Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - CHIQUITA CYN LANDFILL (2)I IP c ext __., DATE: AGENDA REPORT Ci Manage App�a1 August 22, 1995 SUBJECT; Chiquita. Canyon Landfill Technical Comments to Commission on August 23, DEPARTMENT: Special Projects Item to be presented by: Hazel Joanes Expansion: City Response and Proposed be Presented to the Regional Planning 1995. The Chiquita. Canyon landfill, is an existing Class III waste disposal facility located on the north side of SR 126, west of I-5, east of Chiquita Canyon Road, and immediately south of Val Verde. It has been operated by Laidlaw Waste Systems since 1986, on land leased from the Newhall Land and Farming Corporation. The landfill is currently operating under a Conditional Use Permit (C.U,P.) issued by Los Angeles County; the permit will expire in 1997. The applicant has requested a new C.U.P. to expand the landfill capacity by 29.4 million tons beyond its present permitted capacity of approximately, three million tons. In addition to increasing the net capacity, the applicant is requesting an increase in tonnage per day (tpd) from 5,000 to 10,000 tpd. The proposed site service life would be 10.5 years at this rate of disposal. The applicant is also requesting permission to include a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and a Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) on the site, accessed from Wolcott Way, and to conduct composting operations for sewage sludge and green waste. Staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project, and has prepared a letter (attached) expressing numerous concerns about the quality of analysis. In addition to general policy questions regarding the expansion or creation of new landfills, the issues of concern to the City are primarily related to land use, traffic/access, biota/Santa Clara River, air quality,; and the analysis of project alternatives, including policy and technology alternatives to the proposed landfill process and design. Additionally, staff included comments regarding geotechnical hazards, flood hazard, nonpoint pollutants, and cultural resources. S:ISHAREICHQgG822.CMK -n 8„0,95 A �'t� ' ./Lett-r.:e._<.� �i•t'-' GJ/ � .tee-'cG • �e-o,r, �:ell�eiz-e Ax-cL-& Cea4 Staff has been approached by the Val Verde Civic Association, and has provided some assistance to them with respect to presenting their concerns to the Regional Planning Commission, and supported them in requesting an extension of the public review period. The concerns expressed parallel those cited by staff, particularly those regarding air quality, groundwater quality, noise, odors, vector control, visual impacts, and seismic safety. Staff has also heard a presentation by the proponent, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. From previous Council direction, staff is continuing to review the DEIR in greater detail, and intends to submit additional technical comments on the document to the County prior to the deadline on November 15, 1995. The Regional Planning Commission began the public hearing on Wednesday, August 9th, and continued it to August 15th, for the applicant's presentation. A subsequent date for opposition comment has been scheduled for August 23, at 6:00 p.m., at Valencia High School. Staff believes that a reasonable approach at this time is to continue to follow the public hearing process, and to provide the Regional Planning Department staff and the Regional Planning Commission with additional technical comments on the DEIR. Assisting the Val Verde Civic Association in their efforts to oppose the landfill would also be consistent with City policy on Elsmere Canyon, i.e., to pursue the development of alternatives that do not rely on urban landfills. RECOMMENDATION: Receive report, and direct staff to (1) address City concerns in greater depth, using documentation from the Elsmere hearing process as a resource, and to pursue resolution of these concerns with County staff, (2) assist the Val Verde Civic Association in their opposition to any expansion of the existing landfill; and (3) to present the attached letter and supporting oral testimony to the Regional Planning Commission at the public hearing on August 23, 1995. S. I SHARE I CHQAG822. CMK 9110195 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355 -2196 August 22, 1995 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 Mr. James E. Hard, AICP Director Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: PROJECT NO. 89-081: CHIQUITA CANYON LANDFILL EXPANSION SCH #92071053; COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Dear Mr. Hartl: The City of Santa Clarita has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Chiquita Canyon Landfill Expansion project, scheduled to be heard by the Regional Planning Commission on August 9, 15, 23, and subsequent dates. It is our understanding that the comment period has been extended to November 15, 1995, and we wish to advise you that we intend to provide additional comments on the project following the applicant's presentation to the Commission. The project site is within the Planning Area of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Itis likely that at some time in the future, the site may be annexed into the City. Because the City may ultimately provide municipal services to any project in the Planning Area, we have considerable interest in any action taken by the Regional Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors on them. City comments are organized according to the sections of the Draft EIR. Areas of particular concern are traffic/access, biota/Santa Clara River, air quality, and the analysis of project alternatives, including policy and technology alternatives to the proposed landfill process and design. Additionally, we have provided comments regarding geotechnical hazards, flood hazard, nonpoint pollutants, and cultural resources. Finally, we are concerned that the DEIR did not include a section analyzing land use, particularly in light of the cumulative projects pending or approved by the Regional Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for the project vicinity for the next 20 years. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER We request that the following comments and concerns be addressed prior to any actions taken on the DEIR or on the project: § IV. -A. Traffic/Access The DEIR does not address the impacts of the project on the interchange of SR -126 and I-5. The northbound off and on -ramps are within the City of Santa Clarita, and would have been expected to be part of the "Option X referred to on P. IV A-17. Additionally, the DEIR does not provide for the project's share of improvements (signalization, road widening, striping, deceleration/acceleration lanes, protected left - band turn lanes, etc.) on SR 126 and at its intersection with I.5, although the expansion project is clearly shown to affect SR 126 in its present configuration. Impacts from the project exacerbate existing conditions, and will contribute to the need for these improvements; the project should, at a minimum, support them financially. In addition, the need for installation of traffic signals at the ramp locations at the I- 5/SR 126 interchange should have been examined for the interim years prior to completion of the improvements of the interchange. § IV. -B. Biota The City of Santa Clarita General Plan contains numerous policies supporting protection of the natural environment, as well as policies regarding the development of a trail system along the Santa Clara River to its outlet at Oxnard. The City is actively pursuing acquisition of trail right-of-way for a River Trail which will connect to this trail system. The many implied impacts to biota and riparian resources described in this section may adversely affect present and future Santa Clarita residents, and those using the planned trail system. The DEIR inadequately addresses impacts to both on and off-site riparian resources, nor does it offer mitigation measures to compensate for loss of habitat, including off- site mitigation. In particular, the DEIR suggests that impacts to the Santa Clara River, Castaic Creek, and on-site blueline drainages are minimal, but that permits "may be required' from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE), and implies that conditions of these permits would minimise adverse impacts from landfill expansion. (P. B-15) This implies that these agencies would grant permits, and passes off responsibility for impact mitigation to them. Both CDFG and ACOE would be required to use this DEIR for impact analysis and evaluation of mitigation measures, but as the DEIR does not evaluate in any degree of detail the direct or indirect impacts to riparian resources, nor does it suggest mitigation other than unspecified erosion control measures, they may very well require additional information or simply deny permits. S. I CD I ADVANCE I CHIQL822. CMR 8/10195 page 2 Prior to certification of the Final EIR, both agencies should be consulted and appropriate mitigation determined. § IV -C Geotechnical Hazard The DEIR does not appear to address seismically induced settlement nor does it propose design mitigation. Additionally, it is the City's understanding that the existing geomembrane liner on the site was damaged because of seismically induced settlement in the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994; again, mitigation measures are necessary to reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance. The City shares the concerns expressed in the letter of 7/17/93 from Mr. Jason R. Marshall, Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations, regarding the active faulting, engineering geology, and strong -motion seismic aspects of Section IV.0 of the DEIR and Volume II, Appendix H. This letter was included in the staff report presented to the Commission on August 9, 1995. IV - D. Cultural Resources Appendix D suggests that the location of Bower's Cave (CA-LAn-36) is not correctly recorded on UCLA maps, and that it is actually immediately adjacent to the project area. The report recommends that it might be impacted by the proposed expansion, and that it should be flagged and fenced off prior to landfill expansion (pp. 15-18, Appendix F). However, the Cultural Resources Section of the DEIR makes no mention of this recommendation, and states that Bower's Cave will not be impacted by the project. At a minimum, the DEIR should have included the mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist; this omission should be addressed in the FEIR. § IV - G. Air Quality The City of Santa Clarita is currently a non -attainment area for ozone and PM10, and exceeds ozone standards almost 1 out of every 2 days. (City of Santa Clarita, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, North Hills Project, SCH #90011096,. 11/93.) Both residential and light industrial uses (Valencia and the Valencia Industrial Center) are immediately downwind from the proposed landfill expansion, and future uses in the immediate project vicinity include such sensitive receptors as an elementary school site, a neighborhood park, and high and medium density residential uses on the south side of SR 126 at its intersection with Chiquita Canyon Road (Newhall Ranch Specific Plan, preliminary land use map, Newhall Ranch Company, 5/95). The DEIR states that the impacts to air quality, including ozone precursor generation, will be significant and cannot be mitigated with present technology. Mitigation or elimination of air quality impacts to the City, and the surrounding communities of Val Verde, Castaic, as well as the future residents of Newhall Ranch, S I CD I ADVANC&1 CHIQL822.CMX 8110195 page 3 is apparently disregarded by the DEIR. It is imperative that the project require measures to prevent on-site stationary source emissions from any permitted expansion, and to eliminate those that exist now. § IV- E Flood Hazard/Hydrology The DEIR does not address transportation of pollutants by surface runoff, nor does it suggest mitigation measures to control them. The DEIR does not indicate whether the U.S. Postal Service has accepted responsibility of the addition of the diverted 81 acres of surface runoff to their proposed storm drain pipe. The DEIR does not state when the proposed drain pipe is proposed to be installed, nor whether it has been approved by resource agencies (CDF&G, ACOE). The capacity for the pipe is mentioned as 600 cfs; however, the DEIR does not state whether this is design capacity or ultimate capacity. § IV - H. Odor and Other Nuisance Factors Odor and other nuisances are considered to be insignificant in the DEIR, because standard operating procedures are cited to adequately mitigate them. However, residents of Val Verde, approximately 500'.from the northern project boundary, have communicated to City staff that odor is, in fact, present, and is a nuisance. The DEIR does not suggest any innovations in odor and nuisance control to mitigate this apparent ongoing problem. § IV - 1. Visual Quality/Landform Alteration The proposed expansion and grading activities are illustrated by cross-sectional drawings in the DEIR. The DEIR did not include any color illustrations, nor computer imaging of the proposed landfill expansion, thus limiting a reviewer's ability to determine the significance of the visual impact. Further, although future urban expansion of the Santa Clarita Valley area (particularly Newhall Ranch) is mentioned earlier in the document, visual impacts to future residents of Newhall Ranch are not mentioned. The landfill is clearly visible from higher elevations to the south of the Santa Clara River, yet this is not brought forth in the DEIR. This future visual impact should be evaluated and illustrated. Additionally, views of the expansion from SR 126 are dismissed as less than significant because potential "viewers" are assumed to be traveling past the landfill entrance at speeds too high to have time to be affected by the view of the landfill face. No mitigation is offered for this visual impact, other than "landscaping' at the landfill entry. The DEIR should include, at a minimum, a specific design plan, including plan and elevation views, at a minimum 1":10' scale, for the landfill entry that will screen the facility from SR 126, S:1 COI ADVANCE 1 CHIQL 822 CMK 8110195 page 4 § V, VII Cumulative Impacts/Alternatives Analysis The DEIR states that the proposed expansion "accommodates" rather than encourages growth, and that its impacts, other than to air quality, are less than significant. Alternatives to landfilling are dismissed as infeasible; additionally, the DEIR states that "none of the project alternatives would both meet most of the project objectives and avoid, or substantially lessen, the significant effects of the project," (DEIR, p.VII-46) with the possible exceptions of the reduced daily volume alternatives, which extend the impacts from 10.5 to 19.4 years of landfill capacity. (Table 7-2). The DEIR appears to consider the 5,000 tpd alternative to be that "which would have the least significant impacts and be considered environmentally superior to other remaining alternatives." (DEIR, p.VH-46) Alternative landfill technologies, such as (1) using chemical, tarp/geofabric or foam cover instead of soil cover; (2) leachate recirculation to accelerate decomposition; (3) biostabilization and shredding; and (4) landfill reclamation are not considered in the DEIR. These technologies are discussed and examples of successful applications are cited in Deficiencies of the Flsmere Canyon Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Imnact Statement, prepared for the City of Santa Clarita by GBB Solid Waste Management Consultants (8/1/95), and submitted to the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning as part of the City's comments on the Elsmere Canyon landfill proposal by BKK Corporation. Land Use The DEIR did not address conflicts resulting from incompatible land uses, of both existing and proposed or approved projects. It is the City's understanding that the present zoning on the property is Heavy Agriculture and Manufacturing - Development Program. Both designations require a Conditional Use Permit for land fill use, a discretionary action. As such, there is no presumed "right of zoning" for this project in either of these zones. At a minimum, the FEIR should include a section detailing the juxtaposition of both existing and proposed uses, and should discuss these juxtapositions in terms of good planning practice. As mentioned in previous comments regarding air quality; the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan indicates an elementary school site, a neighborhood park, and high and medium density residential uses on the south side of SR 126 at its intersection with Chiquita Canyon Road. Additionally,, the approved Valencia Commerce Center contains approximately 12 million square feet of mixed light industrial and commercial uses, immediately to the east and north of the U.S. Postal Service facility mentioned in the staff report. Although the landscape in the vicinity of the project site is more or less rural now, planned and approved projects will substantially change the complexion of the landscape. S: I CD t ADVANCE I CHTQL 822 CMX 8/10/95 page 5 1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this significant project. The City reserves the opportunity to provide Regional Planning with additional comments on or before the November 15, 1995, deadline. Sincerely, Jeffrey C. Kolin Deputy City Manager, Special Projects cc: David Vannatta, Planning Deputy, 5th District Carl Newton, City Attorney Mary Farmer, Val Verde Civic Association SCOPE S:1 CD I ADVANCE 1 CNIQL 822 CMK 8/10/95 page 6