KHTS Radio Santa Clarita Radio – Santa Clarita News
Just after the holidays, a decision is facing L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger that could help define her first four years in office and, perhaps, her political future.
Sponsored Articles
After years of discussion, the future of Chiquita Canyon Landfill and its attempt to increase waste hauling operations, is expected to be decided sometime in January, almost certainly in the first quarter of next year.
A Dec. 13 hearing at West Ranch High gave area residents, business interests and government officials yet another chance to discuss the pros and cons of the landfill’s expansion within its existing lot. However, after rounds of meetings, the issuing and re-issuing of report after environmental report and social media posts criticized on both sides, most minds are made up — except for the ones who matter most, those making a staff recommendation to Barger.
“This is a big issue — we understand there are impacts on both sides,” said Barger planning deputy Edel Vizcarra, adding the office was very aware of the significance of the decision. “I don’t think the hearing drastically changed anybody’s mind — we’re just moving forward with our standard process. The county is going to provide a recommendation based on their analysis and that will go to the (Board of Supervisors).”
Those opposed to the landfill have alleged health risks associated with the landfill. Going around Facebook recently was a “Cancer map” purported to have been drawn from the environmental impact report, displaying areas of concern.
No such evidence of cancer clusters or documented health concerns exist, according to Dr. Cyrus Rangan, director of toxicology and environmental assessment — however, he also noted that there has been no formal documentation of such a study until now. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health officials are analyzing studies and reports and they’ll publish their findings in January, before Chiquita Canyons’ hearing on a new application.
Furthermore, county officials said that if there was a record of past health concerns directly linked to the project, it would have been an “immediate red flag.” Arrows on the map that was spread on social media indicate sites where evidence was collected, Rangan added, not areas where any risks have been documented or proven.
The most recent draft of the project’s environmental impact report on the landfill’s proposed property changes (the permit calls for an uptick in disposal rates, move the front entrance, improve the layout and allow the landfill to “maximize” the property, according to spokesman John Musella, who added that, if approved, the current configuration would also by virtue of the dump’s allotted space, make any further expansion or future extension of operations unfeasible) added clarifications to the biological impact studies, additional air quality and greenhouse gas reports and several project alternatives.
“Chiquita Canyon takes seriously the health and safety of our employees and neighbors,” according to a statement released by Chiquita Canyon, in response to the aforementioned Facebook map. “The DEIR included a detailed forensic analysis of all possible impacts to public health using the newest, most stringent standards set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)… the analysis for the project shows it falls below those thresholds of significant impacts.”
He added the landfill was monitored “by more than two dozen government agencies,” requiring numerous reports and disclosures throughout the year.
The landfill’s opponents, he said, have yet to produce evidence to support their claims.
For some of the residents closer to the landfill, the standards and reports don’t provide the comfort they’re looking for, and want the landfill to close regardless of environmental approvals or the county’s analyses.
C4CCLC questioned the landfill’s timing and disclosure efforts for the project and the affected residents, and attempts to downplay their concerns.
“The fact this revised report was released the day after the election, placing the public input process over the entire holiday season, should be a clear indication they don’t want the public to know about it and would rather push it through unnoticed,” said Erica Dockray, one of the organizers of the C4CCLC. “This project is a blatant exploitation of individuals’ rights to know about major projects which may affect various areas of their daily lives, especially those who may not live in the area but have children attending school there.”
For the residents in Citizens for Chiquita Canyon Landfill Compliance, or C4CCLC, most of who live near the landfill, the anger is caused by their belief the landfill was slated to be closed when it hit a capacity milestone in July. That mark came and went, but the landfill legally sought and gained approval to continue operations with a “clean hands” waiver, a designation that can be granted by a regional planner while an already approved applicant awaits a public hearing on a matter.
C4CCLC also has asked the City of Santa Clarita to speak on its behalf, but the City Council has expressed no intention of involving itself either way in the landfill’s application, an official said Friday.
“The Council has not taken a position on Chiquita Canyon, and they have no plans to,” said Carrie Lujan, spokeswoman for Santa Clarita. “It’s not on the agenda.”
It’s unclear exactly how long for, if granted, a permit extension would continue landfill operations. The terms are up to the permitting agency, Musella said Friday, adding if approved, the landfill’s new configuration would extend the potential lifespan of the landfill by 28 years, and then it would be at absolute capacity.
For the county, time is of the essence, but there are a myriad of factors to consider, officials said.
“It’s a massive project and you have to look at everything,” Vizcarra said. “It’s not going to move quickly.”
The county also noted there’s a contingency plan if the landfill’s application is not approved, and the county’s waste management plans do not operate around one facility opening or closing. However, he also said that if the county was forced to seek an alternative location, it would result in an increased cost for service “and that cost wouldn’t get passed on to the hauler.”
The figures weren’t available yet for what that increase in price would be for ratepayers, he said, and he couldn’t comment without all the information. However, the county was working as fast as possible to get the information together to make an informed recommendation to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
“We don’t want to drag this our any longer than we have to, for the sake of the applicant and the sake of the community,” Vizcarra said. “They want to get an answer sooner than later.”
Just want to see if you will post anti-landfill comments. John Musella is the public relations spokesman. Katheryn Barger I do not believe has never been to Val Verde. I don’t think Edel Vizcarra has been to Val Verde, even after the mud slides kept us from leaving town.
I have come up with proof of violations and cancer risks, the map I saw came right from their own revised EIR. The other proof of everything has been sent to all parties involved and brought up in the responses to the first DEIR.
Dr. Cyrus Rangan, I have no idea who this guy is, never heard of him until now and never seen him anywhere near Val Verde nor any of our community meeting.
CLOSE THE DUMP THANK YOU.
a story shood be made on chiquita canyon landfill how they dont clean the path of all trucks that r gowing in to dump and geting nails debry in there tires then geting on the and having acidents from explosion of tire . the land filed shood be regulated and beaing saifty cek so all trucks ken dump with out beaing forced to go on top. of broken debre and nails tiles metal bars ect.
This information from the Draft Environmental Impact Report remain a concern (http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/case/project_r2004-00559_partially-rdeir.pdf)
Cancer:
Table 11-13 – Residential Maximally Exposed Individual (MEIR) “…the incremental increase in lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to combined construction and operations emissions at the location of the MEIR is predicted to be 9.3 in 1 million.” The SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) Significance Threshold is 10 in 1 million. The prediction of 9.3 is only .7 from being at the threshold of significance of 10 per the SCAQMD (pp. 11-37 and 11-38).
Another issue concerning cancer is the cumulative impact of an expansion coupled with other projects:
11.9 Cumulative Impacts — “The cumulative impact analysis considers the combined air quality impacts of the Proposed Project with the nearby reasonably foreseeable projects…” (p.11-46)
Table 11-18 – Residential Maximally Exposed Individual (MEIR) and Sensitive Receptor are each 15 in a million. The SCAQMD Significance Threshold is 10 in 1 million. “The proposed additional development in the area would not only increase the emissions of TACs (toxic air contaminant) generated in the area, but would also add new residential, commercial, and sensitive receptors…cumulative projects plus the Proposed Project (CCL expansion) would increase cancer risk by more than the 10 in 1 million threshold for residences, workers, and sensitive receptors near the landfill project site, indicating a significant cumulative impact.” (p. 11-50)
There’s no January hearing scheduled for this landfill expansion. Where are you getting your information? Also, it is not a “belief” that the landfill was supposed to be closed. Condition 46 of the 1997 approval said that the landfill shall be closed when it reaches 23 million tons. This is the condition that was secretly waived behind closed doors by Bruckner and left many people wondering if they could ever believe the county’s conditions of approval. I am sure the Supervisors will not look favorably on bein undermined in the conditions they added for project approval.
And is cheap trash disposal the whole issue? Not air pollution, traffic, greenhouse gases, health? Geez! Only about 15% of the trash comes from SCV, the rest comes from areas throughout the county, mostly City of Los Angeles, but the whole valley has to suffer.
I am a resident of Val Verde among some of the closest to the landfill. Our disillusionment comes from the years of patient endurement waiting for the landfills promised closure. We honestly believed the signed document stating the it’s closure when we choose to build our house here in lovely Val Verde. We chose to be good neighbors during this time period by keeping our complaints to a minimum. I will say on the days I contacted the landfill about their ordor they do something to correct whatever they are doing and it helped. But It gets old complaining and many of us chose in good faith to just wait it out rather than to file complaints, which could account for the lack of complaints on record. However, it is true and important for people to know, there are ordors that affect people and it’s not just an unpleasant smell we are dealing with, but headaches, asthma and nauseousness. It’s embarrassing when a guest visits and starts feeling bad totally unaware of the landfill issues.
I readily admit there are pleasant complaint free days, depending on the season and the wind patterns, but these good days don’t discount the fact there are smelly uncomfortable days, with the concerns of possible inknown health risks.
I appreciate the struggle in this decision the county needs to make but honestly the only right decision is to close the landfill, honoring the signed agreement to close, this is not only for the benefit of Val Verde but for all the new growth developments planned. Landfills don’t belong close to populated residential or business areas.
The recommended exposure rate to anything that could cause cancer is to be equal or less than 1, not 9.3, or 15 if you are looking at the new development to go in across the highway from the landfill.
The fact is that they exceed particular matter 2.5 now and will continue to exceed it through the life time of the landfill. It is recommended that you should not be exposed to more than 3 days of p.m. 2.5 in one year. But nearby residents endure it day in and day out, even their own DEIR say it will be significant. The landfill says that they will only get the smells 6% of the day according to the DEIR. That is 1 hour 24 minutes and 4 seconds a day. Not all at once, throughout the day, so residents are forced to shut themselves in and run air conditioning at much higher cost than the rest the valley has to endure. 452 hours a year the smells currently drift to Val Verde. When the landfill hired their scientist, he only tested when no smells were called in, and his team still picked up smells.
Am I banned from making comments? If so please tell me why. I left this comment two days ago….
“John Musella is the public relations spokesman. Katheryn Barger I do not believe has never been to Val Verde. I don’t think Edel Vizcarra has been to Val Verde on any of our BAD days.
I have come up with proof of violations and cancer risks, the map I saw came right from their own revised EIR. The other proof of everything has been sent to all parties involved and brought up in the responses to the first DEIR.
Dr. Cyrus Rangan, I have no idea who this guy is, never heard of him until now and never seen him anywhere near Val Verde nor any of our community meeting.”
The health studies and surveys they speak of are bogus. A health study or survey specific to Val Verde has never happened. Never has a Los Angeles County Department of Public Health official come to my door and asked about my health. I have lived in Val Verde for 30 years and lost a kidney to cancer 7 years ago. I don’t know of anyone of my family or relatives ever having cancer, though I know there are plenty of cancer victims in this area. Hear me Kathryn Barger, You and county officials put profit over people, greed before life and don’t give a flying F&%k about People in Val Verde.
It would be nice to know why my 12/24 comment was not posted?
“C4CCLC also has asked the City of Santa Clarita to speak on its behalf, but the City Council has expressed no intention of involving itself either way in the landfill’s application, an official said Friday.
“The Council has not taken a position on Chiquita Canyon, and they have no plans to,” said Carrie Lujan, spokeswoman for Santa Clarita. “It’s not on the agenda.”
Why would the City of Santa Clarita NOT take a stand on this issue? Does the City trash not go to this dump? Do the 21,000 proposed houses out Highway 126 plan to use this dump? Maybe THAT is why the City is Not interested? Smell something rotten folks, hum?