HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTAFF CONCERN 1 10-05-81DATE:
FRON:
SUBJECT:
September 21, 1981
STAFF CONCERNS NO. 1
Inter -Corn
William Huston, City Manager
Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director
County of Orange, Class I
Industrial Waster Transfer Station
Draft Environmental Impact Report 269
Circulation of the draft EIR starts the County process to consider
development of such a facility. The City has until October 19, 1981 to
respond with its concerns to this draft. A proposed final EIR would then
be prepared and a County Planning Commission hearing scheduled. A Final
EIR would have to be "Certified Complete" before further action.
Attached is a copy of the Executive Summary and pertinent graphics
summarizing the EIR along with an analysis of potential areas of weakness
in thelenvtronmental document. I have included previous staff
communications to the County expressing concerns which arose during
preparation of the County's environmental document.
Specific attention should be paid to the letter of Mr. Kenneth K. Hekimian,
Ph.D. of Van Dorpe and Associates who is a recognized expert, consultant
and university instructor in the field of waste disposal, Major points
which should be pursued due to inadequate addressment in the draft
include:
I. Land Use
A. Will ultimately impact far greater number of persons than other
sites.
Site 17 has commenced construction of 83,132 square feet of new
industrial condos and to the southwest a new industrial
development of 81,250 sq. feet is underway. This should eliminate
site 17*from consideration and reduce the environmental ranking of
16.
II. Circulation
Site 16 is not as convenient as the other sites for access to the
57 Freeway and, therefore, less desirable for ultimate disposal at
BKK in West Covina.
B. Traffic is already extremely congested in the immediate vicinity.
County of Orange, Class I
Industrial Waster Transfer Station
Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 21, 1981
Page Two
III. Economics
Using the County's own figures, site 16 is 4th if ranked by cost.
However, based on communication with Dave Christensen of the Irvine
Co,any, the price used in the EIR comparisons is substantially below
current market sales in the area. They estimate that a site such as
proposed would cost $16.00 per square foot or a market value of
$4,158,760.00 for site 16. The County GSA estimated a value of
$2,600,000. This is $1,558,760.00 below what current sales would
indicate. A possible 60% difference in the price would need closer
analysis and affect the cost comparisons in the EIR.
IV. Need
Tustin is a low volume producer of such wastes at 7%, yet is expected
to bear the burden of environmentally damaging activity to solve the
problems of other industrial areas. Further analysis is needed.
V. Alternatives to BKK
The document suggests that in the future alternatives may have to be
selected to BKK but does not adequately address the suitability of the
alternative transfer sites to such alternative Class I duo sites.
VI. Current Ownership
The Orange County Department of Education via Jean Hayes has indicated
they have not been contacted concerning a potential sale and still
intend to carry forward their proposal for a special education
facility and central cafeteria operation. The EIR should address the
relative merits of the two proposed public uses. Further, the impact
of the State Law restrictions on sale of surplus school property, it's
equity gains, low cost housing exemption and the financial impact on
the Department of Education should be addressed in detail.
VII. Procedural
The EIR does not adequately address the issue of local control,
zoning, use permits, imposition of local conditions, or the State,
County, Local regulatory matrix on such a facility. Mitigating
measures to offset financial service costs to local government
encumbered with such a facility need to be addressed fully.
County of Orange, Class !
Industrial Waster Transfer Station
Draft Environmental Impact Report 269
Recommendation
Council direct a letter summarizing City of Tustin concerns be
prepared for the Mayor's signature including the items discussed
herein, brought forth in Council discussion or raised by public input.
The Council encourage all citizen's, homeowners groups, business
concerns or other interested party to also submit concerns to EMA, the
City and/or Board of Supervisors regarding this facility.
Council direct staff to ascertain the commitment level of the County
Department of Education to their proposed project' and their course of
action a~suming any potential acquisition by the County General
Services Administration is proposed.
MWB/dat