WASTE MANAGEMENT SUMMARY PLAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION
109
(os ANGELES COUNTY COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SUMMARY PLAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION SCH NO. 96031033
Transcript of WASTE MANAGEMENT SUMMARY PLAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(os ANGELES COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED
WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY PLAN
NEGATIVEDECLARATION
SCH NO. 96031033
9603183"'a1.~ ::i: .5~~",) :.eo4r:':::~:i\.!lc. ...2: :'or:~!" "':~():'. .~,-o:: ~¿~. ;....,,4orl;i;tc. ,:A -lS.¡¡.. .. :a:i:) ....S.Cti:J
S'':''::::: ~.~. :-:~P:.i:':I")N ASD Õ::\~J:RC¡.MfNTAL JC.:i-;t.tê:I ':RAS!lMITTM. l'Off S.. NOT'S bol ~
seN'
?=:i~eci: 7ir.le: 5'Ji:..rv P'5~ .,.. t::e -:;'..0:........8 :h"earate-: ;;a8~. Hap.~cemant Pla.n2. :..4d Aqtln..y: ':ili Anaedll"l ':...H'~" ;;1'r.o1r'.~.e~t -i! :iubllc: ""orlt.. ContAct: Persoii: ~.1Vid M .:mith1.. Straut/Addre.ø: 9-"': :ì."~'11 fin.ri)î.t~~_il). cityi~..
':ounty: I.e. "':,":91.. Jd. Zllll '11801 10. Poon.: í81tJl 4~il')')~1
::e. ::.,1111 Streets:
:'flo.E:: :'::("'7"':N ... C::l.nt.y: r::!i An:icll!ii.:::. Aiiiic¡,u¡or'li ?arcQ~ i-o.~__
'liA
.... C1t.y/CotNun1t.,~ ~ii "it'eii 1n Loa "noels. Countv.iiatl0n 1'9. ildngiiFar Rural. :lo.r8!!t
5b. ColiunH"!:
6. ... 1 '_:: L.r; ;; :I ~ ~eii:
:':'''C"!iT "'trr
.~01. -i:t\lP 1)(, _'" it.O~. _E..iy C-:na 'J-:,_S0C0). ..Neq Dee .:a._!'im04. _era! t &IR
s..ppl..ntallJ~. _S~:i.8quent EIR(Prior SCn ~o.:
WADraCt:)9. _~OI 11. _EIR
..0. _PC~SI 12. _EA
!Z13. ~ol:-t Docu:nt14. _.f"l:-al Docui-ntl~. _C7tler:
3C4t8;'~ry l
A1r-pçrt,5_
aail-..aye
8. ~-T':''i1':iilIll. _':n:'''riil PllW Itl'll'tl',,~, r-_ f.1..i-iit.uJ. _Gen..rii\ illsn A_ndhnt04. _Maat..r Plan05.
'J6. _Specitic Plan01. _Cri:iuntt.y Plan
08. _Red.v.lop_nt.09. _Rezon.
.~. _Land Clvlalon(Subdivision, PiircelMap, Tract. Hap, et.c.,
11. _Uee Pen:J.t
12. ..Wd:ltli Mg_t Plan~). _cancel "9 Preservii14. _otn..r:
12. PRCEC:- 'S""JES nrsc:.SSE!) '"!i I"OC!'~ENT
q. :'':'/l'l(lP~NT TYPE
Wat.et-d. way.
.)1. _",,1i1dunt.1al: Unlts_ __..reiiOJ. __Of t1tli: SQ. n.Ji.,llia_6I1pluy_a__03. _3hoppinq/L.;_rciai: S'(. Ft._
0:5. _Watet" Facl11tl..: HGD06. _l':anapuctllt10ni T'pt
04. _Induat.riali Sq. Yt.Acr.._Eiiploy..ll
07. _"1ninql Mineral
Ii). ~A. ACRES' 11. pAL JOBS CREAT'=D:
10. _DCS Jlelat-d11. _Other:
08. _PC'w..n Ty_Watt..09. _w,ute Treat_nt.: Type
15. _Septic Syuaa,)9. _F:ood1nq/Orainaqli 16. _Sewer Cdpacity09. --r.doloqlcal/SQumlc 17. Social10. __':0Iie/Hou.1nq aalanc. lB. =3011 Eroaion11. _Mlneral. 19. _ScUd 'taatel,. _Nat.. 20. _Todc:/H.~.udoua
23. _W.ler Qual1 ty24. Waur supplyJ5. - "'etland/R\parlan26. '.llld11 te27. =arowtii Induc1nq2B. _Inco.p.t.ble Laud
u..21. _Traftlc/Clrculatlon J9. _Cumulative U"r~t.aii. _Vegetation LO. _Other:
Tou.l 1
01. _"Bet.het1c/Vlsual02. _A':;=lcul t..ral :".snd~J. _"a QualltyC4. _Ar:::i...olQqtcal/lflatorlc..ii)L _C~.a.t...\ Zone
06. _£i.onOllc07. _l ir. Ha~..rd
13. Dl ,approxl'Feden1 1
U. PR"!!\U' ui USE A,'m IONING: RIA
IJ. _?ubt1c Sec'/lca.14. _..r:hooli.
State S
Ui. P~OJ:iCT D:i!CJl::P~ICN: The proj~t 1_ . Siiry Plan conaist1ng of an overvlew of .11 the li..nU of thecout.ywlde aoua w..u Nn.Q~nt. planning proe. which includ. the Source Re4uctlcn and RKYllnc¡ II..nu,HOUMhald fla.iQou. Waat.e £1-int.., and "andi.po.a1 FiicUlty lieiMnt. of the 8' clti.. 1n Lo. Anqele. Countyand t.lle County unineorporated area.. The ilu-lry Plan includ.. countywide 9041a, poliet.., and objectlv..Cor i:rcHnat.lnQ countywide diver.ion ;:coqr.., tUrk.t1ng. and d1apo.al .tra~evi... Aho. the Sui.cy Plan..111 include propo.ec proqr.. whIch the ¡;1th,a in E.o. .\ngel.. County and the County hAve .elected tor1:aplellntatior: .!n ocd.r to acnlev. the above 904.1..
/ '.
Slate Clearinghuuse eontdct:
State Re\iew Began:
lXpt. Review to Agency
Agency Rev to SCH
¿( SCH COMPLIANCE
Mr. Chri, Bcl,l~.
(916144S-0ólJ
-L.ll.- rÓ---- ~.. -..~
~ 6-17PlcaH nole SCH Number on all Comment.
96031033PIe.se rorw.rd I.ie tommcDU diretlly to theL..d Agent).
AQMDAPCD.n (Rosources:--'ll-)
I- t- 'I r~"J~//~V': ~ ll
Project Sent to the foIlowing State Ageacics
_x. He.oureesBoalingCoasial C'ommCoastal COIISV
Colorado R vr IldConseation
-i Fish & Game" JDelia Proteciion
_ ForesrrParis & Rec/Oll PReclamationBCDC
-K DWROESBus Trusp HousAeronaulÍcsCHP
_Ä- C.¡trns " _1__ Tras Planmng._ Housing & Devel
H..lth & Weir.re-Z Drinking 1120
Medical Waste
Slaie/CoDsu..er SvciGenerl Services
CaVEPA
-l ARB-- CA Wasie Mgml Bd
SWRCB: GratsSWRCB: DeI18
_ SWRCB: Wir Quit_ SWRCB: Wir Ilghu
-i Reg. WQCB N ~_ DTSe/eTC -T
VtliAdlt Corrtlo..Comctionsladepe.deat Co..
_ Enery Com_X_ NAHe
pueSanta Mn MblS
-A Staie Lads eommTahoe Rgi Plan
~ Oter:
(This page intentionally left blan)
PART INEGATIVE DECLARATION
(Ths page intentionally left blan)
NEGATIVE DECLATION
FOR
SUMMAY PLA
OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MAAGEMENT PLA
I. Proj ect Location
All of Los Angeles County - All 88 cities located in Los Angeles Countyand the County Unincorporated Areas
II. Proj ect Description
The proj ect is a Summary Plan consisting of an aggregate of all theElements of the countywide solid waste management planing process whichincludes the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, HouseholdHazardous Waste Elements, and Nondisposal Facility Elements of the 88cities in Los Angeles County and the County unincorporated areas. TheSummary Plan includes Countywide goals, policies, and objectives forcoordinating Countywide diversion programs, marketing strategies, anddisposal strategies. Also, the Summary Plan will include proposedprograms which the cities in Los Angeles County and the County selectfor implementation on a countywide basis in order to achieve the aboyegoals (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 9,Article 6.6, Sections 18757 through 18758).
III. Mitigation Measures Included in the Project to AvoidSignificant Effects
Potentially
Analysis of some environmental effects of the project using the initialEnvironmental Checklist Form identified some areas where the project mayhave minor effects; however, no environmental effects were determined.The impacts identified in the Environmental Checklist Form and measuresto avoid less than significant effect are discussed in Section IV of theInitial Study of Environmental Factors. This evaluation is limited tothose potential impacts marked "Less Than Significant Impacts".
IV. Finding of No Significant Effect
Based on the findings of the attached Initial Study of EnvironmentalFactors, it has been determined that the proposed project will not havea significant effect on the environment.
(This page intentionally left blan)
INITIAL STUDY AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SUMY PLAOF THE LOS ANGELES COUNY
COUNYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MAAGEMENT PLAN
Los Angeles CountyDepartment of Public Works
Environmental Programs Division
January 1996.
(This page intentionally left blan L
SECTION
FIGURE
EXHIBIT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Location and Description of Project.... ........ ..... ............. ...... .......... ... ................ ......1
II. Phasing and Relationship to Other Projects......................:......................................5
III. Identification of Environmental Effects.......... ........................................ .................5
IV. Discussion of Environmental Factors and Mitigationof Environmental Effects.. ............ ............................................. ....... ........... ......... .14
LIST OF FIGURES(Figures begin on or immediately following the page number indicated)
1. Location Map of Los Angeles County................................................... ..................2
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1. Environmental Checklist Form.... ..... ......... ....... ...... .......... ......................... ........ ......6
(This page intentionally left blan)
INITIAL STUY OF ENVIRONMNTAL FACTORS
Proj ect Title: Countywide Integrated Waste Management Sumary Planfor the County of Los Angeles (Sumary Plan)
This Initial Study was prepared by the Los Angeles County Department ofPublic Works pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of1970, as amended (Division 13, California Public Resources Code), and theState's California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Title 14,Division 6, California Code of Regulations) .
I. Location and Descri~tion of Pro; ect
A. Location: All of Los Angeles County - All 88 cities located inLos Angeles County (Table 1.0) and the County unincorporatedareas. Figure 1 is a map showing Los Angeles County.
B. Purpose
The purpose of this proj ect is to aggregate all the Elementsof the countywide solid waste management planning processincluding a summary of significant waste management problemsfacing the County. The Summary Plan will also containcountywide goals, policies, and obj ecti ves for coordinatingcountywide diversion programs, marketing strategies, anddisposal strategies developed with the assistance of the LosAngeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force (TaskForce) . The Summary Plan will provide an overview of thespecific steps that will be taken by local agencies, actingindependently and in concert, to achieve the purposes of theCalifornia Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as amended(California Public Resources Code, Section 41751) .
C. Description of work
The proj ect consists of preparing the Countywide IntegratedWaste Management Summary Plan for the County of Los Angelespursuant to the statutory requirements for the content andformat of a Countywide Summary Plan found in the CaliforniaPublic Resources Code, Section 41751. These requirements arefurther clarified in regulations adopted by the CaliforniaIntegrated Waste Management Board, and approved by the Officeof Administrative Law, for the preparation of a CountywideIntegrated Waste Management Summary Plan (California Code ofRegulations, Title 14 , Division 7, Chapter 9, Article 6.6Sections 18757 through 18758) .
1
Agoura ~illsP,lhambra.'\.:cadia."'.rtesiaF.valon.'\zusaBaldwin ?arkBellBellflowerBe 1 1 GardensBeverly HillsBradburyBurbankCalabasasCarsonCerri tosClaremon"tCommerceComptonCovinaCudahyCulver CityDiamond BarDowneyDuarteEl MonteEl SegundoGardenaGlendaleGlendoraHawaiian GardensHawthorne
TABLE 1. a
List of Cities Located in Los Angeles County
Hermosa BeachHidden HillsHuntington ParkIndustryInglewoodIrwindaleLa Canada FlintridgeLa Habra HeightsLakewoodLa MiradaLancasterLa PuenteLa VerneLawndaleLomi taLong BeachLos AngelesLynwoodMalibuManhattan BeachMa ywoodMonroviaMontebelloMonterey ParkNorwalkPalmdalePalos Verdes EstatesParamountPasadenapico RiveraPomonaRancho Palos Verdes
Redondo BeachRolling HillsRolling Hills EstatesRosemeadSan DimasSan FernandoSan GabrielSan MarinoSanta ClaritaSanta Fe SpringsSanta MonicaSierra MadreSignal HillSouth El MonteSouth GateSouth PasadenaTemple CityTorranceVernonWalnutWest CovinaWest HollywoodWestlake VillageWhi ttier
2
..
wa:::~ü:
0u~~-=u.Q.20 -
u 00 uZ u.-
QQ= rñ~ =Z u.a: :; 0-u. = u.= 0Z (,~ wen
~..0 (j~ )-u r-z z---w ::~
0 0(J
cOtn 0
c( W 0a: ~ ~c( Wi:=Clc( .=0 Zc( til- etz
c(
uien
0~
(This page intentionally left blan)
As mandated by State law i the Countywide Summary Plan mustincludei but is not limited to, the following:
1. A description of the goals, policies, and obj ecti vesdeveloped with the assistance of the Task Force to guidethe County in coordinating countywide diversionprograms i marketing strategies i and disposal strategiesfor the medium term planning period (1996-2000).
2. A general description of Los Angeles Countyl s geographyand a summary of important demographic data. Also i adescription of the governmental solid waste managementinfrastructure and identification of the entitiesresponsible for administering and implementing theCountywide Summary Plan.
3. A description of current solid waste managementpractices in all 88 cities of Los Angeles County and theCounty unincorporated areas. These practices includerefuse collectioni transfer i and disposal practices. Anidentification of all permitted solid waste facilitiesand diversion facilities (excepted from a Solid WasteFacility Permit) located within the County. Adescription of diversion programs already in place ianda summary of countywide or regional market developmentefforts.
4. A summary of the types of di version programs icontingency programs and measures, targeted materials'marketing strategies selected in each jurisdiction'sSource Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) andHousehold Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), and a list ofthe types and numbers of Nondisposal Facilities and thejurisdictions they serve. It shall also include anidentification of those programs in the SRREs and theHHWEs that could be coordinated on a countywide basis.
5. Estimated costs and a summary of funding and revenuesources for the programs and facilities to beimplemented/developed on a countywide basis.
In addition to the required content of the Summary Plan, the Summary Planmay include a description of any additional countywide programs which theci ties in Los Angeles County and the County determine to be necessary toachieve AB 939 mandates.
The Summary Plan will address the above items with the intent ofproviding a means for improved coordination of diversion programs,marketing strategies, and disposal strategies on a Countywide basis toeffectively serve the public need. Table 2.0 is a summary of ProposedPrograms for Countywide Coordination. These programs are based on thegoals, policies, and objectives developed with the assistance of the TaskForce.
3
Table 2.0
POTENTIA PROGRAS FOR COUNTYWE COORDINATION
1) Assistance With Public Promotion/Education
· Information for General Distribution· Coordintion of Local Promotional Campaigns
. Multi-language Assistance
. Enhanced Expanded School Education
. Mobile Waste Reduction Museum
. Countywide Speakers Bureau
. Recognition Program for Business
2) Information Sharin~
. Online Computer Network Service
. Solid Waste Personnel and Program Directory
3) City Outreach
. Regional Solid Waste Meeting Enhancements
4) Lariie Generator Waste Reduction Programs
. Corporate Accounts
. Grasscycling/Xeriscaping
5) Standards and Ordinances
. Point-of-Purchase Education Policy
6) Gaps in Service
. Backyard Composting
. Christmas Tree Drop-off Program
. Used Motor Oil
. Latex Paint
. Oil-based Paint
. Household Batteries
. Waste Tire Haulers
7) Procurement
. Procurement Cooperatives
4
II. Phasing and Relationship to other Projects
The Summary Plan is a component of the Countywide Integrated WasteManagement Plan.
The California Integrated Waste Management Act directs counties toprepare a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (Plan). ThisPlan will consist of the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements,Household Hazardous Waste Elements, and Nondisposal Facility Elementsof all jurisdiction within the County; the Countywide Siting Element;and the Sumary Plan of the Los Angeles County Countywide IntegratedWaste Management Plan.
III. Identification of Environmental Effects
The identification of Environmental effects are shown in the enclosedEnvironmental Checklist Form as follows:
5
ENONM AL CHECKLIS FORM1. Prject Title: :.:s Angeles i"'::~~y ,~::ur.:C"t'''l.àe I:-.':egra:::ed \.¡ase ~.aem"l-:
2. Le Agccy Name md Ad: :'CS Anceles Ccu."1'C,' ::ecar::~:~n~ :::: P'.i.l= \.lorks900 SOÚl:"' =r!:': - Avenue, ..:a CA 91803
S i.-mi ~ !.
3. Contact Person andPboie Nu David ~. Sml:"' (8181 458-3561
4. Prject Loau All c:: Los Angeles Ccun!, ~-.~~g ai i-- =ities l.": the Ccum:y
S. Prjet Spasor's Nam an Ads: :'os Angeles Ccun'C ::epë _=i.t: c:: Pu= \.lorks900 SOUl:"' =rem't Avenue, .;l c. 91803
6. Geerl Pla Dei~ ::1 A 7. Zeg: ~1/A
8. Decn~ oi Prjec (Deoe the whole a.ucn involved inchicig but not iiwi to late ~ass oi the prject. and my seda. supp'or off-siie ieanis neces ior its imlemi:iaUC. Aaa addtiona sheelS ii n=c)
See a -=~=:=:e"1~
9. Suicig L. Uses iud Seiig: Briefly decrbe the prject's sugs)
No appli~
10. Other public agecies whose apprval is reqir
(e.g.. pets. fi:ciig appval. or picipauOD agmt.)
Th åcC'..'t desc=~"" herein mi ::e review ar.à a~eå upc by every Cl.-: inth Ccurn:y ar.à ::::e Ccun~"l Soad cf Supll.SOrs. ;.l is reaed from a~Jor~~./ of t~e C.:=.:es c=:"~~g a maJor:.,:./, of t~5! 1.::::ra~ed 9Cpulation.tne Ccu."'~'l Soard ::: Sup!l.sors, a. ::::e Cali=crria l::tegra~ed Was~e ::~gem~Soara.
6
ENVONM AL F AcrRS POTENTY AFCT:The enviren factors clieclc below would be poteuay affecte by ths prject. involving at leat one imact mat is a "Poteuay Sign-
cant Impact" as inåiate by me checklt on the following pages.
ooooo Air Qualty
oooooo
TrmspnaùoniCinulatiBiologica ResouresEnergy and Mier ResoesHaNoisMld.to Fmdigs of Signc.ce
oCJaao
Publi Servccs
Utiùes and Service SysAeùcsCu ResouresRecuon
Lad Use and PlagPOr-lauon an Housi:g
Gelogica PrlemWate
DETr-A TION.
On the basis of th inua eVlÌaucm
I find that the prposed prJe COULD NOT have a signifICt effect on the enviri. and
a NEGA ID DECL TION wil be prpaIX
I find ùiat although ùie prpose prject could have a signïcant effect on the enviri. ùiere wil not
be a sl izu-icant eiiect In tiiis case becuse ùie miu!!auon measres Ccsc:bed on an anaclied sheet nave beada to me prject. A NEGA ID DECL TION will be prpa._ cI find mat me orposed prJet MAY have a si!!uïcant effect on the envirent. and anENVONMENT AL IMACl RERT is reir cI find that ùie prposed prje MAY have a sign-icant effect(s) on the envirczi. but at let one effect
1) has been a~iely anyz in an ealier doczt pursant to appliable legal stadads and 2) has
be addsed by miùgaùon mea bas on the ealier anysis as de on aa.hed sbee ifthe effect is a "potetilly signcat impact" or "potetiy signcant uness miùgaied." An ENVONMENTALIM ACl RERT is reir but it must anyz only the effects that re to be add
i:I fuid that although the prpose prject could have a signicant effect on the envirent. there wn NOTbe a si~ificat effec in mis cas because all poteùaly sigiïc.t effec (a) have be anyaadeate~ In an eaiier EIR pursanry applicable stada and (b) have be avoided or miugaied puant¡at earlier ~1P\ ia~g ~visiaj ,or miùgauai meas mat ar impose upo the prpose prjet.
1- 1.1 /. /' --, J /, /1., ,'" " f / i _ /:" __~r
SigiiureDavid'~ Sr:ii thhii.a Name
DaieLos Anceles Count"
ForDepar~ment Qf Public Works
7
POliti ySiplPoteti '! Uii l. 11S i¡=t Mi Sipt NolI Ii lI li
0 0 0 0
1. LA USE AN PLG. Would the prposa
I) Coiit with geenl pla deilntioi 0 0 0 æor zag? (soure #(5): )
b) Coiit with applic:ble envirental pla 0 0 0 Glor policies idopte by agencios withjuticn over the prjec? ( )
c) Be incompauble wlUi existi~ lad use 0 0 0 (iin lhe vicumy ? ( )
d) Affec agnculii resourcs or 0 0 0 (iopeti (e.g.. impacts to soil orfumci or impact fr incompaublei- uses)? ( )
e) Disrpt or divide lhe physical argement 0 0 0 tiof ID estlised communty (including a low-inme or mirity commiy)? ( )
IT POPULTION AND HOUSING. Would the prposal:
a) Cumulatively excee offcial regional or loc:l 0 0 0 I!populatin prJecuons? ( )
b) Induce subsi.ua g:wù ii an area either 0 0 0 (idiry or indictly (e.g.. througi projects
in an undeveloped ara or extenion oi majorinuuclUre r? ( )
c) Displace existg housing. espeially affordble 0 0 0 mhouing? ( )
8
Issu
m. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the prposa resultin or expose peple to poteua imact involvmS
a) Faultnipt? ( )
b) Seism grd shakg ( )
c) Seismc grd failur includliqufactiai? ( )
d) Seiche. ts or volca haz? ( )
e) r ,,"tie !ie, or midfows? ( )
f) Ersion clige in topogrphy or unstalesoil conditi from excavauai grdig.or fil? ( )
g) Subsidence oj the lad? ( )
b) Expaive soils? ( )
i) l.e gelogic or physc:l feauis? ( )
IV. W A lC. Would the prposa relt in
a) Cianges in absorpon rates. drgepas. or the rate and amunt ofsuce nmoff? ( )
b) Exposu of peple or prperty towlte relate haz sucb as floog? ( )
c) Dischage into surface waters orother alicrluon oj surface waterquty (e.g. IcmperalUri. disolvedoxygen or tuidity)? ( )
d) Cbanges in the amount of surfacewaicr m any wate boy? ( )
e) Cbanges in CUIts. or the couror dition oj waier movements? ( )
f) Cbange in the auauty of grd waie.either throgn dirct addtions or withdrwals. orthrcm inien:Dtion oi an aauifer bv cuts orexiav:ltions or dirougl subsWual~ss ofgrdwate rebarge capabilty? ( )
g) Altered dirction or rate of flow
of grundwaier? ( )
b) Impacts to grdwaier qualty? ( )
i) Subsiaua reclction in the amout ofgrdwaicr otherise availble for publicwate supplies? ( )
PoteuialySigitlm
ooo
ooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
oo
9
POlatiyS igiiUal
MÍÛUaÚli.
ooo
ooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
oo
. Le 1bSi!liID
ooo
ooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
oo
NoID
m
m!J
El
El
EI
iù
Iü
El
(i
(i
Ii
El
1m
El
Ii(E
¡sm
V. AI QUAU. Would the prposa
a) Violaie my air auity stadaor c:inie to m eiug orprje ai auty violation? ( )
b) Expose seitve reep to
polhia'? ( )
c) Alte air movemenL moisuire or
~. or case my ciwgein cliie? ( )
d) Cr objectionle odrs? ( )
VI 'fSPORTATION/ClCt.'LATION.OWould the prposa result in
a) Incrc: vehicle trps or
trfic coiigesuon? ( )
b) Ha to saety fr deign feaiw(e.g. sh curves or dagesiD) or inompleus (e.g.. fam eapment)? (
c) fii. eml:llcy access orac to iieay uses? ( )
d) msuffcii:t parg capacityOI-4ii. or off-siie? ( )
e) Haz or bamen for
petns or bicyclist? ( )
f) Coicts witi adopted colicies
supporug trsporuuoii le.g. buslUmouu. bicycle racks)? ( )
g) Ra wai.rboroe or aitrfic impact? ( )
VT. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Woud the prposa result ii impacts to:
a) &dagereci threteed or rare speiesor i!eir habita (iichidig but iiotlD to plats. fi. inects miID bir)? ( )
b) Loally designai. speies (e.g.hertage trS)? ( )
c:) Loaly desigii. IllUracoumues (e.g. oak fOreLc: habiiaL etc.)? ( )
d) WetJdhabiiat (e.g. mah. riparand ven pool) ( )
e) Wildle disoersl or miizuoii corrdors? ( )
PotvS igtlm
o
oo
o
oo
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
D.
o10
PotilvS iF' iVftl
UiuMituoftlDle
o
oo
o
oo
o
oo
o
o
o
oo
oo
Le TISil~(i
oo
o
oo
i:
i:
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
Nol.o
ei
iJ
EJ
o6J
;:
EI
KI
EJ
rn
Ii
Ii
Ii
El
Ii
Iss
VI. ENEGY AN MI REOURCE.Would the prpo
a) Confct with adpt energy
caiauon pia? ( )
b) Use iiOl-rewable reoursin a wastfu and inefficient mmer?
c) Result in the loss of availaility of
a mown mien reurce thatwould be of fumr value to theregion and the resid.is of the Slate? ( )
IX. HAZDS. Would the prposal involve:
a) A rik of accidetal explosion
or reiease oÎ iiazussubstaces l includig. but not lite
to: oiL. pesucide. chemcalsor rati)? ( )
b) Possible inteermce with an
emerency respoe pla oremecy evac:ti pla?
c) The crtion of any health hazdor potetial health haz? ( )
d) Exposure of peple to existig
sos of pot.ual heath haz? ( )
e) Increased fire iiaz in aras
with flble brosh. gr:is. or tres? ( )
x. ~OISE. Would the proposal result in:
a 1 Increases in existig noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe
Qoise levels? ( )
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the prposal have aneffect upoii. or result ii a nee for new or alteredgovernent services ii any of the followiig ar:
a) Fir prtetion? (
b) Po lice prtetion? ( )
c) Schools? (
d) Maintenance of public facilties.includig roads? ( )
e) Other governeiitai services? ()
PoletiySilDtlioo
o
o
o
oo
o
oo
ooooo
114 L
Poteti ySigitUa1Mitn~oo
o
o
o
oo
o
oo
ooooo
Le llSÎltlioo
o
o
o
ooo
oo
ooooo
NolieJ
m
~
in
El
¡:
EJ
lD
El
lü
øø(iE1
(i
xn L ì1 AN SERVICE SYS1MS. Would the prposareit in a nee for new sys or supplies. or
sulmua al~raucms 1. the following utiúes:
a) Power or n.ii ga? ( )
b) Coimati syNms? (
c) Loca or regicm wate trtment
ordiU01 facilúes? ( )
d) Sewe or septc ta?
e) Storm wate drge?
f) Soli WUle dipoa.? ( )
g) Local or Te~OIal wa~T supplies? ( )
xm AEsnCS; Would the prposal:
a) Affec a scenic visa or scenc highway? ( )
b) Have a demoU'ie negaveaeletic effec? ( )
c) Crle light or glar? ( )
XI. CUTU RESOURCES. Would the prposal:
a) Di paleolOlo~ca. reoures?
b) Disu anhaeoiogical resources?
c) Affec bisl.ncal resourcs? ( )
d) Have the poi.nua.1O cause a physicalclige which would affect unique ei.ic
culm values? ( )
e) Restct existg religious orsac uses within the poi.nuaÌIt ar? ( )
xv. RECRTION. Would the prposal:
a) Incr the demad forneighborloodor regial parks or other
reticm facilities? ( )
b) Affec existig recreauonl
oppiues? ( )
POlacWySÎltlm
ooooooo
ooo
oooo
o
o
o
12
POlauavS iptUiiMin!ite
ooooooo
ooo
oooo
o
o
o
i. TIS iltim
ooooooo
ooo
oooo
o
o
o
NoIm
gJ
I1lE
ei
El
roEJ
Iiæi
lE
(i1i~~
EI
~
~
POlSàaySi8lifCll1l
Potitiy UIÙ Lc l1Sigit Mit Sigii NoI. lna:&e Im IiXVI. ~1AA TORY FIINGS OF SIGNICANCE.
a) Dos the prject have the poteti to 0 0 0 (idelr the auty of the envirt.suswtiy ~ the habitat of afLS or wildle speies. cau afIS or widle popu to dip belowse-stag levels. thteto elite a plat or mi comty,rece the numb or rect the rageof a ra or encigei plat or anor elite imt ex:&le of themajo peod of Caor histryor ¡r?
b) Dos the prject have the potetil to 0 0 0 Iiachieve sion~erm to the divantageof loiig~rm. envirenta goals?
c) Does the prject have impacu that ar 0 0 0 ~indiidually lite but cuultively
coaiderable? (''Cmulativelycoaiderable" mem that the increnta
effects of a prject ar consideblewhen viewed in coection with the
effects of pat prje. the effects of
other currt prjets. and the effects
of prbable futu prjects)
d) Dos the prjet have envirenta effects 0 0 0 Iiwbich wil cause subsiaua advene effecton huma beings. either ditly or inditly?
13
iv. Discussion ofEnvironmental
EnvironÌentalEffects
Pac tors and Miticration of
Analysis of some environmencal effects of the proj ect usingthe initial Environmental Checklist Form identified some areaswhere the proj ect may have less than significant effects;however i no potentially significant environmental effects weredetermined. The impacts identified in the EnvironmentalChecklist Form and measures to avoid less than significanteffect are discussed below in their order of appearance inthat checklist.
V. Air Quality i item aa. The programs identified in Table 2 i Proposed Countywide
Programs have the potential to generate additionaltraffic on streets and contribute to increased airemissions.
These programs would involve travel to designatedlocations for meetings i workshops i and to deliverChristmas trees and household hazardous waste. Thelocations of the event, drop-off site, or facility woulddetermine the amount of air emissions generated.However, some of these programs are seasonal, some areconducted only on weekends during non-peak hours oftraffic i and most are existing programs which are to becontinued. Therefore, the impacts associated withpotential additional air emissions are considered lessthan significant.
Possible mitigation measures include propane- or methanol-fueled vehicles, and natural gas- or electric-poweredequipment and vehicles. Use of al ternati ve vehicle fuelsources may need to be assessed prior to implementation ofprograms.
VI. Transportation, item a
a. The programs identified in Table 2, Proposed CountywidePrograms have the potential to generate additionaltraffic on streets.
These programs would involve travel to designatedlocations for meetings, workshops, and to deliverChristmas trees and household hazardous waste. Thelocations of the events, drop.-off sites, or facilitywould determine the amount of additional trafficgenerated. However, some of these programs are seasonal,some are conducted only on weekends during non-peak hoursof traffic, and most are existing programs which are tobe continued. Therefore, the impacts associated withpotential additional traffic are considered less than
14
significant and would. not have any significant increasein the existing traffic patterns.
Mitigation measures d~signed t? minimize this impact shouldinclude site-specific impacts, if any, and related mitigationmeasures, if required, will be identified at such time as eachprogram is designed and implemented,
15
(This page intentionally left blan)
PART II
APPENDIX ND-A - TOPICAL COMMENT ANDRESPONSE
APPENDIX ND-B - PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS ANDRESPONSES
APPENDIX ND-C - COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVEDAND SPECIFIC RESPONSES
APPENDIX ND-D - LETTER DATED MARCH 4, 1996 TOTHE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
(Ths page intentionally left blan)
APPENDIX ND-A
TOPICAL COMMENT AND RESPONSE
(This page intentionally left blan)
Appendix ND-ATopical Comment and Response
Purpose of the Negative Declaration
Comments have been received asserting that the Negative Declaration is not the properenvironmental document for the Preliminary Draft Summary Plan when the Summary Plan containsthe Countywide Siting Element (CSE) which has an Environmental Impact Report acknowledgingirreversible environmental impacts. The commentors further state that neither the DraftEnvironmental Impact Report nor the Negative Declaration adequately address the impacts on theenvironment (land, air, water, traffic) and human health by the use of the proposed landfills.
The CSE and the Summar Plan are two independent documents each of which are part of theCountywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. Therefore, the CSE is notpart of the SummaryPlan. The Summary Plan describes and summarizes the steps that wil be taken by cities and theCounty, acting on their own or with others, to achieve the State-mandated waste diversion goals bymeans of reducing, reusing, recycling and diverting waste that is generated. The CSE describes howjurisdictions in Los Angeles County plan to address the need for i 5 years of disposal capacity forthe residual waste which canot be reduced, reused, recycled or diverted.
The Negative Declaration, which includes the Environmental Checklist Form, pertains only to thepreparation of the Summar Plan document of the Los Angeles County Countywide IntegratedWaste Management Plan. It does not pertain to the programs discussed within the Summar Plan.The Negative Declaration is not intended to address the CSE or any issue pertaining to the siting ofany disposal facilities.
Please refer to the Final Draft CSE for responses to comments regarding the Draft EIR.
(This page intentionally left blan)
APPENDIX ND-B
PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
(Ths page intentionally left blan)
Appendix ND-BPublic Meeting Comments and Responses
Date Speaker Summary of Comment/Question Response
4/2/96 Zona Myers Questions whether a simple majority of the State Law requires that these documentsCitizen 88 cities is required to pass the proposed be adopted by the County and by a
Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and majority of the cities within the CountyEnvironmental Assessment. that contain a majority of the
incorporated population.
4/4/96 Lyne The Negative Declaration is not the proper Refer to Topical Response in AppendixPlambeck environmental document for the ND-A,Chair of Countyide Integrated Waste ManagementL.A.S.E.R. Plan which includes the Countyide Siting
Element.
(This page intentionally left blan)
APPENDIX ND-C
COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED AND SPECIFIC RESPONSES
(This page intentionally left blan)
This Appendix contains copies of letters received by the Deparment commenting on the PreliminarDraft of the Negative Declaration. Responses have been provided to the right of specific commentsin each letter. Several of the letters also contain comments regarding the Preliminar DraftSummary Plan, the Preliminar Draft Countywide Siting Element, and the Preliminar DraftEnvironmental Impact Report. Responses to these comments may be found in the appropriateappendices in the Final Drafts of those documents.
(Ths page intentionally left blan)
Appendix ND-CComment Letters Received and Specific Responses
Page City/Agency/ Author Title Letter DateOrganization
Comments Received from CitiesND-C-l South El Monte Steven A. Henley Assistant City 4/8/96
Manager
ND-C-2 Commerce Richard King Environmental 5/15/96ServicesCoordinator
ND-C- 5 Monterey Park Chris Jeffers City Manager 6/14/96
ND-C-9 Vernon Lewis J. Pozebon Director of 6/1 7/96.
EnvironmentalHealth Dept. .
ND-C- I 3 La Puente Steve Hauerwaas Management 9/12/96Asst.Solid WasteCoordinator
Comments Received from Government AgenciesND-C- I 4 Kern County Waste Susan L. Reid RMDZ Coordinator 3/26/96
Mgmt Dept.
ND-C- I 5 Governor's Offce Antero A. Chief, State 4/12/96of Planning and Rivasplata ClearinghouseResearch
ND-C- I 7 *So. Ca. Assoc. of Viviane Intergovernmental 4/30/96Governments Doche-Boulos Review
ND-C-24 Metropolitan Water *Laura 1. Simonek Principal 6/13/96District of Southern EnvironmentalCalifornia Specialist
ND-C-30 Governor's Offce Antero A. Chief, State 6/17/96of Planning and Rivasplata ClearinghouseResearch
Comments Received from the PublicNO-C- 34 Resident Peggy McCain Resident 4/28/96
ND-C-35 Olive View Charles O'Connell, Planning and Land 5/8/96Neighborhood P.E. Use CommitteeWatch
NO-C-37 LASER Lynne Plambeck Private Citizen 6/17/96
NO-C-47 Upper Mandevile Betsey Landis Vice-President 6/17/96Canyon Assoc.
ND-C-50 Sierra Club Andres Cano Solid Waste 6/1 7/96C:onsultant
* Attachments to the comment letter are not included in this Appendix but are on fie with the Los Angeles County Deparent of Public Works.
(This page intentionally left blan)
ã i (ì I ..
..1,;
CIT
OF
SOU
T E
L M
ON
1415
N. S
AT
A A
NIT
AA
VE
NU
ES
OU
TH
EL
MO
NT
E. C
ALI
FO
RN
IA 9
1133
(818) 579-6 . (213) 6804 . FAX (818) 579-2107
Ap8
,I99
6
Los Angele Coun Demet of
Pub
l Wor
kE
nvio
nmta
Prg
ram
Dio
nP.
O. B
ox 1
460
Almb, CA 91802-1460
RE
EI\
fEO
AP
R 0
9 la
olj
l--i
~R
olili
&G
~tiÏ
l~11
1111
111i
111i
11l1
1111
Gen
tl:Pleas be advi tht althei regu meing ofMar 26, 1996
the Cit Coun of
the
Cily
of South EI Monte, by a mite acn vote of4-ayes an one (I) absention, appoved th
follw
ing
docu
mes
as
subm
by
your
offc
es:
I. The Preli Draf of
th Los Aneles County Counyw Sit E1et (Silin Pla)
dated Janua, 1996.
2. The Draft Summ Pla of
the
Cou
ne I
negr
ted
Was
te M
agem
Pla
(Su
mPl
a), d
ated
Jan
ua, 1
996;
Vol
um I
, th
Pla
an V
olum
II,
Apc
es.
3. T
h D
rft E
nvio
nm Im
ct R
ert (
DE
IR)
fur
the
Sit
Ele
, dat
e Ja
nua,
1996
(SC
H N
o. 9
5011
048)
.
4. T
he p
ropo
se N
egat
ive
Del
aatio
n fo
r th
Sum
Pia
, dat
ed J
anua
, 199
6.
Shul you bave any qu rete to th manet, ple feel fr to coir di ungi.
Res
liy,
'.
Cl
Cl
Sta
tem
ent n
oted
.
Z d i (ì i IV
i 'A I iC
ITY
OF
CO
MM
ER
CE
Ro .I. ~. liauo .. Jf Mayor Pr Tem
.i II c._ Cø An So -. COná.. .. T. -. CUu AdlT'
:: '?
_M
ay 1
5,19
66R
EC
EIV
ED
MAY 2 a 1996
i==
=.
Har W. Stone, Deputy Diror
Los Angeles County Deparment of
Publ
ic W
ork
Environmental Progrs Division
P.O
. Box
146
0Alhara, CA 91802-1460
SUBJECT: COMMTS TO TH LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAFT
COUNTYE SITG ELEMENT, THE DRAFT COUNTYIDE
INT
EG
RA
TE
D W
AS
TE
MA
AG
EM
EN
T S
UM
MA
RY
PLA
N, A
ND
RE
LA
TE
D E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
TA
L D
OC
UM
EN
TS,
Dea
Mr.
Sto
ne:
Tlú
s le
tter
cont
as o
ur c
omm
ents
on
the
follo
win
g do
cmen
ts w
lúch
hav
e be
n pr
epar
edby
the
Los
Ang
eles
Cou
nty
Dep
arm
ent o
f Pub
lic W
orks
, Env
ionm
enta
Pro
gram
Div
isio
n: I. PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECTION, lN STIY AN
EN
VO
NM
NT
AL
ASS
ESS
ME
NT
, FO
R T
I SU
MY
PL
AN
. OF
TH
E L
OS
AN
GE
LE
S C
O. C
OU
NW
IDE
IN
GR
TE
D W
AST
E M
AA
GE
MPLAN (I STIY).
2. PREIMARY DRA. VOLUMS I AN U. SUMARY PLAN, OF TI LOS
ANGE CO. COUNE INGRTE WASTE MAAGEM
PLA
(D
RA
SU
MY
PL
A.
3. D
RA
EN
ON
MA
L I
MA
CT
R,R
T, L
OS
AN
GE
L C
OU
N,
CO
IDE
SIT
G E
LN
T (
ElR
SIT
G E
LN
'
4. PREIMARY DRA, LOS ANGELES COUN, COUNWIDE SITING
Sl1G ELME (pRENARY SITG EL.
CO
MM
EN
TS
TO
TH
E D
OC
UM
EN
TS
Firs
l. al
l of i
he d
oe/m
enls
wer
e w
ell p
repa
re. T
hey
Ore
logl
colly
org
aniz
ed a
nd c
onlo
ln Iw
lpjû
l
features such as Tables of
Con
ten
is. E
xecu
ll""
Sum
mar
ies.
Ils
lS o
f ap
pend
ices
, pag
l/lllo
n. b
old
heod
lngs
, and
oih
er fe
atur
e ih
l mak
e /I
eosy
10
go th
roug
h ih
e di
cum
enlS
frm
slo
rt 1
0 fin
ish,
or 10 look up specljc sujecl I/tel'al. Howevr. Volume 11, of ihe Suml/ry Pion. should
Incl
ude
page
num
bers
for
aile
osiih
e fl
rsi p
age
of e
ach
of ih
e si
x Ii
sled
app
endi
ces.
2535
Com
mer
ce W
ay' C
omm
erce
. Cao
rn 9
040
. (21
3172
2-48
05 .
FAX
' (21
3172
6-62
31...
m_.
.
i. INITL STUY
z ci i (ì I W
SEC
TO
N V
, AI
QU
AL
, (a)
:
Is th
e C
ount
y su
gges
ing
IhIh
88
citie
s pi
os .I
.clr
c-po
wen
d ve
hicl
.s a
ndlO
l v.h
icl.s
pow
end
by p
rpa.
, met
hano
l. 01
nm
ural
gas
? If
JI, t
h.n,
ihis
mil/
gm/o
n m
eOS
n is
unacc.ptobl. becau of Its
hlii
h co
o
2.D
RA
FT
SU
MM
AR
Y P
LAN
i. Table ESl: Goal, Poli, and Objectve" A dale should accompy e~h
obje
cllv
e 10
sho
w w
hen
It w
il be
Im
plem
ente
d.
2. T
able
4-2
: Qua
ntiti
es o
r S
oUd
Wut
CoU
etle
d: In
ihe
jlrsl
col
umn
of ih
e la
ble.
unde
r, 1
990
disp
osal
for
Com
men
;e. i
he Q
mou
n en
lere
d sh
ould
be
corr
ecle
d 10
read
. 9O
.2J8
Ion
s. a
long
with
a c
orre
spon
dng
corr
ecllo
n lo
ihe
cubi
c ya
rds.
In
ihe
jlnal
Pla
n, ih
e oi
her
tw c
olum
n of
/h. i
obi.
shou
ld r
ef/.c
iihe
resu
lis f
rom
ihe
199.
5di
spos
al s
urv.
y.
3. Table 5-1: Source Reducti.ii"li..ii_."'''.i''.i__.. plce a checl marl
uner
"C
omm
erci
al S
eclo
r."
"Aw
ards
an
Pub
lic R
.cog
nillo
n, ..
and
"P
ror.
men
lP
ollc
i.s a
n S
ianr
d ".
4. T
able
5-3
: Rec
ydiD
& P
rocr
am: F
or C
omm
rc..
plac
e a
chec
k m
ark
unr
"Dro
p-O
f " "Buy-Back. .. "ConlractlFrmhlsedlcensed Recyling Service." and
"Tec
hnca
l Ass
lsla
nc...
. Add
ition
ally
. rem
arks
und
r "c
omm
.nls
" sh
ould
incl
ud.
"Exi
slln
g pr
ogra
ms
Incl
ud. c
iiyld
. res
iden
llal c
urbs
id. r
ecyl
ing,
por
llclp
ollo
n In
CSD
gr.
enw
asie
cov
er p
roje
cl. C
iiy H
all O
ffce
Pap
er R
ecyl
ing.
5. Table 5-5: Enlii Composlii Proiram:. For Commerc., plac. a check mark
un.r
"C
hrsl
ma
Tre
e P
rogr
am. "
"U
CS
D L
andj
lll C
over
. ""E
dcal
lonP
rom
ollo
n" "
Tec
hcal
Ass
lsla
nce"
. In
ihe
Com
mnt
s s.
cllo
n. a
dd"C
ompo
si d
emon
sirl
lon
prog
ram
01
Cliy
Hal
l".
6. Table 5-7: Esisi Speia Wute Proiram: For Commerce, plac. a ch.ck marl
uner "Offr P.rlodc Coll.ciion ". "Ash".
7. T
able
5-9
: Esi
stin
i Edu
catio
n an
d Pu
bUc
Edu
catio
n Pr
oira
ms:
For
Com
m.r
c..
plac
. a c
h.ck
mar
k un
der
"N.w
spop
er. A
rlle/
.s. a
nd P
ress
R.le
as.s
."A
dvrl
ls.m
enls
. Bro
hure
s. F
oci S
h.is
, .. V
ideo
s an
Slid
. Shw
s. ..
Spe
cial
Eve
nls.
Exi
bits
. an
Dis
play
." R
ecog
ntio
n A
war
d,"
"T.c
hlca
l Ass
lsia
nc..
.. an
d"I
nter
.Jur
lsdi
clio
nal C
oord
lnal
lon"
. The
Com
m.n
ts s
.cllo
n sh
ould
sia
l.."C
omm
ercl
al/I
ndlr
lal s
.clo
rs I
.chn
ical
ass
lsia
nc. a
nd a
war
d".
I C
2C
2A
s it
indi
cate
s, it
is o
nly
a su
gges
tion.
Bef
ore
it ca
n be
impl
emen
ted
ade
taile
d st
udy
coul
d be
don
e by
par
ticip
atin
gjur
isdi
ctio
nsto
det
erm
ine
cost/enefit and other relevant issues.
8. Table 5-14: EWe Ho-l HadoUi COUettOD Wut Proerao: For
Com
mrc
e. S
lale
unr
Com
mll,
Sla
le. "
Lo
Che
ck r
equi
red
for
city
ide
resi
dent
ial c
ubsi
de c
olle
ctio
n pr
ogra
m "
.
9. Table 6-1: JuriJttoDÙ FUDe Source.: For Commerc. uner Funding
Source. ad "Refue Hauler Gron Recelpls Fee ".
3. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACl REPORT, SITG ELEMENT
I. Typo: Page i-lO, Panarpb i,7,3, MCDd pangnpb, ran IeDleDce,
chge
.....
ha j(
Unt
ifed.
. ", t
o, ..
...ha
bee
n j(U
ntife
d.. "
.
4. DRAFT COUNTYIDE SITING ELEMENT
No coments.
Š i (j I .i
Cor
dial
ly,
~ß*l
Ric
hard
Kin
gEnvioiuntal Seices Coordintor
RK
r
cc: I. Gwi. Direcor Community Development
R. Ra Asst. Direcor Community Development
CIT
Y O
F M
ON
TE
RE
Y P
AR
K320 west newrk avenue. monterey park. ca 91754-2896
. mun
icip
al s
ervi
ces
cent
er
r;~/r,o .
" .,
June
14,
199
Don
ad L
. Wol
feLos Angeles County Depaent of
Pub
lic W
orks
Env
iroiu
nta
Pro
grs
Div
isio
nP.
O. B
ox 1
460
Alhabra, CA 91802-1460
RE
ceIV
ED
JUN \ 7 1996
OE
lAR
TIl
T O
F l'u
tlC"W
OR
EINØlAI pfl
DRAFf COUN'E SITG ELEME, SUMMARY PLAN, AND
RE
LA
TE
D E
NV
ON
ME
NT
AL
DO
UM
EN
T C
OM
ME
NT
S
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
Z tJ i (j I VI
The City of M
onte
rey
Par
k ha
rev
iew
ed th
e dr
ft C
ount
yde
Siti
ng E
lem
ent (
CS
E),
Sum
ma
Pla
n, a
nd r
elat
e E
nviro
nmen
tal D
oum
ents
and
offe
rs th
e fo
llow
ing
com
men
ts. T
he C
ity a
ppria
tes
th la
rgll"
Y9,
llI~
,11f
.llll,
llli.l
ili..Q
.,lx"
ç,Q
.1l9
,lj,ll
i.!X
"",
and/
or a
nlyz
e to
allo
w f
or th
e pr
paat
ion
of th
ese
plan
s in
acc
orda
ce w
ith S
tate
regu
latio
ns. A
lthug
h th
e co
mm
ents
bel
ow a
re o
f co
ncer
to th
e C
ity, o
vera
ll th
City
suppos thse dr documents.
COUNTYWIDE SITIG ELEMENT
Sta
e la
w r
equi
re th
e C
ount
yide
Siti
ng E
lem
ent (
CS
E)
to d
emon
strt
e fif
teen
yea
of
penn
itt d
ispo
al c
apac
ity, o
r id
entit
y ho
w th
is d
ispo
sa c
aity
will
be
seur
ed. T
heCounty's dr CSE identifies a combination of
new disposa facilties an faility
expaions as Lo Angeles County's method to meet
this
req
uire
men
t. W
aste
exp
ort i
sid
entif
ied
only
as
supp
lem
enta
lo th
es a
ctiv
ities
.
1. T
he m
ajor
ity o
f th
e po
tent
ial n
ew s
ites
iden
tifie
d in
the
CSE
, as
wel
l as
som
e of
the
prop
osed
exp
asio
ns a
re k
now
n to
fac
stro
ng o
ppos
ition
. Alth
ough
thes
e si
tes
may
not
ultim
atel
y re
sult
in v
iabl
e lo
ctio
ns f
or th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
new
dis
posa
l fac
iltie
s or
the
exio
n of
exi
stin
g on
es, t
he C
ity o
f M
onte
re P
ar r
ecom
men
ds th
t thy
rem
ain
paof
th
e C
SE. I
dent
ific
atio
n of
thes
c si
tes
in th
e C
SE d
os n
ot m
ean
thth
ese
site
s w
ilev
er b
e de
velo
ped.
How
ever
, if t
hey
are
rem
oved
from
the
CS
E th
ey c
anot
eve
r be
deve
lope
as
a di
spos
a fa
cilit
y un
ess
the
CS
E is
am
end.
Am
endi
ng th
e C
SE
is a
'- .
C3.
iC
3.i
Com
men
t not
ed.
CSElSwn Pla Coii.
Pag 2
significat procs as it requires approval from a majority of the County's cities
repr
esen
ting
a m
ajor
ity o
f th
inco
rped
pop
uatio
n.
2. A
s th
e m
ajor
ity o
f poe
ntia
l new
site
an
prpo
se e
xist
ing
faci
lity
expa
ions
iden
tifie
d in
th C
SE f
ac s
tng
oppo
ition
the
poss
ibili
ty e
xist
th th
ey m
ay n
ot e
ver
be d
evel
op T
hus
the
City
of M
onte
ey P
a re
mm
end
th w
ate
expo
rtco
mpl
emen
ted
by M
R d
elop
mt b
e gi
ven
prm
ar r
oles
in th
e pl
an a
n no
t jus
tid
entif
ied
as s
uple
men
ta a
cviti
es
Althugh not speificaly requied by th regutions, MR development will soon be a
criti
ca c
ompo
net o
f1l C
oty'
s w
a di
spo
syem
. Spe
ifica
ly, t
h C
ity fe
els
tht t
he C
ount
y an
San
itatio
n D
istr
ct s
houl
d pu
ue M
R d
evel
opm
ent o
n al
redy
exis
ting
lanf
ill s
ites.
The
s si
tes
an a
n id
e lo
ctio
n fo
r M
Rs
as th
ey a
lrey
have
dealt with loc lan us issue and alrey pose a Solid Waste Facilties Pennit. Use
of th
site
s w
ould
als
o fa
ilta
a re
gion
al a
pph
to w
ate
mai
ient
.
SUM
MA
RY
PL
AN
z o i (j I 0\
i. T
able
4-
i Org
aniz
atio
n of
Ser
vce
(pae
4-7
) -
Mon
te P
ar's
list
ng u
nder
thco
lum
n la
bled
"C
omm
enia
l- T
yp o
f Se
rvic
e" is
inco
rrt.
Und
this
col
umn,
Montere Pak is list as "contr". Monterey Par's coercial haulers do not
reui
re a
con
trt t
o co
llec
in th
City
, th
reui
re a
bns
in li
cens
. Ple
a co
rrt.
. 2. T
able
4-2
Qut
ities
of
Solid
Was
te C
olle
cte
(p. 4
- J
i) -
Ths
tabl
e de
pict
s w
aste
disp
osa
as id
entif
ied
in lo
cal j
ursd
ctio
n SR
R, r
epor
t fro
m th
e St
ate'
s D
ispo
lQutity Reportg System, an loc jursdiction phone surey. Given the known
problems with man jursdictons' bas year da an the inauraies of
the
Dis
pol
Qut
ity R
epor
tg S
yste
m, i
t is
un to
list
thes
tw f
igus
with
ut s
ignf
icat
explantion of th
issu
e su
rund
ing
thir
rel
iabi
lity.
For
thes
e re
, alo
ng w
ith th
exise of
th State's ba-yea adjUSbnent methodlogy (which should also be
discus), it should be Ver cleav indicate th th fiiis orvide in this tale
caot
be
us to
cac
ulat
e lo
c iu
rsdc
tion
dive
rsio
n le
vels
. Ths
dis
ciis
ion
shou
ldinlud th followig points.
Bie-Year Problems - On a cotyde bais, th SRR identfied bas-yea
disp
osa
data
is k
now
n to
be
sign
ifica
tly u
nrte
d. T
his
unde
rrpo
rtng
should be mentione. In adtion, may jursdctions, includng Monterey Pak are
curntly in th prss of revising thes bayea figu. Th should also be
note
.
Z tJ i (ì I ..
CS
E/S
um P
la C
omm
.....
Paso
3
Dis
posa
l Qua
ntity
Rep
ortin
g Sy
stem
Pro
blem
s -
The
dif
fcul
ties
with
the
accu
racy
of th
e D
ispo
sal Q
uatit
y R
epor
tng
Syst
em a
lso
requ
ire
expl
antio
n. T
his
expl
antio
n sh
ould
incl
ude
the
inai
lty to
ver
ify
the
accu
racy
of
the
Wat
ege
nera
tion
sour
ces
prvi
de b
y la
dfill
cus
mer
s at
the
disp
osal
fac
ilitie
s. I
naddition, it should be mentioned tha ifa lanll customer dos not Iiw the point
of o
rigin
of w
ate,
tht t
hs w
ate
is a
utom
atic
ally
ass
ign
to th
jurs
dict
ion
wher tht
land
fll c
usm
er is
hea
duar
e
3_ A
ppnd
ices
- M
onte
rey
Par
k S
urve
y F
orm
- T
he fo
llow
ing
item
s on
Mon
tere
y P
ark'
s
phone surey form should be corrte Applicale ar thougout the Summar Plan
should also be chage to reflect the corrtions.
4) C
onta
ct p
ersn
nae
sho
uld
be c
hage
d F
rom
La
Koc
h to
Tin
a La
key.
Oth
er r
elat
ed in
fonn
tion
is c
orrc
t.
13) Typ of Commercial Servce should be chaged frm "contract" to
"pei
tslic
ense
".
The
follo
win
g ite
ms
on M
onte
rey
Par
's R
ecyc
ling
Impl
emen
tatio
n P
rogr
s T
able
shou
ld b
e co
rrec
te. A
pplic
able
are
as th
roug
hout
the
Sum
ma
Plan
sho
uld
also
be
changed to renect thes corrections.
14) Rate Strtur Modificaons. Planed progr column should be changed to
re "yes" as ths is a prgr identified in th City's SRR.
39)
Oth
er P
rogr
ams
- Pl
an p
rogr
am c
olum
n sh
ould
be
chag
ed to
re
"yes
"an
d th
e lin
e "y
ard
wat
e ba
" ad
to th
com
men
ts c
olum
as
ths
is a
prog
r id
entif
ied
in th
e C
ity's
SR
R.
48) Lage Ite Pick-up - Planed progr column should be cbaged to re
"yes
" as
ths
is a
prg
r id
entif
ied
in th
e C
ity's
SR
R.
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NT
AL
IM
PAC
T R
EPO
RT
I. Char Six, Environmnta Impat AnlysisIitigaion Measurs may be revised to
clea
y se
te s
ugge
s m
itiga
tion
mea
ures
frm
the
anal
ysis
. Th
ar n
ot c
onsi
sten
tw
ith th
ose
idet
ifie
d in
Tab
e E
S-.
CSE
/Sum
Pla
CO
iid'
Pase
4
NE
GA
TIV
E D
EC
LA
RA
TIO
N
No comments.
If you have any questions regading these comments, pleas call Tina Lackey of th
City
's P
ulic
Wor
k D
epae
nt a
t (81
8)30
7-13
83.
?P f/
Chr
is J
effe
rsC
ity M
ager
TJL
:CJ
Z tJ i (ì I 00
cc: R
ay H
a P
lann
g D
ivis
ion
C3.
2C
3.2
Sta
tem
ent n
oted
.
RE
CE
IVE
D
JUN , 8 1996
ÐEPARIIIN" 0if.~p~=
EIlØlEK No
Cin
or
va ~
a O
I ~ J
lllU
Y 1
'" D
ura
or ~
Loa
AiG-ia COU ClIDl Bl'rIII zi, IIIGIIDD .ABU
1I_
Ø1Y
l', l
l Bup
PO
IlIIlG
Bii.
~ D
o
CllY
CO
UN
CI
LE
ON
IS C
. MA
LB
UR
GM
ayo
llOM
A A
. YB
AR
Mayo l'1è
Wm
. "B
IL"
DA
VI
Co
H. "
LAR
RY
" G
ON
LES
Co
W. M
ICH
AE
L M
cRM
CK
Co
CIT
Y H
AL
LB
RU
CE
V. M
AL
KO
RS
Ci A
dto/
aiy
Co
fAX
(21
3) 5
81-'I
4JSAAFEAVE VERNON,CARN 90
TE
ON
E (
213)
5B
-ttt
EN
VR
ON
MN
TA
L H
EA
LT
H D
EPA
RT
ME
NT
June 17, 1996
Los Angeles County Department of
Environmental Programs Division
P.o. Box 1460
Alhambra, CA 91B02-1460
Public Works
Z tJ i (ì i \0
Attn
:Mike Mohajer
BlJ
C':
Dear Mr. Mohajeri
¿; 1
~1 \
c: '.
DAVI B. BREARLEY
Ci A
ltyfA
X (
818)
335
818
KE
WI
Di 01 Comunty Sa li Wate
FA
X (
213)
582
761
KENN). DeDARJO
Dito
01
U¡h
t li P
owei
FA
X (
213)
581
98
DA
VE
TE
LFR
DfiR
Chf
PAlo
(21
3) 5
81-1
38
WUI ROSENKRNT
Pol
Ch
PAX
(21
3) 5
81.1
178
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
preliminary drafts of the subject documents. Our department
makes the following comments .and/or recommended changes as
referenced by page and paragraph (t) number of the respective
docu
men
ts i
Pre1
1.1n
ar D
raft
aL
the
Los
Ana
eles
cou
nt_1
de 8
1 t1
na B
le..n
t:. Pag. .vi, i 3: Daily cover does not control erosion, but is
more aptly described as being SUbject to erosion.
Therefore, we recommend reaoving the reference to erosion
control as a functional criterion in the definition of
alternative dailY cover. (Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations (14 CCR), the apparent source of this
definition, is being revised to reflect this change).
. ..g. .vi, i 8: The definition of ~ addresses only
green waste, yet manure and biosolids are also commonly
utilized feedstocks for composting. Therefore, we recommend
including these items in the definition as they relate to
feed
stoc
ks.
*
Z tJ i (ì I .. o
Vam
on C
omm
ents
Juna
17.
199
6Paga 2
PreiiJlnar Draft of tle Loll Anaeies CountYWide sitina Ei..nt
(con
tinue
d) :
a .ag. xx. i 8: Not all Dermitted solid waste landfiiis in
L.A. county have land use or conditional use permits, i.e.,
Antelope valley, Pebbly Beach, etc.
a .ag. xxi. '10: AB 939 differentiates composting from
recycling and therefore so should the definition here for
recv
clin
a.a .ag. zziii, i I: The definition of transformation includes
biological conversion other than composting, but also
excludes biomass conversion. To eliminate confusion, please
define the term biomass conversion.
.ag. 5-20, , 2: The city of Long Beach Health Department is
no longer the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA); instead, this
LEA jurisdiction has been taken over by L.A. county
Department of Health Services.
.ag.. 5-20 to 5-22: Section (5) 5.5.6.2., Permittina
Reauirements, should also provide a description of a "Report
of Composting site Information", the technical report
required for the permitting of a composting facility. This
section should also reference the regulatory tier permitting
requirements, commencing with 5 18100 of 14 CCR.
a .age. 5-22 to 5-23: The correct term in S 5.5.6.3.,
Administrative Process, for the document submitted by the
LEA to the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWM) for approval is the "Enforcement Program Plan" or
"EPP
" .
a a a .ag. 5-23. , 4: According to 5 18207 of 14 CCR, the LEA has
55 d
ays
(ß2
65 d
ays
as s
tate
d) a
fter
fili
ng o
f th
e pe
rmit
application package to submit a proposed permit to the
CIW
M. I
n ad
ditio
n, th
e L
E h
as 3
0 da
ys in
whi
ch to
acc
ept
or reject the application package as to meeting the
requirements of S 18201.
· Pag. e-e. '5: 5 8.6.3. references the Hobart Intermodal
Facilitv in the City of Vernon, yet neither the Source
Reduction and Recycling Blement (SRRE) nor the Nondisposal
Facility Element (NDFE) for the city have identified this
site. Please explain the source of this information.
I.
Ver
non
Com
men
tsJu
ne 1
7. 1
998
Pege 3
Drart SU..ry Plan or the COntywide Intøarat:ed Wast:e "anaae_nt:
L. :
· Pag. xi, '5: To mae this definition consistent with state
regulations, we suggest adding the "control of blowing
litter" to the functional crit.ria of alternative daily
~.
a i (ì I .. ..
.. Pag. xiv, '6: Add the terms "biosolids" and "manure" to
the list of potential feedstocks for composting (see above
com
men
t) .
· Pag. 5,-(70): Table 5-1 (sumary of Existing Source
Reduction Programs) should identify that the city of Vernon
currently: (1) conducts Waste Evaluations; (2) distributes
source reduction information to businesses as a part of
ongoing Educational Efforts; and, (3) has Procurement
Policies for the purchase of recycled-content products.
Pag. 5-(78): Table 5-3 (Summary of Existing Recycling
Programs) should identify that the City of Vernon currently
part
icip
ates
in th
e L
os A
ngel
es C
ount
y ~
(Rec
yclin
gMarket Development zone) program.
.Pag. 5-('0): Table 5-7 (Summary of Existing special Wastes
Programs) should identify that the City of Vernon currently
has a program for the Recvclina of Street Maintenance
Material and is recovering construction and demolition (C'D)
debris such as asphalt and concrete.
· Pag. 5-('4): Table 5-8 (Summary of Selected Special Wastes
Programs) should identify that the City of Vernon continues
to develop and expand its program for the Recvclina of
Street Maintenance Material.
· Pag. 5-('8): Table 5-9 (summary of Existing Education and
Public Information Programs) should identify that the city
of Vernon currently: (1) produces recycling-related articles
for the Ver Joural, a city-generated Newsletter; (2)
distributes Brochures to local businesses on commercial
recy
clin
g an
d w
aste
min
imiz
atio
n; (
3) c
ondu
cts
~Evaluations; and, (4) provides Technical Assistance to
Vernon Businesses interested in recycling programs.
· Pag. 5-(103): Table 5-10 (Sumary of Selected Education and
PUblic Information Programs) should identify that the City
of Vernon plans to continue: (1) producing recycling-related
articles in their Newsletter and (2) distributing Brochures
on recycling and waste minimization, along with the other
V.m
on C
omm
eta
J... 17. 1996
Pll. 4
Dra
ft s
u....
..rv
Plan
of
the
Cot
_ide
Int
eara
ted
Was
te I
fana
ae..n
t.&
(co
ntin
ued)
:selected prograas identified in the table.
· Pag_ 5-(108): Table 5-11 (Sumary of Targeted Materials)
shou
ld in
dica
te th
at th
e C
ity o
f Ver
non
has
targ
eted
E2
~ for recycling (R) because of the numerous food
processing and distribution facilitiss within the city.
Draft Knviroiintal I._ct ReDOrt for the sitina Ble-it and
ProDOsed Negative Declllation for the SU...." Plan:
. We have reviewed the subject environmental documents and
make no comments at this time.
Z tJ i (ì I -- IV
We would like to take this opportunity to commend your staff on
their outstanding efforts in preparing this well-organized and
comprehensi ve set of documents.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding our comments,
please contact Mr. Paul Manasjan at (213) 583-8811, ext. 232.
~ce
relQ
) ()
~;¡
I0.ç
.~ ~
i .Lewis J. ozzebon, R.E.H.S.
Dire
ctor
/Hea
lth O
ffice
r
c: Bruce Malkenhorst, City Administrator
C4
C4
Sta
tem
ent n
oted
.
Š i n I .. Vo
cit o
f La
Put
eIS
90E
.Mal
nSlre
LaP
uCA
917"
T.i(
818)
8SS
'11O
FIx
(818
)96I
.l626
Sep
lem
ber
12, 1
996
Mr.
Don
ald
L. W
olfe
Dep
uty
Dir
ecto
rU
epar
cnt o
í t'u
olic
Wor
Í(s
Cou
nty
of L
os A
ngel
esP.
O. B
ox 1
460
Alhabra. CA 91802-1460
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
RE
CE
IVE
D
SEP 1 8 1996
lVlI
O
f PI_
SENINTIl PI Ir
City
Sta
ff ha
s re
view
ed th
e fo
llow
ing
docu
men
ts w
ith r
egar
s to
thei
r ac
cury
and
impact towards the City of La Puente's Soure Reduction and Recycling Element
(SRRE) and Household Hazrdous Wasie..E.(HHWE):.__....
I. L
os A
ngel
es C
ount
y C
ount
ywid
e Si
ting
Ele
men
t (D
raft
)2.
Sum
mar
Pla
n, C
ount
ywid
e In
tegr
ated
Was
te M
ange
men
t Pla
n; V
olum
e 11
(D
raft)
3. E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t for
the
Siti
ng E
lem
ent (
Dra
ft)4.
Pro
pose
d N
egat
ive
Dec
lara
tion
for
the
Sum
Pla
n
City
Sta
ff d
isco
vere
d no
.~..e
i li~
te4
A¡"
WP
And
t~"
l'ii_
management objectives specified in the City of La
Pun
te's
SR
R a
nd H
HW
E.
Tna
nK y
ou (
br th
e O
ppor
iuni
ty 1
0 rc
vic\
,. Ih
i:8C
uuc
wne
nll.
If y(
'U li
uv\,
WI)
" qü
t:s¡iu
ns,
plea
se c
onta
ct m
e at
(81
8) 8
55-1
500.
Sinc
erel
y,
-lI ,)'/
.-~
'£ ~
p-u.
tvt
Stev
e H
auer
waa
Man
gem
ent A
ssis
taltl
Solid
Was
te C
oord
inat
or
~:\a
iin'ic
ltcrs
\site
lml
&i L
am
Ji_
jov.AI.. SaI,HoF.llon
Mt P
r Ii
CD
_L
oI.P
..C
D_
Go
Ga,
.C
D__
P.G
.Gt..
CI ll
II C5
,
C5
Com
men
t not
ed.
Š i n I .. .t
/" -
.tx
~Kf counTY Iin 116E1E1T DEPARTMEIT
_ H
. Wai
li, D
irUIr
2700 'M- Stl s. 50
Bald. CA 9330 I
(805
) 86
2-89
(BO
) 55
2-K
ER
N (
opto
n 6)
Fi: (
805)
862
-891
"~/ll
'OMa 26, 1996~: l, ~
~.~:
tFi
le: 2
0012
Micl Moher
Lo. Aue1. Cou Dqart of
Publ
ic W
orb
Enn
mei
Prg
r D
iviD
P.O
. Box
146
A1lin, CA 91802-1460
RE: LOS ANGES COUN COUNE SITING EL, DRA
ENVONMAL IMACT RERT, COUNYWE INGRTE WASTE
MA
AG
E S
UM
Y P
LA
, AN
NE
GA
TI
DE
CL
AT
ION
Dea
Mr.
Moh
aer:
Th Ker Coun Wut Maem Dcutt ii reew tJ doc an hu no
coii. Th De woud li to coaund you diVÍOD OD th level of thorough of
your product.
T1
yo f
or th
opp
ort t
o re
ew tJ
doc
ents
.
Siny
,D
APH
N H
. W A
SlD
GT
ON
, Dir
ecor
&nO~/¿ ß/LrL
By: SUl L. Red, AICP
RMZ Coordir
u: J:Tlo
i2l1
I
.
GI
.
OJ
Com
men
t not
ed.
Z t: i n I .. VI
8\ :'
~..~ (~ .~l
"l...
.~.
~tatt of (4alífomía
GO
VE
RN
OR
'S O
FFIC
E O
F PL
NN
ING
AN
O R
ESE
AR
CH
1400
TE
NT
H S
TR
EE
TS
AC
RM
EN
TO
951
4P
ET
E W
ILS
ON
GO
VE
RN
RlE
E G
RIS
SOM
'''''e
n'.
April 12, 1996
RE
CE
IVE
D
APR , 6 1996
IlAlll
4Nl o
i PI l
ISui
lItl,.
pR
Oli
DAVID SMITH
L. A. COUNY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
AL
HA
BR
A, C
A 9
1803
Subject: SUMMAY PLA OF THE COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE
MAAGEMENT N SCH #: 96031033
Dear DAVID SMITH:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental
document to selected state agencies for review. The review period
is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This
letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental
documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding
the environmental review process. When contacting the
Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State
Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly.
Sinc
erel
y,
~ ,.¡
;.'.i.
¡,:';
:;:.:.
~
ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA
Chi"r, State CleaL'inghü""""
(Thi
s le
tter
is s
uper
sede
d by
a s
ubse
quen
t let
ter
from
the
Gov
erno
r's O
jjìce
of
Planning and Research dated June /7, /996)
.
G2
G2
Sta
tem
ent n
oted
.
1310
33.u
i. C
l_ri~
in,,~
... U
OO
'IU
.....
,. __
an.
..c_
to. C
A "
.U n
"11
1 U
S-a
UJ
llir~
1 or
CC
LII
OL
l. &
l11I
ft D
O T
W-i
IT'A
L r
O
I:,--
'~ I
1. 'I
'0J"
'\ '1
1\1.
. '~
_rY
'18f
t ", U
N. C
""no
_td.
i.._
.u"
lb..,
.. ...
~ .
.Ia.
I. 1
._ io
-iii:
. ~. .
l.I_
C".
... r
i..tl_
. Dr
ii_Ii
.. ...
. Co.
tiKl ,
..._.
i,,'U
_~/.d
dl'''.
'IOO
''..t.
i''''''
'A...
. n.e
i',. A
lli.a
_).
..~')'
IL...
.A.._
I...
"'...
..--J
...""
..,lI
l1ln
..)U
l~ .. Cooiy, i.. .....1.... ... cn"e-1trl III ..u,_ 1. i... ...1.. f!....,..
411.
....-
l....i
".i_
.~."
. l-l
__",
_--
he -
.d. .
._t
i.. c
i_. I
U_'
"I _
1'&
l-. C
_1tll '.-
.iLni II.." "'11- Votl..'
t. w
llllll
ii..U
.. ...
.._..p
o,,,_
o.w
.,._.
...)'.
_,.
"" -01
. i-
01._
_OJ._..i)'eo 07,_Ml
n..io
eo IH
...0.
. -",
lrC
. .ia
i..,i_
i.ii
O"_
i"ii_
tll,,
(hlo
.le...
1
OI.
_hild
.i"V
fa,.
OJ. 11_,1_\
0). =
__.f
d .le
.....
....U
0'. -
Ji. n
_O
S,_
OI'_
'peU
le,I
...O
l,_t'_
..n:r
.i..
01. _-..i"i-t
09. _
_.G
I...
ouh
:: ::.
1 :~
: =~
. 10.
i;:I:
::::::
"'..l
..,. 1
'uci
tMA
, ....
1m
i . II
. _11
_ r.
lt1J
._Jl
llllll
l_t
:::=
~::,~
U. .
.""n
.Mgt
u..
U. C
-i.I..
rc-
-.1l
.=O
t..1I
U. I
KU
I....
.. IU
.n,._
_ i.
~
01. -
-Ida
nthl
, ..U
._ k
~.._
ii._oru_. ...".
"'~-
-I-i
U. _..h.(~c1ail... lt._
Ol._
I....U
I-i.
...n.
Mi-
--1~
_:::
=;;:
.:~~
I:.O
J. -
..1...
*-.
ioe
'_'_
Ii-_
W.tt
._H
. _...
w 't
..i-t
i 't
10. OC..I...
U.=
Ot.
Z tJ i n I .. 0\
Ii. _..Uc 'p'_ u. _""tv Q\HEf
01. --_i-lc/Vi-..i 0.. --loo'U../Dt.l.. II. _'_ c...lt' at. _".t.. '"f1I,
01. --PIIiIiUIIC.1 i.. tit. _lllOOh,d'hl_l. u. _'0i1. U. _lIu..aipuu.
01. -
Jlt Q
uUt,
10. _
JoM
lil..
.-i.
II. ~
u 'fH
I_ n
. _IU
i4lIr
.04
. --ll
_lov
lciil
lhi.r
l.,1
u. -
-..r
a., I
I. --
1101
.." 1
7. _
oI-i
l..oI
iid",
Oi. _1:_''1 l- U. _Ilvl.. ao. _i-.,..lÂlI. n. _I~I.I.....
Co. _1e"'.I" lJ. -,11111111 "rvlo ai. _'tnui",/c:lirlil.Uvt Jt. _~lnl'. 1I1_t.
a1. -
'1..
'&U
it' H
. _kl
\l. 3
3. _
....."
t101
JO
. _O
ùiri
_u.
i-l..i
-l~.i
._U
."l-.
.l-14. .iii.u..._i-o..i.
U. .
-i'C
" D
ural
..,ili
ft P
lOi_
t i. .
'-rr
'1..
~Il\'
" 01
.. ..
.,1. 0
1 .u
Uo
.1_1
. 01
i-_q
wi-
-.I
d _i
. ~ 'I
"'lll
pI.
.i. i-
1_ U
i ..r
_ -l
u.. .
.. -l
U..
.I_t
a,8ø
W ..
.. "'i
. .1_
U, .
. ..1
..1 ,.
.111
1, ,1
_,. D
r lM
.. D
IU..
I. Lo
..i..
Cot
r...
. i-
('-'t
..I.._
...t..
u...
. ft '
-ir
PI..
IDII
.. _t
",i..
iiII
, ..U
iii_.
... .
.,_u.
._II
l ~..t
1', _
'pi_
.h...
iDl J
WO
Vt_
. Mru
Uai
. .. .
1....
1 nr
.i-i..
. u...
.. __
ry 'i
...u
i ID
I1...
. ~..
,nir_
"'1
011
U. .
.U..
I. i-
..i_
1:_1
1 ..
UI.
CD
lt1 1
I&t'.
..i-i
i. flU
...i_
ta'l_
I...
l. ll
l1_
ui..
Äl'.
/')
Sii C
lM¡b
Coa
i.:M
i. cl
is B
cbk)
'(9
16)4
4$-0
1)
..~ ...¡ow ....' .../ J _ '"
Oe&vIOAlcacy -..£
Ai~
,."..S
CH
~.~
SCH COMLIANCE ... Jl
.. i- SC Nii_ki o. .11 c..
~im
..
9603
1033
,... f
onr.
rd ..
I. co
......
din
etl)'
&0
Clc
.. A
..A
QM
OIA
PCO
-i (
Rao
rCtl:
.._-,
ll)
P"'J
ec S
c.1
18 1
M f
oli"
", s
ele
Aan
c
-A A
clllU
_ Ð
-.CG C4m
CG
C.."
Co
an 8
d-C
OII
lMi
--FiI.tGlic' .r
o.bP
tli= Fom
Pa
a: k
clQ
H'
- ReclM"ki
= BC
_1(.
DW
IO
ES
.. Tr.. Hoii
Alr
Oßi
u-C
HP
-- C&lnn" _!l
_ Trw Plinl
_HO
\ui.t
lncc
1H
uh~
A W
.un
.. !l.i H20
_ Mc Wuk
S&l-
.._lh
aG
c S
I_.
C.W
:'A2
AR
B-- CA W.. M¡l Bd
ShCB: ai
=SWJCB: Ð-
_SW
RC
8: w
U'~
_ SwaCD: Wii..
-A~.
-rytWMI C-i
"" ...1 eo.
_ ..e-
X NAHC
=- PU .... -
-A_i
-c-
_ T_R¡Pl
0"."
Z t: i n I .. "J
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
#lI:
CI:
/VI:
/J
"'Ar
0 6
IS%~NrOFPU81C _,.
'-fN
rAL
p~s
'1)
'-'-
~Apnl 30, 1996
ASS
OC
IAT
ION
of
GO
VE
RN
ME
NT
S
Mr. Micli Mohajer
Los Angele County Det of Pulic Worlc
Environmeta Progr DivÎJOI
P.O
. Box
146
Alra, CA 9180-146
818
Wes
l Sev
enth
Sln
!el
RE
: Com
met
s O
I th
Pn
Dra
Sum
ma
Plan
of
the
Los
Angeles Couty Co Intera Waste Maagement
Pla
an
Pr
Nev
e D
elao
n In
itial
Stu
y an
dEnvirnmenta Asst for th Summa Pia -SCAG No.
I 960
i11
th F
loor
lo!.
Arg
elt!
l. (.
:lifo
inia
De
Mr.
Moh
ajer
:lJ
017'
lil'i
1(11
11 lJ
O'Il
loo
1111
11 I
IO 1
M2.
.
Th
you
for
subn
útû¡
th P
r D
ra S
umry
Pla
n of
the Lo AD&eles County Countywide Inteirate Wase
Maoaiiement Pl and Prpo Neptve Detion Inial Study
and Envirnmenl Ag--nt for th Sumry Pl to SCAG for
revi
ew a
nd c
omm
ent.
As
arw
ide
clen
ghou
se f
or r
egio
naJy
sign
ific
at p
roje
cts,
SC
AG
asi
st c
ities
, con
ties
an o
ter
agen
cies
in r
evie
win
g pr
ojec
ts a
nd p
las
for
cons
islc
cy w
ith r
egio
na p
lans
.Our comments on the project are athe.
~.~
7:; :
;',;::
'~',:
, ~'::
::.;:i
:~:"
~~
~' ,
.::";
:',:.
,....
~..',
..."
,. ~
,I .
......
..1 \.
.. ...
...,.
..,...
I.."
...~)
. "..
...".
~.".
.i...
.. i.,
. "'~
..''''
''''1
~=
,~ i~
:.~:"
i~:.
,~:::
: "'''1
'- 1.
..,-
i,''.
.."...
If y
ou h
ave
any
quet
ions
reg
th c
omm
ents
, ple
a co
nlal
Bil
Boy
d at
(21
3) 2
36-1
96.
1-"_
.,..1
......
. ,.,~
".. .
,.,',~
.... ~
,,,\.,
i.~"''
'i'I'~
''''''''
I' It,
."...
, u,..
.., '.
" ""
',,.,
. "'.I
..',l
""".
" I.~
,....
.... .
,..,,
, 1M
....
",."
"."¡
b..'
~..I
. " n
""."
.~~
""''',
. """
'0:
.."._
.".I~
."~
,,, t.
" ,..
~."
. "..
no'H
"...I
""I,
~. .
u,.."
, ~...
..,. I
... \"
.'~' "
"'.,,
."...
.1, .
..w ,,
,...,
. ,...
.. 'i,
. I. ,
... \.
,~",
. .1"
1",,
'...1
.,,' .
..".~
'~. U
....,I
".. "
,ri..
."~.
...1'
. I~
".. 1
'...,,
,,,..1
. 1"'
1 ,..
.', .
¡,..,
.."."
'Un.
."I.
i..Io
"I.."
i....'
....."
1d...
.l"l
"t"I
.) r
.l.h.
....h
l~';.
I,,".
, i,,,
..,,I,
~~
. l.i.
, I;..
.....
,...,.
i....
. i..
I.. (
"'~I
I"'I'
I",
.."_.
..',,"
I....
Ii...
.".,,
,i"I.
.'..'.
...i
1I,..
,..~
" I..
. '''i
'I'' .
'\...
~,,,
,,1,,'
'. ,,"
~:.
...~
::7..1
:.1. '
~:'.
.:l.~
:.~::.
;.;,::
:~':
:::'t.
::~
;,:; ~
':::';
:,,: ~
'.~:':
'. :'~
;~;.~
,~,~
~:~
ri~""
... I.
~ '"
.~Ir
. . .'
'1..'
.1 ..
,'.""
I..
.''',¡
I., .
\II.
" it.
.....
....,.
'''.
. ....
..~,"
u".'
""",
.~, .
." \"
",,,
""11
'1.,.
... .
It,..
~..,,
,,,,,h
i.,'M
,....
.1..'
''', h
. i,~
,~,."
..,~~
,:;~'
';~:,:
;,~:,~
;:,:I
".i.
w,,_
,~ "
"""H
"
SinelY lvv'
VIVIA DOCHEBOULO
Intergovermenta Review
("_,
' ofU
i..."
~'..
.." "
"'.r
~.' ,
It..,
....
....1
'.,,,,
1\...
:1.,,
'..,,,
,,,,,.
,,,,,,
......
::~:~
l'::~
' ¿-:
,~. ~
"~,,~
;,:i~
...,'.
.~:',
I:.:
.~;:~
.~
"-i,.
. ,i..
....i
.." ,'
I.,,,
,,~,.
. I'"
' ,,.,
,. "'
,.''-
1' o
f 1.
1....
." ..
,~ b
.,,,.,
It"
.h...
""""
" . J
. n..,
I. ''
',,''
,..,..
.. .1
' ",,'
I~..~
"'.1
"',,-
.. . 1
',,1
.. ii,
~.."
, I."
" . "
,,"l..
.,,,~
,,. ..
....,,
,...-
"_,..
i.....
.....,
n:',,
.,",I
I"...
.~
~~
~,~
:' ~
:,;'::
':,' I
;:.':¡
,~':
:;:::~
";,:;
:,.I::
,I:::.
I,"".
.. . T
o."
M"u
.."
",,,.
.,,j,,
,,,' i
."",
~N
"".."
...i
1"1"
,., 1
1,'1
., M
'....
......
" \'r
""~
l_ln
I'I..'
~u'h
.I,..
.i.I,
\.,,"
....,.
......
.",1
".. i
....ll
.,.,~
,,,t"
.h...
.,,,..
'j, 1
.,,,,,
,Ol
$....
......
...",
......
..
~
Apri 30, 1996
Mr. Mich Mohajer
Pae 2
COMM ON TH PRARY DRA SUMY PL
OF
TH
LO
AN
GE
L C
OU
NC
OU
NW
IE I
NR
AT
I W
AST
E M
AA
GE
M P
LAN PROPOSED NEATI DECTION INL STUY
AN
EN
ON
MA
L A
SFS
FOR
TH
SU
MY
PL
PRO
JEC
T D
ESC
RlO
N
The Los Angeles County Det of Public Works iw pn: iJ Pr Dra
Sum
Pln
of t
he L
o A
De1
Cou
nty
Cou
ntyw
ide
Inte
d W
as M
anqe
mt P
land Propo Neptive DetiD In Study iu EavJ Asnt for the
Sum
ry P
la.
Z t: i n I - 00
The
Sum
mar
Pla
est
alis
h C
outy
de g
oas,
pol
ici a
n ob
ject
ives
for
inte
gra
wai
temangement; estalies an adirtive sti for pr an mataing the Summa
Pla;
des
be t1
Cou
ntyw
ide
syst
m o
f iio
verm
ela
ioli
_ m
aem
ent i
nfrt
ur;
derib
e th
e cu
rent
sys
tm o
f sol
i wai
te m
aem
t in
ti un
corp
ra C
oty
and
the
88 incorprate cities; sumii iJ ty of progrs pI in iJ inividua
juri
sdic
tions
'So
urce
Reu
ctio
n an
d R
eycl
Elts
(SR
R),
Ho
Hau
s W
aite
Ele
met
s(H
HW
), a
n N
ondi
spos
a F
acilt
y E
lts (
NF
E);
an
debe
pro
gras
tht c
ould
be
cons
olid
ate
or c
ordi
te C
oty.
Th
SRR
, HH
an
ND
FE d
eine
a th
direction ea jurisdiction prose to 10 in ord to re iJ waite diverion goas of 2S
pecet by 1995 and SO pet by th yea 200.
I.. INODUCTON TO SCAG REVIEW PIOCES
Th
doum
t th
prov
ide
iJ p
rma
refc
r fo
r S
CA
G's
pre
c re
w a
cvity
is iJ
Regional Comprcsive Pla an Gui (RCPG). Th RCP cI fal into th
cago
ries
: cor
e, a
nil,
and
briie
. Th
Gro
wt M
.em
et, R
eion
Mob
ilty
(bng
a su
mm
a of
the
199
Rei
ion
Mob
ilty
Ele
mt)
, Ai Q
uty,
Has
Wai
teM
aem
t, an
Wat
Qut
y ch
tes
cost
tute
ti c
ore
chs.
Th
core
cha
rend diretly to fed an st Plall rciilS. Th core cha constitute the
ba o
n w
hich
loc
gove
rmet
s en
cos
ist o
f ti p
las
with
apl
ical
e re
iona
l pla
nsunder CEQA. The Air Quty an Growt M.cmt chates cotan bo core and
anilar policies, which ar differti in iJ commet poon of tls 1c.
-
Apnl 30, 1996
Mr. Micli Molijer
Pae 3
Anci cl ar tI on th Ecnomy, Ho, Hum Rece and Sece,
Fii, Op Spa an Coscal, Wala Rc, EAy, an lntc Soli WaslC
MaC
ßt. T
I cl
i ad
impt
ÌI
fi th
J' a
n m
ay n
:flt
otreona pls. Ai cl, hoever, do no CXia aii 01 pocies reui of loc
gove
rmet
. Hci
cc, t
hy a
r en
tiy a
dvis
ory
an a
tlial
DO
iiw
ma
or p
olic
ies
for
th r
eon.
Bnge cl inud ti Stry an Imp1cta cls, ñitionn¡ as liks beee
ti C
on: a
n A
i cli
of th
RC
P.Ea of th aplicale policies iea1 10 th pr projet ar idetified by numbe and
reroduc beow in iiacs follwed by SCAG st cotl re ti consistey of th
project with those polies.
D. C
ON
SIST
EN
CY
WIT
RE
ION
AL
CO
MPE
NSI
VE
PL
AN
GU
IE
Z tJ i (' I .. \0
A. C
ore
Cba
pte
1. T
he G
row
t Man
emen
t Cha
pte
(GM
C)
inlu
d bo
con
: an
anil
polic
ies
in th
emadaic porton of ti chaic tht ar pacully apcale 10 th project. The GMC
poliie ie 10 ti thee RCP goa: 10 improe th re st of living, 10 mantan
ti rc
iona
qua
ty o
f life
, an
10 p
rvid
e so
, pol
i, an
cut
u eq
uity
. To
acie
e ti
goas, SCAG ClcoCS ll develmet of ur for th enle inviduas 10 sp les
inm
e on
ii, n
umi p
ublic
an
pnva
i dec
lmat
cos
t, an
th e
nle
th p
nvai
cselor 10 be mon: competive, thy st¡tJ th iq ecy. Att mobilty
ard
clea
ai ¡
oas
is a
lso
cnli
in c
ncin
¡ th
qua
ty o
f lie
in ti
reo
n an
d ca
be
acev
ed th
rou¡
h th
dev
dopm
et o
f ur
foo
th a
cmm
ote
a di
vert
y of
life
sles
, tht
pree op sp an natu rcn:, an th ar aecay pleang an pree the
chat
e of
com
mun
ti. L
ay, S
CA
G e
ncs
th d
eelm
et o
f ur
form
s iIt
avo
idec
mi a
n so
ia p
o an
of i
a eq
uity
ai a
l sem
etl o
f soi
e. T
hevaluaOl of ti pro prjec in rc 19 th fo1l poci is inte 10 ¡uide effor
Iowa achiemet of suh ¡oas and do no infer iqio iniccicc with loc lad us
pow
er.
a. C
ore
Gro
wt M
Q1g
eme
Poü
cle.
3.01
17
popu
lioii,
hou
smg,
tu jo
b fo
lU, w
h an
ad
by S
etG
's R
egio
Ml
Counil tu ti re lo pla tu poüci, sh be uw by SetG m all phe.
of in1ellalII tu revi.
-Apn1 30, 1996
Mr.
Mic
ha M
olje
rPage 4
SCAG staf romments Th Summa Pla ut SCAG's 199 poon and
employmet fon:ts frm th 199 ba to ye 20.
b. Á
lIlll
ry G
row
r M
llgem
eli P
oUc
3.09 Support lo jurll' efort to mlri th cot of l'ltruture an pubUc
serv delivery. an efort to see new soi of ling /or developmii an the
prov
iion
of s
ervi
ces.
Z tJ i n i N o
SC
AG
sta
f rom
men
ts T
h S
umm
a P
la iD
ud a
s a
¡oa
to fa
liiai
c an
inte
rawas nwement systm of seice an pros th wil asst pacip
jurctions in achiin lo-ic ecmi of sc. Th re policies and
objectives should Iip to mimi th co of soli was infrirtun: and public
sece dever. A cnticay importt objecve in th Summa Pla is the promoon
of la
d us
e po
licie
s to
dill
e in
mpa
ble
la U
I be
ee th
exs
ti, e
xsio
nof
exs
ti, a
n iiw
so
was
nw
cmt f
atie
s id
tifi i
n th
Con
tyid
eSiti E1t an adjact ar. Fwiin for th var prs in th SRR live
be idtifi in OWy inst an lI junsds have st spific goas or
obje
cves
add
r¡ th
use
of
reio
n fw
acv
iti o
r gr
ts to
ass
t in
impl
eini
aon
activ
iti.
3.11 Support proviions an Inentve creQled by loaljurns to Qlocr housing growth
in jo
b-ri
ch s
ubre
gion
s an
job
grow
r in
hou
sing
-ri s
ubre
gion
s.
SCAG sta romments Th Summa Pla inlud acviti aime at stglh an
developing nwkc for iccled or rompo ni an proucts and spfic effort
to s
timul
alC
eco
mic
acv
ity in
th r
ount
y's
apro
ved
Rey
cli M
aket
Dee
lopm
ent
Zo. TI effort should Iip stmul job growt in houg-ncb subn:gions.
2. The Rceional Mobilil) ChaRlCr IRCI also ha poci, al of which at con:, tht live
be a
nyze
for
aplic
ailty
to th
pro
pro
ject
. 11
cI 1
i th
goa
of s
unig
mob
ilty
wilb
th g
oas
of fo
st e
cmic
dec
lmat
, eic
i th
envi
rmen
t, re
ucng
eiy consumpton. promo trsprton-fry deelmet pa, an cirain¡
fai a
n eq
uita
le a
c to
n:ts
aff
ec b
y so
io-m
ic, g
co¡r
c an
d co
mm
cIim
iiaon
. The
n ar
no
polii
e in
th c
lic w
hi a
r ap
1ile
to th
Sum
ma
Pla
.
..
Apru 30, 1996
Mr.
Mic
l MoI
jcc
Pa¡e S
3. The Waic Oity Cliic (WOC) inud co re an pocy opons tI
ar poictiy aplile to t1s prjec Th i-~ti an poliy opons re to th
two wala quaty ¡OI: to n: an mata th cI, pbysi an bii inlcty
of th na'. wal; an, to ace an mata wa quaty objecves tht ar ii
to pr al bc US of al wa. 11 ar no po in t1s cl which ar
aplic
ale
to ti
Sum
nw P
l.
z ci i n i tv ..
4. The Hardous WIlie Mannement Chaii /H inii co pocie th ar
poic
tiy a
pplic
ale
to tI
pro
jec.
Th
poli
rc to
th tw
o ha
s w
a go
as: t
opromote th foloq wa macmt liy for Iius was: 1) was n:ucon
2) r
eycl
ig a
n n:
3)
sae
disa
; an,
to e
n ad
uate
, apr
o, a
nen
vim
etay
sa
wa
mac
mt c
aity
in th
rci
on. T
h ar
no
polic
ies
in th
iscliic whih ar diectly aplile to th Sumnw Pla. However, spfi acons idetified
in ti Coty an loc citi' HH ar supprtve of th HWC goas of: prmoti a
wal
e iic
mt h
ichy
thgh
1.)
wat
e n:
uc, 2
.) r
ecl¡
an
n:us
, and
3.)
sae
disp
sa; a
nd, e
nsun
ne a
duat
e, a
pro
an e
nvim
etay
-sae
was
le m
aem
etca
ty.
S. The Ai Quality Chanter lAOC) includ poli th ar potiy aplicale to t1s
proj
ect.
TI
poes
ar
prtly
bc
cI u
co
an a
nll.
Th
ar n
opo
licie
in t1
s cl
whi
ch a
r ap
le to
th S
umnw
Pl.
B. An CbapW
1. T
he ln
tel!
rate
d So
lid W
asle
Ma3
.em
ent C
lier
lISW
M)
is n
o m
ada;
it is
pro
vide
. for
info
rmon
and
adv
isiy
pur
p. T
h re
mm
cOls
in th
chp
t ful
fill t
he c
hapi
c's
objecves an do no cn new ie ma for lo iovcmmets or ot rcio
govcmmcla orgs, Ii sata oc wa macmt di. Th ci inlud
th fo
llwig
pol
iy r
emm
enon
.:
J 4. J Developing recling indtri an ~V sustQng ""rkts for recyle maeri.
SCAG staf comments The Sumnw Pla inlud acviti ai at deelopin
reclg an compti inustr and sef su make for reycled matcs.
Th
pla
iden
tifie
s sp
fi ef
fort
to s
tmul
a ec
mic
act
ivity
in th
cot
y's
apro
ved
Rey
clig
Mak
e D
eelo
pmet
Zo.
..
Apnl 30, 1996
Mr.
Mic
hae
Mol
ijer
Pae 6
14 2
Eno
ugin
g a
mlll
n In
ove
rl I
n _
pmol
l pul
i IlI
lS c
amgn
s.
SCAG sta comments Th Sum Pla ai lo pr¡ii whi shou hep
reuc
th o
verl
a in
wil
pr c
a. T
h So
Wil
Tas
For
c is
idti
u th
vcl
for
ua
citi
in a
e pu
edu
c an
prm
oon
mas, thus supp th ioa of ii puli aWl an pacipaon in
var
was
lc D
Icm
t acv
iti. T
I cf
or s
h bu
i upo
th s
t's s
tgpu
blic
aw
ar w
a pi
ecnt
ion
capa
pil.
14.3
Eco
n im
ts o
finc
mu
IIie
mae
mnl
cos
ts.
Z d i n i N N
SC
AG
sta
rom
men
ts T
h S
umm
a P
la in
lud
as a
n im
port
t ioa
10
faci
liate
an
inicgr wate DIcmt syst of sc an pronu tht wiU asst
pacipag junsdictions in acing Ioi-te ecmi of sc. TI cove
effort shul hep 10 mi ih impaIJ as with ii wil DIcnt
cost
s. S
ini e
ffor
t in
supp
ort o
f th
is a
i ar
ioas
in th
Sum
ma
Pla
10 e
xpa
the
num
be a
n sc
pe o
f cop
eve
was
div
ersi
act
iviti
an
proj
c:ts
; and
, ih
elinútion or reucon of ba li junsdtions, a¡Clics, an pnva
ciicri in ord to cn ne oprtniti for divcnon propa implementaon.
14.4
Prt
e ne
iecJ
logi
a.
SCAG sta comments. Th Summa Pla iiud an importt Coa of asung
adii Ioi-te so wa disp caity for citi an County unncrpra
ar. A n: po st th th So Wil Tas Force wi acvely se an
idet
ify
trsf
ortio
n tc
lOlie
. Th
poli
co b
e ex
pa to
incl
ud ih
Il of new trsfonntion tclo. lnfor on new lchnlo¡i is
avai
le in
th C
ount
y Pu
li W
orks
Dct
i fi a
n w
ill b
e av
aila
le f
rmSCAG's Solid Was Tas Force sty which is curtly in pro.
14.S Focilng regUH dlgll on inlen: _ dtal projec.
SCAG sta rommenlS Th Summa ioa 10 "as adii long-te sod wa
disa
cat
y fo
r ci
ti an
Cot
y un
rpra
ar"
co
al b
e ex
plic
itly
supp
rt b
y th
two
polic
ie u
n io
a 2.
4.6
of th
Prm
i Dra
Siti
ng E
Jt,
reatg to th promoon an support of envitay so an iclOlicay
feal
e ra
ha
proj
c:ts
. Lo
Ang
el C
oty
an it
s lo
c ju
nsdi
cton
s ar
cie
d10 conûouc 10 papa in th reion diocuc OI inicty wa disp projc:ts
an ti
ass
oia
supp
rt fa
litis
.
~-.
Apiü 30, 1996
Mr.
Mic
l MoI
jer
Page
7
CO
NC
LU
SIO
N
As dcsbe abve, th Summa Pla an its I' Neve Delaon lnii Stuy an
Env
imet
a A
st a
r ¡c
y C
OIÌ
with
pc
poli
in th
Rq
Com
pn:v
e P
la a
n G
uide
.
Z t: i n i N W
G3
G3
Com
men
t not
ed.
,-
,-
lWM
WO
ME
TR
OPO
LIA
N W
AT
ER
OIS
TR
ICT
OF
SOU
TH
ER
N C
AliF
OR
NIA
June 13, 1996
RE
CE
IVE
O
JUN
, U
liJ!
iÒIIA
RrI
fE~
r O
F P
b/Ji
c "t
n.,;
Elfl
ElrA
l p~
..~'.:
.-;.~
:."! '
JC!fl
iU.l/
.~/.1
naQ
e'
Mr. Michael Mohajer
Los Angeles county Department of Public Works
Env
iron
men
tal P
rogr
ams
Div
isio
nP.o. Box 1460
Alhambra, California 91802-1460
Dear Mr. Mohaj er:
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Los Angeles
County Countywide siting Element and Negative Declaration
for the CountYWide Inteqrated Waste Manaqement Summarv Plan
Z d i (J i N ~
We have received the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the Los Angeles County (County) Countywide Siting
Element (siting Element) and the Negative Declaration for the
Cou
ntyw
ide
Inte
grat
ed W
aste
Man
agem
ent S
umar
y Pl
an (
Sum
ary
Plan). The Siting Element addresses the solid waste disposal
needs of all 88 cities and unincorporated communities in the
County for a 15-year planning period. The Sumary Plan addresses
the elements of the countywide solid waste management planning
process, which includes the Source Reduction and Recycling
Elements, Household Hazardous Waste Elements, and Nondisposal
Facility Elements. The comments herein represent the response of
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
. (M
etro
polit
an)
as a
pot
entia
lly a
ffec
ted
publ
ic a
genc
y.Metropolitan commented on the Notice of Preparation of
a Draft EIR for the siting Element on February 28, 1995. A copy
of these comments is provided for your review and information.
In addition to our previous comments, we are providing comments
on both the Draft EIR for the Siting Element and the Negative
Dec
lara
tion
for
the
Sum
ry P
lan.
Bac
kqro
und M
etropolitan was formed in 1928 under an enabling Act
of the Caiifornia legislature. Historically, Metropolitan has
provided supplemental water to the southern California coastal
plain to augment local water supplies developed by surface
catchment, groundwater production, and wastewater reclamation.
This supplemental water is delivered to 27 member agencies
through a regional network of canals, pipelines, reservoirs,
treatment plants, and appurtenant works. Metropolitan receives
water from the California Aqueduct of the State Water Project and
from the Colorado River Aqueduct for distribution to about 250
cities and unincorporated communities within a 5,200-square-mile
TH
E M
ET
RO
POI/
TA
WA
TE
R I
JRIC
T a
T S
OT
/ER
/r C
Alf
OR
"'A
Mr. Michael Mohajer
-2-
June 13, 1996
service area covering portions of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. Metropolitan
currently provides about 55 percent of the water used in this
service area, with remaining supplies consisting of local
groundwater and surface water (37 percent) and water imported by
the city of Los Angeles via the Los Angeles Aqueduct (8 percent).
Comments on the Draft ErR for thSitinq Element
Metropolitan requests that the following issues be
addressed in the Final EIR and its Appendices:
Chanter 5. Section 5.4 - Water Oualitv
Z t: i n i N VI
This section should be expanded to include a
discussion of the relationShip between
existing disposal sites and groundwater
aquifers. Specifically, this section should
incl
ude
the
follo
win
g: 1
) id
entif
icat
ion
ofall existing disposal sites that overly
groundwater aquifers or have the potential to
contribute leachate to a groundwater aquifer;
2) identification of the existing groundwater
protection system used at each disposal site
associated with a groundwater aquifer; 3)
data regarding the effectiveness of each of
thes
e sy
stem
s; a
nd 4
) th
e im
pact
s th
atexisting solid waste disposal sites currently
present to drinking water supplies.
Chanter 6. Environmental rmnact Analvsis and Mitiqation
Mea
sure
s
The Draft EIR as written will permit the
expansion and/or new construction of solid
waste disposal facilities in areas that
provide recharge to regional aquifers. These
facilities will include the installation of
an engineering system that meets federal and
State regulations. Metropolitan believes
that these engineered systems cannot ensure
proper protection of the underlying
grou
ndw
ater
. Fac
tors
suc
h as
dif
fere
ntia
lsettlement and municipal waste that contains
low molecular weight solvents have caused
these types of systems to fail in the past.
The failure of an engineered system at a
solid waste disposal site that overlies a
groundwater aquifer would result in the
release of hazardous materials into the
grou
ndw
ater
, the
reby
lim
iting
the
aqui
fer'
scapability to supply potable drinking water.
TH
E M
ET
RO
POliT
AN
WA
TE
R O
IST
ICT
Of
SOU
TH
flW
CA
lfO
R"'
A
Mr. Michael Mohajer
-3-
June 13. 1996
Aooendix B - Solid Waste Disoosal Facilitv Sitinq Criteria
Page B-15, Aqueducts and Reservoire
The Siting criteria should also include
specific distances from disposal sites to
aque
duct
s. T
hese
dis
tanc
es s
houl
d no
t be
less
than
500
feet
hor
izon
tally
from
the
property line of the disposal site to the
easement or property line of the aqueduct.
No disposal site should be located above any
aqueduct or water conveyance conduit or
located within any watershed tributary to a
rese
rvoi
r.Page B-18, Proximity to Supply Wells and Well Fields
Z t: i n i N 0\
This section should specify recommended
minimum distances from disposal sites to well
fields and supply locations.
Page B-19. Depth to Groundwater
This section should specify minimum distances
from the bottom of an impervious liner to the
maximum anticipated ground water levels to
prevent inundation of groundwater.
,.
Page B-21. Major Aquifer Recharge Areas
This section should specify that no waste
disposal site will be located above known
aqui
fer
rech
arge
are
as.
Page B-22. Permeability of Surficial Materials
The last sentence of the third paragraph
should be revised to read: "(t)he lower
component of which shall consist of a minimum
of two feet of compacted soil/clay with a
hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1xlO-9
em/sec." In addition, this section should be
modified to prohibit the construction or
expansion of landfills near permeable strata
such as sand and gravel pits.
Z t: i n i N -.
¡HE
Ml!
RO
POlf
A!r
WA
TE
R D
IST
RIC
T O
f SO
UT
HE
RN
CA
ifO
RN
IA
Mr. Michael Mohajer
-4-
June 13, 1996
Comments on the Neqative Declaration for thlLSummarv Plan
Metropolitan supports the Sumary Plan's objectives and
goals necessary to achieve integrated waste management. However,
Metropolitan has several major water conveyance facilities within
the County that require protection. The enclosed map shows
Metropolitan"s facilities within the County. It will be
necessary for the County Department of PUblic Works to consider
these facilities in its project planning.
In order to avoid potential conflicts with
Metropolitan's facilities, we request that preliminary
engineering design drawings or improvement plans for any activity
in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way be
submitted for our review and written approval. You may obtain
detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's pipelines and
rights-of-way by calling Metropolitan's Substructures rnformation
Lin
e at
(21
3) 2
17-6
564.
To
assi
st y
ou in
pre
pari
ng p
lans
that
are compatible with Metropolitan's facilities and easements, we
have enclosed a copy of the "Guidelines for Developments in the
Area of Facilities, Fee properties, and/or Easements of The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Please note
that all submitted designs or plans must clearly identify
Metropolitan's facilities and rights-of-way.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your
plan
ning
pro
cess
. If
we
can
be o
f fu
rthe
r as
sist
ance
, ple
ase
contact me at (213) 217-6242.
Very truly yours,
\-~
l. s;
~La
ura
J. S
i~ne
kprincipal Environmental Specialist
MM
E:r
bs
Enc
losu
res
G4
G4
Prior to development
of a
land
fill,
site
-spe
cifi
c en
viro
nmen
tal i
mpa
ctre
port
s w
ill a
ddre
ss th
e is
sues
whi
ch y
ou h
ave
rais
ed r
egar
ding
wat
erco
nvey
ance
fac
ilitie
s. T
hese
and
oth
er is
sues
rel
ated
to th
e si
ting
ofla
ndfi
lls a
re a
ddre
ssed
in th
e C
ount
ywid
e Si
ting
Ele
men
t.
Z t: i n i N 00
--7r
'- .
~
(
February 28. 1995
Mr. David M. Smith
Waste Management Division
Los Angeles county Departent of Pulic Works
P. O. Box 1460
Alhambra, California 91802-1460
Dear Hr. Smith:
Notice of preparation of an Environmental
Impa
ct R
epor
t for
the~
~ünt
ywid
e"Si
t1Jg
~.i....nt: ror the COunty-or. Ins "'Anaei.. ";
(
We have received the Notice of preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the countywide Siting
Element for the County of Los Angeles (Siting Element). The Los
Angeles County Department of Pulic Works, waste Management
Division proposes to establish policiee and guidelines to address
the solid waste disposal and transformation needs of Los Angeles
County for the next 15 years. The comments herein represent the
Metropolitan Water District's (Metropolitan) response as a
potentially affected public agency.
Metropolitan requests that the protection of water
resources be the primary consideration in evaluating potential
landfill sites. To ensure the protection of water resources,
Metropoltian requests that the following topics be considered in
the EIR as part of the Siting Element's Siting Criteria:
. Proximity to water conveyance facilities -
Metropolitan requests that a site within a minimum of 500 feet
of any of our existing or planned water conveyance facilities
be prohibited;
.Landfill siting within a 100-Year floodplain -
To protect surface and groundwater resources, the California
Code of Regulations prOhibits Class III landfills to be sited
within 100-year floodplains; and
\.
Landfill siting within the vicinity of aquifers -
Criteria to protect groundwater from land disposal facilities
are based on meeting federal and state regUlations. However,
Z t: i n i N \0
(Mr. David K. Smith
-:¡-
Pebruary 28, 1995
exi.ting regulation. do not adequately address groundwater
protection: th.r.tore, KtÍtropolitan requ.sts that the Siting
criteria prohibit the construction or exion ot landtiiis
n.ar perl.llle strata, such as san and 9Zav.l pits.
Ketropolita will b. submitting additional intormtion
in the n.xt tew days reqarding the issues raised in this letter.
w. a
ppre
ciat
e th
e op
port
unity
to p
rovi
de in
put t
o yo
ur p
lani
ngproc.... If we can be ot fuer assistance, please contact Ms.
Mar
y A
n D
icki
nson
at (
213)
217
-679
9.Very truly yours,
1./Brian G. Thomas for Laura Simonek
Laura J. Siaonek
Senior Environmental Sp.cialist
KM
D i.
tr i
bute
dl J
/l/95
--dr
s
bee: N. N. Fl.tte
V. Gl.ason
L. J. Barrett/S. M. Walt.rs
T. S. Tanaka
H. R. ic.eling
M. A. Dickin.on
L. Anderson
T. HlUpton
D. C. Man
B. G. Thoma.
L. J. Siiionek
J. B. Alpert
A. K. Reye.
M. M. B.ku.
planning Fil.s
SurnlU.; K. Bsku., A. Rey.., J. Alpert, L. Simonek, B. Thomas,
M. Dick.nson, T. Tanaka, L. Barrett, N. Fl.tte
e.. ~
Ot..
, Æ. S
;e.i:
l-ew
iav
Z t: i n I l. o
STA
TE
OF
CA
iFO
RN
IAPE
TE
WIL
SON
. Gov
erno
r
Governor's Offlçe o' Planning lld Re.earch
1400
Ten
th S
ireet
Sacr
amen
to, C
A 9
5814
June 17. 1996
,,~c~
\"~o
~~" i ') \~~'ò
~~~~
~'!r
:O
~Ø~l
lal\I
\~~
~ll-
-
DAVIl SMITH
L. A. COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
900 SOUT FREMONT AVENE
AL
HA
BR
A, C
A 9
1803
Subject; SUMY PLA OF THE COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MAAGEMENT N SCH #;
9603
1033
Dear DAVID SMITH:
The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named proposed Negative
Declaration to selected state agencies for re.view. The review period is now
closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is (are) enclosed. On
the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse
has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of
Completion to ensure that your comment package i8 complete. If the comment
package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately.
Remember to refer to the project's eight.
digit State Clearinghouse number ~o
that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code
requ
ir~d
that
:
"a responsibl.e agency or other public agency shall only make
substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a
project which are within an area of expertise of the dgency or which
are requi red to be carr ied out or approved by the agency."
Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their
comments with specific documentation.
TheSe comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should
you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the
comment ii:9 agency at your earl iest convenience.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact at (916) 445-0613 if you
have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sinc
erel
y,. /¡. i-/
,'., .
' I /
/; / .
,.';..
, .~
",..
¿'-,
\' .f'
Î/l,£
.A.Á
. ~.)
\. ;.j
......
,(/1
, ' ~
--'
AN'fERO A. R IVASPLATA
Chief, State Clearinghouse
Enc
losu
res
cc: Resources Agency
I (This letter supersedes the letter from the Governor's Ojjìce of
Pla
nnin
g an
dR
esea
rch
date
d A
pril
12, 1
996)
z t: I (J I W .-
State of California
California Environmental
Protection A~ency
Mem
oran
dum
To:
Chris Belsky
St a
te C
l ear
ingh
ouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
;)1£
Date: April 12, 1996
David M. Smith
County of Los Angeles
Depar'tment of Public Works
900 South Fremont Avenue
Alhambra. CA 91803
From
:)
/ L l
I' -
- ,tet" C / ¿_ I ¿,'t -
Patrick Schiavo, Manager
Waste Characterization and Analysis Branch
Diversion, Planning, and Local Assistance Division
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MAAGEMENT BOARD
Subj eet:
SCH ~96031033,~nitial Study and Preliminary Draft of a
Neg
a~tio
n (N
D)
for
the
Cou
nty
of L
os A
ngel
es's
Sum
mar
y Pl
an (
SP)
Cal i fornia 1ntegrated Waste Management Board staff (staff) has
réviewed the subject document,s, Following the project
description below, you will find staff's comments,
PR
OJE
CT
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
N
.The SP summarizes all sol id waste management act ivi ties in the
SO
lurc
e R
educ
tion
and
Rec
yclin
g E
lem
ents
(S
RR
Es)
, lIo
usel
iuld
Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs), and Nondisposal Facility
Elements for all the Cities in Los Angeles County and for the
County's unincorporated area, The SP does
not provide for new
development projects to be undertaken.
The SRREs and HHWEs were subject to separate environmental
rev
iew
.
3'
"~'v,..:0
-0IIõcëIIEE0U
tr0
V"0
=
?:. :...: c:
- V C ".,... ~
" ~ .5f;i.::.. u;.. c.. ..o ;, '"_r.; u~.g
.. ~ :i ':':c oJ 0.. _o-lt._ _3 J;
3: ;4 ;: "'~ __ Il.. !1:r 0 - _.: ... C"'''~ c...1,-. -" ..
.. -. (; ëc z,,;"- - - ...2
~. .-1
OJ'¡.;Zlr.l
~:01(JI
~I
~Ieli
~ ~::.. o-l:i- _ _ 0 c.:
" .=. ri a.
.. c.:: - ~
."'- ,i.
.. ,. ':J Q-. ... Z-' '"_.l r)
~'; i- ¿
~ Ž '....
::
-
.š q
-=
.. ~ë ::";J11i¡;
~ "(; ..,.C~ ~;;~ "_ .T.
'-
,.
.. .-",. ~..-l 5-:"
.:) 1/;; ~
-'"-
~ ,~ "
¡: ;;
ND-C-32
~c¡Iii; I .:':,IIII!!,I' I: II 'i"~ I ii I' i "".. ~.'!'l~,'~.'-!'¡ , 'i j i ¡ ! ¡ i i ili; i .i,'~ ¡.' :!" ~~. '0; ~:! ~'! i 0~1 1':
LU ~id ¡i I'\z 1 .c: milli !, !~11; ~ì ._;:.'....~";,~,:. :~0.:,1 '01.:.!,i. ¡I ¡Ii i ~¡~:I~::~ a!!;~
'.:, ~ I' .' . "., i.i., .1,. j ~,:¡.¡:.':.'!~'Ii '. ! '. , I - .... _ I. i - Ii. , ; ¡ i~ ¡ii ¡,t . I. , . i' .:!~~ li!i! .. .... ii ~I :I~i :: ,i \\\l\l, i,\ ¡ ¡¡¡¡Ii!~h ; :! ' ¡ '" I :;';';"''1 1'--"i~,; " ~ J :' ., i, m: l¡¡U~j~r: 11 ": ~ ¡!;¡ ~p ¡it, ~~ l Hb L' ¡lli¡¡
ill! I:, ! i ,':;, i) :1 ~¡¡\ \: ~ :::: ' i; ¡mmji, I ,'.' ,,- .", ' i" . ,".:T.~~:~ r¡ ::. ,:;;.¡;i I ¡~:i H : diLl; ,l' ¡=mm",'1 ~.. .;¡, '¡'H. ~ ~ ,l,' ¡ ! ,,,.' ,; l ',ll!:
~m i! i ~ ~~~~!:I¡ ¡ :I~~ :':~, l ~:~:~ ? l , : mm
,.o~'"
i~i:...."-
r...i~.
¡ .z
Il' i Ip~ l l ,Ij !~:~~ ~lll !h ie:. ¡i t. ~.. t-:!""II'
¡æE~ !l_l~~jJJl
I ¡~ 1 ! :x; ¡ :~ :
~i ï.h& z~!I;¡ ~ i~ ~~~::l ii ii8c~~~~i ~:.. ! i
;' II
1.
¡¡ ;_H~~ilJ! le .. E .. ,,1 t-.. d: ~.. i' ..: jj~l!lî~l~~~~s~
~: !!:J II j i i ;~ ;': iì I,: i i I
~i~l~.~i i ;" ~ :~
~~lliliH i ~:
"' i
~,-i I\D N. ; ~
~ o e i ~ :;..
~~ ' I
:: E "l"' (T ~0 ¡
. I ;i '" ¡
!~ ~l
en !
. ~,; ~ t ,.
i 't 1~ ~
~z . ~~8
.i ;¡
! ~ i .., "'C
ND-C- 33
,- )
''' /'/
--, i
.
Peg
gy M
cCai
n23
34 W
e5tr
idge
Roa
dLo
a A
ngel
es, C
A 9
0049
(3fO
)471
-643
4
Apr
il 28
, 199
6Il
~C~/
")-4; ~l)
~~
"" '
; 1I
4b~.yr 0, A ..
'~a.
l,~M
r. M
ohaj
er, P
roje
ct D
irect
orS
olid
Was
te M
anag
emen
tD
epar
tent
of P
ublic
Wor
ksLo
s A
ngel
es C
ount
y900 South Fremont Ave,
Alh
ambr
a, C
A 9
1603
RE
: Hig
hest
and
Bes
t Use
of
Mis
sion
, Rus
üc-S
ullv
an C
anyo
ns
Dea
r M
r. M
ohaj
er:
Land
fills
are
obs
olet
e. T
he e
xorb
itant
cos
t of p
urify
ing
cont
amin
ated
wat
er, s
oil,
hum
anhe
alth
and
land
loss
use
leav
es n
o ot
her
choi
ce th
an to
rec
ycle
. Los
Ang
eles
is o
ne o
f the
lead
ing
area
s of
the
coun
try
and
the
wor
ld. I
t is
time
we
beco
me
the
lead
er in
to th
e 21
stC
entu
ry a
nd e
ncou
rage
tota
l rec
yclin
g, O
ne g
entle
man
, atte
ndin
g th
e A
pril
11th
mee
ting
said
his
rec
yclin
g fi
rm, r
ecyc
les
100%
of
the
solid
was
te,
Z t: i (' I l; .t
The
con
tinua
l pro
posi
ng o
f lan
dfill
s fo
r th
ese
and
othe
r ca
nyon
s, is
a w
aste
of t
ax p
ayer
dollars, It appears none of the previous documented scientific work was used in your
new
ly "
recy
cled
" la
ndfil
l pro
posa
l, T
his
agai
n is
a to
tal w
aste
of c
itize
n's
tax
dolla
r an
dtim
e w
hich
sho
uld
be s
pent
to e
ncou
rage
rec
yclin
g fir
ms,
Let
us
addr
ess
the
prob
lem
,S
cien
ce h
and-
in-h
and
with
tech
nolo
gy a
nd b
usin
ess
shou
ld b
e in
stru
men
tal i
n so
lvin
g th
epr
oble
m w
ith th
e he
lp o
f th
e So
lid W
aste
Man
agem
ent t
o as
sist
it th
roug
h to
impl
emen
tatio
n,
Enc
lose
d ar
e tw
o in
form
tion
shee
ts. O
ne c
over
ing
the
spec
ific
land
fill a
rea
with
oth
erco
ncer
ns o
f rec
yclin
g, c
ompo
stin
g an
d la
ndfil
l pro
blem
s, T
he o
ther
an
abbr
evia
ted
listin
gw
hich
you
r pu
blic
atio
n S
UM
MA
RY
PLA
N. E
nviro
nmen
tal P
rogr
ams
Div
isio
ns, D
raft
Neg
ativ
e D
ecla
ratio
n,..t
his
is a
maz
ing
to fi
nd N
O IM
PA
CT
in r
egar
d to
the
cany
ons,
Bel
ow a
re th
e la
rges
t pro
blem
s:. E
arth
quak
e ep
icen
ter
site
at p
ropo
sed
sout
hern
llow
er b
ase
of la
ndfil
l,. C
onta
min
atio
n of
San
ta M
onic
a po
tabl
e w
ater
wel
ls a
nd E
ncin
o R
eser
voir,
. Hea
lth r
isk
to la
rge
popu
latio
n ar
ea, N
ote
sepa
rate
enc
losu
res,
. Tra
ffc c
onge
stio
n is
nea
r gr
idlo
ck in
the
wes
tern
sid
e of
Los
Ang
eles
,. P
ublic
Law
96-
506
proh
ibits
land
fill s
ites
on p
arkl
and
area
s,. F
ire h
azar
d fr
om la
ndfil
l site
.o
Noi
se p
ollu
tion,
. Los
s of
a h
eavi
ly u
sed
recr
eatio
n ar
ea u
sed
by p
eopl
e tr
om a
ll pa
rts
of L
A a
ndsu
rrou
ndin
g pa
rt w
hich
hap
pens
to b
e si
tuat
ed in
a d
ense
pop
ulat
ion
area
,. C
onta
min
atio
n of
wat
er a
nd s
oil i
s ex
orbi
tant
ly e
xpen
sive
to r
ectif
y,
The
pre
sent
and
futu
re is
rec
yclin
g, L
et's
bur
y fo
r on
ce a
nd fo
r al
l the
ant
iqua
ted
garb
age
dum
ps, T
he R
oman
gar
bage
dum
ps s
till h
ave
leac
hate
flow
ing
from
them
afte
r 2,
000
years, Our Earth, her people, her wildlife and plant
life
are
too
prec
ious
to w
aste
,
cc Yar
osla
vsky
Bra
ude
R-Ð
~~~:
V
"
PI
PIR
efer
to T
opic
al R
espo
nse
in A
ppen
dix
NO
-A,
Z tJ i n I VJ
Vl
r :...
13B91 Cranston Avenue
Sylmar, CA 913~2
May B, 1996
"ECE\" EO
~~'i \ \ì \llll\ì
1Ø~
1I1
Of P
UIll
: "l''
~lI¡øai1~~ pi\l-' '
Mr, David M, Smith
Environmental Programs Divi~icn
Los Angeles County Department of Publ ic Works
P.D, Box 1~60
Alhambra, CA 91B02-1~60
Dea
r M
r, S
mi t
h:
SUBJECT: Prelim. Draft LA Co. Countywide Siting Element and its DEIR
Prelim, Draft Summary Plan of the LA Co. Countywide
Integrated Waste Mgmt, Plan and its Proposed ND
On behalf of the Olive Uiew Neighborhood Watch I offer the following
com
men
ts;
1) The Olive Uiew Neighborhood Watch, representing over 1000
homeowners in the Sylmar - North S8n Fernando Ualley area, voted at
its April B, 1996 meeting to oppose both the creation of a Sanitary
Landfill at Elsmere Canyon 8nd any extension of use at Lopez Canyon.
2) Neither the OEIR nor the ND adequately address such issues as
the "liv8bility f8ctor" on adjacent communities and residents.
3) The proposed Elsmere Canyon facility would abut the Wilson
Canyon Parkland portion of the Santa Monic8 Mount81ns Conservancy.
Nei
ther
the
OE
IR n
or th
e N
O 8
ddre
ss th
e im
pact
of t
he d
ump
on th
e P
ark
Ino
r th
e w
ildlif
e. P
2~) Neither document 8ddresses the impact of the prevailing Santa
Ana ~inds on down wind residents at Elsmere.
5) Nei ther document addresses Ground Water issues adequately at
Els
mer
e,
I would also like to call to your attention to the disproportionate
share of landfills currently under oper8tion in the north San fernando
Ualley (B out of 20) compared to the County as a whole and the
proposal to increase or expand only in that area or adjacent Santa
Clar 1 ta. There is a question of equi ty that is also NDT addressed
anyw
here
.
Sin
cere
ly y
ours
i-./ "
-Cdd
ictp
'-':~
. '--
.
P2R
efer
to T
opic
al R
espo
nse
in A
ppen
dix
ND
-A.
Z d i n I w 0\
Charles J. 0 'Connell, P.E.
Cha
irm
anPlanning and Landuse Committee
OL
I U
E U
I E
W N
E I
GH
BO
RH
OO
O W
AT
CH
Sup
ervi
sor
lev'
Yar
osla
vsky
Supervisor Mike Antonovich
Senator Barbara Boxer
Congressman Buck McKeon
Congressman Howard Berman
Senator Hershel Rosenthal
Assemblyman Richard Katz
Councilman Hal Berson
Conncilman Richard Alacon
Ci t
y of
San
ta C
lar
i ta
US Forest Service, Angeles National Forest
Z t: i n I w ..
Nl SJlnOId ivlNlWOillJ
ti. iiiw ¡Q 1N1lliYdl
966l
L i
Nor
03A
130¡
:Ul
land
fil A
ltern
ativ
es S
ave
Env
iron
men
tal R
esou
rces
June 17, 1996
A c.. No-Prfi
Pu.B
.,.tit
Cot
paøo
P-io
ng O
Ionz
a.""
:C
iulß
l Aaa
usilh
. Clii
qUlia
CM
yon
wol
dl E
xpai
ioCoIi 01 Will Covin.
..ow
... A
ulin
iC
oiiu
niii"
Uni
llC f
orSI TlUh l.Uliiiminl
Foål
on lo
r th
i P,..
erib
onoI
lh S
II S
iun
linln
iFr
id, o
j Cab
ltro
Can
yon
Fri 01 Pic Caon
Fri 01 Towley Cinyon
HIØ
d1 H
Ø)h
tl ltp
rvim
ini
""lI
nK
agll
Cao
n C
ivic
; AIID
CllO
nMo.l ana Oihiri
.nlll,,1 Dump
No
Va.
, Col
lOl
R. Tru Park TIlIl
s.ii
CW
ra C
lllrM
s'T
r..i-
n l.l
Gn
sa. C
Lia
Ci'l
AllO
liOl
s. C
lli O
ak C
anl-
SI.
Qin
ta 0
n;-il
zallO
n fo
Pl; in. En-iinl"""l
s. C
l&ll
Val
le C
¡nvo
iPrOtl CommllH
SI..
SU
Ma
MoU
lnPa AUOCllon
s. Our Sylma,
Sa
thi A
ngiin
Fou
nd.lI
nV
II V
en, '
Civ
ie A
uOC
lillO
n
Dav
id M
. Sm
i th
Los Angeles County Department of PUblic Works
900 South Fremont Avenue
Alhambra, California 91803
Re: Countvwlde Sitina Element and DEIR
Dear Mr. Smith:
The following are the comments of LASER
regarding the Los Angeles County Countywide Siting
Element, including the Draft Envi ronmental Impact
Report, prepared by the Department of Public Works
("Department"). In general, it is LASER's
position that in their present form, the above
referenced documents are inadequate and must be
with
draw
n.
A.
Comments Specific To The
Sitina Element
1. The County's estimates for waste
generation and disposal are inaccurate. The
figures for January 1, 1990 should be based on
actual average landfill disposal plus disposal in
transformation facilities plus documented
diversion by recyclers. No quai,tity should simply
be assumed to have been diverted without
substantiation (facility names, quantities, types
of material, etc.). All imports should be
deleted. 1995 need should be based on projections
of this base year based on actual population
growth and actual growth in either taxable sales
or employment for Los Angeles County. There is no
reason to assume that the County's share of state
growth will remain the same. In fact, Los Angeles
County has trended below many other state areas.
According to an article in the March 8. 1996
edition of the Los Angeles Times (Atch. "A"), the
population of Los Angeles County is growing less
than the population of the State of California as
Fo
1..t1
"":
Ell
Ayr
..G
lenn
8I1
1e_
kg..
AI
eair
oFtI till
.. Ebarai
.. lli
ioA
m iM
Ver
Jcn
iDn
JiK
Ie..hi Ucllln
Mt..
..dei
iip...
,liU
Onl
o,K
lIen
Pill
IOL,
Mt P
liblc
kSu
e V
~.R
oZa
Ann
i bkk
2394
2 L
yons
Ave
nue.
Sui
te 1
03-3
53 .
New
hall,
CA
913
21.2
423
. (81
8) 8
45.7
652
P.... 0 ,.-
z o i n I v. 00
Dav
id M
. Sm
i th
June 17, 1996
Pag
e 2.
a whole. Was the Department aware of this fact. in preparing the
Siting Element? If not, what actions does the County intend to
take to revise the Siting Element to take this fact into account?
2. In addition to the deficiencies identified in the
previous paragraph, there is no basis for adding 25 percent
di v
ers
ion
on to
p of
the
1995
dis
posa
l rat
es. T
his
prov
ides
ahigher generation volume than projecting from the AB 939 base
year. population has only increased a few percent since 1989 and
economic indicators have gone down. Therefore, the 1995
generation rate should be about 4 percent lower than 1990. Even
if none of the disposal volume was from imports, the MSW
generation rate in 1995 should be about 43,200 tons per ßay
rather than 51,000 tpd. The landfill disposal rate, considering
actual transformation, should be 30,700 tpd. If 10 percent of
the total waste stream is committed to transformation, the 1995
landfill rate would drop to 28,100 tons per day.
3. Future projections (of the type now appearing at pages
4-14 and 4-15 of the Siting Element) should be based on the data
disc
usse
d in
the
prev
ious
two
para
grap
hs, w
i th
pass
ible
corrections to reflect state-wide growth at a recorded or assumd
ratio (lower) of Los Angeles County to the State of California as
a w
hole
. The
res
iden
tial g
ener
atio
n ra
te s
houl
d va
ry w
ithpopulation only. Ten percent transformation or out-of-county
disposal should be reflected in landfill need projections. The
growth rate from 1995 on should fall somewhere about 0.5 percent
per year for residential and 1.2 percent per year for commercial,
for
a co
mpo
s i t
e gr
owth
rat
e of
abo
ut 0
.9 p
erce
nt p
er y
ear.
Usi
ngthis rate, MSW totals in the year 2000 will be 45,200 tpd' and
landfill requirements will be 18,100 tpd, with 50 percent
diversion and ten percent transformation.
4. AS 939 does not requi re the disposal sites to be in-
county or even in-state. Why aren't out-of-county landfills
accorded the same prominence as in-county landfills in the
relevant portions of the Siting Element (such as disposal
capacity tables and the Summary Plan)? LASER suggests that
8Scenario A8 be replaced with an alternative which relies on East
Carbon canyon, La Paz,
Franconia, and in-state truck haul
facilities for the County's excess capacity requirements (if
any). The County must consider available out-of-county capacity
and incorporate this capacity into its "time to crisis" scenario.
Not to consider out-of-county capacity is an deficiency under the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). These figures
must appear in the Siting Element, to give an accurate view of
the capacity that is really needed in Los Angeles County.
5. page 2-3 of the Siting Element states that as a matter
of policy the County and other will .encourage and assist other
David M. Smith
June 17, 1996
Pag
e 3.
Z tl i n I W 1.
jurisdictions in utilizing, to the maximum extent feasible,
disposal capacity available for expansion within their boundaries
. . . ." The only specific "encouragement" to be offered in this
regard is the expansion of five landfills. Why did the
Department choose to adopt a "feasibility" standard rather than a
"nec
essi
ty"
stan
dard
? It
is o
ur p
ositi
on th
at la
ndfi
llexpansions should occur only to the maximum extent necessary--not
the maximum extent feasible. In other words, it is grossly
improper for the Department to adopt a policy that in effect
"maximizes" the likelihood that landfill expansions will occur.
Does the Department agree that the Siting Element in its current
form favors the expansion of landfills over alternative waste
disposal methods, in violation of the waste disposal hierarchy
established by the federal government? What meaningful steps is
the Department prepared to take to encourage alternatives to
landfills "to the maximum extent feasible," thereby elevating
these alternatives to their rightful place ahead of landfills in
this hierarchy? Why doesn't the Siting Element state that the
County will support composting facilities as a source of disposal
capacity, in view of the fact that at least one such facility has
been proposed in this County? During the Siting Element hearings
a Department employee mentioned that opposition had been
expressed to a proposed composting facility before the Planning
Commission. If this is a reason why the composting facility is
not listed in the Siting Element as a source of disposal
capacity, why doesn't the Siting Element consider the greater
opposition that has been expressed for many years to the
landfills that are listed in the siting element?
6. Page 8-2 of the Siting Element states that the County
cannot restrict the importation of solid waste from other
counties because solid waste is subject to the commerce clause of
the united States Constitution. During the hearing on April 16,
Mr. Mohajer stated that he agreed with the opinion expressed by
County Counsel in his letter of September 27, 1994. Does this
agreement include the letter's statement that "the County may be
able to avoid a direct effect on interstate commerce, if it is
undertaking comprehensive programs to implement State mandated
solid waste management requirements, by way of plan restrictions
on landfilling" (see Atch. "8"1? If so, what plan restrictions
on importation of waste are reflected in the Siting Element or
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort?
Doe
s th
e D
epar
tmen
t als
o ag
ree
with
the letter's statement that the County should "demonstrate
whether restrictions on the import of solid waste across the
boundaries of the County would have any discernable effect on
interstate commerce and whether the restrictions would advance a
legitimate local interest"? Has this demonstration been made in
the Siting Element or Environmental Impact Report? If the
Department has concluded that there is a d~scernable effect on
interstate commerce, what facts support this conclusion? Does
z tj i n I .t o
David M. Smith
June 17, 1996
Pag
e 4.
the Department agree with the statement in the 'September 27
letter that due to the distance between Los Angeles County and
the neArp~t ~tAte border, the commerce clause may not prohibit
restrictions on the importation of trash into Los Angeles County?
During one of the Siting Element hearings a Department
representative stated that determining whether there was a
discernable effect on interstate commerce was not the
Department.s responsibility. If this is in fact the Department's
position, why do any statements about the commerce clause appear
in the Siting Element? Are .
landfill operators going to be
allowed to use out-of-county trash to fill the capacity claimed
to be needed for Los Angeles County? Is Los Angeles County
solici ting or encouraging the importation of trash into the
County? If so. why? Is it to generate more revenue from tipping
fees? If the importation is instead occurring at the instigation
of private interests, why is the County allowing valuable
landfill space to be controlled by private operators? Failing to
quantify the amount of in-county landfill capacity that will
consumed by waste that comes from outside of Los Angeles County
is a deficiency under CEQA.
7. The Siting Element states at page 1-14 that the Browns
Canyon site has been ruled out based on geological
considerations. Why is the County continuing to advocate
landfill sites in the same geologically unstable area (~,
Blind, Sunshine, Towsley and Elsmere Canyons), or landfills that
are inaccessible due to recent property acquisitions by the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy (TOwsley and Mission-Rustic-Sullivan
Canyons l? Does the County intend to reach an agreement with the
Conservancy or other agencies in order to obtain access to these
sites? In cases where the county does not have legal access to
these sites the Siting Element and EIR should so state.
Acquisition costs and the time required for acquisition should
also be set forth and quantified. The failure of the relevant
documents to contain this information is a deficiency under CEQA.
8. Why has a negative declaration been issued for the
Summary Plan, a document that includes the Countywide Siting
Ele
men
t (w
hich
in tu
rn te
quir
es a
n E
IR)?
Is
the
Cou
nty
I P3
attempting to prepare a program EIR? If so, the obvious negative
environmental impacts mentioned in the Siting Element preclude a
nega
tive
decl
arat
ion.
9. Since the Task Force is named in the ACknowledgements
section of the Siting Element as a co-preparer of the Siting
Element (along wi th the Department) did all members of the Task
Force have equal access to the draft documents as they were being
prepared? If not, why not?
P3R
efer
to T
opic
al R
espo
nse
in A
ppen
dix
NO
-A.
Dav
id M
. Sm
i th
June 17, 1996
Pag
e 5. 10. If the goals of the Siting Element include specific
actions regarding specific proposed landfill sites, each such
site should be separately studied in the Siting Element DEIR.
The Summary Table of Environment Impacts in the Siting Element is
inad
equa
te. M
itiga
tions
mus
t be
actio
ns ta
ken
by th
e pr
ojec
tproponent to ameliorate environmental impacts. Adherence to City
or County codes is not mitigation. Nor is monitoring by the
proponent or a City or County agency. Many of the impacts will
have to be discussed site by site if the Siting Element has goals
relating to specific sites (~, pursuing the opening of Elsmere
Canyon or the expansion of Sunshine Canyon). Will the Department
revise the Siting Element in response to the above comments?
11. Please explain how the Siting Element will not result
in ..
irre
vers
ible
env
iron
men
tal c
hang
e~"
if th
e Si
ting
Ele
men
tgoals include opening Elsmere Canyon, reopening Lope~ canyon and
expanding Sunshine Canyon. Not to identify site-specific
environmental impacts to these landfills is an deficiency under
CE
QA
.
Z tJ i n I .l ..
B.
Comments Specific To
The DEIR
12. Figure 4-2, labeled "Earthquake Faults in SCAG Region,"
utilizes 1971 data. The DEIR should use the most recent USGS
data, including all information from the January 17, 1994
Nor
thri
dge
eart
hqua
ke.
13. Chapter 5 of the DEIR provides no description of air
pollutants' and quantities of pollutants typically emitted by
landfills. This information is readily available and should be
before the decisionmakers. The DEIR does not describe the
impacts of proposed new landfills and expansions on the ability
of the SCAQMD to meet air quality requirements in non-attainment
~on
es. T
he D
EIR
sho
uld
also
des
crib
e he
alth
ris
ks a
ssoc
iate
dwith these emissions.
14. Section 5-4 of the DEIR at p. 5-28 does not contain a
discussion of water resources in the Santa Clarita Valley. The
DEIR should include in this discussion the percentage of
dependence on groundwater since it is higher than in other areas.
15. Section 5-5 of the DEIR should describe the existence
of wildlife corridors and their biological importance.
16. Chapter 6 of the DEIR is inadequate in part because a
description of regulations with which landfills must comply is
D2 an analysis of mitigation measures.
i I i I i
Dav
id M
. Sm
i th
June 17, 1996
Pag
e 6. 17
. Cha
pter
6-1
-st
ates
that
the
EIR
"at
tem
pts
to a
void
discussion of (environmental) impacts which are speculative.
Does the county consider discussion of air pollution, water
pollution and biological impacts to be "speculative"?
18. Page 6-12 of the DEIR should state that landfills such
as Elsmere and Sunshine Canyons are located in areas of high
seismic activity. Recent seismic activity should be described,
including uplift, acceleration, and landslides due to the 1994
Northridge Earthquake.
19. A recent CIWMB report stated that 72\ of the landfills
in California are leaking. The DEIR should discuss what
contaminants are leaking from landfills, their proximity to
drinking water. and potential health risks from these
contaminants. The DEIR should also discuss expected life of the
landfill liners. The cost and methods of groundwater clean-up
shou
ld b
e di
sclo
sed.
Z d i n I .t N
20. Chapter 7 of the DEIR incorrectly states that there are
no significant effects from the siting element. There are many
impacts of the siting element which cannot be mitigated to a
level of insignificance, including but not limited to air
pollution and water pollution. This chapter is also inconsistent
with statements made in Chapters 6 and 10, which describe
significant irreversible impacts. Therefore, a statement of
over-riding considerations must be made in order to approve the
Siting Element.
21. Chapter 8 of the DEIR must present alternatives to
landfills. It should
explore alternate technologies on a county-
wide basis to determine whether they will create less pollution
than those presented in the siting plan. LASER is particularly
interested in alternatives which would result in less actual or
potential water pollution, such as baling, pyrolysis and
gasification. Presenting alternatives is a requirement of CEQA.
22. Page 2-15 of the DEIR states that green waste may be
used for daily cover. Does the DEIR evaluate theenvi ronmental
impact of using green waste for daily cover? Is the Department
aware that a court has overturned the CIWM regulation which
allowed green waste used for this purpose to be counted as
recycled material for the purposes of AB 939? During the hearing
on April 16, a Department representative stated that the County
supports the use of green waste for daily cover. Why do the
County and the Sanitation Districts promote policies that
undercut recycling, such as the .counting as recycling green
vaste used as daily cover" policy? During the April 16 hearing a
Department representative stated that diverting all green waste
from landfills vould not lead to an increase in composting.
Z t: i n I .t V.
David M. Smith
June 17, 1996
Pag
e 7.
Please identify the factual basis, if any, which supports this
conclusion. Please identify any issues relating to the DEIR or
the Siting Element where the Department has taken a position that
was contrary to the interests of the landfilling industry.
Please quantify the reduction in needed capaci ty which would be
achieved through diverting green waste from landfills. The
failure to quantify this reduction in potential capacity is a
defi
cien
cy u
nder
CE
QA
. Ple
ase
stat
e w
hy th
e D
epar
tmen
t is
not
promoting a policy of diverting green waste from landfills.
C.
General Comments
23. The Technical Appendices to the County Market Incentive
Zones section states that the County does not intend to try for
50 percent diversion by the year 2000. Will the Department
update this section to reflect AB 939 requirements? The section
now is internally inconsistent because it does not comply with
applicable state law.
24. During the April 4 hearing in Valencia a Department
representative stated that recent closures of landfills are
making it more difficult to obtain adequate disposal capacity.
In preparing the Siting Element, did the Department consider the
fact that these closures reflect the legitimate desire of the
citizens of the County not to use landfills as a means of waste
disposal, in view of the adverse environmental effects of
landfills? In particular, why is the County advocating the
expansion of the LOpez canyon landfill, after concerned citizens
from allover Los Angeles County wi th great effort succeeded in
obtaining a firm date for the closure of that landfill? (The
closure date is acknowledged in the Siting Element.) Is the
County prepared to recognize the concerns of these citizens by
taking proactive steps to encourage meaningful alternatives to
landfills, instead of simply adopting the landfilling industry's
wish list of landfill expansions? LASER and others have been
expressing concerns about the adverse environmental effects of
landfills for many years. If these concerns have made the
landfill siting process difficult, hasn't the county had more
than enough opportunity to reject and renounce landfills as a
preferred method of waste disposal?
25. At several Siting Element hearings a Department
representative stated that it is up to the private sector to
implement alternatives to landfills. Please identify the private
sector interests who are advocating 1andfilling in Blind,
Tow
sley
, Mis
sion
-Rus
tic-S
ulliv
an, a
nd L
opez
Can
yons
. If n
oprivate sector interests have initiated proposals regarding these
Z t: i (J l ~ ~
David M. Smith
June 17, 1996
Pag
e B
.
landfills, why is the County devoted its limited resources to
supporting them as opposed to non-landfill alternatives?
26. During the April 4 hearing, several speakers pointed
out that creating excess landfill capacity would lead to a
reduction in the charges imposed by landfill operators to dispose
of material in landfills, and that these cost reductions would
reduce incentives to recycle. A Department representative
claimed to be unaware that cheap landfill rates would reduce
incentives to recycle. This relationship is based on common-
sense economics and is in fact well documented. For example, the
chief executive of a waste disposal company has stated that low
landfill prices undermine the incentive to recycle. See Atch.
"C" (printout from public library data base of article from the
Financial Times). A waste analyst employed by the State of North
Car
olin
a ha
s be
en q
uote
d as
say
ing
that
"(
t I h
e lo
wer
the
disp
osal
cost, the less incentive there is to reduce and recycle.. See
Atch. "0" at p.2 (printout from public library data base of
article from the Greensboro News & Record). The EIR is deficient
because it does not disclose facts such as these which confirm
that reduced landfill disposal costs reduce the incentive to
recycle. Please state in the response to this comment (1)
whether the Department was aware of these facts during the
preparation of the Siting Element, and (2) all facts (such as
economic studies) which the Department believe support its
conclusion regarding whether there is lor is not) a relationship
between cheap landfill rates and incentives to recycle. Is the
County prepared to adopt a policy that would increase the
incentives to recycle by reducing the capacity of landfills?
Scenario B in the "time to crisis. table predicts substantial
exce
ss c
apac
ity. D
oesn
't ex
cess
cap
acity
in fa
ct n
egat
e th
epurpose of AS 939 by discouraging recycling in favor of waste
gene
ratio
n?27. Is the Department aware that the tipping fees at Puente
Hills are substantially lower than the prevailing tipping fees
stat
ewid
e? D
oesn
't th
e co
mpe
titiv
e pr
essu
re fr
om th
e re
sulti
nglower landfill disposal costs at Puente Hills drive down tipping
fees at other landfills, thereby attracting waste from outside of
the
coun
ty?
Why
doe
sn't
the
Cou
nty
requ
ire h
ighe
r tip
ping
fees
in order to preserve existing landfill capacity? If all of the
proposed landfills are sited, a gross over-capacity of landfill
space will exist, which will drive down the cost of landfilling
to artificially low levels. The DEIR is deficient in that it
does not address the growth-inducing impact of this over-capacity
as required by CEQA.
28. During the April 4 hearing, a Department representative
stated that if Blind Canyon, Towsley Canyon, and Mission-Rustic-
Sullivan Canyons were to become unavailable, the County would
Z tJ i n I +:
VI
David M. Smith
June 17, 1996
Pag
e 9.
have to look at non-landfill alternatives. Does the Department
agree that unless present circumstances change, these sites will
remain unavailable for landfilling? Does the County have
information that would support a conclusion that these sites will
become available for landfilling within any time period that is
relevant to the requirements of AS 939? If so, please identify
the information. If the County has no such information, what
specific non-landfill alternatives is it prepared to adopt?
29. During the April 4 hearing, a Department representative
stated that current alternatives to landfills (such as waste-by-
rail or the Bedminster process) suffer from higher costs in
comparison to landfilling. In making this comparison, did the
Department consider long-term landfill cleanup costs? If so,
where are -these long-term costs set forth in the Sit ing Element
or D
EIR
? In
eva
luat
ing
the
true
cos
ts o
f la
ndfi
lls, w
as th
eDepartment aware that as a result of a federal lawsuit several
municipalities in Los Angeles county that deposited municipal
solid waste at the Operating Industries landfill recently agreed
to pay several million dollars to contribute toward the cost of
cleaning up that site? See Atch "E" (printout from public
library data base of article from Hazardous Waste Business). Did
the Department consider the risk of similar litigation exposure
with respect to other landfills in preparing the Siting Element
or the Environmental Impact Report? The EIR is deficient because
it does not disclose the true long-term costs of landfill
clea
nup. 30. In preparing estimates of landfill capacity, did the
Department seek information from any source other than the
landfill operators themselves? If not, why not? If so, please
identify the sources that were consulted. Specifically, did the
Department make requests from companies promoting alternatives to
landf ills? Were developing technologies cons ide
red
? D
id th
eDepartment attempt to analyze or quantify how much waste could be
diverted from landfills through these technologies? The EIR is
deficient because it does not include an evaluation of
alternative waste disposal methods.
31. During several siting element hearings a Department
representative stated that only landfills and incineration
facilities would meet the requirements of the Siting Element.
LASER believes that this represents an overly restrictive
interpretation of AB939. Logically, all methods of disposal
would add to the County's disposal capacity. The County does not
cons ider or quantify several methods of disposal that would
reduce landfill capacity needs, such as baling, gasification, or
pyrolysis. This is an deficiency under CEQA.
David M. Smith
June 17 i 1996
Pag
e 10
.
32. Please identify the names and addresses of all persons
who received the Notice of Preparation for the Siting Element and
DU
R. 33. Members of LASER (along with a representative of the
Natural Resources Defense Counsel) met wi th Department
representatives on April 23 to discuss alternatives to landfills
and to correct misconceptions regarding waste disposal issues.
Future meetings are scheduled. We are submitting these comments
in the event that the meetings do not satisfactorily resolve the
outstanding issues. because as stated above the Siting Element
and DEIR in their present form are inadequate and must be
rejected. (Comments are categorized under the three main
headings set forth above for organizational purposes. so that,
for example, portions of a comment appearing under the "Siting
Element" heading may also be applicable to the DEIR.)
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these important
documen ts.
z o i n I ~ 0'
Sin
cere
ly i
La~
l~l=
k~E
ncl.
-"-
~ :" f''-~ ~,.
~
~iRàl¡¡
~
~
,,'~o ~
. ..1.1.
~f\
. l!i i ,i ~ ~~ l:i l: ~ j 1 l j 1 l ~ ~ e J
II ~)a l f 1 j ¡ i ~ a jll ~J 1111' f l l l! l l Ii ¡¡Iii~ 1 f "S ; i ~. l S i .l Î1'l! J!lÄ ~ l' '1-1 fl .1
if , l.l i~ 11'''1
~ l l ll l" ! l l ¡ l I ~ l ~ u ;
II Jl¡ II * f; li iff f íl 1'~~ll
l ~.JS l 1I .i1 ~ll f l .1. jlll, ), ii-I! 1. l il; Jl i1i J! 'st i~~r!2 l 1 l r i J.l 11 Ø! l i ¡ j ! ~,l; ij!
., l If :i~ti æ' 1 111ft l¡ 11 It ti~li~ i l ~ l!.l 11 b Jl ! J ; l.l 1 ~ l j ll I ji ~ ll Iii it i !l ill Ii ii' ii liill1
i.1 il ~ '. - 11~ i~ !l i,J Iff ll 5i ~ I~ io~li
!il lj'lil~ l' ! ll~ l!i l~ s i iiai if II lIt !iJlllI:a. -'K 0 .. l ils ~ i!:i !l Ii i~ i!;- i!i ,lll'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ l~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ § ~.l
!~J
ND-C-47
..6:zx:a::a;0.0.
-o,::a;CI::o0.CIa;c:õa,~0.~.9i-
02a;c:
7c.
. ~:: l ! ,l! . ii~ ~ - 1: i~f li = ~. A fu ~ .. I ,!l ,- I'. . .1 ' 1'.. 0 a · a · H.":3- l'i ~ J l l ~ j l"S 'i.l lS l 5 ~ 5 i i i¡ IÔ ~ " - JI l' ~.. 1.- .. ."" ~. -fl ll ill II ii! iil HI lJI iidfl II 1i ,11 . l f ~1 j 1) ! j ~ l .. i 11 ~ A -i 1
Ie h HJ. rit l l ul in '~iH!J I; ~d 1i JiJ !I~ ~'l~ tl" fio him! dl ~
! 1 a i J'~ l. '. l n l~ l "-8. ~~ h ¡l · h l h in ~ · l i lj = 11 l lit l J ~.l i"¡¡ l ."i!_'h "l~ iil,i !.it! a _1i I¡ n w in iti 1r ~ll iitf,b ut 11
z l ¡ .l , l ' f I \J i .. .l 1"1 11 i Ii i! ii l'a -1 Jl ~ l
"" ¡ l: m IJi li!- ,. ii ~" a~ t-ti jihhU hj ~~.. l.! ii d ~d !il~i ~!lj! ~¡ i ~lW~~1 ¡l"~i ~J
-i .. 1 fi i - mrl~t ,¡ 11 Jl
_l-J 18 3
ND-C-48
., ~a
~
~..
ãi
I~
~:¡
~
!'
~'U..
.r i j i.! ~~:l¡l ~ Ji i
i ~ ,l' g i 'I'¡;iJl1~l! JII :l~ll 1.laHalii ;; ~l ¡ i it Jl s'l I. Ii l J~l ,sllS ~ i'l.lI¡ilil I~
.~iis ~i
! l II tlil~. i hUlltl-I~ 19~u J ¡j
~ ~ .g'g"'f~ J 8)l li- ti~lrl
~i Hihlhil ~.l ~gl'tlg~~li 1"- ~ lgS~ ~J.ll lfg
N"-
~n;;
~r'
;:
ND-C-49
Z tJ i (J I V\ o
June
17,
199
6 F
acsi
mile
Com
mun
icat
ion
Los
Ang
eles
Cou
nty
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pu
blic
Wor
ksA
tteni
iin: D
avid
Sm
ith90
0 S
outh
Fre
mon
t Ave
nue
Alh
ambr
a, C
alif
orni
a 91
803,
133
i
R E
'C i:
, V
EO
! '.
lS \l
\l ~
W..~
nû'J
T (
jF ~
l.'"
.1' .
",..:
£.lN
'RL(
.lAt~
r¡,~
~..~
....''
''
To
who
m it
may
con
cern
,
Thi
s le
tter
is b
eing
sub
mitt
ed 1
0 co
mm
ent o
n th
e E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t (i I
R i
for
the
Cou
niyi
de S
iting
Ele
men
t (C
SL)
and
Cou
nty
Inte
grat
ed W
aste
Man
age,
,;.' i
Pla
n (C
IWM
P),
Cou
ntvd
e In
teer
ated
Was
te M
ana~
emen
t Pla
n
In g
ener
al th
e go
als,
pol
icie
s an
d ob
ject
ives
of
the
CIW
MP
give
sho
rt s
hrif
t to
the'
""'
'''of economics in that the cost of landfilling is being kept far below the actual COSt, ,(
disp
osal
by
the
bigg
est l
andf
ill o
pera
tor.
the
San
itatio
n D
istr
icts
of L
os A
ngel
es t
'"ullt
y,T
his
will
con
tinue
to m
ake
any
kind
of
sour
ce r
educ
tion
or r
ecyc
ling
mor
e ex
pen,
ii e
ihan
sim
ply
haul
ing
it of
f and
dum
ping
it in
a h
ole
or c
anyo
n, T
he N
atio
nal S
olid
Wa'
tcM
anag
emen
t Ass
ocia
tion
(NSW
MA
) an
d th
e So
liq W
aste
Ass
ocia
tion
of N
orth
Am
eric
a(S
WA
NA
) in
num
erou
s pu
blic
atio
ns p
oint
out
that
the
cost
for
rec
over
ing
recy
clah
les
usin
g th
e m
ost c
omm
only
use
d an
d co
st e
ffect
ive
met
hods
is a
ppro
xim
atel
y 50
-55
dolla
rsper ion at its lowest. Therefore, as long as the county continues to subsidize the cost of
solid
was
te d
ispo
sal a
t 17
dolla
rs a
ton
it w
ill n
ever
be
in th
e ec
onom
ic in
tere
st o
fbu
sine
sses
, pub
lic e
ntiti
es, o
r th
e ge
nera
l citi
zenr
y to
rec
ycle
, The
onl
y th
ing
thai
kee
psth
e cu
rren
t MR
Fs in
bus
ines
s is
the
labo
r an
d tr
ansp
orta
tion
cost
sav
ings
and
sub
sidi
esfr
om c
ities
to m
eet t
heir
recy
clin
g go
als,
The
'San
itatio
n D
istr
icts
of L
os A
ngel
esC
ount
y (S
an, D
istr
icts
) ha
ve p
ropo
sed
a le
vel p
ay p
lan
whe
re it
s pr
opos
ed M
RF
wou
ldch
arge
the
sam
e tip
fee
as
the
land
fill,
How
doe
s th
at e
ncou
rage
rec
yclin
g? I
n a
capi
talis
t eco
nom
y th
e ch
eape
st p
rice
win
s, if
you
low
er th
e pr
ice
they
will
com
e,
The
CIW
MP
also
igno
res
the
resp
onsi
bilit
y to
add
ress
the
polit
ical
obs
tacl
es to
impl
emen
ting
any
tang
ible
act
ions
, No
mem
ber
of th
e ta
sk fo
rce,
or
any
polit
icál
or
gove
rnm
ent o
ffci
al is
will
ng to
rai
se r
ates
for
dis
posa
l to
cons
umer
s or
bus
ines
ses,
Thi
sis
the
thir
d ra
il of
tras
h po
litic
s, T
here
fore
the
CIW
MP
prop
oses
, enc
oura
ges,
wor
ksw
ith e
ntiti
es, t
rain
s, e
duca
tes,
ass
ists
, con
side
rs, i
nves
tigat
es e
tc, b
ut v
ery
few
pro
ject
sre
quir
ing
capi
tal i
nves
tmen
t or
rate
incr
ease
s ar
e pr
opos
ed,
Alth
ough
muc
h of
this
is b
eyon
d th
e ju
risd
ictio
n of
the
LA
Cou
nty
Dep
artm
ent o
fP
ublic
Wor
ks (
DP
W),
ther
e ar
e ac
tions
whi
ch c
ould
be
take
n by
the
DP
W u
nila
tera
lly,
Thi
s w
ould
put
the
DPW
in th
e le
ader
ship
rol
e an
d be
an
exam
ple
to th
e co
unty
com
mun
ities
to w
alk
the
wal
k of
the
DPW
inst
ead
of ju
st th
e ta
lk, F
or e
xam
ple
does
the
DP
W u
sed
retr
eade
d tir
es o
n its
car
s" N
o, T
hey
will
cla
im th
ey d
o on
thei
r he
avy
dulv
\'di
ides
but
that
h;is
hee
n al
wa"
hee
n Ir
ue f
or a
ll he
avy
duiv
\'eh
ides
sin
ce ih
e -l
a's
WI;a
l rec
yckd
pro
cure
men
t has
ihe
DP
\\ co
mm
itted
in'.
One
s ii
ha\"
e a
polic
\' m
iicli
less
a m
amJa
tory
one
for
recv
cled
pro
cure
mei
i, H
ow ,'
an ih
e C
IWM
P p
ropi
lse
111"
1 ii
\\111 encuiirage, edunte elc, \\hen ii doe,n't do ii Iheri",I\es'. Doc, ¡he DP\\ jlllchase
reC
\ckd
niL
. ant
ifre
eze
nr lu
bric
aiis
'! D
ocs
ihe
cuun
l\" h
a\'e
" p
rogr
am f
or ¡
he th
e of
alte
rnat
ive
road
pro
duct
s'! I
f so
how
muc
h ha
s it
useJ
, Thi
s is
not
sta
ted
hec"
"se
ii is
"sm
all t
oken
am
ount
. Wha
t are
the
aeeo
mpl
ishm
eiis
of
the
DPW
ihat
arc
exa
mpl
e, to
the
coun
ty c
omm
uniti
es"
The
pla
n st
ates
that
it w
ill e
m:o
utag
e m
ixed
was
te c
ompo
stin
g, M
ixed
W¡I
Sle
c\ii
iiIH
"lln~
has
heen
a q
uest
iona
ble
stra
teb'
Y in
ihe
U,S
, and
Eur
ope,
The
pro
Juct
qual
i~"m
arke
tabi
lity
is lo
w a
nd th
ere
arc
still
uns
olve
d pr
oble
ms
with
cui
iani
iiaii"
".od
ors,
siti
ng a
nd p
roce
ss p
robl
ems,
Bio
solid
s an
d gr
een
was
te c
ompo
siin
g is
the
prcd
omin
ant a
nd fa
stöt
gro
win
g co
mpo
siin
g st
rarc
gy in
the
V.S
, and
Eur
ope.
Thi
,sh
ould
he
cons
ider
ed th
e m
ost v
iabl
e op
tions
hut
ii is
not
pro
pose
d be
caus
e it
\\ pi
ildsu
ppla
ii ih
e gr
een
was
te A
DC
pro
gram
,
The
DPW
and
San
, Dis
tric
ts w
ere
cons
picu
ousl
y ab
sent
fro
m h
eari
ngs
bcío
re th
epl
anni
og c
omm
issi
on f
or th
e pr
opos
ed y
ard
was
te a
nd b
ioso
lids
com
post
ing
faci
lit\ 1
11Li
ncas
ter.
If th
ey a
re in
favo
r of
com
post
ing
why
wer
en't
they
bac
king
thai
pro
ject
. Is
iibe
caus
e ii
wou
ld c
ompe
ie w
ith th
em"
Z tJ i n I Vl -
The
rep
orts
rep
eate
dly
clai
m th
at th
e C
ount
y L
EA
s en
forc
e st
ate
and
fede
ral l
aw,
The
ir ro
les
and
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
arc
to e
nfor
ce ih
e la
w, t
hat i
s co
rrec
t. H
owev
er (
hey
dono
t enf
orce
ihe
law
in a
ny ta
ngib
le w
ay, s
hape
or
form
, The
y do
not
issu
e fi
nes,
clo
sefa
cilit
ies
or s
anct
ion
thei
r su
ppos
ed c
harg
es in
any
way
, Wes
t Co\
'ina
LE
A w
ill m
ake
hist
ory
if it
suc
ceed
s in
dos
ing
BK
K, E
ven
ihis
may
he
a py
rrhi
c vi
ctor
y si
nce
ihe
finan
cial
res
pons
ibili
ty fo
r cl
osur
e m
ay n
ot b
e ad
equa
te fo
rcin
g ih
e st
ate
and
city
to fo
otth
e bi
ll fo
r th
e m
ess
that
BK
K m
ade
on th
e as
sum
ptio
n th
at tr
ash
wou
ld b
e an
eie
rnal
spon
ge fo
r th
e ab
sorp
tion
of h
azar
dous
liqu
ids,
The
LE
As
are
pure
ly a
dvis
ory
orce
rem
onia
l gro
ups
whi
ch h
ope
to o
r m
ake
the
appe
aran
ce o
f inl
lictin
g di
scom
fort
on
oper
ator
s an
d ow
ners
with
pap
er c
uts
and
brow
bea
tings
, i n
ote
as e
vide
nce
ihe
rece
ntN
RD
C la
wsu
it, w
hich
was
won
, whi
ch s
uppo
rted
the
fact
that
the
CIW
MB
and
LE
As
faile
d to
enf
orce
the
law
, I a
lso
cite
as
evid
ence
the
repe
ated
unp
erm
itted
ille
gal v
ertic
aland lateral expansions of Chiquita and Lopez Canyon Landfills with no consequence to
the operators, No mailer how many sashes, medals and paper proclamations are
best
owed
on
the
pres
iden
t of
Chi
le, G
ener
al P
inoc
het i
s st
il in
cha
rge,
So
it is
with
the
figu
rehe
ad L
EA
s w
hen
the
budg
et. s
taff
and
clo
ut o
f th
e la
ndfi
ll op
erat
ors
are
mat
ched
agai
nst t
hese
pun
y st
affe
d, b
arel
y fu
nded
age
ncie
s, H
isto
ry te
lls u
s w
ho h
as w
on,
The
rep
orts
sho
uld
be c
orre
cted
to r
efle
ct th
e st
atus
of
Yar
d W
aste
AD
C a
s no
t hei
nglegitimate recycling, All h
ough
the
cour
t dec
;,;io
n is
und
er a
ppea
l the
EIR
mus
t rel
lect
the
curr
ent s
tate
men
ts o
f the
cou
rt a
nd th
us th
e C
urre
nt s
tate
of t
he la
w o
n th
is s
ubje
ct.
Yar
d w
aste
AD
C is
not
rec
yclin
g, I
t is
in f
act.
land
fill
disp
osaL
. The
rep
orts
rep
eate
dly
stat
e in
num
erou
s lo
catio
ns th
at G
reen
Was
te A
DC
is c
onsi
dere
d re
cycl
ing,
If
this
is to
be corrected it should be stated by the authors that green waste is considered recycling
exce
pt b
y ev
ery
othe
r st
ate
of th
e un
ion
and
exce
pt b
y th
e co
urt a
nd r
ule
of la
w in
the
Siat
e of
Cal
ifor
nia,
Why
do
we
have
cou
ns if
thei
r de
cisi
ons
arc
not t
o be
acc
epte
d,ev
en if
they
are
und
er a
ppea
L. If
red
ucin
g th
e vo
lum
e of
sol
id w
aste
is r
ccyc
ling,
"ii
th"t
need
s to
be
done
is to
set
up
baile
rs a
nd h
alO
mer
liìlls
at l
andf
ills
am! s
hred
and
com
prcs
s al
l the
was
te to
50%
of
iis ii
igin
al \'
luiie
to r
eaeh
the
recy
clin
g go
als,
Doc
,th
at m
ake
sens
e" il
AD
C is
rec
yclin
g w
hy c
an't
the
avoi
ded
use
of d
irt c
over
be
cmiit
cdas
rec
vclin
g w
hen
tarp
s or
foa
m A
DC
s ar
c us
ed, I
s us
ing"
tarp
or
foam
for
cov
crre
cyci
ing'
? If
not t
hen
why
is Y
ard
W"s
te A
DC
rec
yclin
g'?
The
rep
ort c
rron
eous
ly ,1
uotc
the
curr
cm p
rices
for
recy
clab
les
at "
all t
ime
high
s" O
ncon
ly n
eeds
to r
ead
Rec
yclin
g T
imes
or
othe
r tr
ades
to k
now
that
pric
es w
ere
at ,i
11 ii
mc
high
s bu
t hav
e si
nce
rctu
rned
to th
eir
hist
oric
vol
atile
beh
avio
r an
d pr
ices
hav
e si
..hili
lc'd
and
becn
cor
rect
ed, T
he p
rice
of r
ecyc
labl
es s
houl
d re
lleet
cur
rent
and
his
toric
b \'
I,and behavior. Recycling prices have always been volatile and anyone in thc bosinc"
know
s th
is r
e'lu
ires
caut
ion
and
shou
liJ n
ot b
e re
lied
on if
they
pla
n on
sur
vivi
ng,
Cou
ntvw
ide
Inte
2rat
ed W
aste
Man
a2em
ent P
lan
Pron
osed
Ne2
, Dee
, & E
n\'.
,\s"'
''lIc
nt
Z t: i (' I V'
IV
The
Env
iron
men
tal C
heck
list f
orm
is in
corr
ecl.
Bec
ause
the
CIW
MP
favo
rs th
cco
ntin
ued
emph
asis
on
land
fills
. con
tinue
d ex
pans
ions
of t
he e
xist
ing
land
fills
will
hc
unde
rtak
en a
s a
resu
lt of
thei
r sa
nctio
n in
this
pla
n, E
xpan
sion
s w
ould
res
ult i
npo
tent
ially
sig
nifi
cant
impa
ct f
rom
sei
smic
gro
und
shak
ing
as e
vide
nce
by te
ars
in la
ndfi
lllin
ers
at s
ever
alla
ndfi
Is r
esul
ting
from
the
Nor
thri
dge
eart
hqua
ke, l
andf
ill e
xpan
sion
sha
ve "
Iso
resu
lted
in la
ndsl
ides
and
mud
llow
s as
tdev
ised
or
othe
rwis
e iJ
ocum
ente
dfa
ilure
s of
Chi
'luita
, BK
K. a
nd lo
pez
Can
yon
"lle
sl. l
aniJ
fiI
expa
nsio
n ¡i
nd c
oiiin
ucd
emph
asis
nec
essa
rily
cau
se in
crea
sed
eros
ion,
cha
nges
in to
pogr
aphy
. due
to e
xcav
atio
nan
ú gr
adin
g.
Lan
dfill
s em
phas
is a
nd e
xpan
sion
cau
se in
crea
sed
disc
harg
es 1
0 su
rfac
e w
ater
, Suc
hdi
scha
rges
affe
ct th
e su
rfac
e w
ater
qua
lity
snch
as
tem
p" d
isso
lved
oxy
gen
and
iirbi
iJity
,as well as the introduction of chemical contaminants from the landfill
to surface watcr.
land
fils
em
phas
is a
nd e
xpan
sion
san
ctio
ned
and
enco
urag
ed in
(he
pla
n w
ill c
ause
impa
cts
to g
roun
dwat
er q
ualit
y du
e to
the
fact
that
man
y of
the
exis
ting
land
fills
quo
ted
in the plan have already and continue to impact groundwater
qual
ity (
i,e, B
KK
, Pue
nte
Hill
s, C
alab
asas
, Azu
sa e
tc,)
The
env
iron
men
tal a
sses
smen
t is
also
wro
ng in
that
vio
latio
ns o
f ai
r qu
ality
sta
ndar
dsha
ve b
een
and
wil
cont
inue
10
be v
iola
ted
by la
ndfil
ls b
ecau
se o
f the
inac
tion
of th
isplan to mitigate their use,
The
CIW
MP
wil
also
incr
ease
the
amou
nt o
f ve
hide
trip
s, tr
affi
c an
d ve
hicu
lar
air
pollu
tion
that
cou
ld h
ave
been
avo
ided
had
it e
mph
asiz
ed th
e us
e of
MR
F, r
ecov
ery
ofth
e tr
ue c
ost o
f dis
posa
l and
a fa
ir m
arke
t bas
ed p
ricin
g st
ruct
ure
rath
er th
an a
sta
linis
ticpr
ice
subs
idie
s an
d co
ntro
ls,
PS
P5R
efer
to T
opic
al R
espo
nse
in A
ppen
dix
ND
-A,
, ~ ~
Z t: i n I Vl
W
The plan would also cause the use of non,
rene
wab
le r
esou
rces
in a
was
tefu
l and
inef
ticie
m m
anne
r.
Ill" enviionmental c:hecklis! i~ inc:orrect \\hen it daiim it \\i1l make n\) ,i~mficall 11111,01(1
on ~olid waste dbposa\. II wil increase the amount
of r
esou
rces
dis
po~
eJ "
I' ra
tlic:
r th
anre
cycl
ed b
ec:a
use
it em
phas
izes
land
filli
ng a
s iis
pri
ority
rat
her
than
last
in th
e hì
crar
dl\
of s
olid
was
te m
anag
emcn
t (so
urce
red
uctio
n/re
use.
rec
yclin
g, la
ndfi
ling)
.
Land
fill e
mph
asis
in th
e pl
an h
as c
:aus
ed a
nd w
ill Il
crea
se th
e co
ntam
inat
ion
of I.
.,.ti
,lile
ire
gion
al w
aieI
' sup
plie
s.
The
afo
rem
emio
ned
impa
cts
are
wm
ulat
ii'dy
wns
ider
able
hav
e ih
e po
teiii
al to
.~, ~
i.i,k
the
qual
ity o
f ih
e en
viro
nmei
i and
hav
e ih
e po
ient
ial I
I ca
use
subs
tant
ial a
dver
se ,i
i,_i-
on h
uman
bei
ngs
both
indi
rect
ly a
nd d
irec:
tly c
ontr
ary
to th
e en
viro
nmen
tal a
nali,
i,di
eckl
isl.
Cou
ntvn
ide
Sitin
l! E
lem
ent
On
page
1-6
the
elem
ent s
tate
s th
at th
ere
are
stric
t req
uire
men
ts fo
r la
ndfil
ls li
y ¡.
._,ti
.S
iate
and
Fed
eral
age
ncie
s. T
his
is ta
citly
unt
rue.
The
loca
l age
ncie
s bo
w to
the'
ci,'
ry,,'
him
sy o
f th
e Sa
n. D
istr
ict a
nd o
ther
pub
lic o
pera
llrs.
No
fine
s ha
ve e
ver
heen
impo
sed
or s
anci
ions
of a
ny k
ind
impo
sed.
The
rec
ent N
RD
C la
wsu
ii w
hìch
was
"on
show
ed th
at th
e L
EA
s fa
iled
to li
st a
ny f
adlit
ies
for
min
imum
sta
ndar
d vi
olat
ions
.In
spec
tors
for
the
stai
e ag
enci
es h
ave
lieen
bad
gere
d. p
ress
ured
and
ihre
aten
ed ii
iili
dem
otio
ns. s
alai
y sa
nctio
ns a
nd lo
ss o
f ih
eir
Jobs
for
tryi
ng to
do
thei
r jo
bs a
nd e
nfor
cing
the
law
. The
re is
one
per
son
in th
e U
.S. E
PA r
espo
nsib
le f
or R
CR
A s
uliii
ie D
com
plia
nce
for
ihe
eniir
e st
ate.
Cal
ifor
nia
has
ihe
mos
i len
ient
reg
ulat
ions
heg
ging
subt
itle
D c
ompl
ianc
e. T
hey
allo
w c
onta
min
ated
~to
rmw
ater
and
leac
hate
to b
e us
eù f
ordu
st c
ontr
ol o
r II
be
disc
harg
ed 1
0 su
rfac
e w
aler
s. F
ew o
iher
sla
les
allo
w th
is.
Cal
iforn
ia a
llow
s lo
cal a
genc
ies
a lo
wer
sia
ndar
d fo
r fin
anci
al r
espo
nsib
ility
put
ting
priv
ate
oper
ator
s ai
a d
isad
vant
age
and
Cal
ifor
nia
has
a ne
ar p
erfe
ct r
ecor
d of
cim
plel
ela
ck o
f en
forc
emen
t act
ions
.
The
siti
ng e
lem
ent d
oes
not a
dequ
atel
y ad
dres
s ih
e av
oida
ncc
of s
iiing
new
land
fills
by
dive
rtin
g m
ore
was
te 1
0 ex
istin
g M
RF
s an
d gi
ving
sup
pOrt
10
new
MR
F d
ev~
ilipi
n,lir
,i.T
his
shou
ld b
e th
e go
al o
f the
siti
ng e
lem
ent a
nd is
not
incl
uded
in th
e po
licie
s. g
oals
or
obje
ctiv
es, I
f th
e go
als
of 5
0% d
iver
sion
wer
e ex
ceed
ed le
ss c
apac
ity w
ould
be
nece
ssar
yan
d th
e tim
e to
cri
sis
wou
ld d
ram
atic
ally
incr
ease
,
Page
2-3
incl
udes
ihe
expa
nsio
n of
Lop
ez C
anyo
n. B
y re
cent
agr
eem
ent t
he C
ity o
f L
.A.
has agreed to close this landfil. The Siting Element should be corrected to include ihe
mos
t rec
ent d
ata
conc
erni
ng ih
is la
ndfil
l.
Page
s 2-
6 an
d 2-
7 st
ates
as
goal
s ih
e us
e of
gre
en w
aste
as
daily
cov
er. A
rec
ent c
ourt
deci
sion
dis
allo
win
g th
e us
e of
gre
en w
aste
AD
C f
or d
iver
sion
cre
dits
has
bee
n is
sued
.T
his
stai
emen
t doe
s no
t ref
leci
the
curr
ent j
udic
ial d
ecis
ion
on th
e la
w.
The
siii
ng d
emen
t sho
uld
also
not
incl
ude
for
futu
re p
lann
ing
purp
oses
thc
cont
inue
dop
erat
ion
of B
KK
. Und
er a
set
tlem
ent w
ith th
e C
ity o
f Wes
t Cov
ina
ihis
faci
liiy
will
dose
nex
t \'e
ar. T
he d
cmen
t sho
uld
he c
orre
cted
to n
ot in
clud
c ih
is ta
cilii
\'.
Cai
alin
a Is
land
is c
urre
ntly
usi
ng o
pcn
burn
ing
to d
ispo
se o
t ihc
irsl
Jlid
\\ a
sle.
Ille
gal
activ
iiies
snc
h as
this
sho
uld
noi b
e ci
ted
as k
giiim
atc
capa
city
.
The
Adj
ustm
ent m
etho
dolo
gy a
lihou
gh s
anct
ione
d by
the
C¡W
MB
is p
aten
tly il
k,;;i
1 .ii
,dis
not
aut
horiz
ed b
y an
y st
atut
e. A
B93
9 sp
ecifi
ed th
e ba
se y
ear
and
that
the
cakl
iL.lt
l"iis
should be based on 25C7~ and 50"C of the amount disposed of in the year it was I'd"""
The
ent
ire s
ectio
n on
"T
ime
to c
risis
" is
com
plet
el\'
hyst
eric
al in
its
char
acie
riiat
l"l1
.'1 .i
iiimminent crises. The estimaie of shortfall
in 2
010
at ii
s gr
eate
st c
ould
be
mei
i" il
icpermitting of two landfills and will probably result in a glui since most o
f th
e pc
riili
" ,\i
iihe
gra
nted
bas
ed o
n th
e fa
lse
illus
ion
of c
risis
. If P
uent
e H
ills
and
one
othe
r !;,
,'c'
capacity lanùfill are granted permits no crisis will ever appear. The resuli of pas
i .11
'C'
mer
ely
mea
nt ih
at p
erm
itted
faci
litie
s w
ould
ille
gally
exp
and
vert
ical
ly a
nd la
iera
thS
cena
rio B
is c
orre
cl is
ove
rly o
ptim
isiic
but
at l
east
hal
f not
all
expa
nsio
ns a
nd Il
e\l '
llcS
will
be
acce
pted
ave
rtin
g th
e ilu
soiy
"cr
isis
." I
n fa
ct if
it is
cal
cula
ied
ihat
only
thc
expa
nsio
ns r
ecei
ve a
ppro
val t
he ti
me
10 c
risis
may
com
plet
ely
disa
ppea
r.
Z ti i n I VI ~
The continued citation of the State regula
lion
of la
ndfi
lls a
s st
rict
are
inde
edup
roar
ious
ly la
ugha
ble.
Rec
ently
. sia
ff at
ihe
L,\ R
WQ
CB
con
clud
ed th
at P
ueni
e H
ills
land
fill w
as le
akin
g an
d im
paci
ing
grou
ridw
;iter
res
ourc
es. T
he B
oard
of i
heL
AR
WQ
CB
. pac
ked
with
dev
elop
ers.
ant
i-re
gula
iion.
lais
sez-
fair
e. a
nti-
envi
ronm
ciiia
list
zeal
ots
com
plet
ely
igno
red
the
reco
mm
enda
tioiis
of i
he te
chiii
cal s
iaff
of e
nviro
nmen
tal
spec
ialis
ts. g
eolo
gist
and
eng
inee
rs o
n its
ow
n pa
yrol
l.
, The
rei
ntro
duct
ion
of B
lind,
Mis
sion
- R
ustic
,Sul
livan
. and
Tow
sley
Can
yons
sho
uld
nol b
ec:
onsi
dere
d. T
hese
site
s ha
ve b
een
expl
ored
bef
ore
but r
ejec
ted
due
to p
ublic
out
crY
.T
he S
iiing
Ele
men
t tak
es g
reat
pai
ns to
elle
how
pub
lic p
artic
ipat
ion
and
CE
QA
guid
elin
es w
ill b
e fo
llow
ed b
ut ig
nore
the
fact
that
con
side
rabl
e en
viro
nmen
tal
degr
adat
ion
wou
ld o
ccur
fro
m th
ese
proj
ects
and
pub
lic p
artic
ipat
ion
hist
ory
caus
ed th
epr
evio
us d
emis
e of
thes
e pr
ojec
ts. T
he s
iting
ele
men
t sho
uld
sum
mar
ize
the
past
his
tory
of p
revi
ous
prop
osal
s fo
r us
e of
thes
e ca
nyon
s as
it b
rief
ly s
umm
ariz
es o
ther
land
fil
hist
orie
s.
Lop
ez C
anyo
n ex
pans
ion
shou
ld n
ot b
e in
clud
ed u
nles
s th
e C
ity o
f L
A p
lans
to r
eneg
eon
its
deci
sion
to c
lose
the
land
fil a
s it
has
done
twic
e be
fore
. Lop
ez is
an
exam
ple
ofth
e co
mpl
ete
Key
ston
e C
op b
ehav
ior
of lo
cal.
stat
e an
d ab
sent
fed
eral
reg
ulat
ion
ofla
ndfi
lls. A
lthou
gh il
egal
ver
tical
and
laie
ral e
xpan
sion
s w
ere
note
d th
e "s
tric
i"re
gula
tors
wer
e un
able
to s
anct
ion
or s
top
ihis
land
fill
from
doi
ng w
hate
ver
ii pl
ease
d.L
opez
has
had
flo
ods.
land
slid
es a
nd g
as e
mis
sion
s w
ith n
o re
actio
n fr
om th
e st
ate
and
loca
l "st
rict
" au
thor
ities
, BK
K is
ano
ther
cas
e in
poi
nt. E
vacu
atio
ns o
f ne
arby
hom
esan
d la
ndsl
ides
tloo
ding
adj
acen
t pro
pert
ies
faile
d to
brin
g an
y ac
tion
from
ihe
"str
ict"
environmental regula
lory local or state authorities. In West Covina's latest battle the
C1W
MB
aet
ually
look
the
,ide
nf th
e la
ndfi
ll an
d at
tem
pted
to ia
ke a
way
the
perm
ittin
gau
thor
iv o
f th
e L
EA
whi
ch w
as a
ctua
lly tr
ying
to d
o its
job'
Con
iit,w
idc
Inle
i!ra
ted
'Vas
ti: 1
\lana
l!em
enl P
lan
Proo
oscd
~e1
!. D
ec. &
En\
'. .\~
sess
ml'n
l
The
,'ur
rent
pro
ject
des
crip
tion
only
out
lines
the
nper
aiio
ns o
f new
and
line
d la
,'ilii
ies.
It d
oes
not d
escr
ibe
the
oper
atio
ns o
f un
lined
exp
ande
d fa
cilit
ies
and
thei
r ad
ded
envi
ronm
enta
l im
paet
. Spa
dra.
pam
of L
opez
. par
ts o
f BK
K a
nd o
ther
land
fills
.ire
unlin
ed w
ithou
t LC
RS
and
h,lV
e re
trof
itted
LFG
rec
nver
y sy
stem
s th
at a
re n
ot d
L',c
nbed
and
ha\'~
sig
nitïc
anily
larg
er i:
nviro
nmen
tal i
mpa
ct to
the
air
and
grou
ndw
ater
n.::
"'\lll
l(L'~
.T
he la
iid u
ses
arc
also
impa
eted
sin
ee la
ndfil
ls e
omm
only
exe
eed
thei
r \'e
rtie
al a
iid la
".:r
alI)
ound
arie
s w
ithou
i "om
punc
tion.
The
EIR
mus
t not
e an
d m
itiga
te th
ese
impa
ci, -
IIIC
"re
gula
tory
¡ig
ènci
c~ i.
ollti
lHIL
to d
o no
thin
g.
Z t: i (J I VI
VI
The
,ect
ion
on ty
pica
l Jis
posa
l ope
ratio
ns o
utlin
es th
e be
st a
vaila
ble
prac
iices
and
put
snu
t ihe
impr
essi
on th
at th
ese
prac
tices
are
typi
cal o
f la
ndfi
ll op
erat
ions
. Thi
s is
.1 J
.ihe
impr
essi
on. B
KK
dis
char
ges
leac
hate
into
a fr
actu
red
rock
aqu
ifer.
Lop
ez C
any,
)ii ,i
illhas problems with landfill gas emissions. recent modern landfill
liner
s ha
\'e b
eeii
"hul
led
impr
oper
l\' (
BE
N'\
Ker
n C
ouiiy
) an
d la
iidfi
lls h
ave
no p
erm
itted
lim
its w
hich
ale
eiil"
rced
. Tho
se a
rc h
ut s
ome
of th
e i,
pica
l ope
ratio
ns o
f per
mitt
ed la
ndfil
l npe
raiin
ns.
Som
e ,i¡
ttmcn
ts in
ihe
oper
atio
n!)
arc
i:rrn
ncoi
is. S
urfa
ce w
ater
I.o
ntro
l is
usua
llyInSliluled nn a failure aiil patch basis. Thai,s. moditïcations arc only proposed after
lailu
le. '
io m
etho
Js I
I pr
e\'e
ii ,I
npe
failu
re a
re u
sual
lv p
ropm
ed. L
indf
ill g
a' is
mos
tco
mm
only
llar
ed. N
n en
ergy
rec
over
,. ia
kes
plac
e at
mos
t lan
ufill
s in
ihe
Cill
uiiy
.Sc
iillil
latio
ii co
unte
rs a
rc o
nly
at th
e Sa
ii. D
istr
ici l
andf
ills.
this
is n
ot ty
pica
L. T
he,e
.iion
"n
surf
ace
wai
er a
nd g
roun
uwat
cr o
nly
addr
ess
ihe
fact
that
the
R W
QC
Brc
gula
t~~
them
anu
m;.k
c~ 1
10 m
entio
n (h
at g
roun
d\\a
t~r
is c
urre
ntly
bei
ng ii
npa.
.t~d
by~
cvL:
ral l
andf
ill.s
in th
e ..o
un~
' anu
sur
tal,l
, wat
er is
ùis
c.ha
rged
\\'Ît
hout
pro
per
o\'c
rsig
hLT
o \'"
nfv
ihis
one
wou
ld o
nly
need
to \'
ISII
or
call
the
RW
QC
B a
nd a
sk h
ow m
any
land
fill
SWA
Ts
have
rec
eive
d w
riiie
n re
view
or
ask
how
man
y re
port
s ,)
f w
a""
uisc
liarg
eha
ve r
ecci
\'eu
wrii
i"n r
evie
w. T
he a
nsw
er m
ay ,h
ock
the
calle
r. T
he R
WQ
CB
is s
oun
ders
taff
ed S
WA
T a
nu W
DR
s ar
e no
t re\
'iew
ed o
r ev
en u
isch
arge
rep
orts
or
anal
yses
peri
odic
ally
ehe
eked
. In
mos
t cas
es la
ndfi
ll co
ntam
inan
ts a
rc n
ot e
ven
mon
itore
d or
anal
yzed
for
. Thi
s is
the
stan
dard
ope
ratin
g pr
actic
e fo
r la
ndfi
lls n
ot ih
e ro
sy p
ictu
repo
rtay
ed b
y th
e E
IR.
The
Clo
sure
and
Pos
t-C
losu
re r
equi
rem
ents
are
incr
edib
ly in
accu
rate
, The
cou
nty
and
citie
s do
not
eve
n in
spec
t all
of it
s do
sed.
ille
gal o
r ab
ando
ned
faci
liiie
s w
ith a
ny r
igor
.T
he B
lanc
hard
SI.
Lan
dfill
adj
acen
t to
the
RW
QC
B e
very
win
ter
spew
s fo
nh r
ust-
~olo
red
to b
lack
leac
hate
nex
t to
the
Lon
g B
each
FW
Y e
very
win
ter
yet n
othi
ng h
as e
ver
been
don
e. T
hai i
s th
e ac
cura
te s
tate
of a
ffairs
con
cern
ing
land
fill c
losu
re.
i req
uest
a w
ritte
n re
spon
se 1
0 m
y ~o
mm
ents
. Res
pons
es m
ay b
e se
nt to
the
addr
ess
belo
w th
e si
gnat
ure
line.
The
se ~
omm
ents
arc
suh
mitr
ed o
n be
half
of
mys
elf
as a
con
~ern
ed c
itize
n an
d on
hcl
ialf
of th
e C
l1ls
crva
tion
Coi
imitr
ec o
f th
e A
ngel
es C
hapi
~r o
f ih
e Si
cmi C
lub.
Th~
s~cu
mm
ents
do
IU)(
in .m
y m
eani
ng. i
nter
çnc~
. or
int~
rpri.
taliO
Il th
i. op
inio
n:-
iit Il
~cinploycr or chcnlS.
Sinæiel\'. / /
~:.:-
~~,~
//~--
r\~d
rcs
Cai
i). S
olid
Was
te C
onsu
ltant
Con
scrv
aiio
n C
omiii
trcc
. .\n
gdcs
Clia
ptci
Sic
rra
Clu
b33
45 W
ilshi
re ß
1\'d
.. S
uirc
:'(lS
Los Angeles. Cilifornia lJIS03-14GO
Z t: i (J I V1 0\
APPENDIX ND-D
LETTER DATED MARCH 4, 1996 TO THE STATECLEARINGHOUSE
(This page intentionally left blan)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
HARRY w. STONE. Director
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUEALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803.1331
Telephone: (818) 458-5100ADDRESS ALL CORRSPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460ALRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
March 4, 1996IN REPLY PLEASE E P 2REFER TO FILE: -
Mr. Lee Grisson, DirectorGovernor's Office of Planning and ResearchState Clearinghouse1400 lOth Street, Room 121Sacramento, CA 95814-5502
Attention Mr. Mark Goss
Dear Mr. Grisson:
OFFICIAL REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FORTH LOS ANGELES COUN COUNIDE SITING ELEM, AN THE PROPOSEDNEGATIVE DECLATION FOR THE SUMY PLA OF THE COUNIDEINTEGRATED WASTE MAAGEM PLA
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Completion and EnvironmentalDocument Transmittal Forms and ten copies of the preliminary draftLos Angeles County Countywide Siting Element (Siting Element) andits Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated January 1996(SCH No. 95011048), and the Summary Plan of the CountywideIntegrated Waste Management Plan (Summary Plan). and its InitialStudy for a Proposed Negative Declaration dated January 1996.
As mandated by State law, the Siting Element addresses the solidwaste disposal needs of all 88 cities in Los Angeles County, aswell as the unincorporated communities in Los Angeles County, fora 15-year planning period (1996 through 2010). The documentdescribes existing conditions, estimates future disposal needs, andmakes recommendations on how to meet these needs on a Countywidebasis. The Siting Element also identifies the areas for thelocation of potential new solid waste disposal facilities andpotential expansion of existing solid waste disposal facilities inL0S Angeles County. The document also establishes siting criteriafor development of needed solid waste disposal facilities andformulates a Finding of Conformance process to determineconsistency of proposed new solid waste disposal facilities and/orexpansion of existing facilities with the Siting Element.
Mr. Lee GrissonMarch 4, 1996Page 2
The Summary Plan provides an overview of all the Elements of theCountywide solid waste management planning process, which includesthe Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, Household HazardousWaste Elements, and Nondisposal Facility Elements of the 88 citiesin Los Angeles County and the County unincorporated areas. TheSummary Plan includes Countywide goals, policies, and obj ecti vesfor coordinating Countywide diversion programs, and marketing anddisposal strategies. Based on a survey of all jurisdictions inLos Angeles County during summer 1995, the Draft Summary Plan listsexisting diversion programs and identifies those programs which maybe used by the County and/or the cities in Los Angeles County inachieving waste reduction mandates of AB 939.
The Draft EIR and proposed Negative Declaration were prepared toensure that potential environmental impacts resulting from theapproval and implementation of the Siting Element and the SummaryPlan are properly addressed.
The listed environmental documents were prepared by the Los AngelesCounty Department of Public Works and are being submitted for a 45~day review and comment period pursuant to the provisions of theCEQA. Upon review of the comments received, the EIR for the SitingElement will be prepared, and a Negative Declaration may be issuedfor the Summary Plan. We request that you make the necessarydistribution to the appropriate State agencies.
I hope that this information will enable you to expedite this mostimportant review of the documents, and I earnestly solicit thecooperation from each of the appropriate State agencies incompleting their review within the minimum possible time. Pleasedirect your written response, not later than May 1, 1996, to:
Los Angeles County Department of Public WorksEnvironmental Programs DivisionAttention: Mr. David M. SmithP.O. Box 1460Alhambra, CA 91802-1460
Additionally, please issue a State Clearinghouse No.proposed Negative Declaration for the Summary Plan aspossible.
for thesoon as
Mr. Lee GrissonMarch 4, 1996Page 3
Should you have any questions regarding the above matter, pleasecontact Mr. David M. Smith, of this office, at (818) 458-3561,Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Very truly yours,
HARY W. STONE~~iC Works
Assistant Deputy DirectorEnvironmental Programs Division
MA:mvP: CSE. EIR\GRSN. SCH
Enc.
Mai L to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 -- (916) 445-0613
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL FORM See NOTE below
SCH# 95011048
1.2.3a.3c.
Project Title: CountYWide SitinQ ElemntLead Agency: 'Los AnQeles County Decartment ofStreet/Address: 900 South Fremnt AvenueCounty: Los AnQeles
Publ ic Works. Contact Person: David M. Smith3b. City: Alhambra3d. Zip: 91803 3e. Phone: (818) 458-3561
PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: Los AnQeles4b. Assessor's Parcel No. NIA
4a. City/Comnity: All cities in Los AnQeles Countv4c. Secti on Twp. RangeFor Rural, Nearest, 5b. Comni ty:5a. Cross Streets: NIA
State6. Within 2 mi les: a. Hwy #
7. DOCUMENT TYPE~Air- Rail- Water-
b. ports c. ways d. ways
8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 9. DEVELOPMENT TYPE
01. __General Plan Update 01. __Residential: Units Acres_02. __New Elemnt 02. __Offi ce: Sq. Ft.03. __General Plan Amendnt Acres Employees04. __Master Plan 03. __Shopping/Commerci al: Sq. Ft.05.
04. __Industrial: Sq. Ft.06. __Specific Plan Acres Employees07. __Comni ty Plan
05. __Water Faci L ities: MGD08. __Redevelopmnt 06. __Transportati on: Typ09. __Rezone
10. __Land Division 07. __Mining: Mineral(Subivision, ParcelMap, Tract Map, etc.) 08. __Power: Type Watts
11. __Use Permi t 09. __Waste Treatment: Type
12. -XWaste Mgmt Plan 10. __OCS Related13. __Cancel Ag Preserve 11. __Other:14. __Other:
01. NOP02. ::Early Cons03. __Neg Dec04. -XDraft EIR
Supplemental/05. __Subsequent EIR(Pri or SCH No.:
06. NOE07. -- NOC08.::NOD
~09. __NO I10. __FONSI
Draft11. EIR12. EA
QI13. Joint Documnt14. --Final Documt15. Other:
10. TOTAL ACRES:
12. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
11 . TOTAL JOBS CREATED:
01. -XAesthetic/Visual02. -XAgricultural Land03. -XA i r Qua L i ty04. -XArchaeological/Historical05. __Coastal Zone
06. .JEconomic07. .JF ire Hazard
13. FUNDING (approx) Federal $
14. PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: N/A
08.09.10.11.12.
15.-XFlooding/Drainage 16.-XGeological/Seismic 17.__Jobs/Housing Balance 18.Minerals 19.-XNoise 20.
__Septic System__Sewer Capacity
Social-XSoi L Erosion-XSol id Waste__Toxi c/Hazardous
23.24.25.26.27.28.
-XWater Qual i ty-XWater Suppl y-XWet l and/R i par i anX Wi ldl ife
-XG rowth I nduc i ng-XIncompatible Land
use-XCumlative Effects__Other:
13. -XPublic Services14. __Schools
State $
21. -XTraffic/Circulation 29.22. __Vegetati on 30.
Total $
15. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Countywide Siting Elemnt (CSE) addresses the sol id waste disposal needs of all88 cities in Los Angeles County, as well as the unincorporated commities in Los Angeles County, for a15-year planning period (1996 through 2010). The documnt describes existing conditions, estimates futuredisposal needs, and makes recomations on how to met these needs on a Countywide basis. The SitingElement also identifies the areas for the location of potential new solid waste disposal facilities andpotential expansion of existing solid waste disposal facilities in Los Angeles County. The documn~ a~soestablishes siting criteria for developmt of nèeed solid waste disposal facilities and fonnlates a Findingof Conformance process to determine consisténcy of proposed new solid waste disposal faci L ities and/orexpansion of existing faci L ities with the s..ing:~ntf - -l
SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATlVEÁ I /: .ilt ')1d(: DATE: ,; '.i 7- /.?h16.
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numrs for all new projects. I-f a SCH numr alreadyexists for a project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft documnt), please fill it in.
FORMS/CSE-EIR
06/03/93
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 -- (916) 445-0613
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AN ENVRONMNTAL DOCUMNT TRSMITTAL FORM See NOT below
SCB#
1. Project Title: summarv Plan of the CountYWide Intearated Waste Manaaement Plan2. Lead Agency: Los Anaeles Countv Department of Public Works. Contact Person: David M. Smith3a. Street/Address: 900 South Fremont Avenue 3b. City: Alhambra3c. County: Los Anae1es 3d. Zip: 91803 3e. Phone: (8181 458-3561PROJCT LOCATION 4. County: Los Anaeles4b. Assessor's Parcel No. N/A
4a. City/Community:4c. Section Tw.For Rural, Nearest
5b. Commnity:
All cities in Los Anaeles CountvRange
5a. Cross Streets: NIA
State6. Within 2 miles: a. Hwy #
Air-b. ports
Rail-c. ways
Water-d. ways
7. DOCUMNT TYE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYE 9. DEVLOPMENT TYE
01. ..NOP02. __Early Cons03. ..Neg Dee:04. __Draft EIR
Supplemental i05. __Subsequent EIR(Prior SCB No.:
06.__NOE07.__NOC08._NOD
01. __General Plan Update02. __New Element03. __General Plan Amendment04. __Master Plan05.
01. __Residential: Units Acres__02. __Office: sq. Ft.
Acree Employees03. __Shopping/Commercial: Sq. Ft.
~sq. Ft.
Employees06. __Specific Plan07. __community Plan
04. __Industrial:Acres
~ 08. __Redevelopment09. __Rezone
05. Water Facilities: MGD06. __Transportation: Tye
09~ _NOI10. __FONSI
Draft11. __EIR12. __EA
10. __Land Division(Subdivision, ParcelMap, Tract Map, etc.)
__Use Permit
07. __Mining: Mineral
!m 11.08. Power: Tye Watts09. __Waste Treatment: Tye
12. ..Waste Mgmt Plan13. __Cancel Ag Preserve14. __Other:
10. __OCS Related11. __Other:
13. __Joint Document14. __Final Document15. __Other:
10. TOAL ACRES: 11. TOAL JOBS CRETED:
12. PROJCT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMNT15. __Septic systems 23. _Water Quality
01. __Aesthetic/Visual 08. _Flooding/Drainage 16. _Sewer Capacity 24. __Water supply02. __Agricultural Land 09. __Geological/ Seismic 17. __Social 25. _Wetland/Riparian03. __Air Quality 10. __Jobs/Bousing Balance 18. _soil Erosion 26. __Wildlife04. __Archaeological/Historical 11. __Minerals 19. _Solid Waste 27. __Growh inducing05. __Coastal Zone 12. __Noise 20. __Toxic/Hazardous 28. __Incompatible Land
use06. __Economic 13. __Public Services 21. __Trafficl Circulation 29. __Cumlative Effects07. __Fire Hazard 14. __Schools 22. _vegetation 30. _Other:
13. FUNING (approx) Federal $ State $ Total $
14. PRESEN LA USE AN ZONING: NIA
15. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a Sum Plan consisting of an overview of all the Elements of thecountywide solid waste magemt planing process which includes the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements,Household Hazardous Waste Elemnts, and Nondisposal ,Facility Elements of the 88 cities in Los Angeles Countyand the County unincorporated areas. The Sum Plan includes countywide goals, policies, and objectivesfor coordinating countywide diversion programs, marketing, and disposal strategies. Also, the Sumry Planwill include proposed programs which the cities in Los Angeles County and the County have selected forimplementation in order to achieve the above goals. ~/j 'i
I . -¡- ì ¡-- ~~ .I16. SIGNATU OF LEA AGENCY REPRESENTATlVE-: i ":--'" (/ v ' -L / j. ~~ DATE:
NOT: Cleainghouse will assign identif¡cati::: numers for al; new projects. If a SCE numer already exists for a pro~o~t(e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft dòcument) please fill it in.
-: :2_ .)OJ
FORM/SMRYPLN
06/03/93
(This page intentionally left blan)
