Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0108 CC SPC ITEM 11CMOORPARK ITEM / "•C' 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 'CORPARK. CALIFORNIA City C 01 Meeting of 1992 ACTION: -fir, I//S 14 e-Z- M E M O R A N D U M BY TO: Honorable City Council ^_ FROM: Mary R. Lindley, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: December 20, 1991 (Council Meeting 1/8) SUBJECT: Consider Weldon Canyon Landfill Environmental Impact Review On December 4, Council discussed support for the proposed Weldon Canyon Landfill and the Final EIR (FEIR) for the project. At that time, staff was directed to review the EIR summary with respect to Moorpark's concern regarding the "no project" alternative and report back to Council. An alternative identified in the earlier draft EIR for future disposal of west County waste after the closure of Bailard Landfill was that no new facility be sited. This would require all west County waste to be transported through Moorpark to the Simi Valley Landfill for disposal. In response to this alternative, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a letter expressing the City's opposition to the "no project" alternative. The City's May 2 letter stated that the western wasteshed must have its own landfill and that the City did not wish to become involve in the discussions about where to site a west county landfill (see Exhibit A). The City received a response from the County along with a summary of the Final EIR (see Exhibit B). The FEIR has an expanded the discussion regarding the "no project" alternative. It clearly states that utilizing Simi Valley Landfill is not a true alternative to Weldon Canyon since it does not meet the intent of the project, which is to provide a long -term landfill for the western wasteshed. The document also highlights the environmental and traffic impacts on the City of Moorpark as a result of trucks hauling waste through City limits and specifically notes Moorpark's PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. u....,r Prn Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Weldon Canyon FEIR December 20, 1991 Page 2 earlier comments. If the Council wishes to take further action regarding Weldon Canyon, two alternative potential actions are 1) recommend approval and certification of the Weldon Canyon FEIR and urge a timely decision on a replacement landfill for Bailard, 2) recommend certification of the Weldon Canyon FEIR and support the siting of a landfill at Weldon Canyon. Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate. EXHIBIT„ .., May 2, 1991 MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 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 ROY E. TALLEY JR JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councdmemoer Councdmemoer Cpuncdmem0er I , 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. Thceely, Paul W. La rason Jr. Mayor c: Board of Supervisors Honorable City Council Resource Management Agency DEC- -0-91 TNU 14.30 EXHIBIT d P. 01 14 -5 OOV be legally used for large quantities of refuse from the Western Wasteshed. However, if this were done, the remaining disposal capacity of the Toland Road Landfill would be exhausted by about 1997. Thus, the Toland Road Landfill is also only a short -term disposal site for refuse from the Western Wasteshed, even if its permits are modified. After it would reach capacity in approximately 1997, both the Western and Central Wastesheds would then be out of landfill Capacity unless additional sites were developed. C. Simi Valley Landfill. The Simi Valley Landfill is located in an unnamed canyon at the base of the Simi Hills, just northwest of the City of Simi Valley. This facility is owned and operated b }•-- Waste Management of California (WMC), the applicant for the proposed Weldon Canyon Landfill. §2 EIR for expansion of the facility was prepared in April 1988. The EIR was certified and the project approved by the the County Board of Supervisors on June 27, 1989. The approved project expanded the site capacity by approxi- mately 13,6000000 cu yd. Of this, approximately 12,600,000 cu yd remain as of the end of 1991. Based on the average amounts of refuse received at the landfill over the last 2 years, and without considering the impacts of AB 939, the Simi Valley Landfill has adequate capacity to service the Eastern Wasteshed for approxi- mately 27 years (i.e., until 2019). AS 939 could significantly extend this site life, although an economic recovery would tend to increase refuse disposal rates and increase pressures that would shorten the site life. The CUP for the Simi Valley Landfill expires in 2004; any extension of the use of the landfill beyond that date in order to use any remaining capacity would require a modification to CUP and the other permits which apply to the project. If Bailard closes in December 1993, the Simi valley Landfill would have a remaining capacity at that time of approximately 11,700,000 cu yd. If all of the Western Wasteshed refuse was then diverted to Simi, the site would have a remaining site life as of that time of approximately 9.5 years (i.e., it would reach capacity sometime in 2003). In addition to a maximum refuse capacity, Simi Valley is limited by its Solid Waste Facility permit to taking no more than 3,000 tons of refuse per day.. The average daily volume at the landfill over the last two years has been 768 tons per day. Under the revised AB 939 wastestream used in this revised EIR (see Appendix 1 -A), the maximum average daily volume of refuse from the Western Wasteshed for the next 30 years should occur in 1994, when the wasteshed landfills approximately 1,268 tons per day. Thus, it ULU- b -JI 1HU 14:U1 14 -b t, U2 appears" that adding the Western Wasteshed refuse to the refuse going to the Simi Valley Landfill would not violate the daily tonnage limit and would reduce the projected site life to approxi- mately 2003. Use of the Simi Valley Landfill for Western Wasteshed refuse appears to be a potential medium term solution for the problem of limited landfill capacity within the Western Wasteshed. Such a scenario would have the following characteristics: 1. This scenario is not a true alternative to Weldon Canyon, since it does not meet the intent of the project- (i.e., to provide a long-term landfill for the Western Wasteshed). Since this scenario provides less than 10 years of capacity, it does not meet the CoSWMP criteria of a minimum 20 --year landfill site life. 2. This sd'enario would require a change to the wasteshed concept which has served as a fundamental basis for long range solid waste planning for over 20 years. This policy, which states that refuse generated within each wasteshed should be landfilled within that wasteshed, predated the 1985 CoSWMP, was ratified and reinforced by the 1985 CoSWMP, and has been used for solid waste planning purposes ever since. Given this history, Western Wasteshed refuse should only be transferred to the Simi Valley Landfill on a short -term, emergency basis, or as a result of an explicit modification of the wasteshed policy by the appropriate policy boards. Until either one of these events occurs, large -scale disposal of Western Wasteshed refuse at Simi Valley is inconsistent with public policy as expressed in the 1985 CoSWMP. Modification of this policy is a public policy decision which is beyond the scope of this EIR. 3. This scenario significantly lessens the number of years the Simi Valley Landfill could physically serve the landfill needs of the Eastern Wasteshed. By using more than half of the remaining available space at Simi Valley for Western Wasteshed refuse, this proposal would require a new landfill for the Eastern Wasteshed in much less time than would otherwise be necessary. Under this scenario, both the Eastern and Western Wastesheds would be out of landfill capacity in approximately 13 years. This impact only occurs if it is assumed that the CUP for Simi Valley is extended beyond 2004. If the CUP is not extended, the landfill is expected to have a large amount of unused refuse capacity which could have otherwise been used for Western Wasteshed refuse. DEC- 5 -91 THU 14:32 14 -7 4. Over the long term (i.e., after a transfer station is built in the Western Wasteshed), the economic and environmental impacts of hauling material to Simi Valley would be greater than would hauling the same material to Weldon Canyon. Table 14 -1 summarizes some of the impacts associated with diverting Western Wasteshed solid waste to alternate sites in Ventura and Western Los Angeles counties, both with direct haul and use of transfer station(s). As indicated in the second part of Table 14 -1, if long haul transfer trucks are used, it would cost approximately $6.60 more per ton to haul to Simi Valley compared to hauling to Weldon Canyon. In addition, other environmental impacts would also be greater. For one year (1994), hauling to Simi Valley vs Weldon would generate an additional 2,200,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT), consume 514,000 more gallons of fuel, and emit 24 more tons of N4x. Although other years would have less impacts because of the decreased amount of refuse being landfilled, the annual impacts would be comparable to those listed above. Hauling to Simi Valley is not environmentally superior to Weldon Canyon in regard to hauling impacts. However, site specific impacts also are a consideration. The 1989 EIR for the Simi Valley Landfill found less site - specific impacts due to operation of that facility than this EIR finds for the operation of Weldon Canyon. However, the analyses performed in the two EIRs are not directly comparable; thus, the conclusions cannot be directly compared. The Weldon Landfill EIR costs approximately three times more than did the Simi Valley EIR, one reason being that it contains much more detailed and updated studies in such areas as ozone precursors, odors, toxic gases, and dust. If the same procedures and assumptions were applied to Simi Valley as were applied to Weldon Canyon, the site - specific impacts at Simi Valley would be greater than those shown in the Simi Valley EIR. However, it is not known if these greater impacts would exceed those of Weldon Canyon. However, since Simi Valley abuts urbanization, and is closer to residences (5,000 feet) than the Weldon Canyon PEA would be to Valley Vista (6,700 feet), the impacts from Simi Valley could potentially be greater than the Weldon Canyon PEA. 5. over the short term (i.e., before a transfer station is built), the economic and environmental impacts of hauling material to Simi Valley would be significantly greater (see the second part of Table 14 -1). A transfer station is not likely to be operational by December 1993 when Hailard is assumed to close. Until such time as such a station were P. 03 DEC- 5 -91 THU 14:33 P-04 14-10 operational, individual refuse trucks the trip from the Western Wasteshed Landfill. Compared to hauling to We: such a situation costs $22 more per VMT, consumes 1,658,000 more gallons 68 more tons of No.. would have to make to the Simi Valley .don Canyon, in 1994 ton, adds 7,200,000 of fuel, and emits However, one of the biggest impacts is that such a situation would add 88 minutes to the round trip travel time of the refuse trucks. Refuse trucks are scheduled such that they are in constant operation through out the day either picking up refuse or going to the landfill. By adding 88 minutes to the landfill trip, these trucks will not be as available to pick up refuse. This will neces- sitate either buying more trucks to be used only for a few years until a transfer station is operational, or -cutting back on refuse collection service. 6. Regardless of whether refuse is hauled in transfer trucks or in refuse trucks, these trucks would either have to use Highway 118 through the Las Posas Valley and the City of Moorpark, or Highway 101 up the Conejo Grade to Highway 23 then to Highway 118. The first alternative would add a few hundred to several hundred trucks per day (depending on the ` scenario) to a rural, undivided highway which is already considered to have a safety problem. In addition, even with the completion of the Highway 23/118 connector, these trucks would still have to use Los Angeles Avenue and New Los Angeles Avenue through Moorpark to reach Highway 23. As expressed by the City of Moorpark (see Public Comments to the February 1991 EIR), such a route would be considered unacceptable to that jurisdiction. This access alternative would stay on surface Ltrees almost the entire way from the Western Wasteshed to the land - fill. Such a routing is considered to be undesirable in the 1985 CosWMP in that landfill traffic can add to surface street congestion. If the- second route (i.e., Highway 101 to 23 to 118) is used, it has the great advantage of remaining on freeways virtually the entire distance. However, the big disadvantage would be the necessity to repeatedly using the Conejo Grade. The Conejo Grade can damage truck engines which repeatedly go up the grade with full loads. Thus, this alternative could potentially create significant additional maintenance costs of these trucks. While maintenance costs would increase using either travel route, they could be greater if Highway 101 was used. i� DEC- 5 -91 THU 14:34 14 -11 Use of Simi Valley as a medium term landfill is not considered to address-the purpose of Weldon Canyon (i.e., create a long -term landfill for the Western Wasteshed). In addition, while the relative impacts of Simi Valley compared to Weldon Canyon are not known, the haul costs would be significantly greater. Consequently, this scenario is not recommended by this EIR. d. Summary. In the event that the Weldon Canyon Landfill is not authorized, and no other landfill applications are forthcoming, the Bailard Landfill will provide a short -term solution to the solid waste disposal needs of the Western Wasteshed. Once this facility closes, and if appropriate °permit modifications were made, waste could be diverted to the Simi Valley Landfill for several more years. However, this action would have significant adverse impacts on the available solid waste disposal options in the eastern County and is not recommended by this EIR. 2. Los Angeles County Landfills Landfills exist along the western border of Los Angeles County that could potentially serve as disposal sites for municipal solid waste from the Ventura County Western Wasteshed. These are the Calabasas, Sunshine Canyon, and Chiquita Canyon Landfills. The -- locations of these facilities are also shown on Figure 14 -1. a. Calabasas. The Calabasas Landfill is located near the Lou Angeles County /Ventura County line, approximately 58 miles from the City of Ventura. The site is operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) and receives waste primarily from the Los Angeles County wasteshed and to some extent from the southern region of the City of Thousand Oaks. The average daily tonnage received at the site is approximately 21600. An expansion of the Calabasas Landfill has been obtained by the LACSD, and new waste discharge requirements were issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on ,Tune 1, 1989. At the average disposal rate, the remaining site life is now 18 to 22 years. At this time, LLACSD has no plans for further landfill expansion at Calabasas.l49 The County of Los Angeles has adopted a wasteshed ordinance for this landfill which allows the landfill to only accept limited refuse from Ventura County based on historical importation patterns. This ordinance specifies that only refuse from Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park, Oak Park, and surrounding areas can be sent to the landfill. Under this adopted wasteshed concept, refuse from the Ventura County Western Wasteshed could not be sent to Calabasas. Thus, Calabasas is neither a short --term nor a long -term alternative to the proposed Weldon Canyon Landfill. P. 05