HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 0203 CC REG ITEM 11KA G E N D A R E P O R T
ITEM J/• K
c ..y Cou it Moo,:nq
c, ACTION:
By
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jaime R. Aguilera, Director of Community Developmenter"
Prepared by Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner SST
DATE: January 22, 1993 (CC Meeting of 2 -3 -93)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS PERTAINING TO REVISED
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE PROPOSED
WELDON CANYON LANDFILL
BACKGROUND
The Revised DEIR for the Weldon Canyon Landfill has been circulated
for public review. Comments are due by February 8, 1993. The
project applicant for the Weldon Canyon Landfill, Waste Management
of California, has proposed a 59.2 million cubic yard landfill to
be located in Weldon Canyon, approximately one mile northeast of
the Canada Larga Road /Highway 33 interchange. The Revised DEIR
recommends a downsized project with an estimated capacity of 19.9
million cubic yards at the northern end of the project site.
Written responses are included in the Revised DEIR to public
comments received for two previous versions of the EIR. Also
included are expanded and updated sections in such areas as project
alternatives and air quality.
The City's previous comment letters dated January 16, 1992, and May
2, 1991, and the response contained in the DEIR are attached. The
following Discussion comments pertain to the new Revised DEIR.
DISCUSSION
It is staff's opinion that the Revised DEIR adequately discusses
the impacts of the proposed project and alternatives; however, we
have serious concerns regarding the long -term impacts of two of the
alternatives studied. The No Project Alternative could result in
adverse traffic, air, and noise impacts on the City of Moorpark, if
west county waste is transported to the Simi Valley landfill
through the City of Moorpark. We concur with the Revised DEIR that
this alternative would have significant adverse impacts on the
available solid waste disposal options in the eastern County, and
that the routing of western County refuse trucks through the City
of Moorpark is unacceptable.
The Honorable City Council
January 22, 1993
Page 2
Staff also has serious concerns regarding the Rail Haul to Out -of-
County Landfill Sites Alternative. The rail haul sites studied are
Eagle Mountain in Riverside County and East Carbon City in
northeastern Utah. While the Revised DEIR identifies that waste
would be transported by an existing train traveling north through
Ventura County, the rail haul alternative does not meet the intent
of the project to provide a long -term landfill for the western
wasteshed. This alternative would include a waste
transfer /recycling facility in Oxnard where the waste material
would be loaded into containers and then placed on flat rail cars.
The trains that would transport the refuse materials would pass
through the City of Moorpark. Because of the trip length, haul
emissions combined with landfill emissions would be significantly
higher than those resulting from truck trips to Weldon Canyon. The
worst case scenario is rail haul to Carbon City, Utah. Rail haul
to the Utah site, over the life of a 32 -year landfill, would emit
30,000 tons more NOx and 1,200 tons more ROC (which are
characterized as ozone precursor emissions) than would trucks going
to Weldon Canyon. While most of the air quality impacts would
occur outside of Ventura County, significant increases in ozone
precursor emissions would occur in designated airsheds which
currently do not meet state or federal clean air standards. Rail
haul of refuse from Ventura County to Utah would create
cumulatively significant adverse impacts to at least the following
airsheds: Santa Barbara, Monterey Bay, San Francisco, Sacramento,
and Salt Lake City.
The Revised DEIR also poses the issue of reliability for an out -of-
county site as follows: "How reliable is a system that requires
triple handling of refuse, transport over as many as 1,156 miles of
track, and unknown economics over 20 or 30 years."
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to prepare a comment letter on the Revised DEIR for
the Weldon Canyon Landfill, which expresses the City's support for
a western county landfill and opposition to the No Project and Rail
Haul Alternatives.
Attachments: City of Moorpark comment letters dated 1 -16 -92 and
5 -2 -91 and EIR response
JRA /DST
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021
January 16, 1992
Supervisor Maggie Erickson Kildee
Chairpersons
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Dear Chairperson Kildee:
(805) 529 -6864
At the January 15 meeting of the Moorpark City Council, a
discussion was held regarding the certification of the Final EIR
for the Weldon Canyon project. Council directed that a letter be
sent to the Board of Supervisors stating that:
1. The Moorpark City Council believes that the existing FEIR
for the Weldon Canyon project is suitable for
certification and the City urges that the document be
certified without additional delay, and
2. The Council urges the Board to come to a quick resolution
on the Weldon Canyon project and the Bailard Landfill
extension application.
As stated in a earlier letter from the City to the Board of
Supervisors dated May 2, 1991, the alternative of not siting a
landfill in the west county wasteshed is not acceptable to the City
of Moorpark. In order to reach the landfill, trucks would utilize
State Route 118 through Moorpark. The impacts to the City include
increased vehicle trips and corresponding increases in air and
noise pollution.
The City of Moorpark strongly believes that the western wasteshed
must have its own landfill. It is imperative that a landfill,
located in the west county, be available for the disposal of the
west county's waste.
Your serious consideration of the City's recommendations is
appreciated.
Sincerely, -
(.
Paul W. La ason Jr.
Mayor
cc: Moorpark City Council
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR BERNARDO M PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY ROY E TALLEY JR JOHN E WCZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem CounoImembe• Councilmember Gouncilmember
1
o
May 2, 1991
MOORPARKGENCY COMMENT 8
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
ISJ -7 rl - 2,P-
Honorable Maggie Erickson Kildee, Chair
Board of Supervisors
800 S. Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Dear Supervisor Erickson Kildee:
The City Council has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the proposed Weldon Canyon landfill and is concerned about the
no project alternative. The difficulties in siting and extending
a landfill increase the likelihood of the no project alternative.
This section of the report needs to better identify and quantify
the air quality and traffic impacts associated with the no project
alternative, especially with regard to the City of Moorpark.
If no landfill is sited in the west county and the Bailard Landfill
is not extended, the logical solution for the west county is to
transport waste to the Simi Valley Landfill. The daily tonnage
limit at the Simi Valley Landfill is 3000. Current loadings are
approximately 900 tons. Thus, without any changes to the
landfill's permit, the 1700 tons per day of trash generated in the
west county could be accommodated at the Simi Valley Landfill. In
order to reach the landfill, trash trucks would utilize State Route
118, which runs through Moorpark. The impacts to Moorpark include
increased vehicle trips and corresponding increases in air and
noise pollution. The number of increased trips and amount of
increased emissions should be quantified in the EIR.
The City Council strongly believes that the western wasteshed must
have its own landfill. Whether this means that Bailard is extended
and /or a new landfill is sited, it is imperative that a landfill,
located in the west county, be available for the disposal of the
west county's waste.
PAUL W LAWRASON JR BERNARDO M PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Maya - Mayor Pro Tem Counaimemoer
155
ROY E. TALLEY A JOHN E WOZNIAK
CounC i Imempe r CounC ,Imemoe r
Honorable Maggie Erickson Kildee
May 2, 1991
Page 2
The City does not wish to become involved in the discussions about
where to site a west county landfill. The City will, however, be
monitoring progress on the discussions so that the adverse impacts
of a no project alternative do not accrue to Moorpark. The east
county has accepted responsibility for the landfilling of its solid
waste. The City Council urges the Board of Supervisors to do the
same for the west county.
nce eliLa rason , j
Paul W. Jr.
Mayor
c: Board of Supervisors
Honorable City Council
Resource Management Aqency
156
City of Moorpark (A8)
1. This information is presented in Table 14 -1.
RU:w135 -20AS 157
Table 14 -1 Comparison of Impacts Associated With Diverting Solid Waste
to Alternate Landfill Sites Under Base Case and Revised
AB 939 Wastestream Projections (1994)
AS 939 Wastestream
Landfill
Approximate
haul
distance,
Roundtrip
travel
time,
VMTs, 10'6
Fuel use,
10' gallons
Tons of N0.
pe year
Cost, dollars /ton
miles'
minutes
Direct
Transfer
Direct
Transfer
Direct
Transfer
Direct
Transfer
haul
haul
haul
haul'
haul
haul
haul'
haul"
AS 99
Bailard
4
16
1,400
NA
265
NA
14
NA
4.00
NA
Toland
19
76
6,400
1,800
1,212
374
64
19
19.00
18.70
Hammond Canyon
18
72
6,000
1,800
1,148
329
61
18
18.00
19.10
Simi Valley
36
144
12,100
3,600
2,296
710
123
36
36.00
23.80
Calabasas
36
144
12,100
3,600
2,296
710
123
36
36.00
23.80
Sunshine Canyon
70
280
24,500
9,300
4,633
1,432
248
73
70.00
34.00
Chiquita
31
124
10,800
3,200
2,051
635
109
32
31.00
22.30
Weldon Canyon
14
56 1
4,900
1,400
638
196
34
12
1 14.00
17.20
'One -way distance from intersection of Victoria Avenue and Highway 101 in Ventura.
'An average speed of 30 mph is assumed for direct haul and transfer vehicles.
'Vehicle miles traveled.
'A fuel efficiency of 4 miles per gallon (mpg) is assumed for packer trucks and 15 mpg for small vehicles is assumed.
'A fuel efficiency of 5 mpg is assumed for transfer haul vehicles.
birect haul cost based on average cost of 50.50 per ton -mile. Costs based on roundtrip distances..
•Transfer haul cost based an transfer cost of 113.00 per ton, plus average transfer haul cost of 10.15 per ton mile. These costs do not
Include landfill tipping fees.
Source: Brown and Caldwell, 1990. Revised by County Planning, November 1992.
See previous page for Base Case wastestreamm impacts.
N
a
I
�D
m2/mNY2 \EAdJKlk m sW m35A135 :rr,.su m.wr5
1111 —uu,