Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-39RESOLUTION NO. 96-39 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081 AND CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") GUIDELINES SECTION 15091 IN CONNECTION WITH THE DECISION TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENTBOARD TO AMENDTHE SOLID WASTE FACILITIES PERMIT FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE AT THE END OF VICHY SPRINGS ROAD IN MENDOCINO COUNTY. WHEREAS: 1. The City Council has certified as adequate and complete an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for proposed amendments to the Solid Waste Facilities Permit for the City of Ukiah solid waste disposal site. The EIR consists of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated July 15, 1994 ("DEIR"), a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated May 1, 1995 ("SDEIR"), and a Final Environmental Impact Report, including a response to comments, dated January 18, 1996 ("FEIR"); and 2. The amendments would increase the permitted average disposal rate at the City owned landfill to 190 tons per day with a maximum limit of 295 tons on any particular day ("the Project"). The City's 1979 Solid Waste Facilities Permit finds that the City accepted an average daily limit of 50 tons on a seven day a week basis in 1979. Under a Stipulated Agreement with the Local Enforcement Agency ("LEA") the City currently accepts approximately 98 tons per day on a five day per week basis with a daily maximum of 190 tons; and s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 1 3. The EIR has identified significant environmental impacts of the Project; and 4. The EIR has determined that all but one of the adverse environmental impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels; and 5. The City hereby undertakes a binding commitment to comply with the mitigation measures, which are incorporated into the Project, if the Project is approved upon acceptable conditions by the LEA and the Integrated Waste Management Board ("the Board"), and the City undertakes to carry out the Project; and 6. The City Council has determined to approve the Project; and 7. The City Council has based its decision on the record which includes those items identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e), including, but not limited to, the EIR, including the appendices to the EIR, the staff report, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (EBA Wastechnologies, 1/93), Report of Disposal Site Information (Volumes I and II, EBA Wastechnologies, 5/93), Report of Waste Discharge (Volumes I and II, EBA Wastechnologies, 5/93), Preliminary Postclosure Maintenance Plan (EBA Wastechnologies, 8/94), Preliminary Closure Plan (EBA Wastechnologies, 8/94), Proposed Article 5 Detection Monitoring Program and Financial Assurance Provisions (EBA Wastechnologies, 4/93), Borrow Study Report (EBA Wastechnologies, 6/95), Landfill Gas Monitoring System Proposal (EBA Wastechnologies, 8/94), Results of Gas Migration Monitoring and Proposed Corrective Action (EBA Wastechnologies, 11/94), Report of Groundwater Wells Installation s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 2 and Construction (Wells 94-1, 94-2, and 95-1) (EBA Wastechnologies, 6/95), Ukiah Landfill Site monitoring Wells and Vichy Springs Resort (EBA Wastechnologies, 8/94), Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures (Dames and Moore, 1/96), and Final Report on Evaluation of Landfill Leachate Treatability at Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Facility (Kennedy/Jenks, 11/95), and Memorandum to City Council from the City Manager, dated October 28, 1994, regarding the November 1, 1994, Solid Waste Workshop, including attachments ("October 28 Memorandum") (collectively, "the Landfill file"); and 8. The record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, including the Landfill file, is maintained in the office of the Public Works Director/City Engineer, Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA. 95482, as the custodian of the record, and is available for public inspection upon request of the Public Works Director/City Engineer or his designee; and 9. Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guideline section 15091 provide that the City shall not approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, unless it makes specified findings; NOW, T~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as follows. 1. The EIR was prepared and made available for public review and comment in full compliance with the procedures set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 3 2. Both the EIR and the Project were considered by the City Council at a public meeting on February 7, 1996. 3. The City Council has considered all documents submitted during the public comment period for the EIR and all testimony presented during its meeting as well as the EIR, the Staff Report, dated February 2, 1996, and the Landfill File. The Staff Report is incorporated herein by reference. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed this resolution and the EIR. 4. The Project is described in the EIR, including the DEIR at pp. II-l, as modified by the SDEIR at pp. II-2 and the FEIR at pp. 1.2 - 1.3. This description is incorporated herein by reference. 5. The EIR evaluated the impacts of the Project itself as well as its impacts in combination with impacts from past, present and probable future projects. Those impacts, both individual and cumulative, along with recommended mitigation measures and suggested conditions, are summarized in Table 1 in the FEIR following p. 1.5 ("Table 1). 6. Measures designed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the Project as identified in the EIR are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The measures constitute binding commitments of the City, if the Project is approved by responsible agencies upon acceptable conditions and undertaken by the City and those measures shall be incorporated into the Project and monitored in accordance with the Plan. s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 7. Traffic and Circulation. An increase in truck traffic resulting from increases in average daily tonnage accepted at the landfill from either 50 or 98 to 190 tons (an increase of eight truck trips per day - DEIR, IV-12) will cause Vichy Springs Road to deteriorate more quickly but for a shorter period of time. (DEIR, IV-13.) The EIR proposes that the City contribute to Mendocino County an amount of money necessary to compensate it for the resulting increased maintenance cost. (Id.) The City Council commits to contribute its fair share of the costs to repair and maintain Vichy Springs Road. The City shall negotiate an agreement with Mendocino County by which the parties shall share in the repair and maintenance of the road during the remaining life of the Landfill and in a final measure to bring the surface of the road to an acceptable standard after closure of the landfill. As stated in the mitigation monitoring plan, the agreement may provide for payments from the City to the County or the use of City personnel and equipment to assist County personnel and equipment in the repair and maintenance of Vichy Springs Road. The City Council finds that the negotiation and implementation of this agreement will avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effect of this increased truck traffic. 8. Plants and wildlife. a. Sediment. By increasing the rate of solid waste disposal, the Project could increase the rate at which soil is excavated for cover material. This increased excavation could increase the amount of sediment in the unnamed tributary stream s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 5 that runs through the landfill site. (DEIR, IV-24; Biology Appendices F and G.) The City currently collects all sediment laden run-off in sediment collection ponds. (Id.) The increased sediment load may increase the risk of an inadvertent discharge from the ponds to the unnamed creek. (Id.) Under the direction of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) the City proposes to enlarge the ponds and spray the contents of the ponds onto a nearby grassy hillside. (DEIR, IV-25; FEIR, Table I.) Alternatively, the City will seek approval from the RWQCB for the use of filters to remove sediment from impounded water before discharging it to the unnamed creek. (DEIR, IV-61; Plan, p. 2.) This mitigation will avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance the adverse environmental effect from increased sedimentation caused by the Project. b. Leachate. By increasing the disposal rate, the Project could increase the amount of leachate produced at the landfill in the near term. (DEIR, IV-75.) Ail leachate is impounded in leachate collection ponds. (DEIR, IV-76.) There has never been a discharge of leachate from the ponds into the unnamed stream. However, increasing the amount of leachate in the near term increases the chances of an inadvertent discharge. The City will continue to pump leachate from the ponds and properly dispose of it, when necessary to prevent an inadvertent discharge. In addition, it will line and either enlarge the ponds or install a pipe to pump leachate directly from the ponds to the City's waste water treatment plant. Either action will reduce the potential for s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 6 an inadvertent discharge to an acceptable and insignificant level. (DEIR, IV-76-77; FEIR, Table I.) 9. Hydrology and drainage. Increased sedimentation and leachate production could affect the surface water in the unnamed stream. For the reasons stated in finding No.8 the proposed mitigation will reduce these impacts to an acceptable and insignificant level. Increased leachate production could also increase the existing possibility of groundwater contamination. The RWQCB has already required the City to develop a plan to mitigate leachate impacts on groundwater. The approved plan will reduce to an acceptable and insignificant level the impact on groundwater from all leachate produced by the landfill, including any increase from the Project. 10. Water Quality. For the reasons stated in findings No.'s 8 and 9 the Project's impacts to water quality will be reduced to an acceptable and insignificant level. 11. Noise. The project will result in the landfill filling more quickly. As the landfill approaches closure some grading, compacting and dumping activity will take place at a higher elevation closer to Vichy Springs Resort. At this higher elevation, the Project could contribute to increases in noise levels at the Resort of more than 1.0 Db. (DEIR, IV-87-88; FEIR, Table 1.) A noise increase over 1.0 dB could be significant, if it occurs before 8 a.m. or after 6 p.m. Arguably, if the landfill is closed more rapidly as a result of the Project, this activity will take place over a shorter period of time, thus reducing the overall s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 7 noise impacts from the landfill. On the other hand, the increased noise will also occur sooner. Even if the impact is considered significant, it will be reduced to an acceptable and insignificant level by a City requirement that transfer trucks delivering refuse from new service areas arrive at the landfill after 8 a.m. and before 6 p.m. FINDING OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION For the following reasons, the City Council finds that the Project will have some unmitigated adverse impact on an historical resource, but that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation or alternatives identified in the EIR that would avoid or lessen those adverse effects. With respect to these unmitigated impacts the City Council further finds, for reasons stated below, that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unmitigated significant effects on the historical resource. A. Unmitigated Adverse Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources. The location of Vichy Springs Resort adjacent to the landfill has an adverse effect on its financial viability as a resort or as a producer of mineral water. Increased traffic, noise, dust and other effects from the Project could increase those adverse effects. Increased traffic, noise and dust could discourage some persons who would otherwise do so from using the resort facilities. s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 8 This, in turn, could adversely affect the financial viability of the Resort. No evidence has been presented showing that the Project will directly affect the Vichy Springs. (DEIR, IV-96-97.) The negative effect is indirect, resulting from the reduced use of the springs and financial viability of the Resort as a business enterprise. (Id.) If the business fails, then the property is less likely to be maintained and the historic uses of the springs might be curtailed or eliminated. The Vichy Springs Resort is a declared California State Landmark. As such the EIR has considered its reduced financial viability as an adverse impact on an historic resource. (DEIR, IV- 97.) At the same time, by increasing the rate of disposal, the landfill will close sooner than it would at 50 or 98 tons per day. Consequently, if the resort continues to operate until closure, the Project could have a beneficial effect on the long term financial viability of the resort by reducing or eliminating sooner the adverse effects from traffic, noise and dust associated with landfill operations. The Vichy Springs Investor Group purchased the resort in 1981. (DEIR, p. IV-93.) The Resort has continued to operate over the succeeding fourteen years and its owners have constructed or modeled buildings and facilities comprising the Resort. During most of that time the disposal rate at the landfill was greater than the current level due to the lack of recycling programs prior to 1990. It seems more likely than not that the Resort will remain financially viable for the approximately three years of s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 9 continued landfill operations, if the rate is increased to the average daily rate of 190 tons. The EIR and continuing regulatory requirements which are independent of the Project have reduced the adverse effects of the Project to the maximum extent feasible. However, in the short term the EIR concludes that some of those effects will remain significant as described above. B. Infeasibility of Project Alternatives Discussed in EIR. The following social, economic, legal, technological, and other considerations make the nine alternatives identified in the EIR infeasible. The nine alternatives are: 1) no project alternative; 2) diversion to Willits or Sonoma County landfills; 3) maintaining average daily volume at the current rate; 4) hauling to a regional landfill; 5) siting a new landfill in Mendocino County; 6) constructing a materials recovery facility; 7) developing a composting facility; 8) above ground storage; and 9) increasing mandatory diversion above the 25% and 50% state mandates. 1. No project alternative. The no project alternative would return the average daily disposal rate to 50 tons. (SDEIR, VI-1.) Under this alternative the landfill could only accept the waste stream from inside the City limits. (SDEIR, VI-1.) The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible, because it will reduce operating revenues to the point that the City may not have sufficient resources to meet environmental regulations prior to, during and after closure of the landfill. (See October 28 Memorandum, p. 9.) It would require the current s:~u~resos96~lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 10 landfill users from outside the City to immediately find another disposal site. Even if another site were immediately available, the longer hauling distance would increase adverse air quality impacts, while, at the same time, substantially prolonging the adverse impacts on Vichy Springs from non-project landfill activities. (SDEIR, VI-2.) 2. Diversion to Willits or Sonoma County. Under this alternative, the landfill would close immediately with a transfer station located at the landfill. Waste would be transferred to larger trucks and hauled to the landfill in Willits or Sonoma County. This alternative is infeasible, because it would deprive the City of sufficient revenues to properly close the landfill and perform required post-closure monitoring. (October 28 Memorandum and attached financial analyses.) Diverting the waste to Willits would result in the Willits landfill closing in two years or less. While Sonoma County will accept waste from Mendocino County at present, it will not commit to long term acceptance. At the same time, this alternative would increase truck traffic on Vichy Springs Road, because waste would be trucked away from the landfill transfer station as well as to the landfill. It would also increase air quality impacts, because of the increased waste hauling distances. (FEIR, 1.14; DEIR, VI 3-5; SDEIR IX 2-3.) 3. Maintaining average daily volume at the current rate. Under this alternative, the City would maintain the current disposal rate at the landfill. The City Council finds this alternative infeasible, because it fails to accomplish the project s:~u~resos96~lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 objective. The objective of the project is to provide an in-county disposal site for a three year time period to allow adequate time for the siting and construction of a materials recovery facility and the development of a system for hauling residual refuse to a regional landfill. This would include selection of a regional landfill that will provide an environmentally protective service at the least cost to county residents. It would also include selection of a hauling method that poses the least adverse environmental effects at the lowest cost possible. (SDEIR, VI-9- 10.) Maintaining the current disposal rate would force portions of the County not now using the Ukiah landfill to find an alternate disposal site immediately before a long term solution can be devised. 4. Hauling to a regional landfill. Under this alternative, a transfer station would be located at the landfill. Waste would be transferred to larger trucks there and hauled to a regional landfill. The City Council finds this alternative infeasible, because: a. It would deprive the City of adequate funds to close and conduct post-closure monitoring of the landfill (October 28 Memorandum); b. The capital and variable hauling costs are excessive, until transport by railroad is available. Rail hauling would not be available in the three year time period of the project (SDEIR,VI 5-10); and c. The alternative would increase truck traffic and traffic related impacts on Vichy Springs Road and would s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 12 substantially increase traffic and traffic related air quality impacts from longer hauling distances. (Id.) 5. Alternatives 5-9. These alternatives include siting a new landfill in Mendocino County; constructing a materials recovery facility; developing a composting facility; above ground storage; and increasing mandatory diversion above the 25% and 50% state mandates. The City Council finds that all of these alternatives are infeasible, because they cannot be implemented within the three year project time period. (SDEIR, VI-ii-14.) C. Finding of overriding considerations. The City Council finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unmitigated significant effects on the Vichy Springs Resort. The purpose of the Project is twofold: 1) to amend the 1979 Solid Waste Facilities Permit to conform to the existing disposal rate; and 2) to allow for areas within Mendocino County (e.g., Fort Bragg and Willits) currently not using the landfill to dispose of their refuse there. The second purpose will allow the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority time to site and develop a county-wide materials recovery facility and a system for hauling residual refuse to a regional landfill. It will also allow the Authority time to develop the necessary hauling and disposal arrangements with the regional landfill. If the permit is not amended and the City were restricted to s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 13 50 tons per day on a seven day per week basis, it could not accept waste from any source outside the City limits. This will increase disposal costs for county waste sources located outside the City. It will increase vehicle omissions, because hauling distances will increase substantially. In addition, the resulting reduced revenues from tipping fees would impose substantial financial hardships on the City and its residents. Due to environmental regulations, the fixed costs of operating the landfill have increased enormously in the last 10 years. In addition, the City is required to accumulate funds for closure and post-closure costs. The reduced revenue stream would not meet ongoing landfill costs and fund closure and post-closure activities. (October 28 Memorandum and accompanying financial analysis.) As a consequence, the City would either have less resources available to close the landfill properly and monitor it after closure or it would have to divert substantial general fund revenues to pay for these activities with a resulting adverse affect on other municipal functions financed by the general fund. These same consequences would result to a substantial, although lesser degree, if the permit amendment were limited to the existing disposal rate. (See comparison of Scenario #1 and #2 in October 28 Memorandum.) The City Council finds that avoiding these added costs, the potential harm if the landfill is not properly closed and monitored after closure, and the disruption in county-wide solid waste management outweighs the adverse effects on the Vichy Springs s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 14 Resort as an historic resource. As previously found the adverse impacts on Vichy Springs from the Project are indirect. By causing the landfill to close sooner, it is more likely than not that the project will actually increase the financial viability of the Resort and, therefore, enhance the preservation of the Resort as an historic resource. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST :/ Ca t h~'CP~a{~~.~/ Fred Schn~'~ter, Mayor s:\u\resos96\lndfll.eir February 1, 1996 15 Z Z 0 Z z Z Z Z Z 0