approximately one mile north of Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1), portions of which are designated as a State-eligible scenic highway. The closest segment of Pacific Coast Highway containing this designation to the Project Site is at the junction of SR-1 and SR-19 approximately 2.6 miles southeast of the Project Site. Due to the distance from this junction, there is no potential for the Project to affect this State-eligible scenic highway. Therefore, implementation of the Project will not result in any short-term construction-related or long-term operational-related Project-level impacts to either State-designated or State-eligible scenic highways. • The Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

The Proposed Project Site and surrounding environment is in a degraded visual condition associated with current and past oil production, an uncoordinated mix of land uses, and lack of infrastructure as shown in Figure 3.7-1.

2 City of Signal Hill General Plan, Land Use Element, June 2001. 3 Ibid, General Plan, Land Use Element, Figure 5 (Page 48) and Page 49. June 2001. 4 State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Scenic Highway Program.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Aesthetics
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.7-4
Upon completion of the Project, the walls and landscape area will screen the majority of the Proposed Project Site from surrounding land uses. The remaining visual elements of the Project not screened by landscaping will be similar in nature to other existing vicinity land uses. The City considers landscaped areas, as included in the Project, an aesthetic enhancement that helps achieve a distinctive community character.5 As such, a beneficial impact will result from the addition of the following design features along the adjacent roadways. • Landscaped areas are proposed along the perimeter and interior of the Project Site. The Site Plan (Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2.0, Project Description) highlights these areas. • The Proposed Project will remove all inactive utility lines and adjust sagging utility lines.

The City considers views to and from the “Hilltop Area” a limited natural resource that is to be protected.6 Due to the intervening topography and mature trees at the Sunnyside Cemetery, the Hilltop Area is not visible from the Project Site or surrounding areas. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project will result in less than significant degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings during the long-term operational phase.

Implementation of the Proposed Project could increase litter generation at the Project Site and along access roadways. However, the applicant will implement daily litter pick up on site, along adjacent properties, adjacent streets and along the designated transportation corridors for any litter resulting from EDCO’s operation (including EDCO’s customers delivering waste to the site). These designated transportation corridors include:
• Willow Street – City limit to City limit
• Spring Street – City limit to city limit (Litter control Cherry to Atlantic) • Cherry Avenue – City limit to City limit
• California avenue – Willow Street to Spring Street (Litter control) • Orange Avenue – Spring Street to 32nd Street (Litter control) • Pacific Coast Highway – City limit to City limit
In addition all deliveries to and from the Project Site will be adequately covered to eliminate spillage per State law and waste collection vehicles will be enclosed and free of debris prior to leaving the site per State law.

Implementation of these operational procedures will reduce little impacts to a level of less than significant.
• The Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Construction of the Proposed Project will require construction vehicles, machinery, and building materials to be present on the Project Site and adjacent roadways during the construction phase of the Project, which could include some nighttime activities. The Project will include lighting for nighttime operations and security. The light standards will be “hooded” in order to deflect light downward onto the Project Site and not off-site onto adjacent properties, referred to as “spill light.” The following design feature will help prevent light or glare during operational hours.

5 City of Signal Hill General Plan, Environmental Resources Element, Page 20. June 2001. 6 Ibid, General Plan, Environmental Resources Element, Policy 1.1 Page 37. June 2001.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Aesthetics
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.7-5
• On-site light standards that contain “hoods” that direct onto the Project Site and away from adjacent properties will be included as part of the Project Design. • Additionally, an 8-foot masonry, screen wall will surround the Project Site along Olive Avenue from the west, 28th Street from the north, and California Avenue from the east. An 8-foot chain-link fence with slats will surround the Proposed Project Site along Patterson Avenue from the south. These perimeter walls will shield adjacent properties from glare during operational hours.

Project impacts related to light and glare are reduced to a level of less than significant with implementation of the design features.

3.7.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts associated with aesthetics are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.7.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts associated with aesthetics are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.7.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Proposed Project identified less than significant impacts with the incorporation of the Project Design features. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project will not result in any cumulative impacts related aesthetics.

3.7.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ON AESTHETIC ISSUES
Long Beach Unified School District commented on litter control from the Proposed Project Site.

• The Proposed Project, including litter from trucks transporting waste and recyclables to and from the facility, may have adverse impacts to LBUSD. LBUSD requests that daily litter pick up and other appropriate mitigation measures be implemented to control litter from facility operations and related truck or customer traffic along any routes that pass by any school sites.

The applicant will implement daily litter pick up on site, along adjacent properties, adjacent streets and along the designated transportation corridors for any litter resulting from EDCO’s operation (including EDCO’s customers delivering waste to the site). These designated transportation corridors include:
• Willow Street – City limit to City limit
• Spring Street – City limit to city limit (Litter control Cherry to Atlantic) • Cherry Avenue – City limit to City limit
• California avenue – Willow Street to Spring Street (Litter control) • Orange Avenue – Spring Street to 32nd Street (Litter control) • Pacific Coast Highway – City limit to City limit
In addition all deliveries to and from the Project Site will be adequately covered to eliminate spillage per State law and waste collection vehicles will be enclosed and free of debris prior to leaving the site per State law.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.8-1

3.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.8.1 EXISTING SETTING
Information in this section is primarily based upon the Biological Resources Survey prepared for the adjacent A&A Concrete Batch Plant project on the south side of Patterson Avenue. The report was prepared by SWCA Consultants in August 2006. Conditions at the Proposed Project Site were also field verified in August 2008.

3.8.1.1 Vegetation
Figure 3.8-1 on the following page shows an aerial overview of the project property, along with photographs of the extent and types of vegetation on-site and on adjacent properties. As shown, vegetation on-site is sparse and ornamental landscape trees and shrubs are the predominant species. Species such as eucalyptus, pepper, palm and oleander are clustered around existing oil wells and tank facilities to serve as visual screens, both on- and off-site. Many of the trees and large shrubs have matured and may provide nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat for various bird species.

Interspersed ruderal vegetation on the project site may include the following:
• Russian thistle (Salsola iberica)
• Horseweed (Conyza canadensis)
• Black mustard (Brassica nigra)
• Oleander (Nerium oleander)
• Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon),
• Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara)
• Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)
• Puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris),
• Unidentified members of the Asteraceae and Poaceae families There are twenty-three special-status plant species that have the potential to occur in the surrounding area of the Proposed Project Site. Of these, the following nine species have known occurrences in the vicinity of the Project Site (i.e., within approximately five miles), though with little potential for occurrence on the Project Site:
• Parish’s Brittlescale
• Southern Tarplant
• Salt Marsh Bird’s-Beak
• Prostrate Navarretia
• Coast Woolly-heads
• California Orcutt grass
• Lyon’s Pentachaeta
• Estuary Seablite
• San Bernardino Aster
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Biological Resources EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page 3.8-2 zC
zA zB
zD
Patterson St.
28th St.

Ca
lifor
n
ia
Ave
.
zA z
O
li
veAve
.
zD
zC
B
FIGURE 3.8-1

AERIAL OVERVIEW
& SITE PHOTOS
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Biological Resources EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.8-3

3.8.1.2 Wildlife Habitat and Species
The wildlife habitat on the Proposed Project Site is best described as an urban and ruderal habitat.

Similar to most surrounding properties, the on-site natural landscape has been highly modified by past and present industrial activities, primarily related to oil production. This type of habitat has the potential to provide habitat for a few common reptilian, avian, and mammalian species, such as:
• Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
• House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)
• Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)
• Rock dove (Columba livia)
• Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
• Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna),
• American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
• Valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae)
There are thirty-two special-status wildlife species that have the potential to occur in the general vicinity of the Proposed Project Site, based upon database and literature searches. Of these, the following eight species have known occurrences within approximately five miles of the Project Site and therefore have some potential for occurrence on the Project Site:
• Monarch Butterfly
• Sandy Beach Tiger Beetle
• Tiger Beetle
• Coast Horned Lizard
• Sharp-shinned Hawk
• Loggerhead Shrike
• Pacific Pocket Mouse
• Big Free-tailed Bat

3.8.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist), significant biological resources impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
• The Proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Wildlife Service.
• The Proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. • The Proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Biological Resources EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.8-4
• The Proposed Project would interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. • The Proposed Project would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. • The Proposed Project would conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

3.8.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
• The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Project Site does not contain any natural drainage courses or riparian habitat. Therefore, no short-term construction-related or long-term operations-related impacts to riparian habitat will result from implementation of the Proposed Project.
• The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

The Proposed Project Site does not contain any wetlands.1 Therefore, no short-term constructionrelated or long-term operations-related Project-level impacts to wetlands will result from implementation of the Proposed Project.
• The Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Neither the EIR prepared for the proposed Long Beach Sports Park2, located 0.07 miles east of the Proposed Project Site nor the EIR prepared for the expansion of the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center,3 located 0.23 miles west of the Project Site, identified the respective sites as serving as a wildlife corridor.

Additionally, due the historic use of the Proposed Project Site for oil production and the lack of connectivity to an established wildlife corridor, the Proposed Project will have less than significant impacts related to substantial interference with wildlife movement. Therefore, no short-term construction-level impacts or long-term operational impacts will occur in relation to migratory corridors.

1 United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, July 24, 2006. 2 City of Long Beach, Long Beach Sports Park Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1999091108), Volume I. December 2004. 3 Long Beach Memorial Medical Center Initial Study, Section 3.04, August 20, 2004.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Biological Resources EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.8-5
• The Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

There are no specific policies or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources associated with the Proposed Project Site.4 Therefore, no short-term construction-related or longterm operations-related Project-level impacts will conflict with local policies or ordinances. • The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans associated with the Proposed Project Site. Therefore, no short-term construction-related or long-term operationsrelated Project-level impacts will conflict with adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans.

3.8.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
• The Proposed Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Wildlife Service.

The special-status plant and wildlife species listed above are potentially present in the general vicinity, as indicated by their historical recorded presence within a five-mile radius of the Proposed Project Site. However, the site has been highly modified by past and present uses and does not have the habitat conditions necessary to support these special-status species. Therefore, no short-term construction-related or long-term operations-related impacts to the special-status species will result from implementation of the Proposed Project.

The ornamental landscape trees and shrubs on the Proposed Project Site have the potential for use by raptors or other migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Section 1513 of the California Fish and Game Code codifies this protection. Since marginal foraging, roosting and nesting habitat exists on and adjacent to the Project Site, the removal of ornamental trees and shrubs has the potential to impact wildlife if the habitat is occupied by migratory birds at the time of removal. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure (MM), impacts to migratory birds during the short-term construction period will be reduced to a level that is less than significant.

MM 3.8-1

Removal of on-site vegetation shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids impacts to any active nests during the breeding season. If the vegetation is entirely removed outside of the nesting season, which is September 1 through February 14, no surveys or monitoring will be required.

If construction activities must occur during the nesting season, it is recommended that a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction nest survey on the Project Site and within a 150- foot buffer area around the Project disturbance footprint to identify any nests that occur there.

4 City of Signal Hill General Plan, Environmental Resources Element, June 2001.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Biological Resources EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.8-6
recommended that a qualified biologist monitor the nests daily during all phases of construction to ensure that the Project does not impact the nests. Clearing and grading activities shall not be allowed within 150 feet of active nests. If an active nest is discovered on-site or within 150 feet of the Project disturbance area, then clearing and/or grading activities will be delayed in areas within 150 feet of nests until it has been determined by a qualified biologist that the chicks have fledged.

3.8.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The above mitigation measure (MM 3.8-1) for biological resources will reduce the Proposed Project’s impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

3.8.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Other potential projects in the Project vicinity would also be located in an urban and ruderal environment that does not contain habitat conducive to supporting multiple species. The related projects represent infill-type projects that have the potential to support sensitive vegetation and wildlife species depending on the site's characteristics. None of the related projects are located in an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

Due to these conditions, the cumulative environmental baseline conditions are not significantly affected. The Proposed Project identified less than significant impacts with the adoption of the recommended mitigation measures related to biological resources. As a result, the addition of the Project to the cumulative baseline conditions is not significant. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project will not result in any significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources.

3.8.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ISSUES No comments related to biological resource issues were received by the City during the Notice of Preparation comment period.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.9-1

3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.9.1 EXISTING SETTING
Information in this section is primarily based upon the Cultural Resources Survey/Report prepared for the adjacent A&A Concrete Batch Plant project on the south side of Patterson Avenue. The report was prepared by SWCA Consultants in August 2006.

3.9.1.1 Historical Setting
Historical resources in the City of Signal Hill (City) include derricks and towers from historic oil development and residential structures. There are no historical resources on the Proposed Project Site. The Alamitos No. 1 Discovery Well, located at the northeast corner of Hill Street and Temple Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Proposed Project Site, is designated as a State Historical Monument.

In addition to the remaining oil activity, the City has a number of structures with potential historical value that exhibit a variety of architectural styles. In January 1985, the City commissioned a survey of historic structures located in the City.1 The survey notes that approximately 10 architectural styles can be identified in the City. An additional 47 buildings were identified as being of secondary importance. Buildings in both categories could, if restored, be potential candidates for the National Register of Historic Places. A total of 309 historically distinctive structures were identified in this study.

The EIR prepared for the City of Long Beach for the proposed Long Beach Sports Park, located across California Avenue from the Proposed Project Site, discussed several historical and potentially historic properties in the vicinity of the Project.2 The Long Beach Sports Park EIR identified the Sunnyside Cemetery as a Long Beach Historical Landmark (2000). This EIR also identified the Signal Hill Petroleum and Lomita-Petrolane office buildings and the compressor buildings as meeting eligibility requirements for listing on the National Register. The Sunnyside Cemetery is located approximately

0.07 miles southeast of the Project Site. The office buildings are located approximately 0.4 miles northeast of the Project Site.

3.9.1.2 Regional History
The Project Site is within the ethnographically recorded territory of the Gabrielinos (or Gabrielenos), a Shoshonean-speaking group of American Indians who inhabited the area beginning approximately 500 BC and who were present in 1769 when the first Spanish land expedition passed through the area. The Gabrielinos are now known as the Gabrielinos/Tongva and continue to this day. The tribal headquarters are located in the City of Santa Monica. Direct descendants of the Gabrielinos and members of the State-recognized tribe live in the southern California region. Members of the

1 City of Long Beach, Long Beach Sports Park Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1999091108), Volume I., December 2004.
2 Ibid.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9 Cultural Resources EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.9-2
Gabrielinos/Tongva Tribal Nation continue the preservation of tribal customs, language and economic development.

The Spanish Mission Period in that portion of the historic period, beginning with the first Spanish presence in the area, approximately 1769, until 1821, when Mexico gained independence from Spain. The Mexican Rancho Period occurred from 1821–1848.

In 1921, oil was discovered on Signal Hill, resulting in intense development and industrial growth in the area. The City became dotted with pumps, towers, tanks, and industrial structures. The Lomita Gasoline Company (later Lomita-Petrolane) was incorporated in 1923, only two years after the discovery of oil, to process oil by-products, including natural gas, butane, and propane. During the 1920s and 1930s, the vicinity of the City was the world’s richest oil field in terms of per-acre production, and was an important historic industrial area and contributed to the economic growth and prosperity of the region.

3.9.1.3 Paleontological Setting
The Proposed Project Site is located at the northern end of the Peninsular Range geomorphic province, which is a northwest-southeast trending structural block that extends from the tip of Baja California to the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and includes the Los Angeles Basin.3 It contains extensive pre-Cretaceous (> 65 million years ago) igneous and metamorphic rock covered by limited exposures of post-Cretaceous sedimentary deposits. These post-Cretaceous sedimentary deposits are important Tertiary marine fossil producing deposits.

The Proposed Project Site is underlain by the San Pedro Formation, undifferentiated terrace deposits and alluvium/colluvium. The San Pedro Formation was deposited during the Lower to Middle Pleistocene, approximately 1.8 million to 700,000 years ago. This formation consists of generally unconsolidated to semi-consolidated mixtures and invertebrate fossils are known to exist in this formation. Undifferentiated terrace deposits were also deposited during the Middle to Upper Pleistocene, approximately 700,000 to 10,000 years ago. Similar to the San Pedro Formation, it consists of massive to crudely stratified sediments containing unconsolidated to semi-consolidated mixtures of silt and sand, with minor local clay and gravel. Fossils are known to exist in this formation.

Alluvium and/or colluvium are near surface soils that have been deposited or have accumulated due to local fluvial processes or from erosion and down slope movement of soils from adjacent highlands.

Due to the young age of these sediments (< 10,000 years), not enough time has passed to fossilize any remains that might be present. Therefore, these deposits do not exhibit a high level of sensitivity to paleontological deposits.

3.9.1.4 Known Human Remains
The Proposed Project Site is located approximately 0.07 miles northwest of two cemeteries: the Long Beach Municipal Cemetery and the Sunnyside Cemetery. The Long Beach Municipal Cemetery was established in 1901 and is maintained by the City of Long Beach. The Sunnyside Cemetery was established in 1906 and is privately maintained.

3 California Geomorphic Provinces, Note No. 36, California Geological Survey, December 2002.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9 Cultural Resources EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.9-3

3.9.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 establishes rules for the analysis of historical resources, including archaeological resources to determine whether a Proposed Project may have a substantial adverse effect on the significance of a resource. Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) of the CEQA Guidelines provides thresholds of significance for determining whether a project could have a significant effect on the environment. According to Appendix G, a Proposed Project would have a potentially significant impact on cultural resources if the Proposed Project:
• Causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
• Causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
• Directly or indirectly destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or
• Disturbs any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

According to Section 15064.5, "substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired."
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), a “unique archaeological resource" means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

3.9.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
• The Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Development of the Proposed Project will permanently eliminate most of the existing structures on the Project Site. There are no known historical structures on the Project Site. There are also no known historical structures or districts in the City of Long Beach located in close proximity to the Project Site.4

4 City of Long Beach, Historic Districts Map, June 3, 2004.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9 Cultural Resources EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.9-4
State laws and local procedures outline specific protocols that must be followed if human remains are discovered during site preparation, grading, or construction activities. Consistent with City requirements for all similar development projects, if human remains are discovered, the Los Angeles County Coroner’s office must be notified immediately under State Law (California Health and Safety Code §7050.5) and all activities in the immediate area of the find must cease until appropriate and lawful measures have been implemented. If the Coroner determines that the remains are prehistoric, the Coroner will contact the NAHC (California Public Resources Code §5097.98). The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendent who will make recommendations concerning the disposition of the remains in consultation with the City Signal (the Lead Agency) and the Tribal monitor.

3.9.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
• The Proposed Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

No archaeological resources are known to exist on the Proposed Project Site. The cultural resources investigation prepared in support of the Long Beach Sports Park Environmental Impact Report, (located approximately 0.07 miles east of the Project Site), included an analysis of potential impacts related to archaeological resources which due to the close proximity to the Project Site, was included within this analysis. The results of this investigation determined that two prehistoric sites were located in the vicinity of the Project Site but were not located on the Proposed Project Site.

The proposed project includes a Zone Change from Commercial General (CG) to Specific Plan (SP19), and an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance adding a new planning area, Planning Area 3 (Recycling and Transfer Station) consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element (2001).

Government Code Section 65453 (a) requires that a specific plan be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, and Section 65352.3 (a) (1) requires that cities consult with California Native American tribes when adopting or amending general plans on or after March 1, 2005, for purposes of protecting cultural places. The consultation process includes:
obtaining tribal contacts from the Native American Heritage Commission; offering consultation to tribes for purposes of preserving cultural places; and providing 45-day notice to tribes prior to City action on any amendment.

Due to historical occupancy during periods of history and pre-history, the unanticipated discovery and potential impact of below-grade archaeological resources could occur during the short-term construction period. Therefore, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measure (MM-CR-1), less than significant Project-level impacts to archaeological resources will result from project implementation during the short-term construction-related phase.

MM 3.9-1
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified archaeologist, experienced with Native Americans and Native American resources will be retained by the City of Signal Hill. The archaeologist shall be present at a pre-grading conference with the contractor and shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance and work stoppage if cultural resources are encountered. Should buried cultural resources be encountered by the contractor during construction activities, work in that area must be halted until the archaeologist is notified Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9 Cultural Resources EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.9-5
and can evaluate the nature and significance of the find and if necessary, coordinate the appropriate efforts for handling and/or disposition of these materials. The City of Signal Hill Community Development Department shall be immediately if cultural resources are encountered • The Proposed Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

No paleontological resources are known to exist on the Proposed Project Site. However, because the Project Site is underlain by a geological formation known for fossil resources, the possibility for discovery of paleontological resources during site preparation activities exists. Therefore, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measure (MM-CR-2), less than significant impacts to paleontological resources will result from Project implementation.

MM 3.9-2
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist will be retained by the City of Signal Hill. The paleontologist shall be present at a pre-grading conference with the contractor and shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance and work stoppage if paleontological resources are encountered. Should buried paleontological resources be encountered by the contractor during construction activities, work in that area must be halted until the paleontologist is notified and can evaluate the nature and significance of the find and if necessary, coordinate the appropriate efforts for handling and/or disposition of these materials.

The City of Signal Hill Community Development Department shall be notified immediately if paleontological resources are encountered
• The Project has the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

The Proposed Project Site is located approximately 0.07 miles northwest of the Long Beach Municipal and Sunnyside Cemeteries. The Project does not propose any improvements within or adjacent to either of these cemeteries. Therefore, no Project-level impacts to known human remains in these cemeteries will occur. The potential exists for unanticipated human remains and/or funerary objects to be encountered during Project construction.

MM 3.9-3
If human remains are encountered during construction-related activities, in conformance with State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, disturbance of the immediate area near the remains shall be immediately halted until the Los Angeles County Coroner has made a determination regarding the origin and disposition as required by California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If encountered remains are determined to be of Native notified American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified within one business day of discovery and the Gabrielinos/Tongva Tribal Nation shall be notified within one business day of discovery.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9 Cultural Resources EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.9-6

3.9.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Although there are no known cultural resources on the Proposed Project Site, compliance with the above cultural resources mitigation measures will ensure that any potential construction-related impacts to unknown cultural resources will be mitigated to a level of less than significant.

3.9.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Because CEQA, as implemented through the City of Signal Hill’s environmental review process, would require a similarly stringent level of review for other development projects proposed in the Project vicinity, potential cultural resources impacts would be similarly addressed and mitigated, as necessary, thus avoiding cumulative impacts. On this basis, potential cumulative cultural resources impacts are considered less than significant.

3.9.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES No comments by the public or agencies related to cultural resource issues were received on the Notice of Preparation issued by City for the Proposed Project. If necessary, the City will initiate an SB 18 consultation as required for a specific plan amendment as discussed in Section 3.9.4 above.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-1

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.10.1 EXISTING SETTING

3.10.1.1 Regional Hydrology
Watersheds
A watershed encompasses all the developed and undeveloped land that is enclosed by a continuous hydrologic drainage divide, as defined by structural and/or topographic features, and which lies upslope from a specified point on a drainage feature. Rainfall and other surface runoff flow from higher to lower elevations in a watershed. In undeveloped areas, those surface flows cut riverbeds, streambeds, and other natural drainages into soil and rock. In urbanized areas, natural drainages often interface with the built environment, in which case surface flows may also be conveyed via paved surfaces, curbs and gutters, storm drains, and flood control channels. The surface flows that do not percolate into soils reach the lowest elevation in the watershed, generally a lake, reservoir or ocean, which is known as the "receiving water" of all surface flows in that watershed.

The project site is located in the Los Angeles River watershed, which encompasses over 834 square miles. The watershed is highly modified with an upper 360-square-mile portion covered by forest or open space, and the remaining 474 square miles is developed with highly urbanized land uses. The watershed encompasses the Los Angeles River, which traverses the western portion of the City of Long Beach and discharges into the Pacific Ocean at San Pedro Bay.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB or State Board) has established administrative regions that generally coincide with the major watersheds of the State. To administer State and federal water pollution control efforts within those watersheds, the State Board has created nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The South Coast Hydrologic Region is divided into three administrative regions, and the Project Site is in the Los Angeles Region (4), which includes the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, including the Los Angeles River basin. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles River Basin (Basin Plan) provides the scientific and regulatory basis for the Los Angeles Regional Water Control Board’s (LARWQCB) water protection efforts.

Receiving Waters and Beneficial Use Designations
During precipitation events in the Project Area, rainwater picks up and transports pollutants through stormwater conveyance systems, ultimately discharging runoff to “receiving waters,” which include the Los Angeles River and Pacific Ocean. The same occurs as non-storm runoff from various land uses and activities flows in sufficient quantities from individual sites and enters the municipal storm drain system. Whether runoff deposits pollutants in storm drains or transports pollutants to receiving waters, the constituent pollutants will eventually reach the receiving waters.

As designated in the Basin Plan, the expected beneficial uses for the Los Angeles River Watershed are REC2 (Non-Contact Water Recreation). The potential beneficial uses are MUN (Municipal and Domestic Supply), REC1 (Contact Recreation) and WARM (Warm Freshwater Habitat). The intermittent beneficial uses are GWR (Ground Water Recharge) and WILD (Wildlife Habitat). To protect the beneficial uses of its waters, the State develops TMDLs, which are a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) established in the Basin Plan. The EPA-approved TMDLs represent the sum of the individual load allocations for point source inputs (e.g., an industrial plant), load allocations for non- Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-2
point source inputs (e.g., run-off from urban areas) and natural background with a margin of safety (RWQCB, 2001).

The Project ultimately discharges to Reach 11 of the Los Angeles River, which is 303(d) listed as impaired by excessive concentrations of aluminum, ammonia, dissolved cadmium, dissolved copper, coliforms, lead, nutrients (algae), pH, scum/foam-unnatural and dissolved zinc. As a result, Reach 1 of the L.A. River is being addressed by the following EPA-approved TMDLs:2 Pollutant/Stressor Potential Sources
USEPA
Approved TMDL
Ammonia Nonpoint/Point Source 2004
Cadmium* Source Unknown 2005
Copper, Dissolved Nonpoint/Point Source 2005
Lead Nonpoint/Point Source 2005
Nutrients (Algae) Nonpoint/Point Source 2004
pH Nonpoint/Point Source 2003
Zinc, Dissolved Nonpoint/Point Source 2005
*For 2006, this listing was added by USEPA to this being addressed list because of a completed USEPA approved TMDL.

LARWQCB adopted a new trash TMDL on August 9, 2007. The Trash TMDL upholds the Los Angeles Region's Water Quality Control Plan objectives for Floating Material and Solid, Suspended, or Settleable Materials, which essentially state that receiving waters shall not contain trash in any of its various forms.3 To achieve that objective, all land uses and activities in areas tributary to the Los Angeles River must adhere to prohibitions in trash and litter ordinances. The Trash TMDL for the Los Angeles River Watershed took effect on September 23, 2008.

The following TMDLs are still required for Reach 1 of the L.A. River:4 Pollutant/Stressor Potential Sources
Proposed TMDL
Completion
Coliform Bacteria Nonpoint/Point Source 2009
Cyanide Source Unknown 2019
Diazinon Source Unknown 2019
The stormwater and water quality management documents (i.e., SUSMP and SWPPP) to be prepared for the proposed Project will describe the various TMDLs, including the specific site controls that must be implemented to meet the permitting requirements of each, as applicable to the Project.

Regional Flood Control Facilities
Regional flood control for the City of Signal Hill and all of Los Angeles County is under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Flood Control District (LACFCD). The LACFCD has responsibility for major water courses and for establishing standards for local drainage. In addition, the City of Long Beach owns and maintains a number of drainage and water quality facilities in the project vicinity. The City of

1 Reach 1 extends north approximately 3.4 miles from the Los Angeles River Estuary (Queensway Bay) to Carson Street. 2 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed by USEPA Approved TMDLS, USEPA Approval Date: June 28, 2007. 3 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/board_info/agendas/2008/xminutes/april/041508_7_staffpresentation.pdf 4 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLS, USEPA Approval Date: June 28, 2007
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-3
Long Beach, including the City of Signal Hill, is divided into 30 major drainage basins for flood control planning purposes. Signal Hill contributes runoff to drainage Basins 06, 07, 08, 09 and 18. The Project Site is in Basin 06, which is bound on the north, south, east and west by West Wardlow, Eagle Street, California Avenue and the L.A. River, respectively. Stormwater from Basin 06 is ultimately discharged to the Los Angeles River, approximately 1.3 miles west of the Project Site.

Designated Flood Zones
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) program,5 the City of Signal Hill is entirely outside any flood hazard areas. The Zone X designation given to the City indicates that it is not only outside the 100-year floodplain, it is also outside the 500-year flood plain.

3.10.1.2 Project Site Drainage
The surface flow directions along adjacent roadways are generally from west to east and south to north. East 28th Street and Olive Avenue abut the site to the north and west, respectively. Both are unimproved roads, with Olive Avenue as partially paved asphalt and dirt, and 28th Street as primarily dirt. A sump condition exists at the east end of 28th Street, where elevations are several feet lower than the project site and California Avenue. Figure 3.10-1 shows existing site topography.

South of the site, Patterson Street is recently improved from Olive Avenue to California Avenue, with an asphalt curb along the north side and concrete curb/gutter along the south side. California Avenue on the east is paved and includes asphalt curbs and a 7-foot catch basin just northeast of the Project Site.

Drainage on-site is by percolation to the subsurface, with topography and on-site containment features limiting discharge to the adjacent unimproved roads. Surface flows across the site are generally toward the northeast, but dirt berms prevent site runoff to California Avenue, as do the asphalt curbs along California and Patterson. The above-ground storage tanks on-site are enclosed by block walls and/or earth berms for spill containment purposes, effectively limiting storm runoff from those facility sites. The natural vegetated ground cover and soils serve as pervious cover that minimizes the potential for pollutants of concern from being discharged into the municipal storm drain system.

3.10.1.3 Stormwater Quality
The quality of stormwater discharges throughout the L.A. River watershed varies considerably and is affected by the hydrology, geology, land use, season and sequence and duration of hydrologic events. The primary constituents of concern currently identified by the LACDPW Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report (1994-2005) are indicator bacteria, total and dissolved copper, lead and zinc, total aluminum and cyanide. Stormwater constituents on the Project Site presently include silt/sediment, oxygen-demanding substances, petroleum products, heavy metals, and floatables.

Section 3.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) indicates that known soil contaminants from past land use activities are not at levels that warrant abatement or pose a threat to public health and safety.

5 FIRM Panel 06037C1970F, effective September 26, 2008.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-4 FIGURE 3.10-1

EXISTING SITE TOPOGRAPHY
Source: J.D. Cole and Associates, Inc. 2008
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-5

3.10.1.4 Groundwater
The site is within the West Coast Hydrologic Subarea of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County.

Groundwater occurs in the underlying alluvial deposits that consist primarily of sand and silty sands.

These alluvial deposits have been uplifted by continual movement along the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, which occurs just north of the site.

The City of Signal Hill is in the Long Beach Groundwater Plain. Underlying aquifers include (from shallowest to deepest) the Gage, Hollydale, Jefferson, Lynwood, Silverado and Sunnyside aquifers.

The underlying aquifers are found starting at depths of approximately 50-100 feet below ground surface. These aquifers are separated from one another by aquitards composed of relatively impermeable, fine-grained sediments. The site is immediately underlain by the Bellflower Aquiclude.

Depth to groundwater underlying the site is at least 125-feet below ground surface (Mearns 2008), and groundwater was not encountered during the borings for the Phase II environmental site assessment (see Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).

The direction of groundwater flow in the site vicinity is complicated by the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, but is likely toward the south-southwest. Estimated groundwater levels and/or flow direction(s) may vary due to seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, local usage demands, geology, underground structures or dewatering operations.

The expected beneficial uses for groundwater are MUN (Municipal and Domestic Supply), IND (Industrial Service Supply), PROC (Industrial Process Supply) and AGR (Agricultural Supply). However, extensive oilfield activities have impaired groundwater quality so that the near surface aquifers are not considered for potable water.

3.10.1.5 Water Quality Regulations and Programs
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The federal Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) established a national policy to help maintain and restore the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. In 1972, the CWA established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program to regulate the discharge of pollutants from “point sources” to waters of the nation (“Waters of the U.S.”). From 1972 to 1987, the main focus of the NPDES program was to regulate conventional pollutant sources such as sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted studies along with public agencies and other entities dealing with urban stormwater and found that runoff from urbanized areas, along with erosion and siltation from construction sites, were major sources of urban runoff pollution. Consequently, the 1987 amendments to the CWA added Section 402(p) requiring the EPA to develop permitting regulations for stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewers (MS4s) and industrial facilities, including construction sites.

Local NPDES Implementation
Pursuant to the NPDES program, permits that apply to storm water discharges from municipal storm drain systems, specific industrial activities and construction activities that disturb one acre or more have been issued. NPDES permits may establish enforceable effluent limitations on discharges, require monitoring of discharges, designate reporting requirements and require the permittee to perform Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and operational activities.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-6
Construction BMPs are embodied in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must conform to the State's Construction Activity General Permit. As such, the SWPPP must achieve the following four main objectives:

1. Identify all pollutant sources including sources of sediment that may affect the quality of storm water discharges associated with new development (storm water discharges) from the construction site;

2. Identify non-storm water discharges, and methods to eliminate them, or to properly manage them;

3. Identify, construct, implement in accordance with a time schedule, and maintain Best Management Practices to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges from the construction site during construction; and

4. Develop a maintenance schedule for BMPs installed during construction designed to reduce or eliminate pollutants.

All incorporated cities in Los Angeles County, except Long Beach are subject to the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements of NPDES Permit No. CAS004001, Order No. 01- 182. This permit was issued by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region in December 2001. The City of Long Beach operates under its own Municipal NPDES Permit No. CAS004003 (CI 8052) and has NPDES and SUSMP regulations detailed in Chapter 18.95 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

The project is subject to the SUSMP requirements because it is a commercial/industrial development that will create at least one acre of impermeable area, including parking areas (City of Signal Hill Municipal Code, Chapter 12.16). For an individual project, a SUSMP must be prepared explaining the type of development and drainage of the site, and how the project affects postconstruction water quality and habitat impact issues. It must contain BMPs that will be implemented to address stormwater pollution and peak flow discharge impacts.

3.10.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) outlines the significance criteria against which a project is measured for hydrology and water quality. The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur:
• The project would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
• The project would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).
• The project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. • The project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-7
• The project would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
• The project would require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• The project would place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, or place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
• The project would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. • The project would be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

3.10.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

3.10.3.1 Standard Regulatory Compliance
As part of the proposed Project’s review and approval, a number of performance criteria and standard conditions must be met, including local and State regulations pertaining to flood control and stormwater quality. Both permanent and temporary impacts are regulated and subject to permit or other authorization.

The proposed stormwater management system was designed to minimize impacts to the capacities of downstream storm drain facilities, and protect on-site water quality and designated beneficial uses in receiving waters. Using criteria established by the LACDPW and the City of Signal Hill, the project is designed to produce no net increase in discharge volumes to downstream facilities. Since there are no 100-year flood threats in the vicinity or problematic drainage issues on-site, this section focuses on the management of runoff for water quality purposes.

In the near term, during project construction, the project will comply with all requirements of the State Construction Activity General Permit (NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 99-08-DWQ) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. The project applicant will submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and fee payment to the LARWQCB prior to commencement of construction activities in order to obtain authorization for proposed storm water discharges. Authorization will not be granted until the applicant develops an acceptable Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including a Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Post-Construction Management Plan designed and implemented such that storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality standards contained in the Basin Plan. The SWPPP must implement controls to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the project site to the BAT/BCT6 performance standard.

In the long term, during the operational life of the project, the project will comply with the local regulations associated with the Regional Board’s Municipal Stormwater Permit issued to Los Angeles County and co-permittees under NPDES No. CAS004001 and Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 01-182. This includes the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and all related

6 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) to reduce or eliminate storm water pollution.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-8
implementing local ordinances and regulations for the control of stormwater pollution from new development and redevelopment.

Compliance with those standard regulatory requirements will minimize or avoid various environmental effects. Impacts that do not meet or exceed the significance thresholds listed in Section 3.10.2 are deemed less than significant, as summarized below.

3.10.3.2 Stormwater Runoff During Construction
• The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. • The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

The following is a list of construction materials that will be used and activities that will have the potential to contribute pollutants, other than sediment, to storm water runoff:
• contact of construction materials and equipment with storm water • vehicle maintenance and fueling
• construction material loading, unloading, and storage • paving operations (as applicable)
• painting, waterproofing
• concrete or asphalt cutting
Grading and excavation activities would temporarily create bare soils that could be eroded by both wind and water if not properly treated. Such conditions could cause an increase in stormwater turbidity. To minimize the potential for soil erosion and other pollutant discharges, the City of Signal Hill has adopted policies that require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The SWPPP must include pollutant source identification, combined with itemized BMPs specifically chosen to control the pollutants listed.

BMPs will address erosion and sediment control; non-storm water management; post-construction storm water management, waste management and disposal; maintenance, inspection, and repair of construction equipment and vehicles; employee training to perform inspections of the BMPs at the construction site; and proper storage, handling, use, and disposal of fuels and other toxic materials, as well as establishing fuel and maintenance areas away from drainage ways.

The preliminary SUSMP map/grading plan shown on Figure 3.10-2 includes the following temporary BMPs to be implemented by the SWPPP during the construction period:
• Silt fences – These filter fabric fences will be installed primarily along either side of 28th Street where sheet flows might discharge from the higher elevation site, as well as from the 28th Street construction area itself. The silt fences will detain sediment-laden water, promoting sedimentation behind the fence.
• Check dams – To prevent erosion and storm drain sedimentation, rock check dams will be installed to interrupt the flowline at the new curb inlets on 28th Street. They will reduce flow velocities and allow sediment to settle.
• Storm drain inlet protection – These measures temporarily pond runoff before it enters a drop or curb inlet, allowing sediment to settle. Inlet protection may take the form of sand bags, silt fences, fiber rolls, or a combination of those options.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-9 Source: JRM&A 2008
FIGURE 3.10-2

PRELIMINARY SUSMP MAP AND GRADING PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-10
• Designated construction access points – Construction entrances will be located on the east and west sides of the site, from California Avenue and Olive Avenue, respectively. Stabilized construction entrances will include shaker plates, rip-rap drives, entrance/outlet tire wash, and/or other means of minimizing dirt tracking onto public roadways. • Concrete washout pits – The washout pits will be installed at one or both construction entrances for the containment of concrete washout liquids and solids that result from the cleaning of concrete trucks and pumps.

Other BMPs not specifically identified on Figure 3.10-2 will include:
• On-site dust control and street sweeping employed when and where necessary, paying close attention to paved areas and areas susceptible to wind erosion (such as soil stockpiles). • Construction housekeeping practices consisting of practices such as barricading catch basins and manholes during paving activities; utilizing plastic sheeting, secondary containment or bermed areas for construction materials when necessary; removing construction debris in a timely fashion; and berming or locating sanitary facilities away from paved areas.
• Fertilizer, pesticide, and soil amendment management, including limitations on over-applying such materials.

A Monitoring and Reporting Program will determine whether storm water discharges are in compliance with permit conditions; determine the effectiveness of the SWPPP in controlling pollutant discharges; quantify pollutant loads and characterize the discharge; and determine the integrity of pollution control structures and practices. As required by law, the SWPPP will be readily available onsite for the duration of the project. By minimizing sediment and pollutant loading in stormwater runoff during construction, the SWPPP will ensure that receiving waters are not adversely affected during the construction period.

3.10.3.3 Post-Development Drainage and Water Quality
• The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. • The proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

The project engineer calculated the pre- and post-development pervious and impervious areas created by the proposed development, as follows:

Pre-development
Impervious area = 0.10 acres
Pervious area = 3.62 acres
Post-development
Impervious area = 3.53 acres
Pervious area = 0.19 acres
Development and urbanization increases pollutant load, volume and discharge velocity. The proposed parking areas, driveways, buildings and walkways are all impervious surfaces that will generate increased stormwater runoff. The proposed Project is expected to produce urban runoff that normally includes sediment and turbidity, nutrients, trash and debris, oil and grease, and pesticides. The roadway areas would normally produce urban runoff that has organic compounds (specifically petroleum hydrocarbons), oxygen demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, and metals. It is important to note that the proposed buildings will enclose all site activities and none of the transfer/recycling operations will be subject to stormwater run-on or runoff.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-11
While natural vegetated soil can both absorb rainwater and remove pollutants, the onsite soils likely provide minimal natural purification. Unlike most undeveloped sites with natural vegetated pervious ground cover, the Project Site presently consists of oil-related industrial facilities, combined with generally bare soils having some low levels of contamination from past site uses.

To account for increased stormwater runoff and to restore some of the site's natural purification characteristics, the project architect/engineer reviewed the publication, Development Plans for Stormwater Management -- A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and has proposed permanent BMPs to effectively minimize the negative impacts of the project's storm water runoff. The water quality treatment design standard is the runoff from the first ¾” of rainfall. BMPs will meet the most current City and Regional Board requirements for stormwater mitigation.

The proposed Project’s runoff flow rate, volume, velocity and duration for the post-development condition will not exceed the pre-development condition for the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event. This condition will be achieved by incorporating bioretention basins and other stormwater controls that mimic pre-development conditions. For the entire project, the post-development Q10 will be less than the pre-development Q10. Supporting calculations will be included in the project SUSMP.

Treatment Control BMPs
According to the preliminary SUSMP, all catch basin low flows will drain into the bioretention basins that, when combined with the other structural BMPs described below, will minimize sediment and turbidity, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oils and grease, and metals.

Supporting engineering calculations for flow velocity, volume, and Treatment Control BMP design details will be included in the project SUSMP document.

The preliminary SUSMP map/grading plan shown on Figure 3.10-2 includes the following permanent structural BMPs:
• Trench drains and catch basins – Rainwater falling on the ramps to and from the loadout area will run toward and collect at the ramp low points. Trench drain systems will be installed to intercept and collect the surface flows, which will pass through a clarifier before discharge to the sanitary sewer system. A catch basin/clarifier system having the same function will be installed at the base of the recycle loading dock.
• Oil/water separators – This facility will be installed in the Maintenance/Shop building to separate oils and grease from discharged water, which will then be sent to the municipal sewer system rather than the stormdrain system.
• Infiltration ditches – The infiltration ditch proposed along 28th Street will collect stormwater from the site and is intended for removal of fine sediment and associated pollutants.

Stormwater not infiltrated will enter a bioretention basin for further treatment and reduction of peak runoff discharges.
• Bioretention basins – These basins will be placed in up to six locations on-site and up-flow from curbside catch basins in order to capture and biologically process stormwater before it infiltrates into the earth or discharge via subdrain to the local storm drain system. These basins will ensure that there is no increase in surface water discharging from the Project Site after development.

The selected BMPs will be installed per the approved plans and as recommended by the product manufacturer as applicable. Treatment Control BMPs will be designed and maintained in a manner that does not promote the breeding of vectors, and no standing water will remain within 72 hours of cessation of rainfall. All structural BMPs will be accessible for inspection and maintenance.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-12
Source Control BMPs
Non-Structural Source Control BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the following:
• education for operators and employees
• activity restrictions
• irrigation system and landscape maintenance
• common area litter control
• street sweeping private streets and parking lots
• drainage facility inspection and maintenance
Structural Source Control BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the following:
• control of impervious runoff
• common area efficient irrigation
• common area runoff-minimizing landscape design
• catch basin stenciling
Long-Term BMP Operations and Maintenance
Operations and maintenance (O&M) requirements for all structural Source Control and Treatment Control BMPs will be identified in the SUSMP document. The bioretention basins (i.e., side slopes, plantings, inlet/outlet structures, sediment depth, etc.) will be maintained and inspected, as necessary, by the project Applicant through the following general activities:
• regular inspections, as specified in the final SUSMP; • vegetation cutting and removal;
• hydroseeding barren slopes;
• trash/debris/sediment removal and disposal
• corrective actions to ensure structural integrity.

The final SUSMP will include copies of CC&Rs, Covenant and Agreements, and/or other mechanisms used to ensure the ongoing operation, maintenance, funding, transfer and implementation of the water quality management requirements. The Applicant will provide all funding for maintenance of the site BMPs.

3.10.3.4 Construction of Drainage Facilities
• The proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

The impact significance criterion cited above is not whether new drainage facilities will be constructed or expanded. As with all infrastructure, that is a given in order to ensure proper service.

Rather, the criterion focuses on the nature of those improvements and whether by placement or the act of construction those facilities "…could cause significant environmental effects." Since "significant environmental effects" under CEQA are those that result from substantial adverse physical impacts, construction-related physical environmental impacts may include those related to traffic, air quality, noise, biological and cultural resources, etc. Insofar as the potential environmental effects of construction have been analyzed and, if necessary, mitigated to below a level of significance, the EIR has adequately evaluated planned improvements to drainage infrastructure.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-13

3.10.3.5 Alteration of Drainage Patterns
• The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding, erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

With implementation of the short- and long-term BMPs described previously, the Project has no potential to alter drainage in a way that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

Additionally, there is very limited ecological habitat at and near the site. Streams and riparian resources are absent from the project area, as are wetlands, pits, ponds and lagoons. No aspect of the project is subject to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACOE) Section 404 Permit or a California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) Streambed Alteration Agreement. Further, all project-related improvements and stormwater treatment systems will be located outside of any waters of the State.

3.10.3.6 Groundwater Supplies
• The proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) commented on the Notice of Preparation by requesting that the EIR address groundwater contamination from previous site activities. DTSC requested that if groundwater contamination is suspected during demolition and construction, these activities should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented.

In addressing DTSC's concerns, the Human Health Risk Assessment (Mearns 2008) identified the potential complete exposure pathways by which constituents detected in soil could impact human health. The HHRA identifies potential sources, environmental release mechanisms, potential migration pathways, potential exposure pathways, potential exposure routes and potential human receptors onsite.

With regard to soils and groundwater contamination, the HHRA determined the following:
• Potential direct exposures (ingestion and dermal contact) to groundwater are not complete pathways due to the fact that drinking water is provided by a remote municipal water supply and the depth to groundwater underlying the site is at least 125-feet below ground surface, so there is little chance of incidental exposure.
• Discharge of groundwater to surface water is not considered to be a complete migration pathway since there are no surface water bodies that are recharged by artesian flow or groundwater seepage in the vicinity of the site.
• The potential for chemicals in soil to leach to underlying groundwater used as a drinking water source is considered very low as several aquitards or aquicludes exist below the maximum depth of impacted soils and groundwater used as a drinking water source.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-14
• There is very limited ecological habitat at and near the site. Wetlands do not exist onsite or at adjacent sites, and no pits, ponds or lagoons exist onsite. Based on the lack of viable ecological habitat at and near the site, there are no complete ecological pathways onsite.

3.10.3.7 Flooding and Related Hazards
• The proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, or place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.

The Flood Insurance Rate Map applicable to the Project Site is Panel 06037C1970F, effective September 26, 2008. The FIRM panel shows that the entire City is in Zone X, meaning that the City is not only outside the 100-year floodplain, it is also outside the 500-year flood plain. The Project Site is not subject to inundation by the 100-year flood and no flooding impacts would result. • The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
• The proposed Project would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

The Project Site is not within a dam inundation, nor is it in an area subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

3.10.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
All project-related hydrology and water quality impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the proposed drainage and water quality improvements, standard regulatory conditions, and project-specific conditions of approval. The preceding sections demonstrate that project-related hydrology and water quality impacts would not exceed the thresholds of significance outlined previously. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

3.10.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No mitigation measures are required because project-related impacts would be less than significant.

3.10.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative drainage, flooding, and water quality impacts are generally confined to the drainages in the project area that are tributary to the L.A. River and, ultimately, the nearshore waters of the Pacific Ocean. Upstream land use changes resulting from cumulative development will create new impervious surfaces, increase stormwater runoff rates, and contribute to downstream sedimentation and urban pollutant runoff. Detailed hydrology and hydraulics studies will continue to analyze land use modifications and specify necessary flood control and water quality improvements on a projectby-project basis. Those incremental changes are the subject of the numerous water quality plans and programs that address the L.A. River and Long Beach Harbor and that contain cumulative development assumptions for each watershed. By adhering to regulatory programs designed to protect water resources from adverse impacts, the effects of cumulative upstream development would be substantially minimized.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.10-15
Section 15130(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part, that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect “is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact.” Given that the proposed SUSMP and site-specific BMPs would minimize the adverse effects of cumulative development elsewhere in the study area watershed, the Project would provide water quality and flood control benefits that might not otherwise be implemented. The Project property has a large proportion of disturbed and exposed soils that potentially contribute to downstream siltation and pollutant transport. Since the Project will mitigate runoff volumes and pollutant loads, its incremental and cumulative effects on water quality and flood control facilities would be less than significant.

3.10.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ON HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) included hydrology and water quality issues in its comments on the NOP.

The following hydrology/water quality data and/or concerns are addressed in the Draft EIR:
• CIWMB
o Stated the Proposed Project will require concurrence by the CIWMB in the issuance by the Local Law Enforcement Agency of a Solid Waste Facilities Permit for the operation of a Large Volume Transfer Station, possible other federal, state, and local approvals including a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit as well as being included in the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan.

The Proposed Project would obtain all required federal, state, and local permits for operation. A discussion of NPDES requirements is provided above. • DTSC
o Address groundwater contamination from previous site activities See analysis above.
o If groundwater contamination is suspected during construction/demolition, these activities should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implement Groundwater supplies will not be adversely impacted by the proposed development. The Project does not propose construction of any groundwater wells since public water sources will be provided to the site via municipal transmission mains. No impact to groundwater supplies or recharge areas would result.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.11-1

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

3.11.1 EXISTING SETTING
The State of California, Department of Conservation classifies areas according to their potential for mineral resources. The Proposed Project Site is located within the San Gabriel Valley ProductionConsumption (P-C) Region.1 There are no active aggregate quarries within the City of Signal Hill.2 Moreover, the City’s General Plan Land Use Element does not designate the Proposed Project Site for mineral resources.3
There are active and abandoned oil wells on the project site.

3.11.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist), significant mineral resources impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
• Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
• Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

3.11.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
• The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

The Proposed Project Site is not designated by the State as a Mineral Resource Zone No. 2.4 Active oil well operations will continue on the project site. Therefore, no project-level impacts to mineral resources will result from Project implementation.
• The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

The Proposed Project Site is not designated by the City General Plan, Land Use Element for mineral resource recovery.5 Therefore, implementation of the Project will not result in any Project-level impacts to mineral resources.

1 State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report No. 143, Part I, Figure 1.3, 1979.
2 Ibid, Part IV, Table 4.1, 1982.
3 City of Signal Hill General Plan, Land Use Element, June 2001. 4 Ibid, Plate 7.45
5 City of Signal Hill General Plan, Introduction Chapter, Page Int.-3, Figure 1. February 7, 1986.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11 Mineral Resources EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.11-2

3.11.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts associated with mineral resources are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.11.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts associated with mineral resources are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.11.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Proposed Project Site and the vicinity around the Proposed Project Site do not contain aggregate mineral resources. The project site and vicinity includes active and abandoned oil wells. The environmental baseline conditions for aggregate mineral resources are not significantly affected. The Proposed Project does not include aggregate mineral resource extraction uses nor will it displace any such resources on the Project Site. Active oil wells on the project site will continue operation.

Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project will not result in any cumulative impacts to the mineral resources in the area.

3.11.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ON MINERAL RESOURCE ISSUES No comments by either the public or agencies related to mineral resource issues were received on the Project Notice of Preparation issued by the City of Signal Hill.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-1

4.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires than an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives or would be more costly. The “rule of reason” under CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f) requires that the EIR address only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. These alternatives must foster informed decision-making and public participation. The EIR must also provide the rationale for the selection of the alternatives.

This section analyzes three alternatives to the Proposed Project that may avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Proposed Project. The first alternative is the CEQA required “No Project” alternative. The No Project alternative would be development under the site’s existing conditions and the existing CG (Commercial General) zoning. The second alternative is an alternative site location for the Proposed Project. The third alternative is a smaller facility alternative. No alternatives were identified by the City and/or by Notice of Preparation (NOP) comments and then eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible.

4.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As discussed previously in Section 2.2 (Project Objectives), development of the Proposed Project will satisfy two different objectives:

Objective 1: Redevelopment of a blighted area of the City of Signal Hill Objective 2: Continuation of the reduction of quantities of waste deposited in landfills by increasing waste diversion activities
Objective 1 will be satisfied through implementation of the goals and objectives outlined in the City’s General Industrial Specific Plan 19 (SP-19). The purpose of SP-19 is to guide the physical development of a blighted geographic area within the City suited for the development of jobproducing industrial uses, but constrained by existing zonal designations, small lot sizes, environmental conditions, or leasehold that prevent or discourage development. The goals and objectives outlined in SP-19 are:
• Encourage the development of privately sponsored, jobs producing, industrial development • Encourage the consolidation of existing substandard lots into parcels of suitable size for contemporary planned industrial development with adequate parking and good access to major arterial roads and the freeway system
• Apply design standards that result in quality development and achieve streetscapes with attractive buildings, enclosed industrial yards and well landscaped yards that provide an aesthetically pleasing buffer for passers-by and neighboring land uses • Preserve the quality appearance of an industrial area by providing good quality landscaping initially and by the establishment of controls requiring good quality maintenance thereafter Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-2
• Provide for the development of safe and secure industrial facilities with adequate infrastructure improvements to promote safe and efficient vehicular traffic flows of goods and materials, and assure security through lighting and alarm systems and site designs that discourage vandalism, theft and other criminal activities.

4.3 SUMMARY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The Proposed Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts were evaluated in Chapter 3.0 (Environmental Analysis). This analysis found no significant impacts without mitigation for some environmental topics, and some significant impacts that could be reduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation for other environmental topics. There were no unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Project.

4.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

4.4.1 No Project
The purpose of the No Project alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving a project. The State CEQA Guidelines specifically advise that No Project is “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.”
The No Project Alternative for the Proposed Project involves a continuation of the existing conditions and land use designations on the Project site with potential future development under the existing General Plan designation of 4.2 General Industrial and zoning designation of CG (Commercial General). Per the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, the project site is located in one of the City’s oldest commercially designated zoning areas (1964) and this area has failed to develop into a viable commercial use, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses and the environmental and land use constraints previously identified in Chapter 3.2, Land Use and Planning. The City has also designated the project vicinity area as a Redevelopment Area.

If the City chooses to not approve the Proposed Project and takes no action (No Project) to create a MRF/TS, the City under State law must still continue to collect solid waste and dispose of this waste at a landfill and/or process this waste for recycling. Under the No Project Alternative, the City would continue to transport most of its waste to the La Puente Landfill.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-3

4.4.2 Alternative Site Location
The Alternative Site Location alternative would be another site in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood in the City of Signal Hill. This neighborhood contains the single largest vacant land area remaining in the City. Per the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, this neighborhood has remained vacant because of overwhelming constraints to development including: ongoing oil production activities, primarily independent oil operations; contaminated soils including sumps and past refining facilities; small lot sizes and fragmented ownership patterns; lack of infrastructure; and topographical constraints including steep slopes and a ravine north of Columbia Street.

4.4.3 Smaller Facility Alternative
The Smaller Facility Alterative would reduce the square footage of the proposed facility on the same project acreage. A smaller facility would downsize and/or eliminate some of the recycling programs offered by the Proposed Project such as the community buy-back program which allows the public to bring recyclables to the facility and receive compensation for their recyclables.

4.4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(c)(2) provide that if the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project” alternative, the EIR should also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

The determination of an Environmentally Superior Alternative is based on the consideration of how the alternative fulfills the project objectives and how the alternative would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Proposed Project.

4.5 CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Each environmental analysis topic in Chapter 3.0 will also be addressed in this chapter. For each environmental topic, the alternative analysis will:
• Describe the alternative and the rationale for its selection; • Analyze the impacts of the alternative and compare it to the Proposed Project; • Assess the ability of the alternative to meet the Project Objectives (Section 4.3); and, • Identify the “environmentally superior” alternative and, if the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the No Project alternative, identify another alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

4.6 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

4.6.1 Land Use and Planning
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be developed because a MRF/TS is not a permitted use under the existing zoning designation of Commercial General (CG). Future development could occur under the CG designation, however the project site and surrounding this has failed to develop into a viable commercial use since 1964, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses and the environmental and land use constraints.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the project site would be developed as a GC land use in the near future.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-4
The No Project Alternative is rejected because the existing zoning designation of CG hasn’t been able to meet the land use planning objective of the redevelopment of a blighted area of the City and the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to land use and planning in the project vicinity. The No Project Alternative also does not meet any of the project objectives.

Alternative Site Location
Under the Alternative Site Location Alternative, the Proposed Project could be developed on another vacant site in the City. In all likelihood, this other parcel would probably be in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood because this sub-planning area contains the largest vacant land area remaining in the City. Per the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, this neighborhood has remained vacant because of overwhelming constraints to development including: ongoing oil production activities, primarily independent oil operations; contaminated soils including sumps and past refining facilities; small lot sizes and fragmented ownership patterns; lack of infrastructure; and topographical constraints including steep slopes and a ravine north of Columbia Street.

The Alternative Site Location Alternative would achieve the project objectives. The development of the Proposed Project at an alternative site location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood would require the same land use entitlements (i.e., zone change to SP-19 and revision of the SP-19 zoning code) as the Proposed Project. However, the Alternative Site Location Alternative is rejected because the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to land use and planning in the project vicinity and this alternative would have the same or very similar land use and planning environmental impacts at another location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood.

Another location in another portion of the City would probably have the same, similar, or greater land use and planning environmental impacts because of proximity to more sensitive land uses such as residential development.

Smaller Facility Alternative
Under the Smaller Facility Alternative, the MRF/TS would be downsized on the same project site. The Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to land use and planning in the project vicinity. The Smaller Facility Alternative would have the same or very similar land use and planning environmental impacts as the Proposed Project.

Environmentally Superior Alternative under Land Use and Planning The Alternative Site Location and Smaller Facility alternatives both meet or partially meet the project objectives. However, the Smaller Facility Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative under Land Use and Planning because of the known land use conditions on the project site. The Smaller Facility Alternative would have the same less than significant land use and planning impacts as the Proposed Project. No land use and/or planning mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan goals, policies, and objectives as discussed in Chapter 3.2, Land Use and Planning.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-5

4.6.2 Traffic and Circulation
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be developed because a MRF/TS is not a permitted use under the existing zoning designation of Commercial General (CG). Future development could occur under the CG designation, however the project site and surrounding this has failed to develop into a viable commercial use since 1964, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses and the environmental and land use constraints. It is unlikely that the project site would be developed as a GC land use in the near future. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not result in any traffic or circulation impacts in the near future.

The No Project Alternative is rejected because it does not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to traffic and circulation in the project vicinity.

Alternative Site Location
Under the Alternative Site Location Alternative, the Proposed Project could be developed on another vacant site in the City. An alternative site location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood would result in the same or similar traffic and circulation related environmental impacts. Another location in the City could result in more significant traffic and circulation impacts if the Proposed Project was located further away from the freeway and/or in proximity to sensitive land uses such as residential development.

The Alternative Site Location Alternative is rejected because the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to traffic and circulation in the project vicinity and this alternative would have similar traffic and circulation environmental impacts at another location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood.

Smaller Facility Alternative
Under the Smaller Facility Alternative, the MRF/TS would be downsized on the same project site and would generate less traffic than the Proposed Project. However, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to traffic and circulation.

Environmentally Superior Alternative under Traffic and Circulation The Alternative Site Location and Smaller Facility alternatives both meet or partially meet the project objectives. The Proposed Project does not have any traffic and/or circulation objectives. The Smaller Facility Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative under Traffic and Circulation because it would have fewer traffic and circulation impacts than the Proposed Project. However, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to traffic and circulation in the project vicinity. No traffic and/or circulation mitigation is required for the Proposed Project.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-6

4.6.3 Noise
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be developed because a MRF/TS is not a permitted use under the existing zoning designation of Commercial General (CG). Future development could occur under the CG designation, however the project site and surrounding this has failed to develop into a viable commercial use since 1964, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses and the environmental and land use constraints. It is unlikely that the project site would be developed as a GC land use in the near future. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not result in any additional noise impacts in the near future. The ambient noise level on the site would remain the same as existing conditions for the near-term.

Alternative Site Location
Under the Alternative Site Location Alternative, the Proposed Project could be developed on another vacant site in the City. An alternative site location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood would result in similar noise related impacts. Another location in the City could result in more significant noise impacts if the Proposed Project was located in proximity to sensitive land uses such as residential development, hospitals, and schools.

The Alternative Site Location Alternative is rejected because the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to noise in the project vicinity and this alternative would have the similar or more significant noise impacts at another location depending upon the proximity of noise sensitive land uses.

Smaller Facility Alternative
Under the Smaller Facility Alternative, the MRF/TS would be downsized on the same project site and would generate less traffic-related noise than the Proposed Project. However, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to noise in the project vicinity.

Environmentally Superior Alternative under Noise
The Alternative Site Location and Smaller Facility alternatives both meet or partially meet the project objectives. The Proposed Project does not have any noise objectives. However, the Smaller Facility Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative under Noise because this alternative has fewer traffic-related noise impacts than the Proposed Project. However, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to noise in the project vicinity. No noise mitigation is required for the Proposed Project.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-7

4.6.4 Air Quality
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be developed because a MRF/TS is not a permitted use under the existing zoning designation of Commercial General (CG). Future development could occur under the CG designation, however the project site and surrounding this has failed to develop into a viable commercial use since 1964, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses and the environmental and land use constraints. It is unlikely that the project site would be developed as a GC land use in the near future. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not result in any additional air quality impacts in the near future.

As part of the evaluation of global warming impacts, CO2 emissions were evaluated for the Proposed Project. However, CO2 emissions associated with the Proposed Project are not “new” emissions. If the Proposed Project is not built, the City’s refuse and recyclables would have to be landfilled. This would lead to higher GHG emissions since individual refuse trucks would travel to the landfill increasing the total miles traveled and new emissions would result from landfill operations.

The No Project Alternative is rejected because it does not meet any of the project objectives and does not support global warming mitigation. In addition, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative air quality impacts.

Alternative Site Location
Under the Alternative Site Location Alternative, the Proposed Project could be developed on another vacant site in the City. An alternative site location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood would result in the same or similar air quality impacts. Another location in the City could result in more significant operational air quality impacts if the Proposed Project was located further away from the freeway and/or in proximity to sensitive land uses such as residential development.

The Alternative Site Location Alternative is rejected because the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative air quality impacts and this alternative would have the same or very similar air quality impacts at another location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood.

Smaller Facility Alternative
Under the Smaller Facility Alternative, the MRF/TS would be downsized on the same project site and would directly generate fewer air quality impacts than the Proposed Project. However, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative air quality impacts.

The Smaller Facility Alternative would achieve the project objective of redevelopment of a blighted area but only partially achieve the objective of increasing waste diversion activities in the City because fewer recycling options would be available. It should be noted that the volume of waste generated locally and the demand to dispose of this waste are not driven by the Proposed Project. As a result, it is more accurate to say that the Proposed Project would “move” air quality emissions from other locations to the project site. Globally, there would be a reduction in emissions as a result of the Proposed Project or the Smaller Facility Alternative due to decreased miles traveled and less Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-8
landfilling of recyclable materials. However, there would be less of a reduction in emissions associated with the Small Facility Alternative.

This alternative is rejected because of the importance of extending the City’s municipal solid waste recycling and diversion programs and meeting AB 939 objectives as well as reducing global warming through implementation of AB 32. Again, the Proposed Project does not result in significant projectspecific or cumulative air quality impacts.

Environmentally Superior Alternative under Air Quality
The Alternative Site Location and Smaller Facility alternatives both meet or partially meet the project objectives. The Proposed Project does not have any air quality objectives. However, the Alternative Site Location Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative under Air Quality because of the AB 32 goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (global warming). It is noted that the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative air quality impacts. Projectspecific air quality mitigation measures are not required for the Proposed Project.

4.6.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be developed because a MRF/TS is not a permitted use under the existing zoning designation of Commercial General (CG). Future development could occur under the CG designation, however the project site and surrounding this has failed to develop into a viable commercial use since 1964, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses and the environmental and land use constraints. It is unlikely that the project site would be developed as a GC land use in the near future. Any future development will require conformance with the City/s Well Abandonment Procedures. Continued oil well operations onsite could result in additional hazards or hazardous materials impacts in the near future.

The No Project Alternative is rejected because it does not meet any of the project objectives or implement site cleanup of existing hazards and hazardous materials.

The Alternative Site Location Alternative is rejected because the Proposed Project does not result in new significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous materials in the project vicinity and this alternative could require site cleanup at another location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood.

Smaller Facility Alternative
Under the Smaller Facility Alternative, the MRF/TS would be downsized on the same project site and would require the same amount of cleanup of existing site contamination as the Proposed Project.

Neither the Smaller Facility Alternative nor the Proposed Project will result in significant projectspecific or cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous materials in the project vicinity.

The Smaller Facility Alternative would achieve the project objective of redevelopment of a blighted area but only partially achieve the objective of increasing waste diversion activities in the City Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-9
because fewer recycling options would be available. This alternative is rejected because of the importance of extending the City’s municipal solid waste recycling and diversion programs and meeting AB 939 objectives. Again, the Proposed Project implements site cleanup of existing oil operations related contamination and does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts in the project vicinity.

Environmentally Superior Alternative under Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Alternative Site Location and Smaller Facility alternatives both meet or partially meet the project objectives. However, the Smaller Facility Alternative would implement site cleanup of known hazardous conditions. Therefore, the Smaller Facility Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative under Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

4.6.6 Aesthetics
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be developed because a MRF/TS is not a permitted use under the existing zoning designation of Commercial General (CG). Future development could occur under the CG designation, however the project site and surrounding this has failed to develop into a viable commercial use since 1964, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses and the environmental and land use constraints. It is unlikely that the project site would be developed as a GC land use in the near future. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not improve the site aesthetic conditions result in the near future.

The No Project Alternative is rejected because it does not meet any of the project objectives or improve the blighted conditions of the site.

The Alternative Site Location Alternative is rejected for aesthetics because it does not improve aesthetic conditions more than the Proposed Project.

Smaller Facility Alternative
Under the Smaller Facility Alternative, the MRF/TS would be downsized on the same project site and would still result in cleanup of hazardous conditions. This alternative is rejected for aesthetics because it does not improve aesthetic conditions more than the Proposed Project.

Environmentally Superior Alternative under Aesthetics
The Alternative Site Location and Smaller Facility alternatives both meet or partially meet the project objectives. The Smaller Facility Alternative will improve aesthetics by removing known blighted conditions on the site. The Alternative Site Location Alternative would only improve aesthetic conditions if the alternative site has blighted conditions. Therefore, the Smaller Facility Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative under Hazards and Hazardous Materials. However, this alternative does not improve the aesthetic conditions on the project site more than the Proposed Project.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-10

4.6.7 Biological Resources
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be developed because a MRF/TS is not a permitted use under the existing zoning designation of Commercial General (CG). Future development could occur under the CG designation, however the project site and surrounding this has failed to develop into a viable commercial use since 1964, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses and the environmental and land use constraints. It is unlikely that the project site would be developed as a GC land use in the near future. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not result in any impacts to biological resources in the near future.

The No Project Alternative is rejected because it does not meet any of the project objectives and there are no known sensitive biological resources on the project site. In addition, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to biological resources that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.

The Alternative Site Location Alternative is rejected because the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to biological resources that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant and this alternative would have similar biological resources impacts at another location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood.

Smaller Facility Alternative
Under the Smaller Facility Alternative, the MRF/TS would be downsized on the same project site and still have the same biological impacts as the Proposed Project. However, there are no known sensitive biological resources on the project site and the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative biological resources impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.

Environmentally Superior Alternative under Biological Resources The Alternative Site Location and Smaller Facility alternatives both meet or partially meet the project objectives. The Proposed Project does not have any biological resources objectives. However, the Smaller Facility Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative under Biological Resources because it would have the same biological resources impacts with the same mitigation as the Proposed Project. However, the project site does not have any known sensitive biological resources and the Proposed Project would not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to biological resources that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Biological resources mitigation is required for the Proposed Project.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-11

4.6.8 Cultural Resources
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be developed because a MRF/TS is not a permitted use under the existing zoning designation of Commercial General (CG). Future development could occur under the CG designation, however the project site and surrounding this has failed to develop into a viable commercial use since 1964, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses and the environmental and land use constraints. It is unlikely that the project site would be developed as a GC land use in the near future. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not result in any impacts to cultural resources in the near future.

The No Project Alternative is rejected because it does not meet any of the project objectives and there are no known cultural resources on the project site. In addition, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative cultural resources impacts that cannot be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

The Alternative Site Location Alternative is rejected because the Proposed Project does not result in any significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to cultural resources that cannot be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

Smaller Facility Alternative
Under the Smaller Facility Alternative, the MRF/TS would be downsized on the same project site.

There are no known cultural resources on the project site and the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to cultural resources than cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.

Environmentally Superior Alternative under Cultural Resources The Alternative Site Location and Smaller Facility alternatives both meet or partially meet the project objectives. The Proposed Project does not have any cultural resources objectives. The Smaller facility Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative under Cultural Resources because of known site size and conditions. This alternative has similar environmental impacts to cultural resources as the Proposed Project. However, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to cultural resources that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation for cultural resources is required for the Proposed Project.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-12

4.6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be developed because a MRF/TS is not a permitted use under the existing zoning designation of Commercial General (CG). Future development could occur under the CG designation, however the project site and surrounding this has failed to develop into a viable commercial use since 1964, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses and the environmental and land use constraints. It is unlikely that the project site would be developed as a GC land use in the near future. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not result in any new impacts to hydrology and water quality in the near future.

The Alternative Site Location Alternative is rejected because the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality in the project vicinity and this alternative would require similar project drainage and water quality improvements at another location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood.

Smaller Facility Alternative
Under the Smaller Facility Alternative, the MRF/TS would be downsized on the same project site and would require similar project drainage and water quality improvements at another location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood. However, the Proposed Project does not result in significant projectspecific or cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality in the project vicinity.

Environmentally Superior Alternative under Hydrology and Water Quality The Alternative Site Location and Smaller Facility alternatives both meet or partially meet the project objectives and would require similar project drainage and water quality improvements. The Proposed Project does not have any hydrology and water quality objectives. The Smaller Facility Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative under Hydrology and Water Quality because of the possibility of less runoff than the Proposed Project or an unknown alternative site. However, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality in the project vicinity. No hydrology and water quality is required for the Proposed Project.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-13

4.6.10 Mineral Resources
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be developed because a MRF/TS is not a permitted use under the existing zoning designation of Commercial General (CG). Future development could occur under the CG designation, however the project site and surrounding this has failed to develop into a viable commercial use since 1964, most likely due to a lack of highway visibility necessary for many commercial uses and the environmental and land use constraints. It is unlikely that the project site would be developed as a GC land use in the near future. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not result in any impacts to existing mineral resources (existing oil well operations) in the near future.

The Alternative Site Location Alternative is rejected because the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to existing mineral resources and this alternative would have similar impacts to existing oil well production at another location in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood.

Smaller Facility Alternative
Under the Smaller Facility Alternative, the MRF/TS would be downsized on the same project site and would be designed to accommodate existing oil well operations. However, the Proposed Project has been designed to allow for continued oil well production on-site and therefore does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to mineral resources.

Environmentally Superior Alternative under Mineral Resources The Alternative Site Location and Smaller Facility alternatives both meet or partially meet the project objectives. The Proposed Project does not have mineral resources objectives. The Smaller Facility Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative under Mineral Resources because this alternative has been designed to accommodate existing oil well production onsite and will have the same impacts to mineral resources as the Proposed Project. However, the Proposed Project does not result in significant project-specific or cumulative impacts to Mineral Resources. No mitigation for Mineral Resources is required for the Proposed Project.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Project Alternatives EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 4-14

4.7 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(c) states than an EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; infeasibility; or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

Alternative solid waste management technologies are an alternative to constructing a MRF/TS in the City. These alternative technologies include incineration, pyrolysis and gasification. These technologies allow waste volumes that need to be transported off-site to be substantially reduced, limiting the number of truck trips generated from a site and the project’s effects on landfill capacity.

The incineration of waste relies on the combustion of the organic fraction of the solid waste stream to reduce the volume and weight of waste and convert municipal solid waste into energy. Pyrolysis is the thermal processing of the organic fraction of the waste stream in the absence of oxygen. The waste is subjected to high temperatures (approximately 1,400ºF) and the process relies on an external heat source. Combustion does not occur and the organic waste is thermally reduced to products including solid carbon and a gas consisting of hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and other gases. The byproducts of pyrolysis are used to generate energy. The gasification process includes partial combustion of a carbon-rich fuel to produce a combustible fuel gas rich in carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane. The resultant gas can be combusted in an internal combustion engine or boiler.

These alternative waste management technologies were eliminated from consideration because the use of these types of facilities in the United States has been very limited due to their controversial nature and potential concerns regarding the toxicity of the combustion emissions. In addition, these alternative technologies are difficult to site in urbanized areas.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 5-1

5.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE

PROPOSED PROJECT

5.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The Proposed Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts were evaluated in Chapter 3.0, Environmental Analysis. With implementation of any applicable regulatory standards and requirements and project-specific mitigation measures identified for each environmental topic, all potentially significant impacts can be reduced to a level considered less than significant. The following impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation:

5.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Implementation of the Proposed Project would require the long-term commitment of natural resources and land to an industrial use. Based on the type of development and the financial and material investments required, it is likely that the Proposed Project will continue to exist for many years in the future.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would require the commitment and reduction of other nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources to support this development. These resources include, but are not limited to: lumber; petrochemical construction material; sand and gravel; asphalt; steel; and various metals, etc. Approval and implementation of the Proposed Project would also result in the loss of other resources for construction, heating, cooling, water for food preparation, drinking, irrigation, etc., transportation of people and goods to and from the site, and lighting and other associated energy needs.

The Proposed Project partially mitigates the use of these nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources through its material recovery (recycling) operations which will reduce the amount of waste transmitted to a landfill.

5.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d) requires that an EIR:
“Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.”
Growth-inducing impacts can result from development that directly or indirectly induces additional growth pressures which are more intense than what is currently planned for in a general plan. The Proposed Project would result in the construction of a material recovery facility/transfer station Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Long-Term Implications of the Proposed Project EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 5-2
(MRF/TS). The Proposed Project would improve and extend the City’s municipal solid waste recycling and diversion programs and the City would continue to meet the AB 939 objective.

The Proposed Project will have no effect on the population growth envisioned in the City’s General Plan. The General Plan designates the Project Site as a general industrial area and specifically lists recycling facilities among intended land uses. The Proposed Project is an industrial use that will be located in a blighted industrial area and the Proposed Project is not considered a more intense use than what is currently envisioned in the General Plan. Although the Proposed Project may induce other industrial development in the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood, additional industrial development will not stimulate additional residential development in the City. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be considered growth-inducing.

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 6-1

6.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

6.1 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF SIGNAL HILL
Community Development Department
Planning Division
• Gary Jones, Director of Community Development

6.2 EIR AND TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
RGP Planning and Development Services
EIR Preparation
• Susan Lamoureux, Principal, EIR Project Manager
o B.A., History and Political Science, Chapman University o M.A., Social Ecology/Planning and Public Policy, University of California, Irvine o Professional Certificate in Public Participation, International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)
o Professional Certificate in Environmental Auditing, University of California, Irvine
o Professional Affiliations:
American Planning Association (APA), Charter Member
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), Charter Member o 35 years of experience as a planning and environmental consultant specializing in CEQA/NEPA documentation and project management • Mike DeVore, Senior Associate, EIR Task Manager
o B.A., Geography, California State University, Fullerton o M.S., Environmental Studies, California State University, Fullerton o Professional Certificate in Geographic Information Systems, University of California, Riverside
o Professional Affiliations:
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP)
o 17 years of experience in project management, environmental planning, and GIS analysis
• Jennifer Wilcox, Associate, EIR Preparer
o B.S., Chemistry, University of California, Irvine
o M.S., Chemistry, University of California, Irvine
o 3 years of experience in environmental planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 6-2
• Tim Brillhart, Graphic Designer
o Art Institute of Seattle, Visual Communications
o 15 years of experience in design, illustration, photography, and digital art media
o Professional Affiliations include:
National Society of Illustrators
Noise Analysis
• Geoff Goacher, CEO, Acoustical Specialist
o B.A., Geography, California State University, Fullerton o M.S., Environmental Studies, California State University, Fullerton o Professional Affiliations:
Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE)
American Planning Association (APA)
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP)
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
o Guest Lecturer in Environmental Planning at California State University, Fullerton
o 18 years of experience in professional planning, environmental planning and impact assessments, project management, plan development and documentation, environmental resources management, noise and acoustics analyses, and visual assessment
Austin-Foust Associates
Traffic Analysis
• Joe Foust, Principal
• Cathy Lawrence, Senior Traffic Engineer
Air Permitting Specialists
Air Quality
• Ray Kapahi, Principal
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 7-1

7.0 REFERENCES
Air Permitting Specialists. October 2008. EDCO Transfer Station Air Quality Impact Analysis.

Association of Environmental Professionals. 2007. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines.

Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. November 2008. City of Signal Hill - EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility Traffic Impact Analysis.

Bass, Ronald E., Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. Bogdan. CEQA Deskbook: A step-by-step guide on how to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. 1999.

California Air Resources Board Almanac. 2005.

California Geological Survey. December 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note No. 36.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (4). 1994. Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angeles Region, Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

City of Long Beach. July 2005. Storm Water Monitoring Report 2004-2005, NPDES Permit No.

CAS004003 (CI 8052). Prepared by Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc.

City of Long Beach. August 2001. Storm Water Management Program Manual.

City of Long Beach. June 3, 2004. Historic Districts Map.

City of Long Beach. December 2004. Long Beach Sports Park Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1999091108).

City of Signal Hill, General Plan, Environmental Resources Element. June 2001.

City of Signal Hill, General Plan, Introduction Chapter, Page Int.-3, Figure 1. February 7, 1986.

City of Signal Hill, General Plan, Land Use Element. June 2001.

City of Signal Hill. Municipal Code. Current through Ord. 2008-09-1387, passed 9-9-08. Accessed at http://www.amlegal.com/library/ca/signalhill.shtml
City of Signal Hill. 2008. Project Development Guide.

County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. August 2005. Los Angeles County 1994-2005 Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report, Final. Prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 7-2
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. August 2008. Los Angeles County 2007-08 Stormwater Monitoring Report
County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Influence Area, Long Beach Airport. May 13, 2003.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 06037C1970F, effective September 26, 2008.

Great Schools website. Accessed at http://www.greatschools.net Long Beach Memorial Medical Center Initial Study. August 20, 2004.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. September 2002. Development Planning for Storm Water Management, A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).

Mearns Consulting Corporation. March 2001. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

Mearns Consulting LLC. October 2007. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3.287-Acre Vacant Land, Signal Hill, California.

Mearns Consulting LLC. September 2008. Human Health Risk Assessment, 3.287-Acre Vacant Land, Signal Hill, California.

RGP Planning & Development Services. November 2008. Noise Impact Analysis, EDCO Recycling & Transfer Facility, Signal Hill, California.

State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1979. Special Report No. 143, Part I, Figure 1.3.

State of California, Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program. Accessed at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm State of California, Teale Data Center. January 2006. Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire) Maps. Map NHD-10.

SWCA Consultants. 2006. Biological Resources Survey for the A&A Batch Plant, City of Signal Hill.

United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 24, 2006. National Wetlands Inventory.

PART 2
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-1

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ON THE

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008081009

FOR THE

EDCO RECYCLING AND TRANSFER FACILITY

CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was prepared in November 2008 for the EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility project located in the City of Signal Hill in Los Angeles County, California. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15087) from November 23 to December 29, 2008. During the public review period, the City of Signal Hill, as the CEQA Lead Agency, received six (6) comment letters and/or emails on the Draft EIR from public agencies. The City of Signal Hill has evaluated the comments and has prepared written responses to each pertinent comment relating to the adequacy of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR.

The public review and comment period of the CEQA process solicits comments for the purposes of disclosing additional possible impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures. Comments need to be supported by substantial evidence such as data, references, expert opinion, or other facts. This allows the Lead Agency to assess the impacts of a project based on the analysis provided by other responsible or concerned agencies, and provides the opportunity to amplify and explain better the analysis that the Lead Agency has undertaken to determine the potential environmental impacts of a project. To that extent, these Responses to Comments provide complete explanations to commenting agencies in order to improve the overall understanding of the project for the decisionmaking body.

The following agencies submitted comments during the public review period.

Agency or Organization Name Date
A. County of Los Angeles Fire Department,
Fire Prevention Division
Jason Wiens, Plans Examiner
Fire Prevention Engineering
Nov. 14, 2008
B. State of California – Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC)
Greg Holmes, Unit Chief
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration
Program - Cypress Office
Nov. 19, 2008
C. California Integrated Waste Management
Board (CIWMB)
Raymond M. Seamans, Senior Integrated
Waste Management Specialist
Waste Compliance and Mitigation Program,
Permitting and LEA Support Division
Dec. 5, 2008
D. Long Beach Unified School District
(LBUSD)
Carri M. Matsumoto, Executive Director
Facilities Development & Planning Branch
Dec. 22, 2008
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-2
Agency or Organization Name Date
E. South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD)
Steve Smith, PhD, Program Supervisor, CEQA
Section
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
Dec. 24, 2008
F. County of Los Angeles Department of
Public Health, Solid Waste Management
Program
Gerry Villalobos, EHS IV (Acting) Jan. 22, 2009
The following section includes the comment documents and the City's responses. Each comment document is identified with a letter in the upper right corner of the first page. The individual comments in each comment document have been given reference numbers that appear in the left margin next to the bracketed comments.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-3
Comment Document A

A1
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-4
A1
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-5
Response to Comment Document A

County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Prevention Division November 14, 2008
Response No. A1
The Building Plan Review Requirements provide the City and the Applicant (EDCO) with a list of plan check items to ensure compliance applicable codes, standards, and Fire Department regulations.

Those requirements have been provided to the Applicant's architect and/or engineer to be addressed in future architectural plan submittals. Since the Building Plan Review Requirements do not pertain to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-6
Comment Document B

B1
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-7
B1
B2
B3
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-8
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-9
B10
B11
B12
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-10
Response to Comment Document B
State of California – Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) November 19, 2008
Response No. B1
The potential for release of hazardous wastes/substances as a result of current or historic uses is addressed in Section 3.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of the Draft EIR, which summarizes two environmental assessments that were prepared for the Project Site. The information and analysis in that section is based on a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) prepared by Mearns Consulting LLC in October 2007 and September 2008, respectively. On-site soils were investigated for pesticide residues, VOCs, and other potentially hazardous substances. The Phase II ESA and the HHRA describe the environmental conditions at the Project Site. All information relating to the need for future site investigation and/or remediation has been provided in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR. Provisions for pre-demolition inspections and remediation contingencies have been established as standard conditions and mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. Compliance with standard conditions and the implementation of mitigation measures would ensure that construction workers and the general pubic would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials during demolition activities.

Response No. B2
The City of Signal Hill (the City) has entered into a contract with the State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to review assessment and investigation reports, including human health risk assessments (HRA), as part of the City's ongoing Brownfield redevelopment efforts. EDCO submitted the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA) and the HRA prepared for the site to the City for review and comment. The City forwarded these documents to OEHHA for review. OEHHA reviewed and approved the HRA in December 2008.

Additionally as this Brownfield site is an oil field with three operating pumping units and the historic use of the site was an oil field with nine previously abandoned oil wells located on-site, the constituents of concern include heavy-ends of total petroleum hydrocarbons indicative of crude oil.

EDCO is working with the State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) regarding the oil wells and will continue to monitor for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as required by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 1166 Site Specific Mitigation Soils Plan for excavating and grading site soils.

Response No. B3
A Phase II ESA was prepared for the subject property in October 2007. A Human Health Risk Assessment was prepared in September 2008. The results of these studies are discussed in Section

3.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). The complete reports are included on a CD of the Draft EIR.

A Phase I ESA was prepared in 2001. This document is on file at the City of Signal Hill Planning Department.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-11
Response No. B4
Investigation, sampling and remedial actions have been conducted, as summarized in the Draft EIR.

The comment and approval letter for the Human Health Risk Assessment from OEHHA is included as Attachment A to these responses to DTSC comments. EDCO is awaiting certification of the EIR before proceeding with additional environmental work on-site.

Response No. B5
The site is vacant, unpaved land; therefore, this comment does not apply.

Response No. B6
Volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 Site Specific Soil Mitigation Plan will occur during site grading activities. Soil that exceeds the 50 parts per million (ppm) threshold for VOCs will be stockpiled on plastic sheeting, covered with plastic sheeting, profiled for off-site disposal and disposed appropriately in accordance with State of California regulations.

Any import will be sampled and analyzed for the following constituents: (1) volatile organic compounds will be collected via USEPA method 5035B and analyzed via USEPA method 8260B, (2) semi-volatile organic compounds will be analyzed via USEPA method 8270C, total threshold limit concentration (TTLC) metals will be analyzed via USEPA methods 6000/7000 series, (3) total petroleum hydrocarbons-gasoline range, -diesel range, and speciated carbon chains will be analyzed via USEPA method 8015B, (4) organochlorine pesticides will be analyzed via USEPA method 8081A.

Response No. B7
Volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 Site Specific Soil Mitigation Plan will occur during site grading activities. The VOC monitoring will ensure that the health and safety of the workers are protected while exposed to site soils during the grading activities.

Section 3.5 (Air Quality) of the Final EIR will include the location of the nearest sensitive receptors (Figure 3.5-1). The nearest work facility is a warehouse on Atlantic Avenue between East 28th Street and East Patterson Street. The distance from the project property line to the warehouse parking lot is approximately 162 feet. The nearest hospital is Long Beach Memorial Medical Center located on Long Beach Boulevard between East Patterson Street and East Columbia Street. The distance from the project property line is approximately 920 feet. The nearest school is Jackie Robinson Academy on Pine Avenue located 3,000 feet west of the project property line. The nearest residences are located on the west side of Lime Street between East 27th Street and Walton Avenue, southwest of the project property line. The distance from the project property line is approximately 625 feet. The cancer risk to sensitive receptors is well below the threshold of one in 10 million.

Response No. B8
The project itself will not be a hazardous waste generator. It will, however, accommodate the storage and off-site transport and disposal of hazardous materials inadvertently brought to the proposed facility. The facility will have a stringent load check program for the identification and sequestration of hazardous materials during initial screening of incoming loads. Those materials will be recovered, stored and shipped in a manner and protocol further described in the Transfer and Processing State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-12
Report (TPR) as a component of the Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) as issued by the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. B9
The comment addresses the need for regulatory clearance if the project would involve the discharge of wastewater to a storm drain. In the near term, during project construction, the project will comply with all requirements of the State Construction Activity General Permit (NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 99-08-DWQ) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. The project applicant will submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and fee payment to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) prior to commencement of construction activities in order to obtain authorization for proposed storm water discharges. Authorization will not be granted until the applicant develops an acceptable Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including a Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Post-Construction Management Plan designed and implemented such that storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality standards contained in the Basin Plan. The SWPPP shall implement controls to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the Project Site to the BAT/BCT performance standard.

Response No. B10
The City of Signal Hill is in the Long Beach Groundwater Plain. Underlying aquifers include (from shallowest to deepest) the Gage, Hollydale, Jefferson, Lynwood, Silverado and Sunnyside aquifers.

Groundwater supplies will not be adversely impacted by the proposed development. The project does not propose construction of any groundwater wells since public water sources will be provided to the site via municipal transmission mains. No impact to groundwater supplies or recharge areas is expected. However, if groundwater contamination is suspected during construction/demolition of the Proposed Project, operations will cease and the appropriate measures will be instituted.

Response No. B11
The comment requires specific remedial investigation for land areas associated with agricultural or livestock related activities. As discussed in Section 3.2 (Land Use and Planning), historic, present, and planned uses at the Project Site are not related to agricultural or livestock activities.

Response No. B12
Comment noted. Based on the information above, no further response is necessary.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-13
Attachment A to Response to Comment Document B
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-14

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-15
Comment Document C
C1
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-16
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-17
C2
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-18
C3
C4
C5
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-19
C5

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-20
Response to Comment Document C
California Integrated Waste Management Board
December 5, 2008
Response No. C1
The California Integrated Waste Management Board's understanding of the project description and representation of the environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR is correct.

Response No. C2
Environmental justice focuses on environmental and human health conditions in areas of high minority populations and low-income communities. Adverse environmental justice impacts occur when a project's impacts have the potential to affect areas of high-minority populations and lowincome communities disproportionately. The Proposed Project is located in the City's Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood subplanning area. This neighborhood contains the single largest vacant land area remaining in the City and remains largely vacant due to the multiple constraints to development such as on-going independent oil production activities, contaminated soils, small lot sizes, fragmented ownership patterns, and lack of infrastructure. This neighborhood is designated General Industrial in the General Plan. Implementation of the Proposed Project will improve environmental conditions in a portion of the Atlantic/Spring Neighborhood. There are no high minority populations or low-income communities in this neighborhood. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in significant adverse impacts relative to Environmental Justice.

The EDCO Transfer Station Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by Air Permitting Specialists in October 2008 was the basis for Section 3.5 (Air Quality) of the Draft EIR. The Air Quality Analysis indicated that the Proposed Project could have a direct increase in local emissions with potential health consequences to sensitive receptors near the Project Site and along the proposed truck routes. Given those circumstances, the project warranted an emissions analysis using the SCAQMD's Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology, as well as a risk assessment of the cancer and non-cancer hazards of diesel exhaust emissions.

LSTs were developed in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative I-4. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard for oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10). LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. This focus on local environmental conditions and exposed populations is one of the basic underpinnings of environmental justice initiatives.

With the use of Project controls and well as compliance with California Air Resource Board (CARB’s) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD’s) rules, the Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As shown in Section 3.5 (Air Quality), Table 3.5-8, total on-site emissions for NOX are 6.73 pounds per day. The NOX LST is 99 pounds per day. The Proposed Project is well under the LST for NOX. The LST for CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are 1,100, 7, and 3 pounds per day, respectively. The total onsite emissions for CO, PM10, and PM2.5 for the Proposed Project are 15.2, 3.36, and 0.32 pounds per day, respectively. Each of these generated emissions is well under the LST for each pollutant.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-21
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Response No. C3
Comment noted. The types of waste to be accepted are as described in the Draft EIR. If changes are requested by the applicant, those will be identified in the Transfer and Processing Report (TPR) as a component of the Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) as issued by the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. C4
Comment noted. This and other operational features will be identified in the TPR as a component of the SWFP as issued by the LEA. Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. C5
The City will work with CIWMB to provide print and/or electronic copies of the requested environmental documents, including those pursuant to CEQA. Upon project approval, a Notice of Determination will be filed with the State Clearinghouse and the County of Los Angeles.

CIWMB is in receipt of these Responses to Comments pursuant to CEQA. Each recipient of these Responses to Comments has also received the City's Public Hearing Notice apprising them of the dates and times of public review and approval hearings.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-22
Comment Document D
D1
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-23
D1
D2
D3
D4
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-24
D4
D5
D6

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-25
Response to Comment Document D
Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD)
December 22, 2008
Response No. D1
Traffic
32nd Street provides access to the northbound I-405 Freeway. The section of 32nd Street east of Orange Avenue is approximately 550 feet long and terminates immediately east of the freeway ramps at an alley providing access to two businesses. The alley is gated at Walnut Avenue which does not allow through traffic. The 32nd Street roadway is 48 feet wide with only a centerline stripe.

On-street parking is allowed. The northbound I-405 off-ramp is controlled by a stop sign with traffic on 32nd Street having no stop sign. There is no posted speed limit on 32nd Street east of Orange Avenue.

As discussed in the Traffic Study, approximately ten percent of Project trucks will use the 32nd Street/Orange Avenue on- and off-ramps from northbound I-405. This equates to approximately four trucks per hour (two eastbound and two westbound) with a maximum of six trucks (three eastbound and three westbound) during the one highest hour of the day. These trucks will be of a size comparable to trucks that currently use this section of 32nd Street. Inbound Project trucks from the northbound I-405 Freeway will make a northbound left turn at the ramp and travel west to Orange Avenue where they will make a left turn onto Orange Avenue at the signal and proceed south.

Outbound Project trucks will make a northbound right turn from Orange Avenue to eastbound 32nd Street and make a right turn onto the I-405 Freeway on-ramp. Project trucks will pass the TRC at a rate of one truck every 15 minutes throughout the day, with a rate of one truck every 10 minutes during the one highest hour of the day.

The parking lot for the TRC has two driveways. One driveway is located between Orange Avenue and the northbound I-405 on- and off-ramps at the western parking lot boundary, and the second driveway is located east of the I-405 ramps at the eastern parking lot boundary. Drivers can enter and exit the eastern TRC driveway with no interference from Project traffic.

The eastern driveway may not be as heavily used by TRC drivers as the western driveway. Vehicles entering the western TRC driveway from eastbound 32nd Street have to yield to westbound through traffic, including traffic from the northbound I-405 off-ramp. The Project will add three trucks to the westbound through traffic on 32nd Street during the one highest hour of the day and two trucks per hour during the remainder of the day. There is no left-turn pocket eastbound on 32nd Street for vehicles to wait in; however, the roadway is sufficiently wide to allow eastbound vehicles to pass a vehicle waiting to turn left into the driveway.

The Project will add an insignificant amount of traffic (approximately one percent of the existing peak hour volume) to 32nd Street of the type of vehicles currently using the roadway (passenger vehicles as well as large trucks). The Project will not alter existing or future safety conditions along 32nd Street east of Orange Avenue.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-26
Noise
This response to concerns raised about potential noise impacts upon the Teacher Resource Center (TRC) classrooms and the Burroughs school playground applies to all such mentions in the LBUSD comment letter. The same noise issues are raised in Comments D2 and D3 and this response sufficiently clarifies the issues for all general and specific mentions of potential noise effects on LBUSD facilities.

The project traffic study indicates a total of 5 passenger car equivalents (PCE) exiting on 32nd Street and 5 PCE entering the freeway at this ramp. One large truck is 2 PCE. There are therefore typically 2 to 3 project trucks in the a.m. peak hour entering or exiting the freeway. On the freeway mainline, Caltrans estimates that there are currently 15,642 trucks per day out of a total daily volume of 287,000 vehicles. The noise level from 5 trucks per hour at 50 feet from the off-ramp is 57 dB. The noise level from 20,000+ vehicles per hour driving on the freeway at 400 feet from the closest TRC structure is 77 dB. The combined noise from the background plus the project contribution is 77.05 dB. The human discrimination threshold under laboratory conditions is approximately 1.5 dB. The change in the noise level resulting from the limited project noise increment will be imperceptible in light of the markedly elevated background level. If the TRC can function effectively within 400 feet of a freeway and not experience substantial noise intrusion, the small project increment will not “adversely impact the teaching and learning processes” in the TRC as suggested in the comment.

Diesel Particulate Emissions
The addition of up to six trucks per hour would generate some additional dust and diesel particulate in the vicinity of the Teacher’s Resource Center (TRC). The major source of dust and diesel particulate is Interstate 405 which is located 450 feet south of the TRC. Approximately 20,000 vehicles per hour travel along I-405. Twenty percent of this traffic volume is trucks, or 4,000 trucks per hour. This volume of truck traffic leads to a high background concentration of dust and diesel particulate. While the six additional trucks per hour would emit some additional dust and diesel particulate, the incremental impact would not be significant.

Response No. D2
As pointed out in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the Proposed Project will add four to six trucks per hour to 32nd Street east of Orange Avenue. These trucks will be of a size comparable to trucks that currently use this section of 32nd Street. The Burroughs Elementary School playground is surrounded by a fence which prevents children from entering the roadway and school warning signs are posted on westbound 32nd Street. The Project will not alter existing or future safety conditions along 32nd Street east of Orange Avenue.

Response No. D3
Noise
Please refer to Response No. D1.

Diesel PM Emissions
Please refer to Response No. D1.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-27
Response No. D4
Vehicles entering the western TRC driveway from eastbound 32nd Street have to yield to westbound through traffic, including traffic from the northbound I-405 off-ramp. There is no left-turn pocket eastbound on 32nd Street for vehicles to wait in; however, the roadway is sufficiently wide to allow eastbound vehicles to pass a vehicle waiting to turn left into the driveway. The Project will add three trucks to the westbound through traffic on 32nd Street during the one highest hour of the day and two trucks per hour during the remainder of the day, which will not noticeably increase the delay or effect the safety of vehicles entering the western TRC driveway.

Response No. D5
The Traffic Impact Analysis evaluated the Project’s impacts on the Orange Avenue/32nd Street and I405 NB/32nd Street intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. As explained in the Traffic Study, Project truck traffic was inflated for the analysis based on a passenger car equivalent (PCE) factor. The results of that peak hour analysis show that the addition of Project traffic, including approximately four trucks (two eastbound and two westbound) which arrive at an average of one truck every 15 minutes during the AM and PM peak hours, does not create a significant impact, as defined by the City of Signal Hill and Caltrans, at these study intersections. Additionally, Project trucks will be of a size comparable to trucks that currently use this section of 32nd Street. The Project will not significantly impact congestion along 32nd Street east of Orange Avenue.

Response No. D6
The Project will add an insignificant amount of traffic (approximately one percent of the existing peak hour volume) to 32nd Street of the type of vehicles currently using the roadway (passenger vehicles as well as large trucks). The Project will not alter existing or future safety conditions along 32nd Street east of Orange Avenue.

Although the Project has no significant impact on the traffic or safety on 32nd Street east of Orange Avenue, on-street parking could be prohibited and the street restriped to provide an eastbound leftturn pocket into the western TRC driveway.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-28
Comment Document E
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-29
E2
E1
E3
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-30
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8a
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-31
E8a
E8b
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-32
E9
E10
E11

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-33
Response to Comment Document E
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
December 24, 2008
Response No. E1
The comparison of construction emissions with both local and regional thresholds are shown below.

The results show that construction-related emissions would not exceed local or regional thresholds of significance.

Pollutant
2009 Construction
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Local Threshold of
Significance
(lbs/day)
Regional Threshold
of Significance
(lbs/day)
NOx 17.5 101 100
CO 16.5 1,180 550
PM-10 0.98 (unmitigated) 29 150
PM-2.5 0.91 (unmitigated) 18 55
SO2 0.02 No Threshold 150
VOC 2.11 No Threshold 75
Response No. E2
Table 3.5-5 lists the 2009 daily unmitigated construction emissions as tabulated in the “Summary Report” on Page 1 of the URBEMIS2007 output. The emissions for 2008 are listed below.

A 75 percent level of dust control is assumed for fugitive dust emissions. For example, unmitigated PM-10 emissions are predicted to be 18.62 lbs/day. Of this amount, 17.21 lbs/day are fugitive dust and the remaining 1.41 lbs/day are from equipment exhaust. Assuming 75 percent control of 17.21 lbs/day yields 4.30 (fugitive dust) + 1.41 (equipment exhaust) = 5.71 lbs/day (total PM-10).

Pollutant
2008 Construction
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Local Threshold of
Significance
(lbs/day)
Regional Threshold of
Significance
(lbs/day)
NOx 28.07 101 100
CO 17.45 1,180 550
PM-10 18.62 (unmitigated)

5.71 (mitigated) 29 150
PM-2.5 4.9 (unmitigated)

2.20 (mitigated) 18 55
SO2 0.02 No Threshold 150
VOC 3.35 No Threshold 75
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-34
Response No. E3
The most appropriate threshold that applies to the Proposed Project is the localized threshold of significance (LST). The use of LST methodology is voluntary and can be implemented by the local public agency pursuant to CEQA. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The LSTs are listed in terms of allowable NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 daily emission rates and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

Regional air quality depends on the actual amounts of air pollutants injected into the airshed. This should not be a matter of District policy. As a result, local rather than regional thresholds should apply to this project. The LST methodology is designed for projects that are less than 5 acres and projects that are not expected to create a regional impact. The LST methodology excludes emissions from mobile sources because the majority of mobile emissions would not occur at the Proposed Project Site. Therefore, emissions that occur off-site were not included as part of the local impact analysis. However, emissions from mobile sources that would occur on-site (i.e., truck idling) were included as part of the daily emissions and were compared with the appropriate LST value.

Construction and operation of the facility would release emissions at the Proposed Project Site where currently there are no emissions from waste handling or transport. Consequently, the Proposed Project would have a direct increase in local emissions.

Using regional threshold limits versus LSTs would be appropriate if the no-project alternative would lead to no (zero) emissions. However, this is not the case. If the Proposed Project is not constructed, the 1,500 tons of waste and recyclable material would be processed at other facilities, assuming there is available capacity to handle additional materials. Since LST methodology is appropriate to the Proposed Project, regional threshold limits for NOx emissions are not applicable. Table 3.5-8 (Summary of Daily and Annual Operational Emissions) is reflective of LST methodology and not regional threshold limits.

Currently, the existing waste and recyclables generated in the Long Beach are being processed at existing transfer stations. These transfer stations include Bell Art (Long Beach), Falcon (Wilmington) and CR (Stanton). In some cases, waste material is taken directly to the Puente Hills landfill.

The Proposed Project estimates that haulers would save 14 miles for each round trip, when they use the Proposed Project Site instead of the existing facilities. Based on the traffic study, it is estimated that 342 collection trucks and 600 self-haul vehicles would use the proposed facility. This translates into a savings of (342 + 600) x 14 miles per round trip = 13,188 miles per day. After subtracting 2,000 miles that would be generated by employee vehicles for the Proposed Project, the net vehicle miles traveled saved is estimated at 11,188 miles per day.

Emissions associated with transferring the waste to other facilities would occur regionally. Such emissions would most likely be greater than emissions at the Signal Hill facility for two reasons:
1) The proposed facility is a modern, state-of-the-art facility employing the newest equipment.

Other existing facilities are likely to be older and therefore would release greater levels of emissions.
2) Diverting the waste and recyclable materials to other locations would likely require additional truck travel. If no additional capacity is available at other facilities, waste trucks would travel directly to the landfill leading to a significant increase in vehicle miles. Either possibility State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-35
would lead to excess emissions beyond those that would occur at the Proposed Project Site.

The key issue is that 1,500 tons of waste and recyclable materials are not created as a result of the Proposed Project. The need for handling this material arises from increasing population in the region. The amount of waste will continue to grow in response to increasing population and from demand from the public for waste removal and recycling.

Response No. E4
Comment noted. Table 1 has been replaced in Technical Appendix D of the Air Quality Impact Analysis. A copy of the revised table is provided below.

Response No. E5
The averaging time applicable to determining residential cancer risk is 70 years of continuous exposure. One key input to the risk calculation is the average annual concentration of diesel particulate matter (DPM) in the vicinity of the emission sources. In turn, the average annual concentration of DPM depends on the average annual emission rate over the 70-year period.

For the current project, the main source of DPM is off-road diesel-fueled equipment such as a wood grinder, skid steers, and front-end loaders. As shown in Table 5 of Technical Appendix D to the Air Quality Impact Analysis, DPM from such equipment accounts for 96 percent of all diesel PM (0.156 lbs/hr of the total 0.16 lbs/hr). In-use off-road diesel vehicle emissions must be reduced as per CARB regulations and timelines summarized in the following document:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/documents/OffRoad_06-1215_Full.pdf State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-36
According to this regulation, all off-road equipment must be retrofitted with diesel particulate filters or meet Tier 4 emission limits by 2020. The DPM emission rates used in the risk analysis ranged between 0.45 to 0.5 grams/hp-hr (Air Quality Impact Analysis, Technical Appendix A, Table 5). This corresponds to Tier 3 engines. By 2020, Final Tier 4 emissions limits will reduce DPM emissions to

0.02 grams/hp-hr. This represents a 90+ percent decrease in DPM in seven years (between 2008 and 2015) over the emission rates used in the risk analysis. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that DPM emissions will decline by at least 75 percent over the next 70 years.

It is also reasonable to expect that DPM will continue to decline beyond 2020. This information was included in the Technical Appendix B (Off-Road Compression Engine Standards for NOx, CO, PM) of the Air Quality Impact Analysis. Table 1 of Technical Appendix B tabulates current and future off-road emission limits for DPM from 1995 to 2015.

Finally, if future decline in DPM is not included in the analysis, the results would substantially overstate the emissions and health risks associated with the proposed facility. This would mischaracterize the risk associated with the operation of the proposed facility.

Response No. E6
The emission rate of 0.12 tons/yr presented in Table 1 of Technical Appendix D to the Air Quality Impact Analysis refers to emissions of on-site equipment and trucks idling while at the facility. Idling trucks account for 0.0069 tons/yr (Table 6 of Technical Appendix A). The remaining emissions (0.122 tons/yr) are from on-site equipment such as grinder, skid steers and front- end loaders (Table 5 of Technical Appendix A). These emissions were used in the risk analysis.

The emission rate of 0.852 tons/yr of DPM noted in the comment (and shown in Table 6 of Technical Appendix A) included on-site emissions from truck idling and off-site emissions from mobile sources such as haul trucks and employee vehicles. The risk analysis was limited to on-site emissions only.

Therefore, the appropriate emission rate for risk analysis is 0.12 tons/yr, as revised in Response No.

E4.

Response No. E7
Comment noted. The ISCST3 model will be re-run without calm processing. Initial results show that eliminating the calm winds processing routine reduces the concentration of DPM by 1.4 percent. This translates into reducing the calculated risk by 1.4 percent.

Response No. E8
a) Conversion of μg/m3 to residential cancer risk
The 0.4891 maximum cancer risk was calculated by inputting (to ISCST3) the product of the emission rate of DPM (in gram/sec) and the unit risk factor for DPM (3.0 x 10-4 cancers/μg per cubic meter), as noted at the bottom of Table 1 “Input to ISCST3 (Results in Risk/million)” in Response No.

E4. Therefore, the ISCST3 model output is in terms of lifetime cancer risk for adults instead of concentration even though the model attaches the units of “μg/cubic meter” label in the model output.

For adult residents, the above procedure is functionally equivalent to multiplying the annual concentration by the cancer potency by the inhalation dosage as noted in the comment. The analysis employed a unit risk factor of 3.0 x 10-4 cancers per μg/cubic meter taken from the June 28, 2008 “Consolidated Table of OEHHA/CARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values”. This factor includes State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-37
the cancer potency, daily breathing rate, exposure frequency, exposure duration and the averaging time of 70 years. A copy of this table can be found at the following location:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/contable.pdf
A separate calculation of risk to workers was not prepared given the low level of risk associated with the facility. The risk to workers would be approximately 20 percent or one-fifth the risk to residents.

This calculation will be included in the Final EIR.
b) Location of nearest homes and sensitive receptors
The location of the nearest residences and sensitive receptors were not labeled in Figure 3.5-1. This figure will be revised and the location of nearest residences and sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, hospitals) will be clearly identified. Revised specific distances are listed below. The Final EIR will reflect the revised distances and cancer risk calculations. The changes in distance to the nearest sensitive receptors do not change the initial conclusions that cancer risk to sensitive receptors remains below the threshold of one in 10 million.

The nearest work facility is a warehouse on Atlantic Avenue between East 28th Street and East Patterson Street. The distance from the project property line to the warehouse parking lot is approximately 162 feet. This distance and revised HRA calculation will be included in Final EIR.

The nearest hospital is Long Beach Memorial Medical Center located on Long Beach Boulevard between East Patterson Street and East Columbia Street. The distance from the project property line is approximately 920 feet. This distance and revised HRA calculation will be included in the Final EIR.

The nearest school is Jackie Robinson Academy on Pine Avenue located 3,000 feet west of the project property line. This distance and revised HRA calculation will be included in the Final EIR.

The nearest residences are located on the west side of Lime Street between East 27th Street and Walton Avenue, southwest of the project property line. The distance from the project property line is approximately 625 feet. This distance and revised HRA calculation will be included in the Final EIR.

Response No. E9
The Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for the Proposed Project will be enforcing both SCAQMD and California solid waste regulations. A copy of the final conceptual drawings, including the height of the exhaust stacks for the ventilation and filtration system, will be submitted to the LEA as part of the odor management plan. The LEA will provide a copy to SCAQMD for review.

Response No. E10
Comment noted. These rules are included in Section 3.5, Air Quality of the Final EIR.

Response No. E11
No back-up generator is planned for the facility. In the event a backup generator is installed, the unit will comply with SCAQMD permitting requirements and a permit will be secured prior to its usage.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-38
Comment Document F
F1
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-39

F1
F2
F3
F4
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-40
F4
F5
F6

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-41
Response to Comment Document F
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health, Solid Waste Management Program January 8, 2009
Response No. F1(a)
The Operations Schedule described in Section ES.2.3 of the Draft EIR describes that as waste volumes dictate, EDCO anticipates that the Facility may be open up to seven (7) days a week up to 24 hours per day. This ability includes all operations, with the exception of public self-haul, which will be restricted to maximum acceptance hours of 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. up to seven days per week.

Other functions permitted up to 24 hours per day up to seven days a week include receiving and permitted hauler waste, waste processing, waste loadout, facility maintenance, and operations maintenance.

From an operational standpoint, posted hours may be fewer and will be identified in the Transfer and Processing Report (TPR) as a component of the Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) as issued by the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. F1(b)
The restroom facilities identified in the 'employee area/control area' will be accessible to the drivers.

Response No. F1(c)
An area will be designated for truck clean-out inside the facility and will be detailed in the TPR as a component of the SWFP as issued by the LEA. Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. F1(d)
The truck wash has been identified immediately north of the Office & Employee Area and the fueling operation location has not yet been identified. These decisions will be made as operating conditions dictate. Fueling operations will require approval from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, but will not be subject to additional CEQA review.

Response No. F1(e)
Additional cleaning will be described in the TPR as a component of the SWFP as issued by the LEA.

Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. F1(f)
Additional cleaning will be described in the TPR as a component of the SWFP as issued by the LEA.

Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-42
Response No. F1(g)
Table 2-1 (Public Agency Approvals) in the Draft EIR has been revised to indicate that the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force is the correct agency to amend the Solid Waste Management Plan.

Response No. F1(h)
Table 2-1 (Public Agency Approvals) in the Draft EIR has been annotated to indicate that the actions listed under CIWMB are first assigned to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health, acting as LEA, and that CIWMB review and concurrence will occur following issuance of the SWFP by the LEA.

Response No. F2
Self-haul vehicles will dump at the same time as route trucks, and the TPR will designate different tipping locations within the facility.

Total vehicle counts describe maximum projected impacts during peak daylight hours. Staff will be on-site at all times during loading and unloading and additional operational details will be described in the TPR as a component of the SWFP as issued by the LEA. Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. F3(a)
As part of the TPR, the EDCO Director of Safety will conduct ongoing industrial hygiene reviews to ensure noise levels are consistent with OSHA standards. Additional operational details will be described in the TPR as a component of the SWFP as issued by the LEA. Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. F3(b)
The referenced statement in Section 3.4.6 of the Draft EIR has been corrected as follows: "Since offsite traffic noise impacts are less than significant, the project will not contribute to a cumulatively considerable noise increase." (underline indicates added text) Response No. F4(a)
Measuring the wind speed will be mechanically performed as a condition of the applicant and their respective grading and excavation contractors. The facility will be equipped with a portable wind anemometer. In addition, the construction manager will be checking the weather forecasts to ensure that winds would not exceed 25 mph.

Response No. F4(b)
Public self-haul is not a specific component of the CARB and SCAQMD fleet rules. However, self-haul trucks that have gross vehicle weight above 14,000 pounds would most likely be subject to CARB fleet rules. Therefore, they would be subject to enforcement by CARB. Smaller trucks would not be subject to CARB or SCAQMD fleet rules; therefore, no enforcement would be required. Additionally, EDCO will use best efforts to encourage public self-haulers to properly tarp all loads.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-43
Response No. F4(c)
The referenced statement concerning the relocation of emissions was related to regional emissions.

The Draft EIR notes that the demand for a new transfer station is driven by an increase in population.

If the current facility is not built, the waste would either be transported directly to the landfill or transported to other, more distant transfer stations. The net result of the project is that there would be a regional improvement in air quality due to reduced vehicle miles traveled.

Locally, the project would lead to an increase in emissions and impacts. This is because locating a new transfer station at a location where there is no such facility would lead to an increase (locally) in emissions. As discussed in the DEIR, the increase in emissions is not significant when compared with SCAQMD’s local significance thresholds.

Response No. F4(d)
A detailed Odor Impact Minimization Plan will be prepared and submitted in the TPR as a component of the SWFP as issued by the LEA. Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA. The following two options are examples of odor control protocols that may be used by the operators in the event that any odorous loads are received:
1) Close all doors
2) The facility would have portable spray equipment that can be used to apply concentrated odor neutralizers directly onto waste piles. This will proactively mitigate odors and therefore, reduce odor complaints.

Response No. F4(e)
A minimum frequency for tipping floor cleaning activities and other operational issues will be provided in the detailed Odor Impact Minimization Plan, which will be prepared and submitted in the TPR as a component of the SWFP as issued by the LEA. Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. F4(f)
The comment raises two issues: 1) The use of prevailing winds in determining health impacts associated with diesel particulate; and 2) the short-term variability of local winds.

The analysis of chronic public health impacts (such as cancer risk) requires that the air quality assessment quantify long-term (70 years) exposure and dosage of the toxic air pollutant. This requires that the analysis evaluate annual average wind speeds and directions. This was done in the evaluation of cancer risk to nearby residents and workers.

There are no short-term (acute) health impacts from exposure to diesel particulate. Therefore, shortterm variability in wind speed and direction is not applicable to determining possible health impacts from diesel particulate emissions.

Response No. F4(g)
MRF equipment may not be installed prior to beginning operations and may be installed at a future date as operational and economic conditions dictate. The MRF equipment will be in an area that is separate from the tipping areas for waste and will not require an incremental approach to volume State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-44
handling. Additional operational details will be described in the TPR as a component of the SWFP as issued by the LEA. Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. F5(a)
The referenced section of the Draft EIR generalizes the project effects in that the project itself will not be a hazardous waste generator. It will, however, accommodate the storage and off-site transport and disposal of hazardous materials inadvertently brought to the proposed facility. The comment correctly states that the facility will have a stringent load check program for the identification and sequestration of hazardous materials during initial screening of incoming loads.

Those materials will be recovered, stored and shipped in a manner and protocol further described in the TPR, which is a component of the SWFP as issued by the LEA. Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. F5(b)
As a recommendation in the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, the methane assessment to be conducted no sooner than 30 days after the completion of rough grading is to comply with the City of Los Angeles Building and Safety Department's methane assessment and mitigation guidelines that the City of Signal Hill follows. The source of methane is the oil field itself. The methane assessment will determine whether the methane detected in shallow and/or deep probes is under pressure, thereby dictating the type of methane mitigation system to be installed underneath the building slab prior to construction of the proposed building.

Volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 Site Specific Soil Mitigation Plan will occur during site grading activities. The VOC monitoring will ensure that the health and safety of the workers are protected while exposed to site soils during the grading activities.

Response No. F5(c)
An Emergency Response Preparedness Plan will be submitted for review in the TPR as a component of the SWFP as issued by the LEA. Conditions described in the TPR will be to the satisfaction of the LEA.

Response No. F5(d)
As this Brownfield site is an oil field with three operating pumping units and the historic use of the site was an oil field with nine previously abandoned oil wells located on-site, the constituents of concern include heavy-ends of total petroleum hydrocarbons indicative of crude oil. EDCO is working with the State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) regarding the oil wells and will continue to monitor for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as required by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 1166 Site Specific Mitigation Soils Plan for excavating and grading site soils.

The City of Signal Hill (the City) has entered into a contract with the State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to review assessment and investigation reports, including human health risk assessments (HHRA), as part of the City's ongoing Brownfield redevelopment efforts. EDCO submitted the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA) and the HHRA prepared for the site to the City for review and comment. The City forwarded these documents to OEHHA for review. OEHHA reviewed and approved State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-45
the HRA in December 2008 (see Attachment A to these responses to comments). EDCO is awaiting certification of the EIR before proceeding with additional environmental work on-site.

Response No. F6
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 has been revised to ensure mandatory compliance as follows:

If construction activities must occur during the nesting season, the City shall obtain the services of a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction nest survey on the Project Site and within a 150-foot buffer area around the Project disturbance footprint to identify any nests that occur there. This survey shall be carried out within one week prior to initiation of grading activities. If bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513 are found nesting within 150 feet of the Project disturbance area, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nests daily during all phases of construction to ensure that the Project does not impact the nests. Clearing and grading activities shall not be allowed within 150 feet of active nests. If an active nest is discovered on-site or within 150 feet of the Project disturbance area, then clearing and/or grading activities shall be delayed in areas within 150 feet of nests until it has been determined by a qualified biologist that the chicks have fledged.

State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-46
Attachment A to Response to Comment Document F
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page RtC-47

PART 3
Draft EIR Errata and Modifications
Modifications to the Draft EIR text are depicted as follows:

Black underline indicates text additions
Gray strikethrough indicates text deletions

Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page ES-9 TABLE ES-1

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Potential Impacts

Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After
Mitigation

Impact 3.6-2: Three unknown oil wells (Damron 4, RC-6, and RC-5) have not been located at the Proposed Project Site.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Impact 3.6-3: Rough grading activities associated with the Proposed Project have the potential to release methane gas.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Impact 3.6-4: Since 1923, the Proposed Project Site has been associated with oil field activities, including oil derricks, a tank farm, and wells.

MM 3.6-4: Should any previously unknown underground storage tanks be discovered during the Project Site preparation phase, removal of these tanks would require a plan check and compliance with closure conditions from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Environmental Programs Division pursuant to Los Angeles County Code, Title 11, Division 4 and California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Impact 3.6-5: Construction activities could disrupt underground utility systems.

MM 3.6-5: The Project proponent shall obtain a “Dig Alert” identification number two working days in advance of commencement of excavation activities.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008 City of Signal Hill Page ES-10

Potential Impacts

Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After
Mitigation

MM 3.8-1: Removal of on-site vegetation shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids impacts to any active nests during the breeding season. If the vegetation is entirely removed outside of the nesting season, which is September 1 through February 14, no surveys or monitoring will be required. If construction activities must occur during the nesting season, it is recommended that the City shall obtain the services of a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction nest survey on the Project Site and within a 150-foot buffer area around the Project disturbance footprint to identify any nests that occur there. This survey should shall be carried out within one week prior to initiation of grading activities. If bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513 are found nesting within 150 feet of the Project disturbance area, it is recommended that a qualified biologist shall monitor the nests daily during all phases of construction to ensure that the Project does not impact the nests. Clearing and grading activities shall not be allowed within 150 feet of active nests. If an active nest is discovered on-site or within 150 feet of the Project disturbance area, then clearing and/or grading activities will shall be delayed in areas within 150 feet of nests until it has been determined by a qualified biologist that the chicks have fledged.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

Impact 3.9-2: The Proposed Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

MM 3.9-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist will be retained by the City of Signal Hill. The paleontologist shall be present at a pre-grading conference with the contractor and shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance and work stoppage if paleontological resources are encountered. Should buried paleontological resources be encountered by the contractor during construction activities, work in that area must be halted until the paleontologist is notified and can evaluate the nature and Less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no cumulative impacts.

2.5 PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS
The Project may includes, but is not limited to, the public agency permits and approvals listed below.

TABLE 2-1

PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
Certification of CEQA document
Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending the General Industrial Specific Plan (SP-19)
Zoning Ordinance Amendment designating the site SP-19, Planning Area –3, on the Official Zoning Map
Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Design Review
Lot Merger
Disposition and Development Agreement
Vacation of an unimproved alley right-of-way between California and Olive Avenues
Vacation of Olive Avenue right-of-way between Patterson and 28th Streets
Grading Permit / Proof of compliance with NPDES requirements (SWPPP and SUSMP)
Right-of-way encroachment permit
City of Signal Hill
Amendment to Non Disposal Facility Element
South Coast Air Quality Management District Authority to Construct Conformance with Rule 410 (Odor Control Plan)
State of California, Department of
Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources
Site Plan (approval only related to oil and gas wells)
County of Los Angeles, Fire Protection
Services
Plan Check
Los Angeles County Solid Waste
Management Committee/Integrated Waste
Management Task ForceCounty of Los
Angeles, Public Health
Amendment to Solid Waste Management Plan
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County,
Sanitation District No. 5
Permit to Connect (sewer connection fee)
California Integrated Waste Management
Board1
Permit to Operate
Approval of Transfer Processing Report
Emergency Response Preparedness Plan
Odor Control Plan
Vector Control Plan
1 CIWMB approval actions are first assigned to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health, acting as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). CIWMB review and concurrence will occur following issuance of the SWFP by the LEA.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Noise
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.4-10
receptor(s) are within a minimum of 50 to 60 feet. In this instance, however, no vibration-sensitive uses are within a zone of potential impact; therefore, no impacts are expected.

3.4.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project will not result in potentially significant noise impacts. No mitigation measures are required.

3.4.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
All impacts will be less than significant without the use of mitigation measures. No unavoidable significant impacts would result.

3.4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The analysis of long-term traffic noise impacts relied on year 2010 traffic data that included the Project, background growth, and related projects. Collectively, those data represent cumulative traffic conditions. Since off-site traffic noise impacts are less than significant, the project will not contribute to a cumulatively considerable noise increase.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-7
Applicable Rules and Regulations
SCAQMD has adopted several rules and regulations that would be applicable to the Proposed Project. These include:
• District Rule 201 – Permit to Operate: Applies to stationary sources. • District Rule 203 – Permit to Construct: Applies to stationary sources. • District Rule 401 – Visible Emissions: Applies to visible emissions for more than three (3) minutes within any given hour from a stationary or mobile source. • District Rule 402 – Nuisance: Applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. This rule is applicable to the Proposed Project if at any time, the Project creates a public nuisance.
• District Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust: A series of rules designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including building and road construction, bulk materials storage, and landfill operations. This rule is applicable to the Proposed Project during the construction phase and during operational activities. • District Rules 404 and 405 – Particulate Matter Concentration & Weight: Limits the amount of particulate matter that can be discharged into the atmosphere. This rule is applicable to the operational activities at the Transfer Station at the Proposed Project. • District Rule 407 – Liquid and Gaseous Air Contaminants: Limits the amount of CO and sulfur compounds such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) that can be discharged into the atmosphere.

Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has established localized significance thresholds (LSTs) that can be used to assess air quality impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-9
The 2003 AQMP sets forth programs that require the cooperation of all levels of government: local, regional, state, and federal. The AQMP represents each level of government by the appropriate agency or jurisdiction that has the authority over specific emissions sources. Accordingly, each agency or jurisdiction is associated with specific planning and implementation responsibilities. The AQMP control measures and related emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Conformance with the AQMP for development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections.

TABLE 3.5-5

SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED EMISSIONS

Pollutant Construction Emissions Threshold of Significance lbs/day lbs/day
Impact Significant?
NOx 28.0717.5 101 NO
CO 17.4516.5 1,180 NO
PM10

18.62 (unmitigated)0.98

5.71 (mitigated)
29 NO
PM2.5

4.9 (unmitigated)0.9
1 2,20 (mitigated)
18 NO
SO2 0.02 No Threshold N/A
VOC 3.35 No Threshold N/A
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-11
TABLE 3.5-8

SUMMARY OF DAILY AND ANNUAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
PM10 PM2.5 NOx ROG CO

EMISSIONS
CATEGORY lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr

ON SITE EMISSIONS
Dust Emissions
(From Material
Handling) 3 0.57 0.32 0.058 -- -- -- -- -- --
Exhaust
Emissions
(On-Site
Equipment) 0.156 0.852 Note 1 Note 1 1.78 6.80 0.8611.305 0.1190.20 12.615.2 1.62.1 Truck Idling 0.053 0.010 Note 1 Note 1 4.95 0.90 0.44 0.081 2.61 0.48

TOTAL ON-SITE
EMISSIONS 3.36 1.43 0.32 0.06 6.73 7.70 1.7530 0.280 17.85.2 2.5608 Operational
Threshold of
Significance 7.00
No
Threshold 3.00
No
Threshold 99.0
No
Threshold No Threshold
No
Threshold 1,100
No
Threshold
Impact
Significant? No -- No -- No -- -- -- No --

OFF-SITE EMISSIONS
Off-Site Truck
Emissions 3.26 0.59 Note 1 Note 1 308.5 56.1 4.03 0.73 44.9 8.17 Employee
Travel 0.0044 0.0008 Note 1 Note 1 0.432 0.079 0.048 0.009 4.74 0.86

3 Air Permitting Specialists. October 2008. EDCO Transfer Station Air Quality Impact Analysis.

For analysis, an assumption was made that diesel particulate emissions would remain the same for the next 70 years. Per the AQMP, diesel particulate emissions would be 80% to 90% lower than current emissions due to state regulations that require 75% reduction in diesel exhaust emissions over the next 10 years. The majority of the diesel exhaust would occur be released into the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and transfer station (TS). These emissions would then be released into the atmosphere from vents located at the roof of these buildings.

An air dispersion model was used to calculate the concentration of diesel particulate emissions within 2 kilometers (0.9 mile) of the Proposed Project Site. The concentrations were multiplied by the unit risk factor for diesel particulate to obtain 70-year residential cancer risk. The nearest homes are located 625500 feet southwest of the Proposed Project Site, on Lime Street South of East Willows Street.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-15
FIGURE 3.5-1

3.5.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts associated with air quality are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.5.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts associated with air quality are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.5.7 PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS ON AIR QUALITY ISSUES
Commenting agencies on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for air quality issues included the California Department of Transportation, California Integrated Waste Management Board, City of Long Beach Department of Development Services, Department of Toxic Substance Control, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. These agencies requested that the following air quality issues and/or concerns be addressed in the Draft EIR:
• California Integrated Waste Management Board
o Requested the Draft EIR describe features to attenuate for odor and dust See analysis above.
o Requested the facility prepare an Odor Impact Minimization Plan The Proposed Project is subject to SCAQMD permit requirements and specifically Rule 410 (Odor Management for MRF/TS). Rule 410 limits the size of building openings and requires the installation of a ventilation system. The Proposed Project would prepare an Odor Management Minimization Plan in accordance with Rule 410 and other applicable SCAQMD guidelines.
o Requested the Draft EIR be specific regarding the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor(s)
An air dispersion model was used to calculate the concentration of diesel particulate emissions within 2 kilometers (0.9 mile) of the Proposed Project Site. The nearest homes are located 500 625 feet southwest of the Proposed Project Site, on Lime StreetSouth of East Willows Street. The nearest business is located 150 feet west of the proposed Material Recovery Facility.

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5 Air Quality
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility November 2008
City of Signal Hill Page 3.5-20
See analysis above. An air dispersion model was used to calculate the concentration of diesel particulate emissions within 2 kilometers (0.9 mile) of the Proposed Project Site. The nearest homes are located 625500 feet southwest of the Proposed Project Site, on Lime StreetSouth of East Willows Street. The nearest business is located 150 feet west of the Material Recovery Facility.
o A CO Hot Spot Analysis should be performed to determine if any localized concentrations of CO would result from Project implementation.

See analysis above.
o Potential impacts of odor on schools should be evaluated.

PART 4
Revised Air Quality Technical Appendix

A. Detailed Emission Calculations

B. Off-Road Compression Engine Standards for NOx, CO, PM C. Copy of EMFAC Model Output
D. Copy of ISCST3 Model Output

Appendix A
Detailed Emission Calculations

Table 1
Basis of Emission Calculations
EDCO Recycling and Transfter Station Project

SCHEDULE
Project
Daily 8 hrs/day
Weekly 5 days/week
Annual 52 weeks/year
260 days/year
2,080 hrs/year
MRF
Average Daily Total (MSW+Greenwaste + C&D) 1,500 tons/day Average Annual Total (MSW+GW_C&D) 390,000 tons/year
Traffic Volumes
On-Site Truck Travel on Unpaved Roads
Off-Site Traffic (Ref: Steve South Traffic Analysis) Veh/Day Trip Length (mile) Collection Trucks 342 10
Self Haul 600 10
Transfer Trucks 136 50
Employee and Staff Travel 100 20

EQUIPMENT
Capacity
No. HP Hrs/day Hrs/yr Factor
On-Site Equipment
Front End Loaders (CAT 928 F) 2 120 8.5 1,500 45%
Skid Steers (Bobcat S-300) 2 81 8.5 1,500 45%
Wood Grinder (Morebark 1100) 1 450 2 1,500 50%
File: EDCO_Rev0
Sheet: 1 Basic Data
Table 2
Summary of Daily and Annual Operational Emissions
EMISSIONS CATEGORY lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yrON SITE EMISSIONS Dust Emissions (from Material Handling) 3 0.57 0.32 0.058 Exhaust Emissions (On-Site Equipment) 0.163 0.905 Note 1 Note 1 1.78 6.80 1.305 0.200 15.2 2.1 Truck Idling 0.053 0.010 Note 1 Note 1 4.95 0.90 0.44 0.081 2.61 0.48 TOTAL ON-SITE EMISSIONS 3.36 1.49 0.32 0.06 6.73 7.70 1.75 0.28 17.8 2.56 Operational Threshold of Significance 7.00
No
Threshold 3.00
No
Threshold 99.0
No
Threshold
No
Threshold No Threshold 1,100 No Threshold
Impact Significant? No No No No

OFF-SITE EMISSIONS
Off-Site Truck Emissions 3.26 0.59 Note 1 Note 1 308.5 56.1 4.03 0.73 44.9 8.17 Empoyee Travel 0.0044 0.0008 Note 1 Note 1 0.432 0.079 0.048 0.009 4.74 0.86 TOTAL OFF-SITE EMISSIONS 3.26 0.59 308.9 56.2 4.08 0.74 49.7 9.0 Note 1. PM-2.5 emissions are inluded in PM-10. A separate emission factor for PM-2.5 is not available.

PM-10 PM-2.5 NOx ROG CO
File: EDCO_Rev2Sheet: 2Summ
Table 3
Construction Related Emissions
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Station Project
(Revised Feb 2, 2009)
- - - - - - - - - - Daily Emissions (lbs/day) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ROG NOx CO SO2
PM-10
(Mitigated)
PM-2.5
(Mitigated)
Construction Emissions Based
on URBEMIS (2008) 3.35 28.07 17.45 0.02 5.71 2.2
Localized Threshold of
Significance
No
Threshold 99 1,100 No
Threshold 29 18
Significant? N/A No No N/A No No
Reference: "Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology". Revised July 2008. South Coast AQMD. The Threshold of Significance excludes off-site emissions from mobile sources.

PM-10 and PM-2.5 assume 75% dust control of fugitive dust due to watering. No mitigation is assumed for particulate emissions from diesel exhaust.

File: EDCO_Rev2
Sheet: 3 Cons
Table 4
On-Site Operational Dust Emissions Emissons
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Station Project
Activity PM-10 PM-2.5 Units Ref. (lbs/day) (tons/yr) (lb/day) (ton/yr) Truck Unloading 7.90E-05 1.20E-05 (lb/ton) 1 0.1 1.54E-02 0.0180 2.34E-03 Sorting/General Material Handling 7.40E-04 5.00E-05 (lb/ton) 1 1.11 1.44E-01 0.075 9.75E-03 Loadout to Transfer Tractor Trailer 7.40E-04 5.00E-05 (lb/ton) 1 1.11 1.44E-01 0.075 9.75E-03 Greenwaste Grinding 5.40E-04 1.00E-04 (lb/ton) 1 0.81 1.05E-01 0.150 1.95E-02 Totals 3.15 4.09E-01 0.32 4.13E-02
Notes

1. Daily Facility throughput: 1,500 (tons/day) 390,000 tons/yr

2. Annual emissions based on 260 days per year

3. Emission factors from EPA's AP-42, Table 11.9-1, July 1998.

Emissions Rates2
Emission Factors PM-10 PM-2.5 3
File:EDCO_Rev0
Sheet:4 On-Site
Table 5
On-Site Equipment Exhaust Emissions
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Station Project
Daily Annual Capacity
Equipment # HP Hrs Hours Factor (g/hp-hr) (lbs/hr) (lbs/day) (tons/yr) (g/hp-hr) (lbs/hr) (lbs/day) (tons/yr) Front End Loaders (CAT 928 F) 2 120 8.5 1500 0.45 0.22 0.05 0.45 0.040 2.68 0.64 5.42 0.48Skid Steers (Bobcat S-300) 2 81 8.5 1500 0.45 0.22 0.04 0.31 0.027 2.68 0.43 3.66 0.32Wood Grinder (Morebark 1100) 1 450 2 1500 0.50 0.15 0.07 0.15 0.055 2.68 1.33 2.66 1.00Truck Idling 0.007 0.05 0.007 0.618 4.95 0.64 Totals 0.16 0.90 0.12 2.40 11.74 1.80Emission Factors From CARB Off-Road Diesel Emission Factors Copy provided in the appendix
Particulate Matter (PM) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
File:EDCO_Rev0
Sheet:5 Equip Exh Page 1 of 1
Table 5...continued
On-Site Equipment Exhaust Emissions
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Station Project
Daily Annual Capacity
Equipment # HP Hrs Hours Factor (g/hp-hr) (lbs/hr) (lbs/day) (tons/yr) (g/hp-hr) (lbs/hr) (lbs/day) (tons/yr) Front End Loaders (CAT 928 F) 2 120 8.5 1500 0.45 0.30 0.07 0.60 0.1 3.73 0.9 7.53 0.7Skid Steers (Bobcat S-300) 2 81 8.5 1500 0.45 0.30 0.05 0.41 0.0 3.73 0.60 5.09 0.4Wood Grinder (Morebark 1100) 1 450 2 1500 0.50 0.30 0.15 0.30 0.1 2.61 1.3 2.59 1.0 Truck Idling 0.055 0.44 0.058 0.327 2.61 0.34Totals 0.27 1.30 0.20 2.78 15.20 2.08Emission Factors From CARB Off-Road Diesel Emission Factors Copy provided in the appendix
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Carbon Monoxide (CO)
File:EDCO_Rev0
Sheet:5bEquip Exh Page 1 of 1
Table 6
Estimate of Daily and Annual Emissions From Mobile Sources Average Trip Roundtrip
Trips/Day Length Daily VMT
(Ref. 1) (mile) (mile) (lbs/day) (tons/yr) (lbs/day) (tons/yr) (lbs/day) (tons/yr) (lbs/day) (tons/yr) Collection Trucks 342 10 6,840 2.154 0.28 205 26.6 2.576 0.335 20.3 2.64 Self Haul 600 10 6,000 0.0396 0.005 2.37 0.31 0.19 0.024 14.6 1.90Transfer Trucks 136 50 13,600 4.28 0.56 407 53.0 5.122 0.67 40.3 5.24 Employee and
Staff Travel 100 20 2,000 0.004 0.0006 0.43 0.056 0.048 0.0063 4.7 0.62 Truck Idling2 342 0.053 0.007 4.95 0.64 0.44 0.058 2.61 0.34 Totals 6.54 0.85 620 80.6 8.4 1.09 82.6 10.7
References

1. Average daily trips based on October 2008 Traffic Impact Analysis by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.2. Assumes 5 minutes idling per truck Collection + Transfer
Trucks
PM-10 NOx ROG CO
File:EDCO_Rev0
Sheet:6Mobile Printed:10/3/2008

Appendix B
Off-Road Compression Engine Standards
for NOx, CO, PM

Table 1. Off-Road Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engine Standards (NMHC+NOx/CO/PM in g/kW-hr) Maximum
Power 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+ < 8 kW
8≤kW
<19
19 ≤kW
<37
37 ≤kW
<56
56 ≤kW
<75
75 ≤kW
<130
130
≤kW
<225
225
≤kW
<450 - 1.3 / 9.2 / 11.4 / 0.54b

6.4 / 3.5 / 0.20
450
≤kW
≤560
560kW
<GEN
≤900 kW
GEN
>900 kW
a) The PM standard for hand-start, air cooled, direct injection engines below 8 kW may be delayed until 2010 and be set at 0.60 g/kW-hr.b) Standards given are NMHC/NOx/CO/PM in g/kW-hr.c) Engine families in this power category may alternately meet Tier 3 PM standards (0.40 g/kW-hr) from 2008-2011 in exchange for introducing final PM standards in 2012.d) The implementation schedule shown is the three-year alternate NOx approach. Other schedules are available.e) Certain manufacturers have agreed to comply with these standards by 2005. : Tier 4 Interim / Final : Tier 1 : Tier 2 : Tier 3

1.3 / 9.2 / 11.4 / 0.54b

6.6 / 3.5 / 0.20

7.5 / 5.5 / 0.60

4.0 / 5.0 / 0.30

4.7 / 5.0 / 0.40

4.0 / 3.5 / 0.20e 0.19/ 2.0 / 3.5 /0.02b,d

0.19/ 3.4 / 5.0 /0.02b,d

4.7 / 5.0 / 0.03c

7.5 / 6.6 / 0.40

7.5 / 8.0 / 0.40a 7.5 / 8.0 / 0.80

7.5 / 6.6 / 0.80
Mobile
Machines
> 560kW
See Table 2 footnote (a)

7.5 / 5.5 / 0.30

4.7 / 5.0 / 0.30c

0.40 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 0.10b

6.4 / 3.5 / 0.20

10.5 / 8.0 / 1.09.5 / 6.6 / 0.80

9.5 / 5.5 / 0.80

6.6 / 5.0 / 0.30
- -

0.19 0.40

5.0 0.02b

0.19 3.5 3.5

0.04b

0.19 0.67

3.5 0.03 0.40 / 0.67 / 3.5 / 0.10 b b
- / 9.2 / - / - b

7.5 / 5.0 / 0.40

0.19 0.40 3.5 0.02b

4.7 / 5.5 / 0.03

Appendix C
Copy of EMFAC Model Output

Title : EDCO Signal Hill Transfer Station
Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Run Date : 2008/10/02 11:41:28
Scen Year: 2000 -- Model year 2000 selected
Season : Annual
Area : South Coast AQMD
******************************************************************************** *********
Year: 2000 -- Model Years 2000 to 2000 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006
District Average District Average South
Coast AQMD
Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile;
grams/idle-hour)
Pollutant Name: Reactive Org Gases Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 50%
Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL
0 0.000 0.000 3.072 7.070 0.000 0.000 0.493
35 0.013 0.016 0.037 0.193 0.197 2.348 0.025
45 0.011 0.014 0.030 0.152 0.162 2.651 0.022
55 0.011 0.014 0.030 0.171 0.155 3.609 0.024
Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 50%
Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL
0 0.000 0.000 19.324 41.636 0.000 0.000 3.018
35 1.249 1.474 1.748 1.595 0.487 25.375 1.418
45 1.075 1.269 1.510 1.312 0.426 33.289 1.236
55 0.936 1.106 1.334 1.346 0.471 53.742 1.120
Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 50%
Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL
0 0.000 0.000 2.647 78.861 0.000 0.000 2.480
35 0.103 0.182 0.538 11.708 3.606 1.220 0.501
45 0.098 0.174 0.545 12.216 4.036 1.314 0.511
55 0.098 0.179 0.617 13.619 5.485 1.412 0.560
Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 50%
Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL
0 0.000 0.000 742.092 4770.402 0.000 0.000 205.497
35 312.869 394.117 531.696 1454.406 1137.887 109.234 393.626 45 290.227 365.872 493.087 1397.100 1106.345 99.002 366.575 55 312.081 393.109 531.827 1392.129 1144.583 96.432 391.096 Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 50%
Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL
0 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.368 0.000 0.000 0.012
35 0.004 0.005 0.008 0.115 0.072 0.002 0.008
45 0.004 0.005 0.008 0.111 0.071 0.002 0.008
55 0.004 0.005 0.008 0.110 0.072 0.002 0.008
Pollutant Name: PM10 Temperature: 70F Relative
Humidity: 50%
Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL
0 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.844 0.000 0.000 0.026
35 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.147 0.047 0.030 0.006
45 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.123 0.039 0.034 0.005
55 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.143 0.037 0.046 0.006
Pollutant Name: PM10 - Tire Wear Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 50%
Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL
0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
35 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.011 0.004 0.008
45 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.011 0.004 0.008
55 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.021 0.011 0.004 0.008
Pollutant Name: PM10 - Brake Wear Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 50%
Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL
0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
35 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.019 0.013 0.006 0.013
45 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.019 0.013 0.006 0.013
55 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.019 0.013 0.006 0.013
Pollutant Name: Gasoline - mi/gal Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 50%
Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL
0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
35 28.141 22.314 16.546 17.542 17.803 56.540 24.989
45 30.351 24.067 17.908 19.394 19.676 55.443 26.951
55 28.256 22.405 16.556 17.207 17.451 46.111 25.068
Pollutant Name: Diesel - mi/gal Temperature: 70F Relative Humidity: 50%
Speed

MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL
0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
35 29.156 29.156 20.624 6.143 4.170 0.000 10.908
45 29.156 29.156 20.624 6.336 4.170 0.000 11.053
55 29.156 29.156 20.624 6.400 4.170 0.000 11.101
Title : EDCO Signal Hill Transfer Station
Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Run Date : 2008/10/02 11:41:28
Scen Year: 2000 -- Model year 2000 selected
Season : Annual
Area : South Coast AQMD
******************************************************************************** *********
Year: 2000 -- Model Years 2000 to 2000 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Appendix D
Copy of ISCST3 Model Output

Table 1
Basis of Emission Calculations
EDCO Recycling and Transfter Station Project
Modeling Inputs
Release Height (Building Hgt + 1 ft) 23 ft
Ds 4 ft
Stack Area 12.6 ft2
Exit Velocity 1,911 ft/min
32 ft/sec
Temperature 80 F
Total (Current) DPM Emission Rate 0.13 tons/year

0.030 lbs/hr

3.80E-03 gram/sec
Emissions/Stack (Current Emissions) 4.75E-04 gram/sec
Future Reductions 80%
Emissions/Stack (Future Emissions) 9.49E-05 gram/sec
Unit Risk Factor 3.00E-04
Input to ISCST (Results in Risk/Million) 2.85E-02 gram/sec Assumes Future Emissions Reductions Input to ISCST (PER STACK) for 8 Stacks 3.56E-03 gram/sec Assumes Future Emissions Reductions Input to ISCST (Results in Risk/Million) 1.14E+00 gram/sec Assumes Current Emissions for next 70 yrs Input to ISCST (PER STACK) for 8 Stacks 1.42E-01 gram/sec Assumes Current Emissions for next 70 yrs File: EDCO_Rev2
Sheet: 1 Basic Data
ISC-AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software C:\EDCO.isc PLBN1
UCART1
390300 390500 390700 390900 391100 391300 391500 391700 3741000 3741200 3741400 3741600 3741800 3742000 3742200 3742400 SCALE:
0 0.3 km
1:10,376
PROJECT TITLE:

Modeling Grid
EDCO Signal Hill Project
COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:

MODELER:

DATE:
10/14/2008
PROJECT NO.:

SOURCES:
8 RECEPTORS:
452
ISC-AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software C:\EDCO.isc PLOT FILE OF ANNUAL VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL Risk/Million

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.50

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3

0. 0.3
3 0.3

0.3 0.5
PLBN1
390850 390900 390950 391000 391050 391100 391150 391200 391250 3741450 3741500 3741550 3741600 3741650 3741700 3741750 3741800 SCALE:
0 0.1 km
1:2,987
PROJECT TITLE:

Figure 3.5-1 Spatial Variation of Risk per Million
Results in Risk per Million (No Calm Wind Processing)
COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:

MODELER:

DATE:
2/4/2009
PROJECT NO.:

SOURCES:
8 RECEPTORS:
452
OUTPUT TYPE:

Concentration
MAX:

0.58775 Risk/Million

*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 1CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - **Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected **Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values. -- SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC -- **Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE = F **Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE = F **NO WET SCAVENGING Data Provided. **NO GAS DRY DEPOSITION Data Provided. **Model Does NOT Use GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations **Model Uses URBAN Dispersion. **Model Uses User-Specified Options: 1. Gradual Plume Rise. 2. Stack-tip Downwash. 3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion. 4. Not Use Calms Processing Routine. 5. Missing Data Processing Routine. 6. Default Wind Profile Exponents. 7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients. **Model Assumes Receptors on FLAT Terrain. **Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights. **Model Calculates ANNUAL Averages Only **This Run Includes: 8 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and 452 Receptor(s) **The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: DPM **Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing. **Output Options Selected: Model Outputs Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword) **NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours m for Missing Hours b for Both Calm and Missing Hours **Misc. Inputs: Anem. Hgt. (m) = 10.00 ; Decay Coef. = 0.000 ; Rot. Angle = 0.0 Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor = 0.10000E+07 Output Units = MICROGRAMS/M**3 **Approximate Storage Requirements of Model = 1.2 MB of RAM. **Input Runstream File: EDCO.INP **Output Print File: EDCO.OUT *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 2CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** POINT SOURCE DATA *** NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STCK1 0 0.33000E-02 390910.7 3741671.5 0.0 7.01 299.82 9.75 1.22 YES STCK2 0 0.33000E-02 390910.4 3741662.0 0.0 7.01 299.82 9.75 1.22 YES STCK3 0 0.33000E-02 390966.0 3741671.8 0.0 7.01 299.82 9.75 1.22 YES STCK4 0 0.33000E-02 390966.3 3741661.0 0.0 7.01 299.82 9.75 1.22 YES STCK5 0 0.33000E-02 390928.7 3741670.0 0.0 7.01 299.82 24.38 1.22 YES STCK6 0 0.33000E-02 390950.4 3741670.5 0.0 7.01 299.82 9.75 1.22 YES STCK7 0 0.33000E-02 390928.4 3741657.0 0.0 7.01 299.82 9.75 1.22 YES STCK8 0 0.33000E-02 390950.4 3741656.8 0.0 7.01 299.82 9.75 1.22 YES *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 3CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS *** GROUP ID SOURCE IDs ALL STCK1 , STCK2 , STCK3 , STCK4 , STCK5 , STCK6 , STCK7 , STCK8 , *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 4CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS *** SOURCE ID: STCK1 IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK 1 6.1, 19.7, 0 2 6.1, 22.8, 0 3 6.1, 25.3, 0 4 6.1, 27.0, 0 5 6.1, 27.8, 0 6 6.1, 27.9, 0 7 6.1, 27.0, 0 8 6.1, 25.4, 0 9 6.1, 23.0, 0 10 6.1, 25.4, 0 11 6.1, 27.0, 0 12 6.1, 27.9, 0 13 6.1, 27.8, 0 14 6.1, 27.0, 0 15 6.1, 25.3, 0 16 6.1, 22.8, 0 17 6.1, 19.7, 0 18 6.1, 15.9, 0 19 6.1, 19.7, 0 20 6.1, 22.8, 0 21 6.1, 25.3, 0 22 6.1, 27.0, 0 23 6.1, 27.8, 0 24 6.1, 27.9, 0 25 6.1, 27.0, 0 26 6.1, 25.4, 0 27 6.1, 23.0, 0 28 6.1, 25.4, 0 29 6.1, 27.0, 0 30 6.1, 27.9, 0 31 6.1, 27.8, 0 32 6.1, 27.0, 0 33 6.1, 25.3, 0 34 6.1, 22.8, 0 35 6.1, 19.7, 0 36 6.1, 15.9, 0 SOURCE ID: STCK2 IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK 1 6.1, 19.7, 0 2 6.1, 22.8, 0 3 6.1, 25.3, 0 4 6.1, 27.0, 0 5 6.1, 27.8, 0 6 6.1, 27.9, 0 7 6.1, 27.0, 0 8 6.1, 25.4, 0 9 6.1, 23.0, 0 10 6.1, 25.4, 0 11 6.1, 27.0, 0 12 6.1, 27.9, 0 13 6.1, 27.8, 0 14 6.1, 27.0, 0 15 6.1, 25.3, 0 16 6.1, 22.8, 0 17 6.1, 19.7, 0 18 6.1, 15.9, 0 19 6.1, 19.7, 0 20 6.1, 22.8, 0 21 6.1, 25.3, 0 22 6.1, 27.0, 0 23 6.1, 27.8, 0 24 6.1, 27.9, 0 25 6.1, 27.0, 0 26 6.1, 25.4, 0 27 6.1, 23.0, 0 28 6.1, 25.4, 0 29 6.1, 27.0, 0 30 6.1, 27.9, 0 31 6.1, 27.8, 0 32 6.1, 27.0, 0 33 6.1, 25.3, 0 34 6.1, 22.8, 0 35 6.1, 19.7, 0 36 6.1, 15.9, 0 SOURCE ID: STCK3 IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK 1 6.1, 15.6, 0 2 6.1, 18.9, 0 3 6.1, 21.7, 0 4 6.1, 23.8, 0 5 6.1, 25.1, 0 6 6.1, 25.8, 0 7 6.1, 25.6, 0 8 6.1, 24.7, 0 9 6.1, 23.0, 0 10 6.1, 24.7, 0 11 6.1, 25.6, 0 12 6.1, 25.8, 0 13 6.1, 25.1, 0 14 6.1, 23.8, 0 15 6.1, 21.7, 0 16 6.1, 18.9, 0 17 6.1, 15.6, 0 18 6.1, 11.8, 0 19 6.1, 15.6, 0 20 6.1, 18.9, 0 21 6.1, 21.7, 0 22 6.1, 23.8, 0 23 6.1, 25.1, 0 24 6.1, 25.8, 0 25 6.1, 25.6, 0 26 6.1, 24.7, 0 27 6.1, 23.0, 0 28 6.1, 24.7, 0 29 6.1, 25.6, 0 30 6.1, 25.8, 0 31 6.1, 25.1, 0 32 6.1, 23.8, 0 33 6.1, 21.7, 0 34 6.1, 18.9, 0 35 6.1, 15.6, 0 36 6.1, 11.8, 0 SOURCE ID: STCK4 IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK 1 6.1, 15.6, 0 2 6.1, 18.9, 0 3 6.1, 21.7, 0 4 6.1, 23.8, 0 5 6.1, 25.1, 0 6 6.1, 25.8, 0 7 6.1, 25.6, 0 8 6.1, 24.7, 0 9 6.1, 23.0, 0 10 6.1, 24.7, 0 11 6.1, 25.6, 0 12 6.1, 25.8, 0 13 6.1, 25.1, 0 14 6.1, 23.8, 0 15 6.1, 21.7, 0 16 6.1, 18.9, 0 17 6.1, 15.6, 0 18 6.1, 11.8, 0 19 6.1, 15.6, 0 20 6.1, 18.9, 0 21 6.1, 21.7, 0 22 6.1, 23.8, 0 23 6.1, 25.1, 0 24 6.1, 25.8, 0 25 6.1, 25.6, 0 26 6.1, 24.7, 0 27 6.1, 23.0, 0 28 6.1, 24.7, 0 29 6.1, 25.6, 0 30 6.1, 25.8, 0 31 6.1, 25.1, 0 32 6.1, 23.8, 0 33 6.1, 21.7, 0 34 6.1, 18.9, 0 35 6.1, 15.6, 0 36 6.1, 11.8, 0 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 5CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** DIRECTION SPECIFIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS *** SOURCE ID: STCK5 IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK 1 6.1, 46.8, 0 2 6.1, 50.6, 0 3 6.1, 25.3, 0 4 6.1, 27.0, 0 5 6.1, 27.8, 0 6 6.1, 27.9, 0 7 6.1, 27.0, 0 8 6.1, 25.4, 0 9 6.1, 23.0, 0 10 6.1, 25.4, 0 11 6.1, 27.0, 0 12 6.1, 27.9, 0 13 6.1, 27.8, 0 14 6.1, 27.0, 0 15 6.1, 52.9, 0 16 6.1, 50.6, 0 17 6.1, 46.8, 0 18 6.1, 41.5, 0 19 6.1, 46.8, 0 20 6.1, 50.6, 0 21 6.1, 25.3, 0 22 6.1, 27.0, 0 23 6.1, 27.8, 0 24 6.1, 27.9, 0 25 6.1, 27.0, 0 26 6.1, 25.4, 0 27 6.1, 23.0, 0 28 6.1, 25.4, 0 29 6.1, 27.0, 0 30 6.1, 27.9, 0 31 6.1, 27.8, 0 32 6.1, 27.0, 0 33 6.1, 52.9, 0 34 6.1, 50.6, 0 35 6.1, 46.8, 0 36 6.1, 41.5, 0 SOURCE ID: STCK6 IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK 1 6.1, 46.8, 0 2 6.1, 50.6, 0 3 6.1, 52.9, 0 4 6.1, 53.6, 0 5 6.1, 25.1, 0 6 6.1, 25.8, 0 7 6.1, 25.6, 0 8 6.1, 24.7, 0 9 6.1, 23.0, 0 10 6.1, 24.7, 0 11 6.1, 25.6, 0 12 6.1, 25.8, 0 13 6.1, 25.1, 0 14 6.1, 23.8, 0 15 6.1, 21.7, 0 16 6.1, 50.6, 0 17 6.1, 46.8, 0 18 6.1, 41.5, 0 19 6.1, 46.8, 0 20 6.1, 50.6, 0 21 6.1, 52.9, 0 22 6.1, 53.6, 0 23 6.1, 25.1, 0 24 6.1, 25.8, 0 25 6.1, 25.6, 0 26 6.1, 24.7, 0 27 6.1, 23.0, 0 28 6.1, 24.7, 0 29 6.1, 25.6, 0 30 6.1, 25.8, 0 31 6.1, 25.1, 0 32 6.1, 23.8, 0 33 6.1, 21.7, 0 34 6.1, 50.6, 0 35 6.1, 46.8, 0 36 6.1, 41.5, 0 SOURCE ID: STCK7 IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK 1 6.1, 46.8, 0 2 6.1, 50.6, 0 3 6.1, 52.9, 0 4 6.1, 53.6, 0 5 6.1, 52.7, 0 6 6.1, 27.9, 0 7 6.1, 27.0, 0 8 6.1, 25.4, 0 9 6.1, 23.0, 0 10 6.1, 25.4, 0 11 6.1, 27.0, 0 12 6.1, 27.9, 0 13 6.1, 27.8, 0 14 6.1, 27.0, 0 15 6.1, 25.3, 0 16 6.1, 22.8, 0 17 6.1, 46.8, 0 18 6.1, 41.5, 0 19 6.1, 46.8, 0 20 6.1, 50.6, 0 21 6.1, 52.9, 0 22 6.1, 53.6, 0 23 6.1, 52.7, 0 24 6.1, 27.9, 0 25 6.1, 27.0, 0 26 6.1, 25.4, 0 27 6.1, 23.0, 0 28 6.1, 25.4, 0 29 6.1, 27.0, 0 30 6.1, 27.9, 0 31 6.1, 27.8, 0 32 6.1, 27.0, 0 33 6.1, 25.3, 0 34 6.1, 22.8, 0 35 6.1, 46.8, 0 36 6.1, 41.5, 0 SOURCE ID: STCK8 IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK IFV BH BW WAK 1 6.1, 46.8, 0 2 6.1, 18.9, 0 3 6.1, 21.7, 0 4 6.1, 23.8, 0 5 6.1, 25.1, 0 6 6.1, 25.8, 0 7 6.1, 25.6, 0 8 6.1, 24.7, 0 9 6.1, 23.0, 0 10 6.1, 24.7, 0 11 6.1, 25.6, 0 12 6.1, 50.1, 0 13 6.1, 52.7, 0 14 6.1, 53.6, 0 15 6.1, 52.9, 0 16 6.1, 50.6, 0 17 6.1, 46.8, 0 18 6.1, 41.5, 0 19 6.1, 46.8, 0 20 6.1, 18.9, 0 21 6.1, 21.7, 0 22 6.1, 23.8, 0 23 6.1, 25.1, 0 24 6.1, 25.8, 0 25 6.1, 25.6, 0 26 6.1, 24.7, 0 27 6.1, 23.0, 0 28 6.1, 24.7, 0 29 6.1, 25.6, 0 30 6.1, 50.1, 0 31 6.1, 52.7, 0 32 6.1, 53.6, 0 33 6.1, 52.9, 0 34 6.1, 50.6, 0 35 6.1, 46.8, 0 36 6.1, 41.5, 0 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 6CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** GRIDDED RECEPTOR NETWORK SUMMARY *** *** NETWORK ID: UCART1 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART *** *** X-COORDINATES OF GRID *** (METERS) 390400.0, 390450.0, 390500.0, 390550.0, 390600.0, 390650.0, 390700.0, 390750.0, 390800.0, 390850.0, 390900.0, 390950.0, 391000.0, 391050.0, 391100.0, 391150.0, 391200.0, 391250.0, 391300.0, 391350.0, 391400.0, 391450.0, *** Y-COORDINATES OF GRID *** (METERS) 3741200.0, 3741250.0, 3741300.0, 3741350.0, 3741400.0, 3741450.0, 3741500.0, 3741550.0, 3741600.0, 3741650.0, 3741700.0, 3741750.0, 3741800.0, 3741850.0, 3741900.0, 3741950.0, 3742000.0, 3742050.0, 3742100.0, 3742150.0, *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 7CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS *** (X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG) (METERS) ( 390899.1, 3741678.8, 0.0, 0.0); ( 390996.7, 3741678.8, 0.0, 0.0); ( 390996.7, 3741633.8, 0.0, 0.0); ( 390898.0, 3741632.0, 0.0, 0.0); ( 390923.5, 3741678.8, 0.0, 0.0); ( 390947.9, 3741678.8, 0.0, 0.0); ( 390972.3, 3741678.8, 0.0, 0.0); ( 390996.7, 3741656.3, 0.0, 0.0); ( 390972.0, 3741633.3, 0.0, 0.0); ( 390947.3, 3741633.0, 0.0, 0.0); ( 390922.7, 3741632.5, 0.0, 0.0); ( 390898.6, 3741655.5, 0.0, 0.0); *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 8CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO * SOURCE-RECEPTOR COMBINATIONS FOR WHICH CALCULATIONS MAY NOT BE PERFORMED * LESS THAN 1.0 METER OR 3*ZLB IN DISTANCE, OR WITHIN OPEN PIT SOURCE SOURCE - - RECEPTOR LOCATION - - DISTANCE ID XR (METERS) YR (METERS) (METERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STCK1 390899.1 3741678.8 13.67 STCK1 390923.5 3741678.8 14.69 STCK2 390900.0 3741650.0 15.88 STCK2 390898.6 3741655.5 13.51 STCK3 390972.3 3741678.8 9.41 STCK5 390923.5 3741678.8 10.19 STCK6 390947.9 3741678.8 8.62 STCK8 390950.0 3741650.0 6.76 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 9CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING *** (1=YES; 0=NO) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE. *** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES *** (METERS/SEC) 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80, *** WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS *** STABILITY WIND SPEED CATEGORY CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 6 A .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 B .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 C .20000E+00 .20000E+00 .20000E+00 .20000E+00 .20000E+00 .20000E+00 D .25000E+00 .25000E+00 .25000E+00 .25000E+00 .25000E+00 .25000E+00 E .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 F .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 *** VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS *** (DEGREES KELVIN PER METER) STABILITY WIND SPEED CATEGORY CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 6 A .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 B .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 C .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 D .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 E .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 F .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 10CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA *** FILE: 2PROJE~1\MICHAE~2\DISEPR~1\LONGBCH.ASC FORMAT: (4I2,2F9.4,F6.1,I2,2F7.1,f9.4,f10.1,f8.4,i4,f7.2) SURFACE STATION NO.: 53101 UPPER AIR STATION NO.: 91919 NAME: UNKNOWN NAME: UNKNOWN YEAR: 1981 YEAR: 1981 FLOW SPEED TEMP STAB MIXING HEIGHT (M) USTAR M-O LENGTH Z-0 IPCODE PRATE YR MN DY HR VECTOR (M/S) (K) CLASS RURAL URBAN (M/S) (M) (M) (mm/HR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 81 01 01 01 112.3 1.00 282.6 7 387.2 152.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 02 102.4 0.00 282.6 7 397.3 152.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 03 85.0 1.00 283.1 7 407.3 152.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 04 98.5 0.00 283.7 7 417.4 152.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 05 106.5 1.00 281.5 7 427.5 152.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 06 207.0 1.00 281.5 7 437.5 152.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 07 207.0 0.00 280.4 7 447.6 152.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 08 67.2 1.00 282.0 6 71.6 202.6 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 09 164.0 1.00 286.5 5 146.0 255.1 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 10 189.1 1.00 290.4 4 220.4 307.7 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 11 66.6 1.00 294.3 3 294.8 360.3 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 12 13.1 1.00 295.4 2 369.2 412.9 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 13 42.2 1.34 297.6 2 443.6 465.4 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 14 79.2 1.79 295.9 3 518.0 518.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 15 89.8 1.79 294.8 3 518.0 518.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 16 98.2 1.79 293.1 4 518.0 518.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 17 87.6 1.34 290.4 5 518.0 510.6 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 18 97.6 1.34 288.1 6 518.0 468.1 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 19 88.0 1.34 287.6 7 518.0 425.6 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 20 100.7 0.00 287.0 7 518.0 383.1 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 21 133.6 1.00 285.9 7 518.0 340.6 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 22 182.0 1.00 285.9 7 518.0 298.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 23 225.7 1.00 285.4 7 518.0 255.5 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 81 01 01 24 179.7 1.00 284.8 7 518.0 213.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0 0.00 *** NOTES: STABILITY CLASS 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, 4=D, 5=E AND 6=F. FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING. *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 11CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** THE ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): STCK1 , STCK2 , STCK3 , STCK4 , STCK5 , STCK6 , STCK7 , STCK8 , *** NETWORK ID: UCART1 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART *** ** CONC OF DPM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** Y-COORD | X-COORD (METERS) (METERS) | 390400.00 390450.00 390500.00 390550.00 390600.00 390650.00 390700.00 390750.00 390800.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3742150.00 | 0.02526 0.02791 0.03031 0.03233 0.03378 0.03492 0.03699 0.04114 0.04643 3742100.00 | 0.02573 0.02938 0.03285 0.03595 0.03848 0.04029 0.04223 0.04635 0.05298 3742050.00 | 0.02517 0.02974 0.03458 0.03920 0.04328 0.04653 0.04901 0.05289 0.06062 3742000.00 | 0.02398 0.02875 0.03467 0.04120 0.04750 0.05300 0.05728 0.06141 0.06970 3741950.00 | 0.02329 0.02730 0.03303 0.04071 0.04966 0.05849 0.06607 0.07218 0.08088 3741900.00 | 0.02430 0.02723 0.03157 0.03823 0.04801 0.06042 0.07307 0.08388 0.09460 3741850.00 | 0.02766 0.03002 0.03311 0.03759 0.04478 0.05660 0.07358 0.09199 0.10875 3741800.00 | 0.03368 0.03632 0.03927 0.04271 0.04714 0.05394 0.06629 0.08772 0.11441 3741750.00 | 0.04127 0.04532 0.04972 0.05440 0.05921 0.06403 0.06921 0.07738 0.09702 3741700.00 | 0.04695 0.05261 0.05913 0.06654 0.07470 0.08311 0.09051 0.09441 0.09118 3741650.00 | 0.04866 0.05476 0.06188 0.07010 0.07936 0.08924 0.09858 0.10468 0.10247 3741600.00 | 0.04833 0.05427 0.06116 0.06906 0.07790 0.08731 0.09628 0.10278 0.10360 3741550.00 | 0.04775 0.05362 0.06049 0.06847 0.07762 0.08795 0.09980 0.11239 0.11456 3741500.00 | 0.04762 0.05366 0.06084 0.06956 0.08077 0.09611 0.11456 0.12579 0.12118 3741450.00 | 0.04807 0.05462 0.06312 0.07488 0.09102 0.10946 0.12259 0.12579 0.12161 3741400.00 | 0.04968 0.05804 0.06956 0.08442 0.10028 0.11227 0.11828 0.12022 0.11692 3741350.00 | 0.05380 0.06438 0.07711 0.08996 0.10002 0.10644 0.11068 0.11132 0.11011 3741300.00 | 0.05931 0.06983 0.08002 0.08822 0.09413 0.09883 0.10163 0.10100 0.10400 3741250.00 | 0.06301 0.07108 0.07770 0.08284 0.08728 0.09080 0.09170 0.09167 0.09883 3741200.00 | 0.06327 0.06863 0.07299 0.07694 0.08047 0.08237 0.08229 0.08419 0.09408 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 12CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** THE ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): STCK1 , STCK2 , STCK3 , STCK4 , STCK5 , STCK6 , STCK7 , STCK8 , *** NETWORK ID: UCART1 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART *** ** CONC OF DPM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** Y-COORD | X-COORD (METERS) (METERS) | 390850.00 390900.00 390950.00 391000.00 391050.00 391100.00 391150.00 391200.00 391250.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3742150.00 | 0.05004 0.05095 0.05060 0.04813 0.04126 0.03232 0.02523 0.02080 0.01827 3742100.00 | 0.05864 0.06060 0.06016 0.05615 0.04633 0.03515 0.02731 0.02284 0.02037 3742050.00 | 0.06917 0.07311 0.07258 0.06602 0.05197 0.03827 0.02987 0.02547 0.02300 3742000.00 | 0.08196 0.08952 0.08906 0.07817 0.05815 0.04181 0.03314 0.02885 0.02640 3741950.00 | 0.09729 0.11130 0.11139 0.09303 0.06473 0.04601 0.03743 0.03334 0.03154 3741900.00 | 0.11523 0.14020 0.14228 0.11083 0.07152 0.05128 0.04335 0.04074 0.04166 3741850.00 | 0.13483 0.17764 0.18568 0.13095 0.07815 0.05870 0.05453 0.05726 0.06050 3741800.00 | 0.14922 0.22203 0.24589 0.14947 0.08567 0.07686 0.08393 0.08935 0.09157 3741750.00 | 0.13600 0.25410 0.31308 0.15469 0.12047 0.14050 0.15397 0.16866 0.18349 3741700.00 | 0.08388 0.21100 0.36652 0.26337 0.34861 0.36233 0.36938 0.36426 0.34534 3741650.00 | 0.08454 0.04341 0.12476 0.39916 0.46257 0.45582 0.44462 0.42178 0.38811 3741600.00 | 0.08638 0.04978 0.03145 0.03584 0.08489 0.14960 0.20581 0.24390 0.26112 3741550.00 | 0.09438 0.07368 0.06493 0.04772 0.05631 0.07852 0.10143 0.11928 0.13288 3741500.00 | 0.10663 0.10541 0.10535 0.07032 0.05871 0.06665 0.07527 0.08354 0.08913 3741450.00 | 0.11578 0.13237 0.13577 0.09203 0.06282 0.06243 0.06538 0.06742 0.06967 3741400.00 | 0.12118 0.14712 0.15039 0.10728 0.06787 0.05818 0.05912 0.05914 0.05851 3741350.00 | 0.12333 0.15056 0.15265 0.11482 0.07296 0.05520 0.05296 0.05302 0.05184 3741300.00 | 0.12215 0.14662 0.14758 0.11620 0.07663 0.05406 0.04769 0.04721 0.04656 3741250.00 | 0.11829 0.13876 0.13891 0.11352 0.07838 0.05399 0.04408 0.04195 0.04163 3741200.00 | 0.11270 0.12925 0.12888 0.10852 0.07837 0.05420 0.04196 0.03779 0.03707 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 13CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** THE ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): STCK1 , STCK2 , STCK3 , STCK4 , STCK5 , STCK6 , STCK7 , STCK8 , *** NETWORK ID: UCART1 ; NETWORK TYPE: GRIDCART *** ** CONC OF DPM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** Y-COORD | X-COORD (METERS) (METERS) | 391300.00 391350.00 391400.00 391450.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3742150.00 | 0.01674 0.01568 0.01487 0.01431 3742100.00 | 0.01880 0.01769 0.01696 0.01669 3742050.00 | 0.02140 0.02043 0.02019 0.02055 3742000.00 | 0.02510 0.02496 0.02563 0.02636 3741950.00 | 0.03170 0.03289 0.03375 0.03372 3741900.00 | 0.04366 0.04449 0.04399 0.04310 3741850.00 | 0.06114 0.06068 0.06097 0.06249 3741800.00 | 0.09504 0.10034 0.10567 0.10952 3741750.00 | 0.19246 0.19397 0.18960 0.18153 3741700.00 | 0.31884 0.29017 0.26239 0.23686 3741650.00 | 0.35059 0.31401 0.28058 0.25096 3741600.00 | 0.26155 0.25157 0.23638 0.21927 3741550.00 | 0.14349 0.15057 0.15362 0.15299 3741500.00 | 0.09199 0.09372 0.09534 0.09690 3741450.00 | 0.07118 0.07129 0.07047 0.06946 3741400.00 | 0.05833 0.05825 0.05764 0.05645 3741350.00 | 0.05032 0.04923 0.04852 0.04772 3741300.00 | 0.04503 0.04332 0.04197 0.04103 3741250.00 | 0.04066 0.03913 0.03750 0.03615 3741200.00 | 0.03661 0.03556 0.03416 0.03271 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 14CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** THE ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): STCK1 , STCK2 , STCK3 , STCK4 , STCK5 , STCK6 , STCK7 , STCK8 , *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS *** ** CONC OF DPM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 390899.09 3741678.75 0.07211 390996.69 3741678.75 0.58775 390996.69 3741633.75 0.12193 390898.00 3741632.00 0.04755 390923.47 3741678.75 0.12804 390947.88 3741678.75 0.31667 390972.31 3741678.75 0.39187 390996.69 3741656.25 0.54366 390972.03 3741633.25 0.05623 390947.34 3741633.00 0.02219 390922.69 3741632.50 0.02825 390898.56 3741655.50 0.04480 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 15CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS *** ** CONC OF DPM IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** NETWORK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.58775 AT ( 390996.69, 3741678.75, 0.00, 0.00) DC NA 2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.54366 AT ( 390996.69, 3741656.25, 0.00, 0.00) DC NA 3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.46257 AT ( 391050.00, 3741650.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC UCART1 4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.45582 AT ( 391100.00, 3741650.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC UCART1 5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.44462 AT ( 391150.00, 3741650.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC UCART1 6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.42178 AT ( 391200.00, 3741650.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC UCART1 7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.39916 AT ( 391000.00, 3741650.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC UCART1 8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.39187 AT ( 390972.31, 3741678.75, 0.00, 0.00) DC NA 9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.38811 AT ( 391250.00, 3741650.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC UCART1 10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.36938 AT ( 391150.00, 3741700.00, 0.00, 0.00) GC UCART1 *** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART GP = GRIDPOLR DC = DISCCART DP = DISCPOLR BD = BOUNDARY *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** EDCO HRA Revision 1 Jan 1, 2009. 8 Stacks *** 02/04/09 *** Results: Risk/Million - - - File: C:\edco.isc *** 06:38:33**MODELOPTs: PAGE 16CONC URBAN FLAT GRDRIS NOCALM MSGPRO *** Message Summary : ISCST3 Model Execution *** --------- Summary of Total Messages -------- A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s) A Total of 0 Warning Message(s) A Total of 1531 Informational Message(s) A Total of 1531 Calm Hours Identified ******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ************************************ *** ISCST3 Finishes Successfully *** ************************************ Attachment A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility
City of Signal Hill, California
February 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

1.1 Description of Proposed EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility Project...................1

1.2 Mitigation Matrix..........................................................................................................1

1.3 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures ..............................................................................3

1.3.1 Coordination with Contractors.......................................................................3

1.3.2 Recognized Experts........................................................................................3

1.3.3 Arbitration/Dispute Resolution......................................................................3

1.3.4 Enforcement ...................................................................................................3 Appendix
Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15074(d), public agencies are required to adopt a monitoring or reporting program to assure that the mitigation measures and revisions identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are implemented. As stated in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code:
“…the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes 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.”
The EIR prepared for the EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility project (SCH #2008081009), provided an analysis of the environmental effects resulting from construction and operation of the project. A thorough scientific and engineering evaluation of the project was undertaken in compliance with CEQA, including the identification of measures designed to avoid or substantially reduce the potential adverse effects of the project to below a level of significance.

1.1 Description of Proposed EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility Project The proposed project is the development of a ±68,000 square foot recycling and transfer facility on a

3.75-acre site in the City of Signal Hill (City). The state-of-the-art materials recovery/transfer station (MRF/TS) facility will serve as a point to accept, process, recover and transfer mixed municipal waste and residue following diversion activities to an appropriate permitted disposal facility.

Table 1 provides a summary of public agency approvals that may be associated with the Project.

1.2 Mitigation Matrix
In order to sufficiently track and document the status of mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix has been prepared and includes the following components:
• Mitigation measure number
• Mitigation measure (text)
• Implementation Action
• Responsible Monitoring Party
• Monitoring Phase
• Verification/Approval Party
• Mitigation Measure Implemented? (Y/N and date)
• Documentation Location (Monitoring Record)
Mitigation measure timing of verification has been apportioned into several specific timing increments. Of these, the most common are:
• Prior to issuance of grading permit
• Prior to issuance of building permit(s)
• During construction
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility February 2009
City of Signal Hill Page 2
Table 1
Public Agency Approvals
Agency Permit or Approval
Certification of CEQA document
Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending the General Industrial Specific Plan (SP-19)
Zoning Ordinance Amendment designating the site SP-19, Planning Area –3, on the Official Zoning Map
Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Design Review
Lot Merger
Disposition and Development Agreement
Vacation of an unimproved alley right-of-way between California and Olive Avenues
Vacation of Olive Avenue right-of-way between Patterson and 28th Streets
Grading Permit / Proof of compliance with NPDES requirements (SWPPP and SUSMP)
Right-of-way encroachment permit
City of Signal Hill
Amendment to Non Disposal Facility Element
South Coast Air Quality Management District Authority to Construct Conformance with Rule 410 (Odor Control Plan)
State of California, Department of
Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources
Site Plan (approval only related to oil and gas wells)
County of Los Angeles, Fire Protection
Services
Plan Check
Los Angeles County Solid Waste
Management Committee/Integrated Waste
Management Task Force
Amendment to Solid Waste Management Plan
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County,
Sanitation District No. 5
Permit to Connect (sewer connection fee)
California Integrated Waste Management
Board1
Permit to Operate
Approval of Transfer Processing Report
Emergency Response Preparedness Plan
Odor Control Plan
Vector Control Plan
1 CIWMB approval actions are first assigned to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health, acting as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). CIWMB review and concurrence will occur following issuance of the SWFP by the LEA.

Signal Hill City CouncilJune 11, 2024

Signal Hill City Council
June 11, 2024