CITY OF SIGNAL HILL - File #: 24-257

• File #: 24-257
• Type: Public Hearing
• Status: Passed
• File created: 4/22/2024
• In control: Planning Commission
• On agenda: 5/21/2024
• Final action: 5/21/2024
• Title: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITION NUMBER THREE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-01 TO ALLOW AN INCREASE TO THE VOLUME OF WASTE PROCESSING AND TRANSFER FOR THE EDCO RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY LOCATED AT 2755 CALIFORNIA AVENUE IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-19) ZONING DISTRICT

Date	Action By	Action	Result
5/21/2024	Planning Commission	Adopted	Pass

AGENDA ITEM

TO:                                           

HONORABLE MAYOR

AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:                      

COLLEEN T. DOAN

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

SUBJECT:                      

title

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITION NUMBER THREE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-01 TO ALLOW AN INCREASE TO THE VOLUME OF WASTE PROCESSING AND TRANSFER FOR THE EDCO RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY LOCATED AT 2755 CALIFORNIA AVENUE IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-19) ZONING DISTRICT

summary

Summary:

Form of Notice: The City published the required Notice in the Signal Tribune newspaper per Government Code §65091(a)(4) on May 10, 2024; mailed to property owners within a 300’ radius of the subject site on May 10, 2024; and posted in accordance with Signal Hill Municipal Code Section 1.08.010 on or before May 10, 2024.

The applicant, EDCO Transport Services LLC (EDCO), is requesting to modify Condition Number Three of CUP 09-01 for the recycling and solid waste transfer facility (Facility) to allow an increase in the maximum permitted volume of waste that may be processed at the Facility by 1000 tons per day (tpd). This would increase the maximum allowed capacity from the existing weight limit of 1,500 tpd, to 2,500 tpd. No new construction or expansion of the Facility is proposed, all processing will be within the existing footprint of the building.

Strategic Plan Goal(s):

Goal No. 1                     Ensure the city’s long-term financial stability and resilience.

Goal No. 3                      Improve the local economy, support local businesses, and create a vibrant downtown core.

Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit 09-01 for the existing recycling and solid waste transfer facility, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-01 FOR AN EXISTING RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY AT 2755 CALIFORNIA AVENUE AND APPROVAL OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR SCH #2008081009 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162.

title

summaryrecommendation

body

Background:

On July 8, 2008, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency approved a Memorandum of Understanding with EDCO regarding development of a recycling and solid waste transfer station at 2755 California Avenue. At that time, the Council noted that the project would benefit the community by:

•                     Generating host fees paid to the City (estimated to start at $200,000 per year and potentially increase to more than $1 million);

•                     Freezing collection fees for single and multi-family accounts for three years; and

•                     Offering free e-waste disposal for City residents.

On February 10, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the project's entitlements. A representative of the County's Solid Waste Management Program was also in attendance and took comments regarding the agency's permit process. There was no testimony in opposition to the project. By unanimous vote, the Commission approved the project's Site Plan and Design Review and recommended City Council approval of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), two Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 09-01 and a Development Agreement.

On February 17, 2009, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the project's entitlements and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the project's EIR, two Zoning Ordinance Amendments, CUP 09-01, and a Development Agreement (Attachment A). Condition Number Three of the CUP conditions of approval (COA Number Three) limits the maximum capacity of waste per day for processing and transfer to 1,500 tpd.

Subsequently, the Facility was constructed and successfully began operations in April of 2012.

Due to COVID and the Governors declared State of Emergency, the Facility was allowed to operate at an increased capacity of 2,500 tpd from November 5, 2020, for 27 months, after which the COVID related State of Emergency ended. From February 6, 2024, to May 6, 2024, due to heavy storm events the Governor declared a second State of Emergency. The storms caused debris and materials to be heavier due to moisture. Pursuant to Section 17210.3 and subsequently 17210.2(d) of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (Cal Recycle), issued an emergency waiver(s) of the terms and conditions of the EDCO Transport Services Solid Waste Facility Permit #19-AA-1112, which once again allowed the Facility to operate at an increased capacity of up to 2,500 tpd.

In November of 2023, given the amount of material generated within the region, as well as seasonal surges in the amount of waste generated and the pending closure (January 2024) of the Long Beach Southeast Resource and Recovery Facility (SERRF) (Attachment B), the applicant submitted a request to modify COA Number Three to allow the Facility to permanently expand its permitted tonnage limit capacity from 1,500 tpd to 2,500 tpd (Attachment C). No additional modifications to the CUP are being requested, and no additional construction of modifications to the Facility are proposed or needed to accommodate the increased capacity.

Analysis:

The activities of the Facility include the manual sorting and transfer of residential, commercial, and industrial refuse, transfer of self-haul public refuse, processing of materials collected by curbside recycling programs, a public drop-off area for recyclable materials, and a Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility (PHHWCF). Once offloaded inside the Facility, waste is loaded into transfer trucks and then transported to a permitted landfill.

Site Description

The Facility is owned and operated by EDCO Transport Services LLC and is located on privately owned land at 2755 California Avenue, the southwest corner of California Avenue and East 28^th Street. The total square footage of the overall building footprint is approximately 68,838 square feet, with the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) MRF/Transfer Station (TS) comprised of approximately 56,149 square feet. The two-story office area is 6,569 square feet, the Buy-Back Center is approximately 1,801 square feet, and the Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility (PHHWCF) area is approximately 1,173 square feet.

VICINITY MAP

The existing zoning designations and land uses for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:

Direction	Zoning Designation	Existing Land Use
Project Site	General Industrial Specific Plan (SP-19)	EDCO Recycling and Solid Waste Transfer Facility
North	General Industrial Specific Plan (SP-19)	Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Oil Field Operations and Light Industrial Uses
South	Commercial General (CG)	A&A Ready Mix Concrete vacant property and the Long Beach Islamic Center
East	City of Long Beach	Undeveloped Property Adjacent to Willow Springs Park
West	Commercial General (CG)	Oil Operations Tank Farm and Storage Yard

CalRecycle Permit

The operation of this Facility requires a Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) issued from the LEA and concurred with by CalRecycle. This current and valid operating permit, 19-AA-1112, is regulated by the LEA, and serves as the regional regulatory arm of CalRecycle. The City has designated the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Health as its LEA. The LEA is responsible for the review, issuance of permits, and the monthly inspection of solid waste facilities under the SWFP process. In addition to the monthly inspections, once the SWFP is issued, the Facility is also subject to a permit review every five (5) years. Any violations of the SWFP, or any of the permit conditions would be noted and citations issued. The LEA has the right to require modifications to the Facility operation to remedy any identified problems and may revoke the SWFP if just cause is found. The LEA inspects for such conditions as noise, odor, dust, traffic, vectors, and hazardous materials. The LEA reports no violations or concerns are documented during the time of increased operational capacity from 2020 to present.

LEA Review of Capacity Increases

Given the Governors’ recent extension of the State of Emergency declaration, EDCO has submitted their most recent request to the LEA for the continued capacity increase which has been approved by LEA until September 2024 (Attachments D and E). In addition, EDCO has filed for a new Waste Facility Permit for a permanent capacity increase; however, the request submittal package is incomplete until an approved CUP amendment and associated environmental determination are provided.

Among other items and consistent with Article 3.1, Section 18201 of the California Code of Regulations (CCRs), in order to review a modification to an existing SWFP, at a minimum the following must be completed and submitted to the LEA:

•                     Transfer and Processing Report (TPR)

•                     Conformance with Land Use and/or CUP

The applicant has submitted their TPR and a request form to the LEA. The City’s CEQA consultant provided the 2009 EIR and the Draft Addendum to the LEA for comment in March 2024. Minor comments and clarifications were received and have been incorporated into the Final Draft Addendum.

Facility Operations and Capacity

As noted in the TPR, submitted annually to the LEA, the Facility was initially designed to allow up to 6,336 tpd of transfer, or “load out” capacity and the “tipping floor” can receive and process up to 3,644 tons of material (Attachment F).

The following Sections of the Transfer and Processing Report state the Facility’s overall capacity:

Section 1.4.2.1 Design Capacity - The FACILITY is permitted to accept up to 1,500 tpd of municipal solid waste and organics per day and designed to process 6,336 tpd per 24-hour shift. Supporting calculations are located in Section 3.1.2.2. This design capacity enables all residual waste to be removed from the site and disposed of within 48 hours.

Section 1.4.2.3 Unusual Peak Loadings - Peak tipping for collection trucks is expected to be 43 in one hour (301 tons based on average 7-ton loads). The FACILITY is designed to accommodate up to 49 collection trucks (343 tons) in one hour. Therefore, peak tipping is substantially less than design capacity. However, in the event of unusually high daily tonnages entering the site, the following contingency actions are implemented, as needed:

•                     The tipping floor can be utilized to store up to 3,664 tons of municipal solid waste and recyclables based on 15’ maximum pile storage height (supporting calculations are located in Section 3.1.2.1 Station Capacity).

•                     Collection vehicles could be diverted to another permitted transfer station or permitted landfill.

The applicant is requesting to increase to a total of 2,500 tpd for all activities and no physical changes to the Facility are necessary to accommodate the requested increase.

Conditions of Approval

The initial CUP 09-01 included 30 COAs, one of which limited the maximum allowable daily capacity of waste processing and transport to 1,500 tpd (COA Number Three) (Attachment A). The applicant’s request to increase the daily maximum tonnage requires COA Number Three to be revised as follows:

3.                     The maximum allowable capacity of the Facility shall be 1,500 2,500 tons of combined recyclables and solid waste per day.

This is the only COA that requires amending in response to the applicant’s request to increase Facility capacity; however, the wording of COA Number One has been updated from the 2009 wording, to reflect the most current standard wording from the City Attorney’s office regarding indemnification. The intent of the COA has not changed.

The 2009 COA Number One read as follows:

1.                     The applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Signal Hill, it agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Signal Hill or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Signal Hill, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning subject approval. The City of Signal Hill will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding against the City of Signal Hill and the applicant, or owner, will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs, or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the Cit Attorney. If the City of Signal Hill fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold harmless the City of Signal Hill. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent, but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.

The 2024 COA Number One reads as follows:

1.                     The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold the City of Signal Hill (City), and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Community Redevelopment Law, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state, or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that property owner/operator shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. This provision to indemnify shall survive the expiration, termination, suspension, or revocation of this permit.

In addition, the obsolete 2009 COA Number Two regarding the time clock for construction of the Facility was replaced (given construction was completed in 2012) with an updated COA Number Two which clarifies the amended COAs supersede to initial COAs.

The 2009 COA Number Two read as follows:

1.                     Approval shall be null and void if a certificate of occupancy is not granted and operations commenced within 24 months of the City Council approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Prior to the expiration date, the applicant may request a 12-month extension from the Director of Community Development. Any additional extensions shall be granted by the City Council.

The 2024 COA Number Two reads as follows:

2.                      Approval of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 09-01 is subject to Planning Commission review and recommendation to City Council for final determination and approval. Approval of the amendment to CUP 09-01 and all conditions of approval included in Exhibit A of Resolution No. XXX-XX-XXX shall supersede and replace previous conditions of approval included in the previous approval on February 17, 2009.    

CUP Amendment Support Letters

Staff received two letters of support for the requested CUP Amendment from neighboring businesses. Bear Welding, operating directly adjacent to the Facility across East 28^th Street and the operator of Farm Lot 59 on the east side of California Avenue in Long Beach (Attachments G and H).

Environmental Analysis

Modification of COA Number Three is a discretionary decision that triggers compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In 2009 an EIR was prepared for the development of the Facility which was Certified by the City on February 17, 2009 (State Clearinghouse No. 2008081009). An Addendum to the 2009 EIR has been prepared to analyze the current Project. The Addendum demonstrates that the change would not result in any new significant impacts not addressed in the EIR, nor increase the significance level of any impacts previously identified in the EIR.

The CEQA Addendum to the 2009 EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the Project, in comparison to the impact analysis in the EIR, to determine if the Project would result in a new significant impact not previously identified in the EIR or increase the severity of any impacts described in the EIR. The CEQA Addendum considers each of the environmental resource categories. The resource categories potentially affected by the increase in tonnage include transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and noise. Detailed technical reports were prepared for these resources and are provided in the CEQA Addendum. The results of the resource specific analyses are summarized as follows:

Transportation

The Facility is currently permitted for a maximum daily capacity of 1,500 tpd. The estimated number of trips required for a permitted capacity of 2,500 tpd is assumed to increase linearly in relation to the baseline number of vehicles accessing the site as summarized in Table 1. Note that the calculations assume that solid waste collection trucks have an average capacity of 7 tons, residual waste transfer trucks (including recyclable materials) have an average capacity of 22 tons, and self-haul vehicles have an average capacity of 1 ton.

Table 1.                     Trip Generation Summary (Existing versus Proposed Project)

Vehicle Type	Existing (@1,500 tpd)		Project (@2,500 tpd)		Change from Existing
	Vehicles Accessing Facility1	ADT (trips/day)1	Vehicles Accessing Facility	ADT (trips/day)	ADT (trips/day)
Collection Trucks	171	342	285	570	228
Transfer Trucks	68	136	113	226	90
Self-Haul (Passenger Vehicles)	300	600	500	1,000	400
Employee (Passenger Vehicles)	50	100	100	200	100
TOTAL	589	1,178	998	1,996	818

Notes:

¹ As reported in 2009 EDCO Recycling and Transfer Facility Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearinghouse SCH # 2008081009)

Using the anticipated trip distribution rates identified in the 2009 EIR, the maximum number of passenger car equivalent (PCE) vehicles at an intersection traveling in any given direction is estimated at 19 PCE vehicles during the AM peak hour (i.e., leaving the site heading north on California Avenue). From the intersection at California Avenue and Spring Street, Project-related PCE vehicle trips are dispersed among the proximate intersections. The most impacted intersection (i.e., most severe congestion with Level of Service (LOS) E or F) is identified at Orange Avenue and East Spring Street. At this intersection, the maximum number of PCE vehicles traveling in any given direction is estimated at 5 PCE vehicles during AM or PM peak hours. Per City of Long Beach guidelines, in lieu of specific City guidelines, if an intersection operates at LOS E or F without the project, and the project increases average control delay at the intersection by 2.5 seconds or more, the addition of project traffic would be responsible for LOS deficiencies. Given existing traffic volumes, the limited number of PCE vehicles during peak hour travel times would not be expected to increase the average control delay at any intersection by 2.5 seconds or more or reduce the LOS at key intersections. Currently, as allowed by Condition 18 of the Facility’s current CUP, occasional queuing of transfer and collection trucks takes place on East 28th Street. Transfer trucks currently arrive between the hours of 3:00 AM and 4:00 PM. To reduce the potential of additional queuing as a result of the proposed Project, EDCO will distribute transfer truck arrivals over a full 24-hour day so that no more than 3 additional transfer trucks are expected in any given hour. In addition, consistent with existing operations, EDCO would continue to employ spotters to manage truck traffic and further reduce the potential for excessive queuing on East 28th Street.

With respect to VMT analysis as required by SB 743 (which was not a requirement at the time of the writing of the 2009 EIR), total passenger vehicle VMT associated with the Project would be 6,000 miles/day. Accordingly, the Project-related VMT per employee would be 17.1 miles/day/employee, which is less than the regional average VMT per employee of 18.5 miles/day/employee. The City does not have specific VMT threshold criteria for VMT and as such the analysis used criteria consistent with the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in California Environmental Quality Act (2018), and the criteria which has been adopted by the neighboring jurisdiction of the City of Long Beach. OPR does not recommend a VMT specific threshold of significance for institutional projects, but the City of Long Beach has developed Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (2020) and CEQA Transportation Thresholds of Significance (2020) consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory. The Project would be consistent with the use of the City of Long Beach Guide for development of institutional projects that their VMT is accounted for in the existing regional average and presumed to have a less than significant regional transportation impact and would not have a significant impact relative to VMT.

Future Street Improvements

The City Plan Lines Map establishes the ultimate future right-of-way for streets citywide.  California Avenue is assigned as a Collector Street which has a 70’ right-of way; however, California Avenue from East 28^th Street north to East Spring Street is only 60’ wide in unimproved areas. In addition, the Project Area from East 27^th Street between California Avenue and Atlantic Avenue north to East Spring Street is identified as a Traffic Study Area which means the exact orientation and width of streets in the area, including East 28^th Street have not yet been determined. Future development of property along East 28^th Street would require a future developer to prepare a traffic study to determine the street design. In addition, the City anticipates considering these and other transportation flow actions as part of the General Plan Circulation Element update, which is anticipated for 2026. If these local roadways are modified in the future as a result of the Circulation Element update, the effects in the vicinity of the Facility would be modeled and evaluated at that time. The capacity expansion for the Facility does not require changes to the street pattern or circulation flow at this time.

Plan Lines Map

Plan Lines Map Section

Air Quality

The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) application of thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants is relevant to the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. Expanded operations at the Facility would result in the long-term increase in criteria pollutant emissions from engine exhaust during on-road vehicle and truck trips and off-road equipment operations. With the exception of the additional off-road equipment use, handling and processing of the additional 1,000 tpd would not substantially increase energy or water consumption at the Facility, nor would other area source emissions (e.g., consumer product use and architectural coating application) change from existing conditions. Table 2 summarizes the estimated unmitigated maximum daily emissions during operations. For the purpose of comparing Project-related emissions to the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST), mobile-source emissions were excluded (i.e., only emissions generated at the Facility are compared to the LST as mobile-source emissions associated with vehicle travel to/from the Facility would be more broadly dispersed throughout the region and would not represent a localized risk to sensitive receptors near the Facility).

Table 2.                     Unmitigated Maximum Daily Project Operations-Generated Emissions

Pollutant	Total Project Emissions (lbs/day)	SCAQMD Threshold (lbs/day)	Onsite Localized Project Emissions (lbs/day)1	SCAQMD LST Threshold (lb/day)	Exceed Thresholds?
ROG	1.97	75	0.08	--	No
NOX	20.19	100	0.77	87	No
CO	29.55	550	0.50	1,611	No
SO2	0.21	150	0.002	--	No
PM10	10.31	150	0.03	9	No
PM2.5	2.87	55	0.02	4	No

Notes:

¹ Note that emissions are representative of the maximum daily output (i.e., maximum of summer or winter results).

² For the purpose of comparing to the LST, mobile-source emissions (i.e., emissions associated with vehicle travel to/from the Facility which are reflective of emissions that are widely dispersed throughout the City and not reflective of localized emissions).

The primary Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) that would be generated by on-road and off-road activities is diesel particulate matter (DPM) which would be released from the exhaust stacks of off-road equipment and diesel transfer trucks. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted for the Facility as part of the 2009 FEIR which considered mobile and idling emissions associated with 340 collection trucks, 600 self-haul vehicles, 136 transfer trucks, 50 employee vehicles traveling to and from the Facility, as well as emissions associated with off-road diesel equipment during truck unloading. The conservative results of the HRA for operations handling up to 1,500 tpd of refuse indicated that the maximum cancer risk at the nearest sensitive receptor (500 feet south of the Facility) and at the nearest business location (150 feet west of the Facility) would be below the SCAQMD thresholds. Since the 2009 HRA was completed, DPM emissions associated with Project operations have significantly decreased with the transition of the entire collection truck fleet to renewable natural gas vehicles. Therefore, the proposed expanded operations at the Facility would result in less truck trips and off-road equipment activity as was considered in the 2009 HRA. Further, the entire fleet of collection trucks has since been replaced with Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) powered vehicles. Thus, the health risks associated with the proposed Project would be less than was modeled in the original HRA for the Facility and would remain below the applicable thresholds.

Greenhouse Gas

Total GHG emissions attributed to the Project would be approximately 2,914.2 MTCO₂e. However, this estimate is based on the combustion emissions of natural gas and does not account for the net negative GHGs associated with RNG vehicles. Note that the entire collection truck fleet is comprised of RNG powered vehicles. The GHG benefits of using RNG in trucks versus traditional diesel trucks has been quantified in the California Climate Investments Quantification Methodology Emission Factor Database (Database). Using the RNG fuel-specific emission factor provided in the Database, the net GHG emissions per year associated with collection vehicle travel (i.e., 2,280 VMT per day over 260 days per year = 592,800 miles per year) is estimated to be -1360.71 MTCO₂e/year. Thus, the Project would result in net negative GHG emissions. Although GHG emissions associated with increased activity associated with the transport and processing of the additional 1,000 tpd of refuse, it’s important to note that the Project would not cause the generation of any new waste materials in the region and would instead process waste materials that are, in the baseline condition, currently processed at other existing waste sorting and transferring facilities within the region. Therefore, nearly all, if not all, waste hauling trips to and from the Facility would be considered redirected existing trips by waste collection vehicles. These vehicles would be (and are, already) collecting solid waste near the City of Signal Hill with or without the proposed Project, and these trips would (and do currently) go to other existing materials processing and sorting facilities, if the permitted capacity of the Facility was not expanded. Operation of MRF/Transfer Station facilities in urban areas will generally always result in improved waste hauling trip regional efficiencies. The primary purpose of an MRF/Transfer Station is to maximize resource recovery and increase the quantity of compostable and recyclable materials diverted from landfills. Utilization of MRF/Transfer facilities closer to urban waste generation markets (i.e., the neighborhoods and communities from which solid waste is collected), minimizes the travel distance of waste collection vehicles, which in turn, reduces GHG emissions.

Noise

Based on the types and number of off-road equipment and vehicle types and trip rates, Project-related noise is propagated to the nearest sensitive receptors to estimate the maximum change in CNEL noise levels resulting from the proposed Project as summarized in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, Project-related on-road and off-road activities would not increase noise levels above the City of Signal Hill noise standard of 75 dBA CNEL for industrial land uses at the Facility fence line or the City of Signal Hill noise standard for commercial areas of 65 dBA CNEL. Similarly, noise levels propagated to the nearest residential and other sensitive receptors (e.g., Long Beach Islamic Center and Sunnyside Cemetery) would not exceed the City of Signal Hill General Plan exterior noise threshold of 65 dBA CNEL at the nearby noise-sensitive land uses.

Table 3.                     Modeled Maximum Project Sound Levels.

Receptor ID	Sensitive Receptor Description	Modeled Project Noise Level1 (dBA CNEL)	Noise Standard2 (dBA CNEL)	Exceed Standard?
F1	Facility Fence Line - North	68.6	75	No
F2	Facility Fence Line - West	69.2	75	No
F3	Facility Fence Line - South	69.5	75	No
S1	K Wellness Holistic Health Spa (701 E. 28th St.)	46.1	70	No
S2	Memorial Orthopedic Surgical Group (2760 Atlantic Ave.)	47.3	70	No
S3	Atlantic Memorial Healthcare Center (2750 Atlantic Ave.)	46.6	70	No
S4	Single-Family Residences (Lime Ave.)	44.1	65	No
S5	Cal Institute of EMT Training Institute (2669 Myrtle Ave.)	50.3	70	No
S6	Commercial Building (901 E. 27th St.)	51.3	70	No
S7	Undershirt Inc. (931 E. 27th St.)	55.2	70	No
S8	Long Beach Islamic Center (995 E. 27th St.)	58.7	65	No
S9	EDCO Customer Service Office (950 E. 27th St.)	53.1	70	No
S10	Sunnyside Cemetery (1095 Ea. Willow St.)	60.4	65	No
S11	Commercial Building (999 E. Willow St.)	62.6	70	No
S12	Willow Springs Park (2745 Orange Ave.)	46.0	65	No

Notes:

¹ Modeled CNEL noise level is associated with Project-related mobile sources and off-road equipment is the 24-hour average L_eq with a 10 dBA weighting added during the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am and a 5 dBA weighting added during the hours of 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm to account for noise sensitivity in the evening, nighttime, and early morning.

² The Noise Standard reflects the Exterior Compatibility Criteria for the respective land use from the City of Signal Hill General Plan, Noise Compatibility Criteria by Land Use (see Table 9 above) as applied to Project operations.

The analysis of the proposed change to COA Number Three determined that none of the environmental resources had new significant impacts or more severe impacts compared to the 2009 EIR.

Conclusion

The EDCO recycling and solid waste transfer facility (Facility) has been successfully operating since 2012 under the existing CUP which limits the daily maximum allowable capacity to 1,500 tpd; however, the Facility is designed to transfer more than 6,000 tpd and the tipping floor can handle more than 3,000 tpd. The Facility has been allowed under State regulations to operate at a larger maximum capacity of 2,500 tpd since November 2020. Neither the City nor the State have records of any operational noncompliance or nuisances during that time. Only one COA revision is required regarding the request to increase capacity. Except for an update to legal language in COA Number One, and replacement of the obsolete COA Number Two regarding shot clocks for construction with a clarification regarding the amended COAs, no other changes to the 30 COAs are recommended. The City’s CEQA consultant conducted a thorough environmental analysis to determine whether the increase in daily capacity would create any significant environmental impacts not previously analyzed under the 2009 EIR (including traffic and air quality analysis). No significant impacts were found and an Addendum to the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA regulations (Attachment I and J).

Following Planning Commission review and determination of this item, the application will be scheduled for City Council review for final consideration.

Attachments:

A. 2009 City Council Staff Report and Resolution Approving CUP

B. SERRF Closure Email

C. EDCO Request for Tonnage Increase

D. ECDO Emergency Waiver

E. LEA Response

F. EDCO Transfer Processing Report

G. Bear Welding Support Letter

H. Farm Lot 59 Support Letter

I. 2009 EDCO EIR

J. 2024 EDCO EIR Addendum

K. 2024 Resolution Amending CUP