Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-30 - AGENDA REPORTS - LACO COUNTYWIDE SITING ELEMENT (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: September 30, 1997 City Manager Item to be George A. Caravalho SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION TO DISAPPROVE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNTYWIDE SITING ELEMENT AND SUMMARY PLAN AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 97-114 DEPARTMENT: City Manager "mm walwa In July 1997, the Los Angeles County Countywide Siting Element, Summary Plan and environmental documents were forwarded to the 88 cities of Los Angeles County for consideration and city council action pursuant to state law. Under state law, each city must approve or disapprove of the Countywide Siting Element within 90 days; failure to take an action is deemed approval of the document. If approved by a majority of the cities in the County representing a majority of the incorporated population, the documents will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors, which will likely direct County staff to forward them to the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Board for final review and approval. It should be noted that a majority of the 88 cities have opted not to take action on the Countywide Siting Element, and the document is likely to be approved under law. City staff and the City Attorney's have reviewed the Countywide Siting Element, Summary Plan, and Environmental Impact report and, based on that review, have determined that the documents remain deficient in a number of areas, as outlined in the attached resolution. Generally, the documents continue to place undue and unequal reliance on the landfilling of solid waste as the County's preferred waste management techniques, contain distorted, flawed, and obsolete data, and do not meet or reflect the mandates of AB939 hierarchy. Additionally, and more specifically for the north Los Angeles County region, the Countywide Siting Element identifies and relies on the expansion of the Chiquita Canyon and Sunshine Canyon Landfills, and endorses the development of a new 80 -million ton landfill in Elsmere Canyon, to alleviate a purported landfill capacity shortage. (On June 24, 1997, the County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to remove Towsley Canyon from the Countywide Siting Element, representing a significant policy shift for the County.) This reliance on the north County region to become the solid waste management solution for the remainder of the County when other alternatives and methodologies exist remains an area of disagreement between the affected agencies. Apaends Item M'M While City staff is working diligently with the County and other public and private entities through the UCLA Countywide Solid Waste Policy Committee to develop a collaborative regional approach for solid waste management, the Countywide Siting Element does not meet the statutory requirements of state law, does not reflect the mandates and goals of AB939, and should not be supported at this time. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 97-114, disapproving the Los Angeles County Countywide Siting Element, Summary Plan, and related environmental documents, and direct staff to forward the Resolution to the County Board of Supervisors as required by state law. ATTACHMENT Resolution No. 97-114 S:\SHARE\ELS#13.GAC CITY OF SANTA CLARITA LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SUMMARY PLAN, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNTYWIDE SITING ELEMENT, AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: Pursuant to the provisions of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 18782 and 18783, public notice is hereby given that the City of Santa Clarita will hold a public hearing regarding the Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Summary Plan, the Los Angeles County Countywide Siting Element, and he associated EIR. The purpose of this public hearing is to provide citizens and interested parties the opportunity to provide written and oral comments and to ask questions concerning the documents. The hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 30th day of September, 1997 at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. For further information concerning this notice, please call (805) 294-2522. Copies, of the County's Summary Plan, Siting Element, and EIR are available for public review at the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, and at the office of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Environmental Programs Division at 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, CA. Written comments should be submitted prior to the hearing to Don Williams, Senior Planner, 25663 Avenue Stanford, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at or prior to the public hearing. Dated: August 28, 1997 Publish Date: August 30, 1997 Sharon L. Dawson, CMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 97-114 A RESOLUTION QF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DISAPPROVING THE COUNTYWIDE SITING ELEMENT AND SUMMARY PLAN AND THEIR RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. WHEREAS, Section 41700 of the California Public Resources Code requires that each county government prepare a countywide siting element; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Countywide Siting Element has been completed under the auspices of the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force; and WHEREAS, the Countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan must be approved by a majority of the cities within the County containing a majority of the incorporated population of the County; and, WHEREAS, if a city does not act upon the Countywide Siting Element within 90 days after receipt of the County Siting Element, it shall be deemed to have approved the Countywide Siting Element; and, WHEREAS, the County has submitted the Countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan to the City of Santa Clarita for consideration and approval together with the Environmen- tal Impact Report for those documents; and, WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita and others have questioned the adequacy of a number of the assumptions and assertions contained in the Countywide Siting Element and have previously suggested and provided revisions to same; and, WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing to consider approval or disapproval of the Countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan and associated environmental documents was duly given as required by law; and, WHEREAS, on September 30, 1997, the City Council held a public hearing at which approval or disapproval of the Countywide Siting.Element was considered; and, WHEREAS, at that public hearing all interested persons were given an opportunity to appear and be heard and the City Council did receive and consider all public testimony relating to the Countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby find, determine, and declare as follows: SECTION 1. That the Countywide Siting Element (CSE) does not appear to meet the statutory requirements of the Public Resources Code (PRC) § 41701 that a CSE "shall include ... statement of goals and policies for environmentally safe transformation or disposal ... ;'. SECTION 2. That the CSE does not appear to meet the statutory requirements of PRC § 41700 that a CSE "shall be concurrent and consistent with... source reduction and recycling elements" as identified by the NRDC letter, Vol. II, p. 1336. SECTION 3. That disposal quantities and tonnage summaries for future years may be flawed in the CSE by the failure to recognize imported waste from out -of -county areas while recognizing the exportation of waste from the County. SECTION 4. That it concurs with the National Park Service in stating that it believes implementation of the Countywide Siting Element will result in significant, adverse, and irreversible environmental disruption, and that if the County allows the siting of solid waste disposal facilities in areas not thoroughly studied for ecological suitability there will be environmental impact to those sites that are adverse and significant, and that these impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. SECTION 5. That approval of the CSE would likely violate procedural provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in numerous respects. SECTION 6. That the CSE's "shortfall" analyses may be flawed as they lack realistic scope and fail to consider practical combinations and alternative methodologies for the management of solid waste which have been presented to the County through various documents, including the GBB Report of September 1996. SECTION 7. That the CSE appears to continue to place undue and unequal reliance on the landfilling of solid waste as the a preferred management technique, contrary to the hierarchy identified in A13939, and as demonstrated by the fact that areas for landfill expansion and new development are specifically identified by name, location and expected capacity in the CSE, while needed future transformation facilities are not identified to in any manner except that they are, in fact, needed. SECTION 8. That the CSE's information regarding solid waste management facilities is not current and should not be used as a basis for approving the CSE, as demonstrated by the fact that two major regional rail -haul projects (Mesquite, Eagle Mountain) identified therein have been approved and are moving forward as viable projects, altering the future landfill needs of Los Angeles County area. SECTION 9. That the CSE does not adequately consider the regional needs and impacts as directed, specifically in that it appears to unequally distribute the burden of managing solid waste disposal on some geographic areas (the north County area, for example) while still failing to meet the needs of other geographic areas (the San Gabriel Valley, for example). SECTION 10. That the CSE does continue to identify Elsmere Canyon as a preferred site for a future landfill despite overwhelming and long-term local and regional opposition to the development of new urban landfills, and in spite of significant environmental information indicating and substantiating the unsuitability of Elsmere Canyon as a landfill site due to problems of seismicity, water and air quality; traffic congestion, biology, and other related issues. SECTION 11. That the CSE does not appear to adequately achieve the goal of identifying environmentally safe, technically feasible, and cost effective disposal, transforma- tion, and diversion facilities throughout the County. SECTION 12. That it rejects and does not approve the Countywide Siting Element or the Summary Plan. SECTION 13. That the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause notice to be given in the time and manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED day of , 1997. kriMcer, ATTEST: CITY CLERK I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of ,1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK s:\�\CSEMSo.�