Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas to Energy Facility Appeal (PA2022-063) - Staff MemoCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Jaime Murillo, Acting Community Development Director Date: October 14, 2025 Re: Agenda Item No. 17 —Additional Materials This memo is intended to provide a direct link to County of Orange Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 507 (SCH No. 82082004), which is referenced in Resolution No. 2025-66. The full EIR, including Technical Appendices, is available at the following link: https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3000676 *NEW FILE* EIR774 City of Newport Beach Ms' city council Study Session Item No. 2 - 11/14/83 Attachment No. 5 COUNTY OF' ORA K1� f �h � •h a § •tf�-A�i•�r S. W . L , 'q`r rg, t >:� •.... a coyote) ,�� - r , sanitarvt bR& TIM, y�(� i Yr1 .M ice., , q .Irv+• t City of Newport Beach F 1 SCREENCHECK EIR (SUBMITTED: September 27, 1983) DRAFT EIR (ACCEPTED: ) PROPOSED FINAL EIR (APPROVED: )) FINAL EIR (CERTIFIED COMPLETE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1507 COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL ' Prepared by: PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, INC. ' 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 ' Contact Person: Mitchell K. Brown (714) 641-8820 Prepared for: ' ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ' Contact Person: Ray Rhoads (714) 834-3595 ' Environmental information for use by: THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA ' LEAD DIVISION/DEPARTMENT: EMA/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 12 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Contact Person: Bob Rusby ' (714) 834-2070 ' SCH # 82082004 j City of Newport Beach I n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Title Page No. 1.0 SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES 2 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 3 1.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4 1.5 LIST OF DOCUMENTS.INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 9 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING 11 2.2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW 12 2.3 EXISTING COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL OPERATIONS 19 2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 23 2.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 24 2.6 REQUIRED PERMITS AND OTHER DISCRETIONARY 31 APPROVALS FOR LANDFILL OPERATION AND CLOSURE 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 LANDFORM AND TOPOGRAPHY 40 3.2 GEOLOGY.AND SOILS 41 3.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 44 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 53 3.5 CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES' 60 3.6 LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANS 63 3.7 SOCIOECONOMICS 69 3.8 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 71 3.9 AIR RESOURCES 77 3.10 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 91 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 96 3.12 ENERGY CONSERVATION 98 3.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 99 3.14 AESTHETICS/VIEWS 104 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 LANDFORM AND TOPOGRAPHY 107 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS III 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 116 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 120 4.5 CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES 122 4.6 LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANS 125 4.7 SOCIOECONOMICS 131 4.8 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 133 4.9 AIR RESOURCES 137 4.10 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 144 4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 148 4.12 ENERGY CONSERVATION 150 4.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 151 4.14 AESTHETICS/VIEWS 152 I City of Newport Beach TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) ' Section No. Title Page No. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 155 6.0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE 195 ' AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS D 7.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES 197 ' AND LONG-TERM RODU IVITY 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT 198 OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND UTHER IIESOURCES 9.0 GROWTH INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 199 t 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 203 11.0 REFERENCES 205 ' 12.0 APPENDICES A. NOTICE OF PREPARATION/INITIAL STUDY , B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION C. GEOTECHNICAL/HYDROLOGIC REPORT D. BIOLOGICAL SPECIES LIST , E. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT F. TRAFFIC STUDY G. AIR RESOURCES ANALYSIS ' H. NOISE ANALYSIS I. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES CORRESPONDENCE n City of Newport Beach I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS Following Exhibit No Title Page 'No. 1 Regional Location Map 11 2 Site Vicinity Map 11 3 Orange County Solid Waste Management System 14 4 Alternative 1 25 5 Alternative 2 27 6 Alternative 2 - Proposed Drainage Plan 28 7 Alternative 3 29 8 Alternative 3 - Proposed Drainage Plan 31 9 Topography 40 10 Geology 41 11' Regional Seismicity 42 lla Drainage 44 12 Biological Resources 53 13 Surrounding Land Use 63 14 Orange County General Plan Land Use Element 66 15 Community Profile Land Uses 67 16 Irvine/Newport Beach General Plan Land Uses 68 17 Community Analysis Areas 70 18 Existing Circulation Network 72 19 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes and ICU's 75 20 Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways 75 21 City of Irvine Circulation Element 75 22 Newport Beach Circulation Element Master Plan 75 of Streets and Highways 23 Site Photograph Index 104 24-27 Site Photographs 104 28 Future Daily Traffic Volumes - Alternative 1 133 29 Future Daily Traffic Volumes - Alternative 2 133 30 Future Daily Traffic Volumes - Alternative 3 133 31 Landfill and Borrow Operation Noise Contours 147 32 Grading Plan Oblique Perspective - Alternative 1 152 33 Grading Plan Oblique Perspective - Alternative 2 152 34 Grading Plan Oblique Perspective - Alternative 3 35 View Sections Index 1152 53 36 View Sections 153 37 38 View Sections Ground Level View Perspective - Spyglass Hill 153 154 39 Gound Level View Perspective - Turtle Rock 154 40 Waste Generation by Service Area 1987 163 41 Alternative Borrow Sites 185 1 City of Newport Beach P 1 IJ 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 0 LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page No. 1 Orange County Population Projections 17 2 Orange County Solid Waste Generation 18 3 Operating Permits - Coyote Canyon Landfill 33 4 Coyote Canyon Vehicle Mix and Distribution 74 5 Irvine Wind Frequency Distribution 1979-1980 79 6 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary -Costa Mesa 83 7 Coyote Canyon Landfill Fugitive Dust Generation 86 8 Daily Air Emissions 88 9 Orange County Noise Ordinance Standards 7:00 A.M. 92 to 10:00 P.M. 10 Roadway Noise Measurements 93 11 Existing Roadway Noise Levels (CNEL) 93 12 Noise Levels for Waste Fill and Borrow Operations 95 13 Noise Levels in Nearby Residential Areas 96 14 Future Intersection Capacity Utilization and 135 Level of Service for Project Alternatives 14a Hourly CO Concentrations 142 15 Future Noise Levels along Roadways 145 16 L50 Noise Levels for Borrow Site Operations 147 17 Projected Waste Quantities 161 18 Estimated Composition of Residential and 162 Commercial Solid Waste in Orange County 19 Present and Projected Daily Tonnage by Service 163 Area 20 Potential Recovery Process Materials Balance and 164 Revenue Analysis (1,000 ton per day facility) 21 Recovered Materials and Energy Markets in Orange 166 County 22 Materials Recovery and RDF Process -,Material 170 Balance and Revenues (1,000 ton per day facility) 23 Heat Recovery Incineration - Material Balance and 172 Revenues (1,000 ton per day facility) 24 Comparison of Economics of Proposed Project and 175 Resource Recovery Alternatives 25 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Resource 177 Recovery Alternatives 26 Comparison of Alternative Development Plans 194 1 City of Newport Beach 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION ' This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared in confor- mance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the ' impacts of expansion and completion of the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. In addition to actual placement and final contouring of solid waste within the landfill, the DEIR addresses the impacts of retrieving borrow fill for daily, intermediate and final cover of the landfill. Three alternative landfill grading plans are comparatively evaluated throughout this EIR. A borrow area grading plan for one of the three alternative landfill plans is also evaluated. In order to implement any alternative plan a number of discretionary approvals or.permits from Orange County and/or the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach are required including: - General plan amendments (GPA) • Zone changes (ZC) • Conditional use permits • Grading plan review and permits, if necessary ' Amendments to the County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) • Amendments to existing Coyote Canyon operating permits tThese approvals/permits are described in detail in Section 2.6 which fol- lows. In addition to the three alternative grading plans, this EIR contains an analysis of alternative disposal or waste reduction methods as well as alternative sites and grading designs. ' While it is recognized that the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill and envi- rons may eventually be used for alternate land uses (e.g., recreational, residential, etc.), this EIR does not evaluate the impacts of potential ultimate use. Prior to closure of the landfill, a complete closure plan ' and supporting environmental documentation will be required. The impacts of ultimate use of the site will be addressed at that time. 1 City or Newport teach Another potential action not addressed in this EIR is construction and operation of a landfill gas recovery system. Field testing to determine the optimum design for a full scale landfill gas recovery system i.s under- way,. The potential impacts of the testing program were reviewed by EMA and a negative declaration, (#3MMM068) was finalized on April 22, 1983. Further environmental documentation will be required for implementation of a landfill gas recovery system. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process requires the preparation of an objective, "full disclosure" document designed to inform agency deci- sion makers and the general public of the direct and indirect environment- al effects of a proposed action; to provide mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts; and, to identify alternatives to the proposed project. The DEIR begins with a description of the proposed project including its location, context within the overall County waste management system, ongoing operations, project objectives and characteris- tics and requisite permits and approvals. This is followed by a presenta- tion of the existing conditions at the study area. It should be recog- nized that a sanitary landfill is constantly changing and that the environ- mental setting represents a single point im time reference. The next major section of the document includes a comparative assessment of the direct/indirect and short-term/long-term impacts of the three alternate plans and recommended mitgation measures for these impacts. Immediately following the impact assessment is an analysis of project alternatives. The remainder of the document is comprised of the mandated topical sec- tions required by CEQA. The separately bound appendix includes a section on public participation/notification activities for this EIR and all tech- nical reports summarized i•n this volume. 1.2 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES The County of Orange is the lead agency for the- Coyote Canyon Landfill EIR pursuant to Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. The General Services Agency (GSA), Waste Management Program (WMP), on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, operates Coyote Canyon Landfill and is the applicant for the permits and other discretionary actions described above. The Environmental Analysis Division (EAD) of the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) is responsible for preparation of the environmental documentation for this I I 'I I project. uny OT iwvy urt t5eaun 1' ' In the preparation of this EIR, the County has consulted with several res- ponsible agencies as required by the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15086). ' Responsible agencies with jurisdiction over land use within the study area include the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach. The State of California Waste Management Board (WMB) and Water Quality Control Board have jurisdiction over county waste management plans and individual ' landfill operation and closure permits. Other responsible agencies with jurisdiction and/or expertise include: ' Orange County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency (OCSEA) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) South Coast Air Quality (SCAQMB) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ' State'Department of Fish and Game (DFG) State Department of Transportation (CalTrans) • Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) • County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) • Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) ' Appendix B contains responses from these and other agencies or groups to ' the Notices of Preparation (NOP) on this project dated August 12, 1982 and June 23, 1983. 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Three final grading plans were provided by the GSA Waste Management Pro- gram. Two of the plans include the landfill area only and the third plan ' includes both the landfill as well as contiguous borrow sites. These al- ternatives are described in detail in Section 2.5 and are summarized below: ' Remaining Daily and Capacity Anticipated Final Cover Soil Area Covered (million Closure to Requirement (mil- By Landfill Alternative cubic yards) 1 Solid Waste lion cubic yards) (acres) One 7.12 January 1987 3.9 - 5.0 313 '287 Two 8.4 June 1986 3.6 - 4.6 Three 14.8 October 1988 5.3 - 7.1 304 ' 1 As of November, 1982. 2 Not including remedial filling of previously completed areas. 1 comity or Newport beacn 1.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following list of impacts and mitigation measures is summarized from Sections 3.0 and 4.0 which follow. A matrix table comparing the impacts of the three alternatives is presented at the end of Section 5.0. Impacts Mitigation Measures , Landform/Topography Alternative one continues the current filling program and ultimately creates broad, relatively level final contours for the landfill which are not compatible with surrounding iandforms, pro- ductive ultimate land use or planned roadway alignments through the area. Alternatives Two and Three substantially alter the current filling program to create a ridge- like final form for the landfill which is compa- tible with surrounding landforms, ultimate uses and planned circulation system improvements. Alternative Three also involves the additional filling (clean soil) of the north end of the canyon to create a new front slope for the landfill area. Ail three alternatives Will require extensive grading of the proposed borrow area to obtain operational and final cover soils. The major impact of this grading will be the lowering of existing ridgelines and plateaus. Landform im- pacts 'ill be greater for Alternative Three as this plan has the largest cover soil require- ments. Final landfill and borrow area grad- ing plans showing detailed earthwork design specifications will be pre- pared for the selected alternative. These plans will be reviewed and ap- li- cablea thee and ed by tcities of Irvinhe County and, as e Beach. All grading activates Will adhere to applicable County and City regulations. Final borrow area grading plans will incorporate sensitive slope design treatments, including contouring, rounding and revegetation, to the maximum extent feasible. Geology/Soils The site will be subject to groundshaking in re- sponse to local and regional earthquake activi- ty. Potential seismically induced hazards such as failure of artificial fill slopes are consi- dered remote. Grading within the borrow site could induce slope failures if cuts are overly steep. Sufficient volumes of soil are available within the proposed borrow area to meet the total land- fill cover needs for all three alternatives. In certain areas, deeper bedrock cuts may require limited blasting. The quality of the excavated soils should be suitable for use for both daily and 'final cover. Vibration effects created by grading activity are not expected to be significant. In support of final borrow and land- fill grading plan design, comprehen- sive geologic and soils engineering reports will be submitted for.review and approval by the Director, EMA/ Regulation. Specific slope design measures to maintain proper stability and mini- mize failure hazards have been re- commended by the geotechnical con- sultant for incorporation into the design of final landfill and borrow grading plans. Soil erosion will be controlled by revegetation practices and drainage improvements within the landfill and borrow area. The soils obtained from the borrow area for final cover will be further tested and placed on the landfili in accordance with State closure re- quirements. [1 r LJ I L City of Newport rseecn I 1 J I 1 1 i i 1 1 1 U 1 C 1 1 1 Impacts Hydrology No significant increase in surface runoff vol- umes will result from any of the alternatives. Alternative One does not provide adequate long term protection from a 100-year flood. Surface water quality downstream from the land- fill (i.e., Bonita Canyon Wash, San Diego Creek, Upper Newport Bay) may be adversely affected by suspended sediment from grading operations and leachate from waste fill. Water supplies in the San Joaquin Reservoir are not anticipated to be adversely affected by bird droppings or infiltration of groundwater. Ex- isting drainage protection devices should mini- mize sedimentation from grading activities. Groundwater quality may be adversely affected by leachate from the landfill. Co -disposal of dewatered sewage sludge under currently permit- ted standards will not contribute to leachate formation. Mitigation Measures Landfill operation should be con- ducted in accordance with relevant and feasible Best Management Prac- tices (BMps) contained in the 208 Water Quality Plan and the Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Com- prehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan. Long term drainage improvements will be implemented to minimize offsite sedimentation. Revegetation of graded areas will be planned to augment structural drain- age improvements. Birds will be kept away from the re- servoir through the use of mono - filament lines which disrupt landing and flight patterns. Careful water balance management of the landfill will control leachate production. Ground and surface water downstream of the landfill will be periodi- cally monitored for indications of leachate. Adequate slopes for surface runoff on the landfill will be provided. Final cover soil will be available from the proposed borrow area. De- tailed cover design will be evalu- ated prior to landfill closure. All State and Regional WQCB stand- ards and regulations with respect to surface and groundwater quality and landfill cover requirements will be met. Biological Resources All three grading plan alternatives will result in continued disturbance of biological resources onsite and in adjacent areas. Additional im- pacts will be associated with grading of the borrow area and landfilling under Alternative Three which covers a larger area. Impacts include removal of vegetation and relat- ed loss of faunal habitat, including coastal sage scrub, grassland and lesser amounts of chapparal. No rare or endangered species will be affected. Natural open space areas will be re- tained where feasible. Oak and ri- parian areas which are retained will be protected from disturbance. Re - vegetation will be accomplished on finished graded areas and considera- tion will be given to use of plant materials which are native to the area. 1 I City of Newport Beach Impacts Mitigation Measures ' Cultural/Scientifi'c Resources Any of the landfill grading plan alternatives All standard cultural/scientific re - could disturb up to six recorded archaeological source management procedures out - sites. No known paleontological sites, will be lined in County Policy BR-77-866 , impacted; however, the potential exists for un- shall be implemented as necessary covering unrecorded paleontological resources for mitigation of project impacts. during grading within the proposed borrow area. Land Use and Land Use Plans , Coyote Canyon would continue as a sanitary land- Continued implementation of State - fill site at least until mid-1986 (Alternative Two). Alternative the mandated control programs will mini- Three continues this use mize the impacts of landfill opera - ' longest (late 1988) and also requires additional tions on surrounding land uses. land area outside the current landfill lease boundaries resulting in an incremental loss of County and city General Plans will existing open space land. be amended to include proposed ' borrow area and additional landfill Alternative One does not provide a landfill sur- acreage (Alternative Three) under face suitable for productive ultimate use. the "LS - Landfill Site" overlay de - Alternatives Two and Three will be usable for signation to comply with new State recreational or open space use. legislation. A use permit for land- , fill and borrow grading operations All three alternatives require grading of the may be required. City review and proposed borrow area which will convert existing approval of borrow and landfill open space use to a source of cover soil through grading plans will be requested in ' operation and closure of the landfill. Alterna- accordance with applicable regula- tive Three provides a plan for grading the bor- tions. row area to a form which would accommodate ulti- mate residential uses. Surrounding land uses, including nearby Irvine and Newport Beach residential communities and UCI, will continue to experience operational im- pacts from the landfill (e.g., odor, truck traf- fic). Adjacent Newport Beach residential areas will experience additional impacts associated with proposed borrow grading activities includ- ing noise, dust and visual effect's. ' Expansion of the lease boundaries to include the proposed borrow area (all alternatives) and ad- ditional landfill acreage (Alternative Three) will 'be inconsistent with existing County and ' city General Plans. The landfill could create both short term and long term compatibility pro- blems with planned land Uses surrounding the site depending on the phasing of development in , these areas. Socioeconomics ' Extending the life of landfill operations could Continued implementation of State - contribute to existing or new problems relating mandated control programs will mini- ' to emotional distress or life-style disruptions mize the impacts of landfill opera - in nearby communities due to odors, noise or tions on surrounding land uses. visual impacts. I City of Newport Beach 1 1 II I LJ Fj Impacts Mitigation Measures Transportation/Circulation The 2,300 daily vehicle trips currently generat- ed by the landfill wil-1 continue over the life - span of the alternative selected. While these trips contribute to cumul'ative traffic growth and related air and noise pollutants in the area, continued use of Coyote Canyon as a land- fill will generate less vehicular miles travel- led and total air and noise impacts than an al- ternative site. Continued truck traffic will contribute to further pavement deterioration along Bonita Can- yon Road. Extending the existing southbound left turn pocket on MacArthur Boule- vard would prevent vehicles turning left from MacArthur to Bonita Canyon from backing up into through travel lanes. Consistency with future planned roadway improvements shall be ensur- ed by emplacement of inert fill materials beneath planned road alignments across the landfill site. Alternatives Two and Three accommodate future planned roadway alignments through or near the landfill site including Pelican Hill Road, the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and San Joaquin Hills Road. Alternative One is not consistent with these planned roadways, nor does it maintain the current Coyote Canyon access road alignment onsite. Air Resources Short-term landfill air quality impacts in- cluding fugitive dust, litter, odor and vehicle/ equipment emissions will continue over the life - span of the selected grading plan alternative. Long-term landfill odor generation could persist for many years following site closure. The odor will last longer into the future under Alterna- tive Three. None of the alternatives, however, can change the fact that the bulk of the odor - generating material has already been landfilled. Installation of the landfill gas re- covery system now being planned for Coyote Canyon, continued daily cover practices and the proposed six feet of final soil cover for the landfill will control and reduce odor im- pacts. Continued use of surface watering within the landfill and expansion of this program to include the proposed borrow area will reduce fugitive dust impacts. Routine cleaning of litter from Bonita Canyon Road and .Coyote Canyon Road should be con- tinued with special control measures recommended within the landfill dur- ing windy days. Acoustic Environment Grading of the borrow area will increase ambient Borrow grading operations not con - noise levels in adjacent Newport Beach residen- fined to Monday through Saturday tial communities. Operations occurring at or between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and near the edge of the borrow area limits would . 8:00 p.m. will be subject to the generate noise in excess of County noise County Noise Ordinance. ordinance standards for residential areas. The noise from landfill traffic will continue ' over the life -span of operations and contribute to cumulative noise levels along roadways through the area. Additional noise controls which can be implemented to reduce adverse ex- posures to surrounding residences include upgraded mufflers on equip- ment; reducing equipment numbers and sizes; maintaining a berm in front of the active borrow face for as long as possible, use of tempo- rary plywood barriers, and/or imposing specific noise performance conditions including moving grading operation away from residential areas during noise sensitive periods of the day (i.e., 5:30 pm to 1:00 am, and weekends). 1 City of Newport beacr I Impacts Mitigation Measures ' Public Services and Utilities Extending the life of the landfill will not sig- nificintly affect the abilities of local agen- Current fire prevention/suppression , cies to continue adequate levels of service. to be provided. No other mitigation Extending operations will result in the contin- measures are proposed: ued use of approximately 25,000 gallons of ' water per day. ' Energy Conservation Fossil fuels will continue to be consumed by No mitigation measures are proposed. waste hauling and equipment operation activities , over the life -span of the landfill and during site closure. Public Health/Safety ' Potential public health/safety problems or risks Potential public health and safety associated with vectors, odors, gaseous emis- risks will be controlled through sions, leachate accidental spills and fires/ex- continued compliance with, State ' plosions will continue at present levels at operational/maintenance standards least until site closure. Vectors, accidental and inspection requirements. In - spills or explosions have not been a problem at stallation of a landfill gas recov- Coyote Canyon. After closure, long-term odors ery system as planned will reduce ' and gaseous emissions would continue. long-term odor and gaseous emission impacts. Aesthetics/Views ' Grading of the proposed borrow area and final Final grading plans for the borrow contouring of the landfill will alter existing area should incorporate sensitive viewsheds from adjoining communities. For all earthworking design treatments ' three alternatives, grading of portions of the (e.g., slope contouring, rounding) borrow area will be visible from certain vant, and appropriate reVegetation pro - age points within nearby Newport Beach residen- grams to minimize the visual impacts tial areas (Spyglass Hill, Harbor Ridge) and of barren, newly graded areas. ' the Village of Turtle Rock in Irvine. Lowering the intervening ridgelines within the borrow A phasing plan should be developed area could also expose the adjoining landfill to minimize the extent or duration to homes Within Spyglass Hill and Harbor Ridge. of potentially adverse viewshed ex- Visual impacts will be most significant under posures. The key objective of this ' Alternative Three as is requires the most exten- plan should be to preserve key sive grading within the borrow area. ridgelines until final closure grad- ing and planting of the landfill Any of the grading plan alternatives will ulti- site. ' mately improve the existing visual and aesthetic appearance of the landfill site. The final con- tours created by Alternatives Two and Three pro- vide greater visual compatibility with surround- ing natural landforms. City of Newport Beach 1 1.5 LIST OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines provides for incorporation of existing documents "as part of the text of the EIR". Several key documents regard- ing or containing information on Coyote Canyon are hereby incorporated as ' referenced and summarized below:1 ' 1. Solid Waste Management System for the County of Orange, Volumes i and 2, Engineering Science, June 1982. ' This report was prepared for the County of Orange for the purpose of aiding in the implementation of the Orange County Waste Management ' Program. The existing landfill and transfer station operations were discussed at length, and an extensive analysis of growth trends and ' future solid waste facility needs and alternatives was presented. ' 2. Landfill Expansion Development, Coyote Canyon, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, December, 1981. ' The possible expansion of the Coyote Canyon landfill and the evaluation of alternative borrow sites was the subject of this document. RBF was retained by The Irvine Company to produce a coordinated program for the ' completion and phasing of the sanitary landfill and the development of the surrounding area. Potential borrow and landfill expansion sites ' were identified and grading plans were prepared for selected alterna- tive sites. 3. Conceptual Design Report, Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill, EMCON Asso- ciates, April, 1981. In this report, prepared for The Irvine Company, EMCON analyzed the characteristics of the landfill site and prepared a conceptual grading plan for the eventual closure of Coyote Canyon. 7 ' 1 All documents incorporated by reference are available for review by contacting Robert Rusby at the Orange County EMA, Environmental Analy- sis Division, 12 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048, phone ' no. (714) 834-2070. 1 uty of Newport Beach 4. Bee and Round Canyons Landfill Disposal Station Environmental Impact , Report, Lockman and Associates/PRC Toups, March 1979. This report was prepared for the County of Orange in order to identify ' and evaluate potential alternative landfill sites within the County and to assess the impacts of a sanitary landfill at the Bee/Round , Canyon site. F U i City of Newport Beach 1 H H 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING The Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill is located at the northwestern edge of the San Joaquin Hills in central coastal Orange County, California (see Exhibit 1). Bounded on the north and east by the City of Irvine and on the west by the City of Newport Beach, the 653-acre landfill lease area sits largely in unincorporated territory (see Exhibit 2). Approximately 60 acres along the northeastern edge of the lease are within the incorporated limits of the City of Irvine. The entire site is leased by the county from The Irvine Company. ' Regional access to the site is provided by the San Diego (405) and Corona del Mar (73) Freeways or Pacific Coast Highway via MacArthur Boulevard. ' Local access from MacArthur Boulevard is available by taking Bonita Canyon Road to the Coyote Canyon access road. ' The landfill site occupies a broad canyon which descends in a northerly direction from the upper elevations of the San Joaquin Hills. Two small ' tributary canyons converge near the center of the large main canyon area. Ridgelines parallel the main canyon to the east and west. The mouth of Coyote Canyon emerges at its juncture with Bonita Canyon which continues north to San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. Approximately 200 vertical ' feet of the main canyon area has been filled with municipal solid wastes. A terraced front slope spans the mouth of the canyon near its junction with Bonita Canyon. Immediately surrounding the landfill is undeveloped land owned by the Irvine Company (see Exhibit 2). The San Joaquin Reservoir and Harbor View Hills/Spyglass residential areas are located to the west of the site. The ' Turtle Rock residential area is located approximately 1 mile east of the site and the University of California, Irvine campus core (existing ' academic complex) is located approximately 1.5 miles to the north. Numerous planned or committed projects have been proposed on or near the ' site. Major road projects include the San Joaquin Hills Transportation 1 UlLy ui 1vU%&P01 L DUac;11 I n U los angeles county ' Regional Location COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE y bi ivewport Bead EXHIBIT 1 ' .m_ �.r_......,.-, e,....-� ?'."t_.'+r-..c;+_-;F.t':"`�`- _ ,:..k`i - ,- _,_r <.s, :«���•-'. - r_- - � s�-...�-a,m.��. � `_- ri•'.- "- �•_:. %: .za, _.. ; - i s . I Site Vicinity =,,• - __ `,4.1; CITY OF -� - E} (} A •SSA _, , 1 - _ _ - �V' -- 3 � _ Legend SITE BOUNDARIES (LEASE AREA) =: ' 'Turtle CITY/COUNTY BOUNDARIES �j� . ^ 'y. _ - -- {'i .>. ti;.: y-•i.-I :]'- „+ �- .1 ;, 'rl itIt �^ r' 1��2>- - \' _ _�1-"•_muwwaAF J'� _ -_ _ - +�l. ..chi e 4�F _ � _ _ _ f rli� _ _ _..e... _ to _ In-:s.y •,.'l' -'Ja:�< ',F':,, ",�n?-.. `.` fix` ,'_e' �T; a. - r "'? ,_ '' - �• `+..,1 f✓ r'G .4ri , . • �i'kx".. '�j 4�i'� :.`.)a� . � -� -(� • Yzs � Q-w. :-�,' _ . ('--!'•' -Tr .>,iy.: t•->i a --_ _ _ •�,. 'it4 - ��- ,mot` Mb, :'F �•T�; Yr�i. .w••,>q' - .iJ �� !' �S_]°'t_y4 � t� +{,, .'��'i�i� ir< __ ra �g�'i-'1v�'�l =i. -J'� _ � -, - ;t; Ip,:... "i: �t'ta� �tJ�:�,,rva _ _ •'ii. , "t - �, '+: r - i, } „�Ub,'i.' _ _y� If' __.. � 1xJT4 •� f((�✓>! . - t4 .. i1"��j - ^ k�. , - i • -, • � - h7 � � •''{< . � � _ 14 � � - � � ' r07 UPI a�.i t �' > .�A.; _ `.4.F•' 1 -_ _O, r( _�., ?,"_, a6e•ly!'^ :rf ,,:.�' .[ r Q.� F./ .fit i'. �t �Q,' -, _ _ - _ __ _,.. "_•. ^_,--ate '- - - - _ j`!° it ' ;_ b._t !�'F' �dt}<' - 'rb-`� _� � - - - � � ''�'",, q•:>,;'? �'r:."'r �;,''ti� r,, - \�. ,!: .._ .zr -- - 'I r. ft q +}� rF. oF�±-I ,y 1 _>t, " _ -"?!• p/'- .e14 ;i'` 'l(r -",, \ 1 :V•'gnal.� Upper, ,,> S><TE 4'� Peak f Newport Bay. -�,,�, f ' ` .,:w-ems < " �_•'" x. � ;(t " � r' .��"' �/�' f �I it ' }. r. _•_ 't. -� r'a e. - .Q _.,��5'-�+`�-ter - - ;r'-`%ir t•, +!y_P-,�," t_ Joa( VQ `_ - _ 'r •� (!I - 1• Ford eservelr` - '~ ''Aerospace . , r Y _ o Harbor 'Vie�nr::Hills/=.n J' a FOP' S, ` • r _ Big' Canyon} COYOTE CANYON Q� SANITARY LANDFILL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH"- COUNTY OF ORANGE COUNTY OF ORANGE .� ,Or � ' N o 115o 2soo 3450 fum ,New 'rt - der' � •. _ - � Beek �� _ o e ortgo EXHIBIT 2 14 ' Corridor, Pelican Hills Road and an extension of San Joaquin Hills Road. UCI is developing long-term plans for its inclusion area which lies between ' the campus core and the site. The remainder.of the vacant land around the site will ultimately be utilized for residential development or open space/ recreational purposes. Additional detail on surrounding land use is pro- vided in Sections 3.6 and 4.6. ' 2.2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW ' Administrative/Regulatory Responsibilities ' The Orange County Board of Supervisors is responsible for establishing county solid waste management policy, enforcing county solid waste regula- tions, and administering and implementing the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP). The city councils of the 26 cities within Orange ' County are responsible for establishing city solid waste management policy and enacting ordinances for collection, storage and disposal of solid waste within their jurisdictions. The operational responsibilities of the landfills and transfer stations ' have been delegated to General Services Agency (GSA) by the Board of Super- visors. The General Services Agency also administers the county's refuse ' collection, litter control, transfer, and disposal programs in the unincor- porated areas. GSA actively manages all landfills and transfer stations. ' Over the next several years, other operators may assume management of these facilities including Coyote Canyon. ' The Orange County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency, a division of the•County Administrative Office, is responsible for enforcing State Minimum Standards ' in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county. The County's Waste Management Program and Health Services Agency, and incor- porated cities enforce local solid waste ordinances. In addition, the Orange County Waste Management Advisory Commission meets periodically to discuss current solid waste issues, including their charge to update the COSWMP. ' Prior to October 1982, landfill and transfer station management was funded by property tax revenues from the Orange County General Fund. In July 1982 1 Uity or NgWport beacr u the Board of Supervisors established a schedule of gate fees for all land- ' fills and transfer stations ($4.90 and $8.50 per ton respectively). These fees plus fees for placing of sewage sludge,in the landfills were imple- mented in October 1982 and are to be used for a variety of needs including site operations, future site acquisition, expansion of existing sites, closure costs, resource recovery siting, landscaping, litter and traffic ' control, and road maintenance. In addition to the gate fees, General fund t revenues continued to be used to pay for system operations during the first year. In July 1983, the Board of Supervisors approved a fee increase to $6.00 per ton at landfills and $13.25 per ton at transfer stations. , The State Waste Management Board was created by the State of California in ' 1972. This Board provides direction and funding to the counties pursuant to the implementation of the Z'berg-Kapiloff Solid Waste Control Act of ' 1976. The Act requires the counties to 1) provide management plans that meet described minimum requirements, and 2) update the management plan every three years. Another role of the state is to provide interactive ' regulatory functions through the State and Regional Air and Water Quality Boards and the State Department of Health Services.1 Thi-s law also esta- blished the local solid waste enforcement agencies. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Broad (RWQCB), under the auspices of the State Water ' Resources Control Board, regulates landfill operation and closure impacts on ground and surface water quality. ' The role and involvement of the federal government in solid waste manage- ment is essentially limited to enforcement oversight of federal laws which ' are implemented by the states. These laws include the Resource Conserva- tion and Recovery Act of 1976, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the various provisions regarding hazardous wastes and other regulatory statutes.2 ' Systemwide Components/Service Areas ' The three refuse transfer stations and four Class II-2 sanitary landfills ' currently in operation handle virtually all municipal waste generated in 1 Solid Waste Management System for the County of Orange, Engineering ' Science, June, 1982. 2 Ibid. uny or rq&wport t5eam 1 ' the county. These facilities are located throughout the county and provide service to all residents and businesses (see Exhibit 3). The following ' description of transfer station and landfill operations is based on infor- mation in the Solid Waste Management System for the County of Orange, 1982 and updated as appropriate. A complete description of the Coyote Canyon ' Landfill is presented in'Section 2.3 of this report. ' Transfer Stations ' Transfer Station I is located in the City of Stanton, has been in operation since 1960, and accepts only Group 2 solid wastes (commercial and residen- tial). The capacity of this station is 2,000 tons per day (TPD), but, due to budget constraints, the station is limited to 44 transfer loads per day (900 to 1,000 TPD). Currently, there are no salvage operations conducted at Transfer Station I, and waste from this transfer station is transported ' to the Coyote Canyon Landfill for final disposal. Transfer Station II is located in Huntington Beach and has been in opera- tion since 1963. The maximum quota imposed on all residential and commer- cial haulers is 28 transfer loads per day (600 to 700 TPD). The operation- al characteristics of Transfer Station I1 are similar to those at Transfer Station I. This station is anticipated to close in early 1984. It will be ' replaced by a privately operated station located in close proximity and waste will continue to be transferred to Coyote Canyon for final disposal. 1 Transfer Station III is located in the City of Anaheim and has been opera- tional since 1965. The majority of solid waste from this station is trans- ferred to the Olinda landfill with a small percentage transferred to Coyote Canyon. The capacity of this transfer station is limited to 44 transfer loads per day (capacity 900 to 1,000 TPD). Again, the operational charac- teristics of this station are similar to those of Transfer Stations I and II. Station III is also expected to close in early 1984 and will be replaced with a private operation. City of Newport Beach I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P _! I 7 1 0 1 los angeles county Anaheim TRANSFER STATION I Santa-4-. Ana 15 Newport Beach pacific ocean OLINDA TION III Orange i san bernardino county SANTIAGO 0�890 `♦ Irvine COYOTE rA riverside county National �'• I i�lon San Clemente City of Newp PRIMA • DESHECHA mo •• san diego county Beach Existing Orange County Solid Waste Management System Legend • I LANDFILL �--� TRANSFER STATION WASTE TRANSFERRED TO LANDFILLS ♦♦ SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE EXHIBIT 3 ' Landfills Olinda Sanitary Landfill The Olinda Sanitary Landfill is a Class II-2 site located in the Chino Hills immediately south of the Los Angeles County line (see page 19 for a ' description of the Class II-2 landfill classification). The landfill has served the communities of northern Orange County since 1960. In 1981 operations were transitioned into the Alpha Canyon expansion area of the ' site. ' The Olinda landfill facility accepts mixed residential, commercial and in- dustrial refuse of the Group 2 and Group 3 type from commercial haulers and ' the public.1 No sludge, liquid or hazardous wastes are accepted and solid waste disposal activities are conducted in accordance with state minimum ' standards. Salvage operations are conducted by a contractor who pays a flat fee for the privilege of salvaging valuable materials from the waste stream. The total estimated disposal capacity remaining at the Olinda site is 48 million cubic yards. When the projected increases in waste generation are taken into account, the remaining life at the landfill is estimated to be ' approximately ten years. A replacement site for Olinda Landfill has not been identified to date. ' Santiago Canyon Sanitary Landfill ' Santiago Canyon Sanitary Landfill is a Class II-2 site located four miles east of the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road. The landfill has served the communities of East-Central Orange County since January 1968. 1 Group 2 wastes consist of or contain chemically or biologically decom- posable material including municipal or industrial garbage, rubbish, ' construction and demolition material, street refuse, dead animals, abandoned vehicles, sewage and water treatment residue, household ashes, infectious materials (only sanitized non-infectious materials are accepted at Coyote Canyon), pyrophoric materials, old tires, and agricultural waste. Group 3 wastes are non -water soluble, non -decomposable inert solids in- cluding construction emolition and industrial wastes. tJ 15 The Santiago Canyon disposal site is owned by The Irvine Company and is ' leased to the county. The county is presently exercising a month to month holdover privilege while negotiations are in progress to extend the lease. ' The site accepts mixed residential, commercial and industrial refuse of the ' Group 2 or Group 3 type from commercial haulers or the public. Solid waste disposal activities are conducted in accordance with state minimum stan- dards and salvage operations are conducted by a contractor in an arrange- ment similar to that described above for Olinda Landfill. The Santiago Canyon site occupies 160 acres with an estimated total dis- posal volume of 13,360,000 cubic yards. Estimates developed in 1982 indi- cated that 464,880 tons of solid waste (1,490 TPD, six days a week) would be received in 1982 which would result in a remaining capacity of approxi,- ' mately seven million cubic yards. Based on 1982 estimates of solid waste generation, the life of the Santiago Sanitary Landfill site is expected to be seven years. A replacement site for Santiago Landfill has not been ' Identified to date. Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill , The Prima Deshecha Landfill is a Class II-2 site located on county -owned land approximately three miles east of the intersection of the San Diego ' Freeway and the Ortega Highway. The landfill has served the communities of southern Orange County since its opening in 1916. Solid waste disposal activities are conducted in accordance with State Minimum Standards. The site accepts mixed residential, commercial, and industrial refuse of the Group 2 and Group 3 type. The total volume of the site is estimated at 80,5009000 cubic yards. When projected increases in waste generation are accounted for, the life of this landfill is estimated to be over forty years. Population/Development Growth Trends 1 Over the past twenty years, Orange County has experienced rapid growth. ' This trend is expected to continue through the year 2000 with a projected 16 port tseacn ' population increase of 39% expected between 1980 and 2000. Population and housing projections for the county are prepared by the Orange County Fore- I I cast and Analysis Center and were used for the development of solid waste projections in the Solid Waste Management System report. Analysis of growth trends is performed on the Community Analysis Area (CAA) level. This level of analysis was used to develop projections for solid waste facility service areas within the county. Projections for growth indicate that areas within the western and southern portions of the county will experience rapid growth while areas in the northern portion of the county will experience more moderate growth. Population projections used to forecast solid waste generation were based on 1982, 1992, and 2002 straight line extrapolation of county information. The population projections used in determining solid waste streams are pre- sented in the following table: Table 1 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONSI Year Population 1980 1,932,7092 1982 2,024,4003 ' 1990 2,357,100 1992 2,425,5003 ' 2000 2,676,900 2002 2,736,4003 ' A similar increase in the number of dwelling units and employment oppor- tunities is anticipated for this time period. However, these projections were not considered since the per -capita generation rate used in this ' analysis takes commercial and industrial waste generation factors into consideration. ' 1 Solid Waste Management System for the County of Orange, prepared by Engineering Science, 1982. These projections are consistent with the OCP-III population projections developed by the County Administrative ' Office in April, 1982. 2 1980 US Census. 3 Straight line extrapolation. ' _11y C 17 �lnori beacr Solid Waste Generation and Distribution ' Solid waste generation projections for the County are based on a per -capita ' generation rate of 8.5 pounds/capita/day for 1982.1 An increase of 1.5% per year to the generation rate was assumed for projections through 2002 to account for a proportional increase in the population of CAA's. These rates were multiplied by the population projections for CAA's in order to ' determine the solid waste forecasts for solid waste facility service areas. It should be noted that while the projections were developed based on ser- vice area boundaries, the waste generated within the service area of trans- fer stations is ultimately conveyed to landfills. The waste collected by ' Stations I and II and a portion of the waste from Station III is currently transferred to the Coyote Canyon Landfill. , The solid waste generated within the service areas of the various facili- ties is presented below: Table 2 ORANGE COUNTY ' SOLID WASTE GENERATION2 (Tons Per Day) , % Increase between Service Area 1982 1992 2002 1980-2002 Transf^ -tation I 1,875 TPD 2,350 2,890 + 54% Transfer Station II3 1,845 TPD 2,280 20920 + 58% Transfer Station III3 1,950 TPD 29620 39100 + 59% Olinda 950 TPD 1,320 1,600 + 68% ' Santiago 500 TPD 970 1,820 + 264% Coyote 960 TPD 19550 2,150 + 124% Prima Deshecha 520 TPD 910 1,520 + 192% ' 8,600 TPD 12,000 TPD 16,000 TPD 86% 1 Solid Waste Management System for the County of Orange, Engineering' Science, 1982. The Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan (12/75) estimated daily per capita municipal waste generation at 9.4 lbs. in ' 1974. Including industrial, agricultural and sewage sludge wastes, the total per capita estimate was 12.0 lbs./day. 2 Ibid. , 3 Stations II and III will be closed in early 1984. The projected waste stream within their service areas will.be transferred to landfills from transfer stations owned and operated by private operators. This should ' not affect the projected volumes of waste generated. 18 UILy U1 i-AUWPUFL DUdUl 1 I I t I F u LJ t I 1 As seen in Table 2, total solid waste generation for Orange County is expected to increase 86% between 1982 and 2002. The rate of increase is expected to be substantial for all areas of the county, particularly those within the western and southern portions. The northern part of the county will exhibit moderate growth in solid waste generation during this period. Coyote Canyon will continue to provide service to this area until it is closed. The County of Orange is involved in negotiations with The Irvine Company and the City of Irvine regarding acquisition and start-up of the proposed Bee Canyon Sanitary Landfill. The outcome of these negotiations may have some influence on the continued operation and eventual closure of Coyote Canyon. 2.3 EXISTING COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL OPERATIONS The Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill was established as an operating solid waste disposal facility in 1963. The site encompasses 653 acres of land which is owned by the Irvine Company and leased for landfill use to the County of Orange. Since 1963, the lease agreement has been amended twice in response to the changing needs and plans for extending the use and life expectancy of the Coyote Canyon operations. At the present time, a month to month hold over of the lease agreement is in effect pending a decision on one of the three grading plan alternatives as the ultimate plan for continued use and final closure of the landfill. The Coyote Canyon landfill operation functions as a key component of Orange County's existing solid waste management system. It serves the waste dis- posal needs of the highly urbanized central and south-central county areas (see Exhibit 3) and approximately one-half the total county -wide popula- tion. Included within the areas served by Coyote Canyon are a large number of cities and communities which generate a solid waste stream from a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational and some agricultural uses. Coyote Canyon is classified as a Class II-2 sanitary landfill disposal site. As established by the State Water Resources Control Board, this classification defines the types of wastes which can be accepted at the uty oT IV 19 �lnort beacr L landfill as a function of its relationship to groundwater conditions in the ' area. Specifically, Class II-2 disposal, sites are defined as those which may have vertical or lateral hydraulic continuity with useable groundwater, ' but have features such as soil type, depth to groundwater, artificial bar- riers or other influencing factors which assure the protection of ground- ' water quality beneath or adjacent to the site (see Section 2.6). As a Class II-2 disposal site, Coyote Canyon accepts most types of wastes ' which fall into two general categories: Group 2 and Group 3. Group 2 wastes consist of or contain decomposable materials and include garbage and ' rubbish from urban activities as well as non -chemical agricultural/land- scape wastes. Group 2 wastes also include non -hazardous wastewater treat- ' ment plant sludge which is currently being transported to Coyote Canyon by the Orange County Sanitation District for disposal. Group 3 wastes are ' defined to include non -decomposable, inert solids such as construction, demolition and fill materials. Liquids and hazardous wastes such as indus- trial brines, discarded chemicals and other highly toxic substances (Group 1 wastes) are specifically prohibited from disposal at Coyote Canyon or any other County landfill or transfer station. ' Solid waste disposal activities at Coyote Canyon are conducted in accord- ance with State Minimum Standards for Sanitary Landfill Operations. The area method of disposal is currently utilized which accomplishes filling of the site through a series of constructed lifts in vertical increments (or cells) with an average height of 20 feet. From the unloading areas, the refuse is spread by bulldozers, pushed up the working face and then ' compacted. At the end of the day, the working face is covered with a minimum six-inch layer of soil in accordance with State Minimum Standards. ' Specialized handling provisions are employed at the site for the disposal ' of dewatered sewage sludge (minimum 20% solids content) from the Orange County Sanitation District. The sludge is disposed directly at the working face at a specified ratio of ten cubic feet of refuse to one cubic foot of , sludge (Santa Ana RWQCB, Order No. 82-299). Other specialized handling techniques are directed towards the separation of inert fill and demolition ' debris (i.e., concrete) for disposal along the future planned alignment of Pelican Hill Road through the eastern portions of the site. Resource re- ' covery is limited to small-scale salvage of metals, tires, mattresses and other marketable"'tems. or ivewport t5eacri , 11 u ' The active working face within the landfill continually changes location as each layer is completed. Filling in general has been from south to north ' and refuse depths within the site range from approximately 25 feet along the perimeters to in excess of 200 feet in the central or main canyon area. ' To date, the southerly areas have been essentially filled to completion though remedial filling has become necessary to improve surface drainage conditions. Completion of the current grading plan (Alternative One) will primarily focus on filling the remaining capacity within the northern portions of the site. [1, LJ U H C' Soil for daily and intermediate cover is presently obtained from borrow source areas located within the landfill lease boundaries. The soils are excavated from the adjoining canyon walls and transported to the active working face for use at a refuse to cover volume ratio ranging from 5:1 to 10:1. Fill for daily, cover is also segregated, where feasible, from in- coming loads. Cover material from onsite sources is presently in short supply. Insufficient volumes of suitable soil are available to complete and close landfill operations under the current grading plan. A work crew of 38 persons is employed at Coyote Canyon along with an equip- ment fleet consisting of bulldozers (8), landfill compactors (3), scrapers (4), motor graders (2) and one water truck. The landfill working face operations typically employ five bulldozers, and one or two landfil'1 com- pactors. Cover soil excavation and placement activities involve the use of one bulldozer and three scrapers. A variety of environmental and operational controls are employed at Coyote Canyon in conformance with State Minimum Standards. These controls are intended to promote operation of the landfill in a satisfactory manner and minimize its impact on the surrounding natural and urban environments. The following is a brief description of the major control programs which are presently employed at the Coyote Canyon site (see Section 2.6 for addition- al discussion of State Minimum Standards and other operational/maintenance requirements). • Fire: Fire breaks of varying widths have been constructed along the landfill perimeter. All operations vehicles are equipped with fi-re I Uity vi iNewpurt Beaus I extinguishers and shovels, and personnel receive fire control training. 1 Water for operational purposes is also available for fire -fighting needs. 1 • Vectors: The rapid spreading and compacting of refuse along with daily 1 cover reduces rodent infestation opportunities and provides control of fly populations. 1 • Birds: As necessary,, gulls are controlled through the use of monofila- ment fishing line strung on poles across the active face of the ' landfill'. • Litter: Bonita Canyon Road from MacArthur Boulevard to Coyote Canyon ' Road and Coyote Canyon Road are cleaned of litter on a daily basis. ' • Odors: Rapid spreading/compaction of refuse and daily cover with soil ' is used to control odors emanating from the working face. Special-ized mixing techniques are used to control sewage sludge odors. Routine correction of fissures in the fill surface is also conducted to control , emissions of odorous landfill gases. Highly odorous wastes are not accepted at the landfill. 1 • Dust: Access roads, haul roads and the perimeter of the working face , are watered frequently during the day to control dust: • Landfill Gas: No landfill gas monitoring, control or recovery systems 1 are employed at the present time. A large scale methane gas recovery system is pl.anned by The Irvine Company. Genstar Gas Recovery Systems 1 is currently testing the landfill for methane to determine the quantity and quality of gas that can be recovered. ' • Leachate: A groundwater monitoring well was - installed in .Spr_Ug. 19$3 1 to test for the presence of leachate. Liquid entering the refuse fill is controlled by proper grading, daily and intermediate cover, preven- tion of liquid waste disposal, and diversion of surface runoff. 1 Drainage/Flood Protection: Existing drainage improvements include 1 lined and unlined drainage channels, terrace drains, downdrains and city or iNewport Deacri 1 ' culverts. Runoff from the landfill surface and surrounding areas is routed to the larger drainage channels along the eastern and western ' perimeters of the site. The existing system is designed to provide 100-year flood protection to the landfill. Erosion/Sedimentation: Reseeding and terracing of graded and fill slopes is utilized to control erosion. Onsite drainage channels con-' ' tain hydraulic features to promote desiltation of runoff and limit channel erosion. Clearing of accumulated sediment and debris is per- formed prior to the fall/winter seasons. ' Security: The site is protected by perimeter fencing, a locked entry gate and a caretaker. ' Public Safety: Commercial and public unloading areas are segregated ' to avoid conflicts and related safety hazards. Traffic directors prevent public access to the working face area of the landfill. ' Inspection: The site is inspected on a regular basis for compliance with state minimum standards and proper maintenance procedures by re- presentatives of the Solid Waste Enforcement Agency. Less frequent inspections are made by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, OSHA, ' Fire Department, Health Department, CWMB, EMA amd the AQMD. ' The Coyote Canyon landfill is open Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and closed on Sundays and major holidays. A user fee program has been in effect at the site since October 1982. Commercial and public haulers are now charged disposal fees according to a schedule which ranges from $2.00 for cars to $77.00 for the largest vehicles. ' 2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES As noted in the previous description, Coyote Canyon plays a crucial role in the existing county solid waste management system. It accepts municipal ' solid wastes generated by nearly one-half of Orange County. If Coyote Can- yon or a nearby alternate disposal location were not available, municipal ' wastes generated within its tributary area would have to be hauled to peri- City ui imt;wpurt t5eau pheral sites at significant economic and environmental costs. (See Section ' 5.0. Alternatives for more detailed discussion of these issues.), In its current condition the site could not be closed in an environment- ally sound manner. Insufficient suitable cover material exists within the ' present landfill lease boundary and proper drainage could not be assured for any extended period of time. Further, the contour of the site would ' render it unfit for alternate long-term use. GSA Waste Management Program has defined two main objectives for the pro- , posed project: 1) To continue to operate and possibly expand the landfill leading to an acceptable closure plan in a manner which minimizes impacts on adjacent ' communities; and 2) To close the landfill i'n an environmentally sound, maintainable manner , which is compatible with surrounding landforms. No definite plans for ultimate use of the site have been submitted to or approved by the 'County. City and County general plans identify the area ' for residential, recreational and open space use. 2.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ' Alternative One ' Alternative One (or 1977 Plan) is the grading plan which is currently ' approved by the County and the state for the Coyote Canyon sanitary land- fill operation within the current lease area. As of November 19829 the re- ' maining disposal capacity for Alternative One was approximately 7.1 million cubic yards. At present, refuse fill is being placed in previously com- pleted areas to correct depressions created by differential settlement of the landfill. This remedial filling is to insure proper drainage for the winter of 1983-84. The amount of corrective filling (approximately 3 mi'l- ' lion cubic yards) is in addition to the 7.1 million cubic yards originally estimated in 1982. Assuming an average annual fill rate of approximately ' vlty Uf 1'Nt:!:vVPv1 L IDUaCl i I n I H u F E C G 2.4 million cubic yards of refuse and operational cover, the lifespan of the landfill under this current plan with the corrective grading is 4.2 years with an anticipated closure to solid waste disposal in January 1987. The total volume of soil cover which will be required to complete the dis- posal operations and close the landfill under this plan is estimated to range from approximately 3.9 to 5.0 million cubic yards. Included in this volume is approximately 1.9 to 3.0 million cubic yards for operational pur- poses and 2.0 million cubic yards for final soil cover at a depth of six feet. When the Alternative One plan was prepared, it was assumed that the required cover materials would be retrieved from borrow sites located with- in the existing landfill lease boundaries. However, it was subsequently realized that sufficient suitable cover material would not be available within the site due to the presence of near surface bedrock and improper soil types.1 Plan completion would therefore require importation of cover soil from offsite sources. Cover soil for this grading plan, like the other alternatives, is planned to be derived from the proposed borrow site along the western side of the landfill lease boundaries. The borrow plans are presented in the discussion of Alternative Three which follows. The Alternative One grading plan design is illustrated on Exhibit 4. The area of landfill proposed in this plan encompasses a total of approximately 313 acres. The design of this plan creates an essentially uniform finished fill surface which rises gently to the south. Fill contours over most of the site range in height from 450 to 585 feet above mean sea level (msl) with slopes ranging from 0.5 to 5 percent. An exception to this slope design is at the northern end of the site where the front face fill slopes have been constructed at 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) or 33 percent. ' Ultimate Use The design of Alternative One does not attempt to create a final topograph- ic form which is compatible with, nor expressly suited for, an ultimate recreational use of the site (see earlier discussion on ultimate use in ' Section 2.4). ' 1 Landfill Expansion Development, Coyote Canyon,RBF, 12/81, p. 16. amity of Ne2wport Beach 0 *Amy Alternative 1 Legend soo SANITARY LANDFILL sm BORROW SITE NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHOWN FOR FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF LANDFILL ONLY. COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 soo 1200 1800 W W •• Y• EXHIBIT 4 ' Circulation Because it was prepared in the mid-1970's, this grading plan is not fully consistent with the latest conceptual road alignments through the site. ' The disposal of inert fill material for proper foundation stability is pro- grammed along the Pelican Hill Road alignment as it crosses the main ' portion of the landfill. The disposal of solid waste along the north- eastern margins of the landfill would conflict with alignment of both Pelican Hills Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. ' The limits of fill shown on Alternative One does not provide for continued ' use of the existing Coyote Canyon truck access road. This road would be covered to depths of almost 100 feet with no provision for alternative ' access onto the landfill as the grading plan reaches completion. ' Drainage Unimproved (earthen) drainage ditches carry tributary drainage along the sides of the landfill area to concrete lined channels down the steeper front face. The current plan does not include provisions for comprehensive ' long-term drainage control upon completion of disposal operations as re- quired by the State Waste Management Board for closure of landfills. ' Alternative Two The Alternative Two grading plan was prepared in 1981 by EMCON Associates. Under this alternative, the remaining disposal capacity as of November 1982 ' was 8.4 million cubic yards. At a projected average annual fil'1 rate of 2.4 million cubic yards of refuse and operational cover, the lifespan of ' this alternative is approximately 3.5 years (closure to solid waste dis- posal in June of 1986). ' Implementation of this alternative will require between 3.6 and 4.6 million ' cubic yards of cover material. This includes approximately 1.6 to 2.6 mil- lion cubic yards for daily operational cover and 2.0 million cubic yards for final soil cover at a depth of six feet. When this grading plan was ' prepared, it was assumed that the required cover materials would be im- 1 Uty of ivbwporE r5eacn J ported from sources outside the landfill boundaries. No borrow sites were ' identified at .that time. The cover soil for this grading plan, like the other alternatives, is planned to be obtained from the two proposed borrow ' sites along the western edge of the landfill lease boundary. See the fol- lowing discussion of borrow sites in the description of Alternative Three. , The Alternative Two grading plan is illustrated on Exhibit 5. The final, ' landfill contours are achieved primarily by raising the fill elevations through the center or main, canyon portions of the landfill area. The areal extent of fill for this alternative encompasses a total of approxi- mately 287 acres which includes, in addition to the main canyon area, previously filled portions of the east and south canyons. ' The principal design feature of this plan is the creation of an elongated ' ridge of mounded fill which rises in a southerly direction through the main canyon portions of the site. Fill contours within this area will range in ' height from 400 to 600 feet and slopes will be constructed to generally range between 3 and 12 percent. Exceptions to this slope design occur along the western and northern perimeters where slopes ranging from 5:1 to ' 3:1 (20 to 33 percent) will be created to match surrounding natural grades. Proposed filling of the east and south canyon areas will create contours ' ranging in height from 560-580 feet and 600-620 feet, respectively. Fill will be mounded and slopes constructed in a fashion similar to those ' proposed for the main canyon area. The Alternative Two grading plan design recognizes the potential for ulti- mate uses of the Coyote Canyon site upon completion of disposal operations including planned circulation improvements for the area, continued access ' for landfill vehiclar and the need to provide for adequate long-term drain- age control. ' Ultimate Use ' The grading plan design incorporates the creation of a final topographic form which could accommodate recreational use of the landfill area and ' residential development on adjacent ridge areas after landfill closure. City of Newport Beacri 1 1 Alternative 2 Legend 99 SANITARY LANDFILL BORROW SITE NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHOWN FOR FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF LANDFILL ONLY. COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 LL •• EXHIBIT 5 ' Circulation 1 1 The future Pelican Hill Road alignment across the site is consistent with areas of the plan designated for disposal of inert fill. The limits of fill and final grades at the northern end of the landfill site are compat- ible with the planned San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor alignment through the area. A third circulation consideration is the relationship of this grading plan alternative to the existing Coyote Canyon road access route. Unlike Alternative One, this plan limits the landfill boundaries to the eastern side of this roadway. Access would be maintained throughout the operational lifespan of the landfill and during the closure and final cover phases. ' Drainage IJ� t 1 t L Final slopes in the Alternative Two grading plan were designed to allow free surface drainage after estimated settlement has occurred. In addi- tion, this plan includes the construction of a number of permanent drainage improvements to provide for collection and conveyance of runoff from the upstream area. The proposed drainage control features, which are illus- trated on Exhibit 6, include a new ditch along the eastern perimeter of the main canyon landfill area and improvement of the existing natural drainage ditch west of Coyote Canyon Road and new ditches along the perimeters of the east and south canyon landfill areas. The 100 year storm design cri- teria is proposed for these drainage facilities, in accordance with state requirements (Santa Ana RWQCB, 1977). The need to construct an additional drainage facility to carry storm runoff along the eastern side of the Peli- can Hill Road alignment is indicated in the EMCON Report but not included within the design of the Alternative Two plans. An alternative approach would be to construct culverts under Pelican Hill Road to discharge into the main channel along the eastern portion of the landfill. Alternative Three The Alternative Three grading plan (RBF, 1981) increases the landfill dis- posal capacity at Coyote Canyon by approximately 7.7 million cubic yards over the Alternative One plan. With a total 14.8 million cubic yards of *jPwpart t5eacn Alternative 2 ;�I:I,,:-',:._ , •:; r ;;, = �� ^ �� -_ • '- _ - �- �, ., "��;��, (jam �: = Proposed Pro p Drainage Plan !�,: � :rrl i ..., r _ ..o � _: _ - _ I ^ � ., p t,NyON - _ . - • .._ .. - i - f) � ,t� '_„r_— 1 , �; al 1;+�`'.'` � ':,''fir `,. ' _:., - ti?%""' • '- •r' � `'' I _ __" _ � � \ e�A �Y �� r� !7 ��JI �C,.n , 1' r,Y��: \' �•�, '''l�... -"�.'\tip\: � � � `', `\ i..'.\-;j`:• ``\ ` . - . �O' ''- C �� 1,-: -�1'YU L.. t �`_51,�j1:"` :,•��\�: \`���'���' I� + 1' 1 ','``----"' i � r\ l ,' _- �6s5Po' = f�.Y�' _--�,, .11l, � `�A �^`� ".\,`'':fie `.. \`�' \�-_ �� S •' 'r -Wit-_', �(�-�L-�_'_4l',a��l � •�•Isi]''rA}} 1= ittt �'i%1rr/ i j � ' ,i•`;`�il� it ,`r \' ,-i--.s-'"?�.�. �=�. .1__1' •�-_,_�:�1 •,t\ •\ �` �_-- • ''�. - _ 4Mff$ OF PROPOSEV Of.(li .X+`'' ,�' 11 / I u '4 3� .•,�t� 1 •it: ,��{.}^ - - _{ 'h,, .SA_NSfARY WANOF L �' `.} :�_: p-3'r _ ___AAAy�+ \ t 't'.� Ir Y�} '•�� 1 ,1`r, - _�r`_'�' s'1,,:�.. .," -. 1-^ �•�r: - as , .s.i X -. _== �Iti;; f ,t ;• ` r tl: - „w:.` LiNM-DAAWA E'DflaCk_i,' � a,'_P�„,lJw; ,%l' ry�,;�" -- _�_`-.�\ �+P '.r}� (, `lL.`. i i� {l l +' (� _ ' � r � (' • _ . � - f ]y'•ba _. ! __ � -- �'S-•.�1., tom_' � �' �'. , }'^ ^T'_"'<'2r!'r_. i:'ait � ,' � f1r.: +(! t ;i pp _ ♦\ •.. \ r��( •• �'^ r•�r�`. -�.�.- - .`'i f[t7.'i �• !r` y`Z.,,?. ,�,. _-S' \P�i�l T.`'_` r_r .in1:F�,''-�..v. i �\ _ `- •��•i.- q:�.; ti: '• , P'4�i_ .i7 , {`�•1 jya; � `i%1\. ..e fir -i' -i/ r._ 7}, --•. _->,::',w,{ /'_ t t. r, - i.. _ 40a _ =1n. '� _ �. " 1 �,i 1 i� ^Pl,,ji i,-",r„•lw�i 't5: 1'fIlk \',l'li '_ I' ..Ii ,\ �� __ _ :,�. - r v'. _'{ ♦ii ,�.t _�y;��,;.�.,�._- , i ,. .. ,•o, ;'•''•'�"'1 / A �,lll \''t °' � Ir moo. _ 'l. l''! �:�. �%'/�." .`�"�'`c�a., rj z_"', ',,i Y, �� �> a'APPRoz MA-M AREA 7O Re `\ 1 t �•, I ;i• - _6`° / �_ :- _ �' e 1 1 '�D " - -i : j - '", •LOWE(i�FOR � ��i .,r:F3':r ,(BORROW`$- ]1(_-%•�'_%y" I, �Y IL7o a.--'t....' «..`�t• :r„��^T:«" �f..-,', 11:1' { __ 'I _ Ll DIT NED D _ j� ` f ` RAINAQE,D J: i �`Tt 1 _. � o���+._ tl / � �. � '� ;�\�`• � ^• / a �\r�l S f /"(: i' C�: "'I. �1,' {��i`_ 96ry... °°°���� yy-., \_.. (,-• "\' ll` (•- _ 5• 11., h: -- ! \� ♦pS -', t"� �`•`l �- 1 aT'>� �� "! •_6qY .C� m ,''�f 1 `I '' Yj .Y:` `-\ '• Y ,,: lr_r IL VS=� 1 1 1 `• /F LINED" DiiAI /oF _ NAC�E- •:II 1 •.'�r !�• - / ter, t `. �_.-'t--�:'' -- - � �./� �`�ri .. r �-�} .=/ .t^-. � \� _`,- _ _ �w no s li `t� r,:rJ=^t't�f..� _ � �r"I �,o ,- i• ' i � _ �•�.`•Y ! � i 'y .. `s•; ♦��•Y•�� �;t-. ;y', t -ea -'-B COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 F ul LL •• EXHIBIT 6 I ' remaining capacity as of November 1982, Coyote Canyon could continue to receive solid waste at an average rate of 2.4 million cubic yards/year ' through October 1988. The total cover material needs under this alternative are estimated to range from approximately 5.3 to 7.1 million cubic yards. This total volume includes approximately 2.8 to 4.6 million cubic yards for daily operational cover purposes and approximately 2.5 million cubic yards for the proposed six feet of final soil cover. The grading plan proposes to remove cover material from the proposed borrow sites along the western side of the land- fill. The Alternative Three grading plan is illustrated on Exhibit 7. The addi- tional capacity provided by this plan is accomplished primarily by raising the fill elevations through the main canyon area and extending the area of ' fill laterally. The area proposed for landfill will encompass approximate- ly 304 acres including the east and south canyon areas. Most of the addi- tional capacity is obtained with a north -south trending ridge of mounded ' fill through the main canyon portions of the landfill, similar to Alterna- tive Two. The final landfill contours will extend up to 600 feet mean sea ' level (msl) within the southern portions of the site. Slopes will general- ly range between 3 and 20 percent with the exception of the perimeters of ' the landfill where slopes as high as 3:1 (33 percent) will be created to achieve compatibility with surrounding grades. Proposed filling of the east and south canyon areas will be similar to Alternative Two. ' The Alternative Three plan also envisions covering the current front slope ' of the landfill at the base of the main canyon with additional refuse fill and approximately 1.6 million cubic yards of inert or clean fill to achieve ' improved drainage and topographic compatibility with the adjoining refuse fill slope and surrounding landforms. ' Borrow Sites The proposed borrow sites for landfill cover materials and clean fill are located along the western and southwestern edges of the current Coyote ' Canyon lease boundaries. Grading of these sites is proposed to retrieve koILy eI weWpon rseacn Alternative 3 Legend I s SANITARY LANDFILL yoaa BORROW SITE CLEAN FILL ,.zso NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHOWN FOR FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF LANDFILL ONLY. NOTE: COYOTE CANYON ROAD EXTENSION THROUGH BORROW AREA SHOWN FOR CONCEP— TUAL GRADING PURPOSES ONLY. THIS ROAD IS NOT PROPOSED BY ANY ADOPTED CITY OR COUNTY CIRCULATION PLANS: COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 Lu •• EXHIBIT 7 I 1 1 I 1 the anticipated operational and final soil cover for all three of the landfill grading plan alternatives. However, only the Alternative Three plan provides design details for the grading of these areas (see Exhibit 7). As this alternative provides for the largest increase in landfill disposal capacity and the largest cover and clean fill material needs, the proposed plan reflects the maximum amount of grading expected within the borrow areas. The design of the proposed borrow area grading plan attempts to achieve the following objectives: ' Obtain the anticipated volume of cover soil and clean fill material for operation and final closure of the landfill site; • Conduct grading in a manner which responds to the natural topography 1 and creates a final form with which is compatible with the finished landfill configuration and adjoining landforms; and 1 Create a final topographic form which preserves options for future residential development of the borrow sites. 1 1 H F L 1 I.I As mentioned earlier, the borrow site grading plan associated with Alterna- tive Three represents the maximum extent of grading within these areas. It can be expected that implementation of Alternatives One or Two, with reduc- ed cover material requirements, will require less grading and related topo- graphic modification. Ultimate Use The Alternative Three grading plan design envisions the creation of a final topographic form which is compatible with ultimate recreational use and of the landfill residential use of the adjacent ridge areas. 1 1 City of Newport Beach C Circulation 1 The future alignment of Pelican Hills Road is considered in this grading 1 plan. Inert fill is proposed where the alignment crosses the landfill. The limits of fill and final grades along the northeastern margins of the landfill have also been designed to achieve compatibility with the planned San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor alignment through this area. Coyote Canyon Road is maintained throughout the lifespan of disposal opera- 1 tions and extended to the south to intersect with the San Joaquin Hills Road after closure. The existing landfill access road may need to be re- 1 aligned if the segment of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor between MacArthur Boulevard and future Pelican Hill Road is constructed 1 prior to completion of landfill.. 1 Drainage The drainage control features proposed for Alternative Three include slope 1 design criteria and long-term drainage improvements. The proposed fill slopes have been designed to provide for a free post -settlement landfill 1 drainage surface. To convey surface runoff away from the landfill the plan proposes a lined drainage ditch along the southerly landfill limits ' in addition to a closed storm drain system within the rights -of -way of Coyote Canyon Road and the future Pelican Hills Road (see'Exhibit 8). The 1 storm drain system within Pelican Hills Road will also provide for the interception and conveyance of flows from the watershed east of this road- way. The proposed drainage improvements Will be designed to protect the 1 landfill from 100 year storm discharges. , 2.6 REQUIRED PERMITS AND OTHER DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS FOR LANDFILL OPERA- TION AND CLOSURE 1 Operational Permits and Guidelines - Federal 1 Federal involvement in state and' local solid waste management takes the 1 form of guidelines and criteria as set forth in the "Environmental Protec- tion Agency Regulations on Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Dis- posal 'Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR 257, as corrected and amended). 1 city or iwWport t5eacn 1 }:!�"''�, ,,_ _ , .• AREA Ode WITH CLEAN SOIIL!- ,_ a • \ i .,=-•\ j CFCPiOF ,. FI -.:X `.•q.+\\�'_9 _ re .'1r _ — \ —'i j4,P FO ROPRQs 1�� , Iq, '• n� -.=� 3�-��t .'E . _�.. `, i�': `�f, t'`.F,�S"1'�_\�,1;7 '.�__ �:f� �-`- z\ 3 o ,G ilk IS- SANITARY LAN LIMITS O!?'PiZOPOSm SANgAPY LANDFILL .rye• \ "F, `: - :�r••` i��' -. _><•. -- ; .-i. `, .- - - , _,.':\� ¢•}(`��; t ; ,•,l' _ -, =�.'' .f \S � 1, . ' i y�I•�- '`_ �J'� - 7 ,._�e t �'r I�� ILA,; (�"`..� � J y � J-__ __- __ .. ': 1 AN ,gAOUNLSROAD - , u `~ ~ �(y '`>\,� ._:l1 •` Alternative 3 Proposed Drainage Plan COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 tu EXHIBIT 8 ' These regulations were intended to implement Section 4004(a) of Public Law 94-580 - the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). Addi- tionally, "Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines for State Solid Waste Management Plans" (40 CFR 256) have been implemented to assist the states ' in preparation of State Solid Waste Management Plans. Functional- ly, these two sets of regulations have resulted in the systematic survey of ' "open dumps" and some work on a California State, Solid Waste Management Pl,an.1 ' Operational Permits and Guidelines - State of California ' Statutory authority for the regulation and permitting of solid waste management facilities is contained in a complex array of codes and adminis- trative regulations. Efforts are currently underway to streamline solid waste facility permitting procedures; however, the overall structure ' remains complex. The following discussion lists the most pertinent sec- tions of the Administrative Code and analyzes key sections as they apply to the Coyote Canyon landfill. A listing of existing permits is contained in ' Table 3, and is supplemented by a brief discussion of other permits which may be required at some future time. California State 'Water Resources Control Board (Cal. Admin. Code, Title ' 23; Sections 2500 et. seq.) ' As documented in Order No. 77-210, and amended by Order. No. 82-299, Coyote Canyon Landfill qualifies as a Class II-2 disposal site suitable to receive Group 2 and Group 3 wastes. Additionally# Monitoring and Reporting Program ' No. 77-210 was executed in October, 1977. ' Class II-2 sites are defined as those "...having vertical and lateral hy- draulic continuity with usable groundwater but for which geological and ' hydraulic features such as soil type, artificial barriers, depth to ground- water, and other factors will assure protection of the quality of usable groundwater underneath or adjacent to the site." (Section 2511) Criteria ' necessary for qualification as Class II include: ' 1 Telephone conversation with John Bell, California Waste Management Board, 8/3/83). 1 UILY ui NewpuFL beacn TABT,F. 3 01'L'RATING PERM] 1 ; - COYQT" CANYON LANDFILL JSSUING STATE COUNTY AGENCY 'a i ornia Waste California Regional County of Orange, Management Board Water Quality Water Resources Control Board Name,Number & Solid Waste Faci- Waste Discharge Re-- Industrial Waste Effective Date lities Permit quirements (Order Disposal Permit of Permit (30-AB-017), No. 71-210 plus (No. 111), February 3, 1983. amendments), March 23., 1969. December 10.1 1982. Main Provisions Requires compli- Requires protection Specifies mat- ance with State from washout or ero erials that can Minimum Standards sion of wastes or be disposed of for Solid Waste cover material, and at the site: Handling and from innundation commercial. and Disposal. from storms of once household re- in 100 years. fuse, paper, metals, etc. and solid inert wastes. Requires compli- Defines boundary Requires ade- with all federal, of waste disposal quate drainage state, regional area. device to pre- andlocal require- vent surface run-' ments and enact- off water from ments. lands outside the site from entering the landfill site. Requires permits Requires adequate Requires preven- from Orange Coun- drainage not come tion of odors ty Fire Dept./ in contact with or and excessive California Dept. percolate through dust. of Forestry. Group 2 wastes. Requires provi- Prohibits disposal sion for fire- of hazardous and fighting equip- liquid wastes. ment and material. Requires control Requires compliance of birds in the with Monitoring and , area of the site. Reporting Program No. 77-210. Requires a Leach- Requires a !'Closure ate control sys- Report" ninety days tem if leachate prior to the cess- is discovered.: ation of disposal operations. Require an an- Allows disposal of nual monitoring dewatered sewage report. sludge (min. 20% 33 solid's) under cer- tain contionsje a n I I I I I I 0 0 L' I L I n I I I I ' a) Disposal areas shall be protected by natural or artificial features so as to assure protection from any washout and from inundation which could occur as a result of tides or floods having a predicted frequency of once in 100 years. b) Surface drainage from tributary areas shall not contact Group 2 wastes in the site during disposal operations and for the active life of the site. ' c) Gases and leachate emanating from waste in the site shall not un- reasonably affect groundwater during the active life of the site. d) Subsurface flow into the site and the depth at which water soluable materials are placed shall be controlled during construction and ' operation of the site to minimize leachate production and assure that the Group 2 waste material will be above the highest antici- pated elevation of the capillary fringe of the groundwater. Dis- charge from the site shall be subject to waste discharge require- ments. ' Waste Discharge Requirements permits (Section 2550) are based upon the foregoing criteria. In addition, a report of waste discharge must be accompanied by a certification that all local agencies with jurisdiction ' have approved use of the site for the intended purposes (Section 2551). An Operation Plan (Section 2552) is required in all cases for operators of ' hazardous or liquid waste disposal sites, and may be requested for all others. Contents of the Operation Plan include: ' 1) Description of the waste materials anticipated to be received. 2) A map showing the boundaries of the disposal site and waste disposal ' areas. 3) General description of disposal site operations. ' 4) Detailed hydrological and geological data for the disposal area. 5) Measures proposed for control of drainage, leachate, and gases. ' 6) Anticipated land use after termination of disposal operations. California Waste Management Board (Cal. Admin. Code, Title 14; ' Sections 17000 et. seq.) ' Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill operates under Solid Waste Facility Permit No. 30-AB-017, under permit authority of the Orange County Solid Waste En- Uly oT INe, 34 nrr rseaci forcement Agency and the California State Solid Waste Management Board (now ' California Waste Management Board). The permit received final approval by the enforcement agency August 9, 1979 and was amended February 3, 1983 to reflect the Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. 82-299. Issuance of a solid waste facilities permit is conditioned upon conformance , to either 1) minimum standards as defined in Sections 17701 et. seq.; or 2) ' Performance standards set forth in Section 17683. Each requires a Report of Disposal Site Information, unless such facility is exempt. Contents of the report are detailed in Section 17616 (a)-(p). The Minimum, Standards ' specified are prescriptive in nature, while the Performance Standards offer local enforcement agencies considerable leeway in applying the standards so , long as the objectives are met. In theory, the performance standards approach could result in cost savings, fuel conservation and longer land- ' fill life; however, difficulties with odors and flies occurred when perfor- mance standards were in use. Coyote Canyon operated on Performance Stand- , ards for several months but returned to Minimum Standards in August, 1983. Chapter 5 of Title 14, entitled "Enforcement of Solid Waste Standards and , Administration of Solid Waste Facilities Permits," defines the Board's pro- cedures for implementation of the Z'berg-Kapiloff Solid Waste Control Act ' of 1976. Sections 18201 through 18217 define the form of the application and amendments thereto; requirements for public notice; Board review and , issuance; denials; revisions, reinstatements and review of permits; exemp- tions; and minor notice requirements. Article 4 is devoted to enforcement actions/procedures. Finally, Section 18309 gives the applicant direction on procedures to employ performance requirements. Specifically, an appli- cant must file a Statement of Intent to use the performance requirements , in place of the minimum standards, giving the Board 30 days notice of such an intent. Section 18313 also requires that any facility operating under , Section 17863 "shall be inspected at least once per week by the Enforce- ment Agency(s) Which authorized the use of said section." Other State Agencies with Potential Operational Permitting Authority ' Future operations at the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill may at some time be regulated by the requirements of 1) the Department of Forestry; 2) South ' Uty VI IVUWPUl L addl:l I I 0 1 F i 1 1 I 0 F 1 E i 1 1 i Coast Air Quality Management District; and 3) the Department of Fish and Game. The California Department of Forestry, under authority of Public Resources Code Section 4372, may at some time require a Rubbish Dump Permit specify- ing methods for fire prevention and public safety. The potential need for this permit has been previously addressed and is documented in item 14(c) of the County's existing Solid Waste Facility Permit No. 30-AB-017. Though beyond the scope of the alternatives under discussion for this re- port, it should be cited that future program revisions or new projects may require permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District pursu- ant to Rules 403 (Fugitive Dust), 904 (Incinerators) and/or 1150 (Excava- tion of Landfill Sites). Finally, should the California State Department of Fish and Game determine that impacts to drainages on or near the landfill site constitute an alter- ation of a streambed as defined under California Fish and Game Code Sec- tions 1601 and/or 1603, a permit would be required. Generally, the Depart- ment defines "streambed alteration" as any work undertaken within the mean high-water mark of a body of water containing fish or wildlife resources or where the project sponsor will use material from the streambed. Landfill Closure Procedures, Standards and Permits Standards and required procedures for closure of sanitary landfills are under- the jurisdiction of the California Waste Management Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Of the two agencies, the RWQCB regulations are more stringent, particularly with regard to final cover requirements. California Waste Management Board (Cal. Admin. Code, Title 14, Article 7.) Ultimate use of the site, in the case of Coyote Canyon, has already been specified and meets the requirements of Section 17627. The final site face "shall not be steeper than a horizontal to vertical ratio of one and three 1 OILY e1 weWporL beacn I quarters to one," and flatter slopes are recommended. The final cover re- , quirement, as specified by the Board, is a minimum thickness of 2 feet of compacted cover of a quality suitable for the intended reuse of the site (Note: RWQCB requires three feet of cover; The Irvine Company has speci- fied six feet of cover in their lease with the county). Final inspection ' is also required prior to the removal of earth moving equipment. California State Water Quality Control Board (Cal. Admin. Code, Title ' 23, Article 6.) , A Regional Board may require a site closure and maintenance report whenever it determines that there exists an adverse threat to the environment. All ' reports are required to describe the following items (Section 2553.1(a)- (1): a) The boundaries of areas used for waste disposal, accompanied by a map of the disposal site. b) Method of control of surface drainage flow through the site. c) Evaluation of the anticipated settlement due to decomposition and consolidation of the wastes. d) Manner of surface drainage and leachate control in waste disposal , areas. e) Cover thickness and physical properties including permeability, ' expansion characteristics, and erodibility. f) Relationship of waste disposal area to underlying groundwater t quality. g) Location of groundwater monitoring points. h) Proposed subsequent use of the land. i) Estimate of the useful site life. j) A discussion and evaluation of alternative methods of site closure ' and subsequent maintenance, and a recommendation regarding the most practicable method of closure and maintenance which will pose no adverse threat to the environment. k) The estimated cost for alternative methods of site closure and for ' subsequent maintenance of the site for the active life of the waste, and a detailed financial plan which adequately provides for the financing of the recommended method of site closure and main- ' tenance. UILy U1 IN(-,VVPUF L Beam 37 1 I n 1) Such other relevant information which the regional board may re- quest in writing. Minimum closure requirements also include the following: three feet of clean soil cover, with one foot of the final cover to be compacted to attain a permeability no greater than 10-6 cm/sec unless an acceptable alternative plan is approved by the RWQCB; grading to prevent ponding and to provide slopes of at least three percent; minimization of sliding through control of grades/drainage; facilities to ensure that leachate and gases and ponded water containing leachate is not discharged to surface water or usable groundwaters; protection from a 100-year flood washout/ inundation; control of methane gas migration; a monitoring program; and design measures to minimize damage to graded foundation or structures for the control leachate, surface drainage, erosion, and gas due to the maximum credible earthquake. Land Use Permits and Approvals In addition to compliance with the preceeding permits and requirements spe- cific to landfills, implementation of one or more of the proposed plans will require amendments to the land use plans and ordinances of the respec- tive local governments with jurisdiction. These amendments are noted below and addressed further in Sections 3.6 and 4.6: General Plan Amendments • County of Orange - change the Land Use Element to designate the propos- ed borrow sites and any expanded landfill area as an "LS" Public Facil- ities overlay. • City of Irvine - change the Land Use Element to designate the proposed borrow sites and both the existing and any expanded landfill area as an "LS" Public Facilities overlay. • City of Newport Beach - change the Land Use Element to designate an "LS" Public Facilities overlay on the portion of proposed borrow area within the incorporated area. amity of ivievport Beach Zoning Ordinances • County of Orange - approval of a use permit and change zoning for , proposed landfill portion of %S" area from Agriculture (A-1) to Open Space, and change zoning for non -landfill portion of %S" area from ' Agriculture (A-1) to Residential. • City of Irvine - approval of a use permit, review and approval of proposed grading under Hillside Development Overlay District "HD" ' ordinance and grading permits if necessary. _ • City of Newport Beach - approval of a use permit, review and approval of proposed grading plan and grading permits if necessary. i I L City of Newport Beach '1 ' 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ' 3.1 LANDFORN/TOPOGRAPHY The Coyote Canyon project area is located within the northwestern portion of the San Joaquin Hills. The overall topographic setting is character- ized by low to moderate relief "V-shaped with rounded ridges separated by The landform features interven- defining ing flat and narrow canyons. the project area specifically include the main Coyote Canyon area, two ' smaller tributary east and south canyon areas, and the enclosing ridgelines to the east and west (see Exhibit 9). 1 F P The landfill site occupies the main, south and east canyon areas where the natural topography has been extensively modified by waste fill, borrow excavation and other operations -related activities such as drainage im- provements and the access road. Waste filling has raised the original canyon floor elevations in excess of 200 feet in some areas. Borrow operations have graded out portions of the surrounding canyon walls and hillsides. These activities continue on a daily basis. Thus, the topographic character of the landfill area is constantly changing. Waste filling activities to date have created a relatively broad and uni- form landfill surface which rises gradually to the south. Slopes on the existing fill surface are generally less than three percent. Fill heights range from approximately 400 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the north end to approximately 585 feet msl in the south canyon areas. The hillsides surrounding the landfill limits consist of moderate to steeply -contoured terrain. Borrow excavation activities have modified most of the lower slope areas in proximity to the landfill surface. Major undisturbed hillside areas are located within the eastern portions of the landfill lease limits. Overall, topographic elevations within the landfill lease boundaries range from approximately 225 feet mean sea level (msl) along the toe of the front slope at the north end to approximately 880 feet msl within the undisturbed easterly areas. city or ivewporE tseacn AV - The topography of the proposed borrow area is characterized by the inter- connecting series of northerly trending ridges, canyons and ridgeline ' plateaus which extend along the western margins of the landfill lease area and around the San Joaquin Reservoir. Elevations within this area range from approximately 300 feet mean sea level (msl) along the northernmost ridge to approximately 710 feet msl atop the knoll area located at the ' southern end. Slopes within the area range from in excess of 50% along the lower ridge slopes to less than 10% atop the flatter ridge plateau areas. 1 t 1 11 Portions of the terrain within the southerly borrow area have been modified substantially by previous borrow grading and construction waste dumping activities (unrelated to the landfill operation). Other modifications in this area once resulted from the construction of drainage improvements in conjunction with the San Joaquin Reservoir. With the exception of numerous unimproved access roads, the terrain within other portions of the borrow area is essentially undisturbed. 3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS A geotechnical investigation of the Coyote Canyon project area was com- pleted by Woodward -Clyde Consultants in August 1983. The following is a summarization of the findings of this investigation with respect to base- line geologic conditions. The original report is contained in Appendix C. Geologic Units The geologic units occurring within the landfill and proposed borrow area are illustrated on Exhibit 10. As shown, the units present include slope - wash, terrace deposits, artificial fill, Topanga Formation bedrock and Diabase rock. The Topanga Formation bedrock, which underlies the entire project area, is represented by the Los Trancos and Bommer Member units. They are com- prised of sandstones, siltstones, claystones and shales which outcrop and form the hillside portions of the project area. The Diabase unit is an intrusive igneous rock which occurs as sills and dikes at several loca- tions within the Topanga formation. 1 airy of ivewport Beach Me CI I The Los Trancos Member bedrock consists of interbedded si'ltstone, shale and sandstone. The bedrock is generally massive with moderately to well cemented and variably fractured layers. The Bommer Member consists of massive to thickly bedded sandstone with local siltstone interbeds. The unit is moderately to well cemented; where well -cemented the sandstone outcrops often form wall-like features to heights of 10 feet above surrounding grade. The diabase igneous rock exhibits both a weathered and unweathered frac- tion. The weathered diabase resembles an uncemented, easily crumbled sandstone. At depth, unweathered diabase is expected to be massive and ' hard to very hard rock. ' Slopewash areas are associated with the gentle to moderately sloping swales, canyon bottoms and canyon walls and consist of soil and weathered bedrock materials eroded from the surrounding hillsides. The terrace de- posits, consisting of consolidated sands, silts, clays and pebble/gravel cap the ridgelines within the proposed borrow area. Three types of artificial fill are present within the project area: 1) ' solid waste and cover material within the landfill (the most extensive); 2) sands, silts, rocks and other construction wastes and debris which have ' been dumped within the southern portion of the borrow area; and 3) en- gineered fill used to repair slopes along the landfill entrance road and ' in the vicinity of the front slope. • Surficial Soils Most of the undisturbed areas are mantled by several feet of topsoil con- sisting of residual sands, silts and clays. The surface soil types present include those of the A/0, Anaheim, Calleguas, Cieneba, Cropley and Myford series. In general, the soil material present is loose, porous and uncon- solidated. The clayey soil types may be slightly to moderately expansive. ' Faults ' A series of northwest trending fault systems have been identified as pass- ing through or adjacent to the project area (Exhibit 11). The westernmost 1 uny or ive pon tseau -tle.sz Ot+•7s �-1^Ie.so 34.50 V 0 �•'.4 NEWNALL 34.25 -F-- + THOUSAND OAKS 0 0 VAN NUYS MAUIU COIAT FAULT 34.00 + 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 33.75 + 33.50 + 33.25 + + + + O 33.00 + + -118.97-118.75 -1.1+8.25 O-118.00 MOUNTAINS 0 0 O+•75 ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST y PAS0.0EN40 ��i" I ,.i "�• ZOxE 0 dR • e..... ONT ` ii Y❑ li �uuYV'�Y YuY .y Yuu Y u u Y Lc! p �t� 4 V Y fuJ �cN� : u OAN c: QTA 0 0 O (D� O sO O + + 0 0o O� O 0 O + + -I1188.50-118.25 M rid +O + O 0 -118.00-117.75 q 1. —117.50 -11� •00-1+34550 0 0 0 � 0 00 0 O 0 O� Q -i-® (�34 •25 „934.00 QJ 0 (D ••••••• ••• `\ 8ICY) o (D 0 `^ O 0 IT- •.,yq .k +33.75 Regional Seismicity Legend REPORTED EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES O 8.0 7.0 CD O 5.0 O 5.0 0 4.0 p 3.0 o 2 S • 1. Magnitude symbol sizes are shown on a continuous nonlinear scale i The epicenters cover the time period 1918 through 1979. Data source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Hypocenter Data File, 1980. ---- • •.T ......7 ........ Fault: Dashed where approximately located, + `\ + (�j, (1)0 .$333.50 dotted where concealed and queried where 0 + conjectural. Fault locations are based on CDMG 1:250,000 Geologic Maps: Long Beach (1962), Santa Ana (1966), San Bernardino (1969), Los Angeles (1969), and Leighton, 1972. O + 33 • SOURCE Woodward -Clyde ConauM itas COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE -117.25-117.00 -..-• - City of NewpNewport0 Beach�EXHIBIT 11 ^'' C U of these systems passes the southwestern corner of the project area and is associated with the Pelican Hill Fault Zone extending from the vicinity of Spyglass Hill to Laguna Beach. Traces of the Pelican Hill Fault Zone in the Spyglass Hill area have been observed to displace Quaternary age deposits (Tan and Edgington, 1976). Evidence of movement within the last 11,000 years has been detected along this fault zone and it is considered a potentially active fault. The second series of faults located farther east and through the project area appears to be a northern branch or splay of the Pelican Hill system. The easternmost series consists of several interconnected branching faults that have been intruded by Diabase rocks. Seismicity The Coyote Canyon area is located within the seismically active southern California region. Epicenters of earthquakes greater than 3.5 magnitude (Richter) within the region (1918-1982) are shown on Exhibit 11. General- ly, the greatest concentrations of earthquake epicenters are associated with the mapped traces of known active faults. The faults mapped through or in proximity to the project area are not considered active by the California Division of Mines and Geology nor are there any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone designations for the area. However, the nearby Pelican Hill Fault Zone, as mentioned previously is considered potentially active. ' The closest known active faults are the Newport -Inglewood (2.5 miles S), Whittier (20 miles N) and Elsinore (22 miles N) fault zones. Other fault zones of significance within the region include the Palos Verdes (16 miles ' W), Sierra Madre (35 miles N) Raymond Hill (38 miles NW), Santa Monica - Malibu Coast (42 miles NW), San Jacinto (43 miles NE) and San Andreas (48 miles NE) systems. An earthquake epicentered along any of these regional- ly significant fault zones can be expected to provide groundshaking within the project area. City of Newport Beach Landslides A number of landslides are present within the project area (Exhibit 10). The largest of these are located at the northern end of the landfill along the entrance road. The existing landslides, for the most part, are associ- ated with failures of the Topanga/Los Trancos Member Formation. 3.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY A hydrologic investigation of the Coyote Canyon project area was completed by Woodward -Clyde Consultants in September 1983. This study includes an evaluation of drainage, flooding, groundwater and water quality conditions for the landfill site and proposed borrow area. A summarization of the findings of this investigation with respect to baseline conditions is presented below. The complete technical report is contained in Appendix C. Watershed The Coyote Canyon landfill is located within the Bonita Canyon watershed. The Bonita Canyon watershed is one of several tributary drainage areas to the larger San Diego Creek watershed which discharges to Upper Newport Bay. Bonita Canyon drains an approximately 5.1 square mile area (3,280 acres) of the San Joaquin Hills. The general direction of drainage is nothwesterly. Coyote Canyon is the largest of the Bonita Canyon tributaries. The upper hillside portions of the project area drain to the Buck Gully watershed. Buck Gully originates along the southern edge of the landfill lease, limits and proposed borrow area (see Exhibit 11a) and drains an approximately 1.7 square mile watershed (1,068 acres) southwesterly to the Pacific Ocean below Corona del Mar State Beach. Drainage The Bonita Canyon watershed is characterized by intermittent drainage courses which discharge surface flows primarily during storm events. Year- round low flows occur as a result of minor springs, seeps and return water contributions from agricultural irrigation and urban watering activities. 44 Uity uI IN ►PUI L 00ac1_1 L_J JI 1 I H I a/ ■ Its Drainage Legend J NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSE DRAINAGE DITCH (EARTHEN) DRAINAGE DITCH (LINED) DRAINAGE BOUNDARY BULLY COYOTE CANYON DRAINAGE BOUNDARY COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 EXHIBIT 11a I ' Modified drainage conditions characterize most of the landfill lease area. Most of the original Coyote Canyon drainage course has been covered by 1 waste filling activites. Flow patterns were modified by the construction of perimeter drainage improvements to prevent runoff flow entering the fill area. Remnants of the natural Coyote Canyon drainage occur in the 1 upper south and east canyon areas and below the landfill front slope to the north. 1 Runoff from the landfill surface and adjoining areas is directed to a 1 peripheral system of temporary drainage ditches which convey flows to the Coyote Canyon channel below the north end of the site (Exhibit 11a). The ' ditches are unlined earthen facilities, except down the edges of the front slope where they are concrete lined'. Other drainage improvements onsite ' include terrace drains across the front slope, downdrains, and roadway culverts. With the exception of culverts at roadway crossings and the Bonita Canyon Reservoir, both Coyote Canyon and Bonita Canyon are unim- proved natural drainages downstream from the landfill site. 1 In some areas of the landfill, current topography and drainage conditions are such that water ponding occurs. These areas include the south and 1 east canyon floors and the flat or depressed (due to settlement) fill surfaces within the main canyon. As noted in the PROJECT DESCRIPTION, 1 remedial filling of previously completed areas is now being undertaken to correct existing depressions and insure proper drainage for the 1983-84 winter season. n 1 1 i 1 The existing drainage within the proposed borrow area is a combination of both modified and natural conditions. Drainage within the southerly and central portions of this area has been modified as the result of previous grading, debris dumping activities and the construction of improvements to control runoff and sediment flows into the nearby San Joaquin Reservoir. The improvements are primarily small desilting and catchment basins along the larger tributary canyons at the southern end of the reservoir. The northern and southernmost portions of the borrow area are character- ized by an essentially undisturbed natural drainage environment. A well- defined drainage canyon extends through the northerly area to join Bonita i Uty or Newport beacn I Canyon west of Coyote Canyon Road. Several gullies and swales at the , southern end drain into nearby Buck Gully. Runoff is also contributed to the landfill drainage system from swales located at several points along ' the eastern edge of the borrow area. Water Bodies There are three surface water bodies of relevance to the Coyote Canyon pro- ' ject area: San Joaquin Reservoir, Bonita Reservoir and Upper Newport Bay. San .Joaquin Reservoir - Located along the western,side of the proposed bor- row area, the San Joaquin Reservoir is a domestic water supply storage , facility operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Califor- nia (MWD). The reservoir stores potable Colorado River and State Water Project supply for use by the City of Newport Beach and areas served by the Irvine Ranch Water District, It has a storage capacity of approximate- ly 3,000 acre-feet (978 million gallons) and has a surface area of approxi- mately 54 acres. The dam', spillway and inlet/outlet feeder lines are located at the north end of the reservoir. ' The San Joaquin Reservoir is designed for water supply storage purposes ' and does not provide a flood control function for the area. As a result, the reservoir does not directly contribute runoff to the downstream drain- age system. As noted earlier, a number of drainage improvements have been ' constructed in the area to divert runoff around the reservoir and to control sediment flows into the reservoir. A liner is also in place which , intercepts percolating reservoir water and groundwater seeps. Bonita Reservoir - The Bonita Reservoir is located downstream from the ' Coyote Canyon landfill along the south side of Bonita Canyon Road (see Exhibit 11a). This small unlined reservoir was previously used for agri- cultural irrigation supply storage purposes. This use was discontinued several, years ago and the .Bonita Reservoir is now abandoned with its gates ' left open. Both the Bonita Canyon and Coyote Canyon drainage courses pass through the ' reservoir. It also receives the San Joaquin reservoir liner drainage water outflows. Although currently not in use, the,Bonita Reservoir does provide , some runoff retention capability during major storm events. UILy U1 N 46 PUFL DUacri , ' Upper Newport Bay - Upper Newport Bay is the receiving water body for all runoff generated within the entire San Diego Creek watershed (118 square miles total). The Upper Bay is an officially designated ecological re- serve under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game. It provides significant wildlife habitat and supports a number of rare/endangered bird species. Other beneficial uses include non -contact recreation, such as boating. ' Upper Newport Bay is subject to heavy sediment -laden runoff flows gener- ated from within its 118 square mile tributary watershed during major storm events. The discharge of sediment and its adverse impact on the ' ecological reserve area has been recognized by local agencies, and meas- ures to control the problem exist or are being planned for under the ' Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimenta- tion Control planning program. This program includes the development of structural control measures (i.e., in -stream siltation basins) and recom- mended land management practices for agricultural and construction sites to minimize sedimentation impacts on the Upper Newport Bay water environ- ment (see Water Quality discussion for further details). Flood Hazards/Flood Control Rainfall and major runoff flows within the area occur for the most part during the winter season between the months of November and April. Flood- ing has not been a major problem for the Bonita Canyon watershed in the past; however, during and immediately after storm events significant run- off and streamflows can occur. Runoff concentrates rapidly in the hill- side areas and, during high intensity storms, short duration, floodflows with high peaks are typically generated through the downstream systems. No major flood hazards (i.e., 100-year or greater storm magnitude) have been identified for the Coyote Canyon project area according to currently ' published governmental maps (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment, 1979). A 100 year Flood Hazard Zone is shown for the San Joaquin ' Reservoir. This zone is confined to the area within the lined reservoir body.1 ' 1 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community Panel Number 060212 0055A, September 14, 1979. i Uty of Newport tjeacr I A narrow 100 year flood zone is also shown for the floor of Buck Gully to ' the south. ' The existing drainage improvements within the site have been designed to provide 100-year storm flood protection to the landfill in accordance with State requirements (Santa Ana RWQCB, 1977). With the exception of cul- verts at roadway crossing, major drainage or flood control improvements have not been constructed along Coyote Canyon and Bonita Canyon downstream of the landfill. Groundwater ' Groundwater in the area generally occurs in the al'l'uvial deposits within and adjacent to existing streamcourses including Coyote Canyon, its tri- butaries and Bonita Canyon. Small amounts 'of perched groundwater also occur in the surrounding hillside areas where several surface seeps have been observed. There is one operating observation well and a piezometer ' located in Coyote Canyon north of the landfill. The well and piezometer were installed by Montgomery Engineers for purposes of monitoring down- t stream groundwater quality in April 1983. Groundwater within the Coyote Canyon alluvial aquifer has been reported to occur at a depth of approximately 11 feet below the surface (Montgomery ' Engineers, 1983). A review of the local geology indicates that this alluvium overlies bedrock of the Topanga Formation. This formation possesses the permeability characteristics required for fluid flow and solute transport (Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers, 1982). This suggests the possibilty of a deeper bedrock aquifer occurring in the area. ' There are presently no wells penetrating to this bedrock layer. The alluvial aquifer perched on the Topanga Formation would be in direct contact with any water in the bedrock, as there is no other intervening geologic formation. ' t City of Newport Beach 1 11 ' Groundwater recharge areas within Coyote Canyon include the south and east canyons. Ephemeral ponding of water occurs at the lower end of these ' canyons. Ponding of water in other areas on and around the landfill surface can also act as a groundwater recharge source. ' Water Quality ' Water quality considerations addressed herein include surface water condi- tions, groundwater conditions and relevant water quality management plan- ning programs. ' Surface Water ' The County of Orange, EMA/Environmental Studies Unit currently performs limited surface water quality analyses for both the Bonita Canyon and San Diego Creek drainage basins. Recent sampling data, taken from points along Bonita Canyon downstream of Coyote Canyon and along San Diego Creek above its confluence with Bonita Canyon, indicated that Bonita Canyon ' surface waters had higher concentrations of total coliform, oil/grease, chromium, copper and zinc as compared to San Diego Creek (see Appendix C). ' These higher levels could be indicative of possible runoff or leachate contamination from the landfill. Due to the limited nature of available ' data, no conclusion can be reached as to whether the higher pollutant levels can be attributed to the landfill operations at Coyote Canyon. ' As early as 1978, leachate was observed within the landfill and was collected and spread onsite for dust control. In 1980, the Santa Ana RWQCB indicated that leachate continues to be produced at the landfill site and that cover and drainage improvements were not effective in ' preventing the inundation of fill materials (Santa Ana RWQCB, 1980). It appears that Coyote Canyon Landfill operations may be adversely impacting surface water quality, particularly in the concentrations of ' total coliform, oil -grease, chromium, copper and zinc. However, due to conflicting and sparse data, no definitive conclusions can bd drawn with respect to the short- or long-term effect of the landfill on surface water quality. 1 Uty of Ndwport tjeacn ., Groundwater , Groundwater quality analysis has been restricted to the semiperched zone ' within the Coyote Canyon alluvium extending from the north face of the landfill area. Laboratory analysis on two water samples collected from ' this area indicated high electrical conductivity, elevated levels of total organic carbon and total organic halogens, and the presence of volatile organic constituents (see Appendix C). These organic constituents Included solvents and components of gasoline (Montgomery, 1983). Most of these compounds are exotic to the environment surrounding Coyote Canyon. Several seeps are •centrally located along the side of the northeastern , ridge in Coyote Canyon above the waste fill. One such seep was sampled on, 25 April 1983 by the County of Orange. The source of this seep cannot be ' evaluated with the available hydrogeologic information; however, the water quality evaluation tests on this water could be considered a reasonable ' approximation to the background water quality in the area. From the analytical results given, the seep water sample taken from above the ' Coyote Canyon landfill site can be characterized as poor quality water (U.S. Public Health Service Public No. 956). Because most groundwater in the area of the site is high in total dissolved solids, groundwater is not ' extracted for human use. The water samples obtained from the Montgomery observation well and piezo- , meter are all non -potable, as evidenced by high levels of total dissolved t solids (TDS) and the presence of organic solvents and other halogenated or non -halogenated hydrocarbons. For all these samples, where reported, the ' levels of potentially toxic inorganic metal ions were not beyond the limits of potable water standards. As in the •case of surface Water quality, the , available data does not provide a basis, for definitive characterization of groundwater quality at the site. Water Quality Management Planninn ' The primary responsibility for regulating activities that affect the qual- ity of all waters within the State rests with the State Water Resources ' Uly OT N6wpon Beam I I J I Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB has in place a series of operational guidelines and permit processes specifically related to water quality, solid waste management and sanitary landfills (Cal. Admin. Code, Title 23 Sections 2500 et. seq.). These guidelines and requirements have been dis- cussed in detail in Section 2.6 of this report. Other regional and local level water quality management planning programs with a direct or indirect relationship to the Coyote Canyon project include those of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, and the Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimenta- tion Control Plan. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board - The Coyote Canyon project area is located within the Santa Ana River Basin and hence falls under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Santa Ana RWQCB is one of nine regional boards established under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1969) and the Cali- fornia Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (1969). Each regional board is charged with the responsibility for adopting and implementing water quality control plans, regulating waste discharge, and performing other subsidiary functions relating to water quality control within their respective basin areas. The adopted Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin out- lines a series of quality objectives (e.g., TDS concentrations), policies, and definitive program actions (e.g., erosion and sedimentation control) designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of regional surface and groundwaters (Santa Ana RWQCB, 1975). In addition to implementing the Basin Plan, the Santa Ana RWQCB is responsible for issuing regulatory permits and establishing waste discharge require- ments for activities that may release non -point source runoff wastes to groundwater or surface waters. The Coyote Canyon landfill falls into this category and operations are currently conducted under Santa Ana RWQLB Waste Discharge Order Nos. 77-210 (Class II-2 disposal site) and 82-299 (codisposal of wastewater sludge). SCAG 208 Areawide Plan - Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and amendments to the Clean Water Act of 1977, a national policy was 1 uliy OT 11 51 tnnrr beacr ' established to control water pollution sources and manage the nation's waters to meet prescribed Act, federal quality standards. Section 208 of this ' as implemented at the regional level, requires the preparaton of area - wide plans to develop and implement solutions to identified water quality problems. SCAG was designated to prepare such a plan for the South Coast ' area which includes Orange County. The adopted South Coast Areawide plan provides a framework of Water Qual- ity Management policies and action items dealing with point source (e.g.$ ' treatment plant discharge) and non -point source (e.g., runoff) water quality problems and control strategies. The 208 Plan is consistent with, , and complementary to, the Basin Plans prepared by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Of primary relevance to the Coyote Canyon project are the Residual Waste Management Plan and Newport Bay Priority Program ' components of the Areawide Plan. The objective of the Residual Waste Management Plan is to ensure that Water Quality protection is considered in the management of all residual ' wastes, defined as those substances from man's activities which remain after collection and treatment (e.g., sludge, landfilled refuse),I ' Related policies include providing for waste disposal operations consistent with established water quality goals. With respect to sanitary landfills, ' the plan concludes that the statewide disposal site and waste classifica- tioo system together with emphasis on water quality protection in day -to- , day operations and monitoring/enforcement programs can prevent degradation of the water environment. ' For Newport Bay, the areawide plan identifies sediment discharge and its ' adverse impact on the ecological reserve area as a priority water quality problem. The need for an overall watershed erosion control plan was ' identified, the response to which is described in the following. Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Greek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimenta- tion Control Plan - In response to the identified problems of sedimentation and its adverse impact on Upper Newport, Bay, SCAG and the Cities of Newport 1 SCAG, 208 Plan Element Reports, Volume 7, Section 2.4. Residual Waste , Management Aty V I I V fiW` L)1 l UUM 52 ' Beach and Irvine are cooperating in the development of a comprehensive control program for the San Diego Creek watershed. This program is ' comprised of three major components: Early Action and Interim Plan; Best Management Practices (BMP's) plans for construction and agricultural activities; and the development of a comprehensive stormwater sedimenta- tion control plan for the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay watershed. ' The recently completed Early Action and Interim Plan provided for the con- struction of debris basins in the San Diego Creek channel near its conflu- ence with Upper Newport Bay. The Best Management Practices component has been developed and this aspect of the program identifies a number of administrative, land and structural management measures which can be employed at construction and agricultural sites to control the amount of sediment output. Rounding out the overall program is the development of a comprehensive sedimentation control plan which incorporates the aforemen- tioned components together with the implementation of additional structur- al measures (e.g., debris basins) which are now the subject of further design and environmental study (Boyle Engineering, 1,982). ' 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Coyote Canyon sanitary landfill project area encompasses the existing ' leased area plus adjacent valleys and ridges to the west that are proposed for use as borrow sites. The landfill site and surrounding areas were surveyed and field mapped in July and August of 1983 by W. Walton Wright, PBR Biological Services Division. Field mapping was also checked against aerial photos to confirm spacial relationships. ' Biotic Communities Six general habitats are found on the site. These are discussed and mapped t as plant communities (Exhibit 12). In the unaltered areas, the vegetation is predominantly grassland and coastal sage scrub with lesser amounts of chaparral. Oak woodlands are found in the canyon bottoms and on lower ' slopes. Riparian habitats are limited in area. On and bordering trails, roads, cut and fill, and other areas of distrubance there is a characteris- tic association of plants sometimes referred to as a ruderal community. Detailed species lists are presented in Appendix D. i ivcwpurt rseau 1 11 I I n H H LI i I Biological Resources (Legend MGRASSLAND ----_---__ COASTAL SAGE SCRUB CHAPARRAL ; n II OAK WOODLAND RIPARIAN w WILLOW b BRUSH S SEEP DISTURBED Oo EUCALYPTUS TREES J`, I ROCK OUTCROP BLUE LINE STREAM COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 Ul •• EXHIBIT 12 ' Grassland ' Flora ' The areas onsite presently dominated by annual grasses, were, in large part, originally native grassland. This native ,grassland was composed of perennial grasses and forbs, plus a few annual grass species and a variety ' of wild flowers. With grazing and the competition of introduced species the relative plant species composition of the grassland has changed. ' The present annual grasses and broadleaf plants are primarily of European ' origin. Native herbaceous annual species which are thought of as weeds also occur. Native perennial bunch grass can still be found in some ' areas. Although the native annual grass is reduced in frequency in the grassland it is still common. ' Spring is a procession of different flowering species in the grasslands of Orange County. With the timing of the present survey, none of the wild flowers were observed. ' Fauna ' The grassland provides habitat for a large number of smaller mammals including mice, gophers, and squirrels. It is these small mammals that constitute the food supply of the larger snakes, raptors, and carnivors. ' Large and medium -size mammals which utilize grasslands are deer, coyote, badger, bobcat, racoon, opossum, and rabbits. ' Reptiles which inhabit the grasslands typically include various lizards and snakes. A number of bird species are full-time grassland inhabitants including larks, sparrows, shrikes, and kestrels. Other bird species ' depend upon this community as a place to forage. Among these are virtually all of the local raptor species, ravens, and crows. City of Newport Beach Coastal Sage Scrub ' Flora ' The coastal sage scrub is a low elevation vegetation type which covers the hills across a majority of the study area. The pattern of the border be- tween the grassland and the coastal sage scrub is due primarily to the ' underlying substrate. The coastal sage scrub community occurs on slopes which are rather dry, gentle to quite steep, and have a thin soil. The ' community is composed of dominants for which the principal adaptive mode for survival is exploitation of soil moisture in the thin upper soil ' horizons during the cool winter season. ' The dominant species of the coastal sage scrub are relatively shallow root- ed shrubs, seldom over four feet tall. Many species are summer dormant, even drought deciduous. The most common species of the community is Cali- ' fornia Sagebrush. Open areas within the scrub may be dominanted by native •and/or non-native grasses. ' Fauna ' Native wildlife populations characteristic of the coastal sage scrub ' communities are well -represented throughout the study area. The dense stands of California Sagebrush and California Buckwheat support fewer vertebrates than the open or mixed scrub stands, since the food diversity ' is reduced. Where plant composition and topography are varied, available habitats are varied and wildlife diversity is correspondingly increased; ' thus cactus, open grassy, mixed scrub, and arroyo associations provide habitats for an array of native vertebrates. The more common and abundant ' wildlife species of this region include reptiles such as the western whiptail and red diamondback rattlesnake; various birds including wrens, ' quail, and shrikes; and mammal's such as rabbits, rats, mice and coyotes. Chaparral ' Flora ' The chaparral community occupies sites where the soil is of a rocky, gravelly, or sandy texture, similar to that of the sage scrub; however, t uny of iwoport meacn 1 ' more moisture is availabile than in the sage scrub habitat. The community is developed on north -facing slopes, lower canyon slopes, below rock out- crops, and in other drainage areas where water is concentrated. Chaparral shrubs grow from four to eight feet in height; however, on more mesic, ' particularly northerly -facing slopes, the shrub components may become treelike. ' The chaparral community present within the project area can be charac- terized as mixed chaparral. This mixed chaparral association occurs in ' the southern and eastern portion of the site. Species characteristic of mixed chaparral are generally restricted to dense, hard -leaved, evergreen ' shrubs. Few herbaceous species can survive under the closed canopy of the well -developed chaparral. ' Fauna ' Chaparral shares many faunal components with coastal sage scrub. The bulk of the species enumerated in the previous section are equally represented ' in this community. Oak Woodland Flora Oak woodland on the site ranges from A solated trees or clumps of trees to stands on north slopes and canyon bottoms where a closed canopy has devel- oped. The community is not continuous on the site but forms a mosaic ' which includes chaparral. Sycamores are found along the creek channels within the oak woodlands. The woodland is dominated by a single species, coast live oak. The coast live oak is a slow -growing tree normally, but under favorable environ- mental conditions, can grow rapidly. Soil structure and soil moisture are probably the limiting factors governing the growth and survival of the ' coast live oak, and thus determine the distribution of the oak woodland community onsite. Oak woodland is found on terraces above the stream ' channels ,in ravines, canyons, and valleys and on rather mesic slopes. The ' ' ly O1 N 56. %nna beam II soils are deep, loamy or gravelly textured, .uncompacted, fertile, well- , aerated, and well -drained. Oak trees are senstive to groundwater levels which, if too high, lead to death of individuals through root drowning ' and/or disease. The oaks grow in areas with ample consistent soil mois- ture, and years of continuous drought are damaging. Fauna The oak woodland constitutes one of the most valuable wildlife habitats in ' Orange County. The moist, protected nature of the woodland is ideal for 1 amphibians. Among the amphibians likely to be found in this .association are various types of salamanders. Reptiles occurring here include several , species of lizards and snakes. A variety of small and large mammals live in or visit oak woodlands. Small , species occurring in this community include mice, rats, shrew, and gopher. Larger mammals typically found in the habitat are opossum, raccoon, skunk, ' deer, coyote and an occasional bobcat. Birds common in oak woodland include sparrows, warbler, orioles, hawks, ' kites, and owls. Riparian ' Since the region is relatively arid, the local occurrence of permanent standing, running, or below surface water exerts. a striking influence on ' the vegetation. The presence of water provides a favorable habitat for a large variety of trees, shrubs, and herbs. A riparian community is thus ' developed in or near areas where there are fairly permanent seeps, springs, and streams. ' Water flow is not uniform year-round, but is dependent upon the winter and spring rains. During the rainy season a moderately large stream of Water , flows in the creeks and their tributaries. As the seasons progress, the volume of surface water flow decreases. In the fall, water only trickles ' through rocky areas or moistens the sand in places where bedrock is deeper. In stream channels with intermitent surface or ground water availability such as those in the project area, a riparian brush community develops. UILy UI IN 57 -PUFL DUaGll 1 ' The major part of Coyote Canyon plus its tributaries forms the basin for the landfill operation. The original streambed was covered by solid waste and drainage is now diverted around the main body of the landfill by an ' earthen ditch. ' Much of the riparian vegetation on the site is composed of brush in the stream channels and on the channel margins. In these areas there is suffi- cient surface flow and perennial subsurface moisture to support relatively shallow -rooted shrubbery and herbaceous species. L Four seeps were found on the site where ground water flows to the surface. The soil is dark due to higher organic matter concentrations and rather alkaline due to the deposition of salts left behind as the water evapor- ates. During the winter and spring, these areas are mires but by the end of summer the clays at the surface are hard and cracked. The seeps are dominated by annual rushes and grasses. Fauna Riparian communities can support a highly diverse animal assembalage, in- cluding a variety of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The wild- life depend on the habitats as a source of food from either the abundant plant life or the plentiful prey -- insects to larger animals. Amphibian species including frogs, toads, and salamanders can be found along the stream banks. Several reptile species occur including lizards, skinks, and snakes. Riparian habitat is very important to bird species. Small trees, large bushes, and branches of tall trees are prime habitats of medium to small sized birds. These highly active birds often forage in shrub lands and fields bordering the riparian region but return to the cover to rest or nest. Nearly all the species found in adjacent habitats are also found here. The bird diversity and activity is high within this area since food, cover, and nest sites are maximal. Bushtits, hummingbirds, fly- catchers, vireos, warblers, and finches forage and/or nest in the vegeta- tion. Many migrating birds utilize this habitat for cover and as a feeding area as they move through in the fall and spring. lilty OT NeWport CSeam Raptors are relatively common in upper tree canopies. These large birds ' utilize exposed branches of the willows to rest, perch, and roost. The raptors add greatly to the local ecological, balance by feeding on and thus containing the adjacent rodent populations. Significant predatory birds ' that rely on riparian conditions include hawks, kites, and owls. Rodents are common along the edge of neighboring vegetation types and in ' areas where seasonal flooding does not occur. In addition to these small , mammal species there are such medium-sized species as the squirrels, opos- sum, and rabbits. Predators include the spotted and striped skunk, coyote, and bobcat. Riparian areas also serve as important habitat for deer. Disturbed , Flora , Human activities have significantly modified the study area's landscape. Bare mineral soil or substrate is the dominant feature. Very few plants exist on the fill due to the continual working of the surface. The few t species, both native and exotic, that are found are adapted to higher temperatures, higher light intensities, and generally drier conditions. ' These plants found on the disturbed areas have been termed ruderals. They are primarily annuals of very wide geographic distribution. The hillsides surrounding the landfill are crisscrossed by dirt roads and ' tracks, and fuel breaks. The majority of the plants in these areas are ' introduced European weeds. Fauna ' Animal diversity and abundance is reduced throughout the disturbed areas, ' especially open disturbed areas, due to minimal food and vegetation cover. Vegetation cover is the salient limiting factor since animals venturing ' into open areas present easy kills for predatory birds. Birds are the dominant wildlife. In disturbed areas other than the landfill they forage ' on abundant seeds provided by existing naturalized weeds and grasses. Bi-rds which frequent this habitat to feed include doves, finches, larks, ' and sparrows. UILY Ui NOWPUI L DUaC11 1 ' Seagulls and pidgeons scavenge along the active working face of the fill, particularly during winter months. Landfill operators string wires between ' poles to obstruct this scavenging activity. ' 3.5 CULTURAL SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES A literature and records search and field survey was conducted for the ' Coyote Canyon landfill, by Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC), in order to identify the potential archaeological and paleontologi- cal resources which exist in the study area. The study area consists of the existing landfill operation area and the two potential borrow areas located to the west. The principal findings of this investigation are summarized below. The complete reports are located in Appendix E. ' Archaeology ' The records search indicated that a number of surveys and excavations have been carried out in the study area. These studies resulted in the recorda- tion of sixteen archaeological sites. Of these sixteen sites, fifteen are located in the landfill area and one is located in the borrow site area. Six of the sites were not inspected during the ARMC study because they ' have been destroyed or salvaged. These sites are: CA -Ora 227, 619, 620, 234, 235 and 233. Sites which were inspected as part of this project are: CA -Ora 673 (which is located in the borrow area), 797, 616, 232, 231, 236, 271, 272, 689 and 275. The specific site descriptions are presented ' below: CA -Ora 673 - A spot check survey confirmed the location of this site in the southern portion of the proposed borrow area. The site was described ' as a roughly oval scatter of shells with occasional lithic tools and slightly darkened soil. Since no previous investigations have been con- --ducted, this site requires a test level investigation to ascertain its significance if it is to be disturbed by borrow excavations. ' CA -Ora 797 - Located and recorded in 1979, this site is described as an open air shell midden with lithic tools consisting of a mano and flakes. ' During the current assessment, this site could not be re -located since the 60 1 uny or iNewpon beacn area was covered with a dense stand of matted grasses which obscured , ground visibility. There have been no investigations of this site to date. The site is located outside of grading plan limits at .the southerly , portion of the landfill area. Ca -Ora 616 - Located and recorded in 1977 by ARI, this site was described , as a roughly circular shell scatter with darkened soil and few lithic , artifacts. Very little of the site could be seen during the current assessment due to the dense grass cover, however a few shell pieces were noted. This site is located outside of the landfill grading plan limits. , Ca -Ora 231 - Excavated and officially recorded in 1967, this site is a , large rockshelter with a shall midden located within the cave and on the talus slope in front of the cave. This site was re -located during the ' current assessment. Since 1977, when the site was last seen by ARMC Personnel, a berm has been built up in front of the cave entrance. The ' cave is almost completely buried and has been partially destroyed. Ca -Ora 236 - Located near the limits of landfill grading in the south ' canyon area, this larger rock shelter, containing a shell boundary medden was excavated by PCAS and recorded in 1968. The site was visited during ' the course of the survey and was found to be disturbed. Ca-0 ' ra 271 - A small excavation was conducted in this small shelter in 1968 by PCAS and the site was recorded in 1969. The site was re -located during this assessment and is assumed to be part of the Coyote Cave com- ' plex and need not be given a separate designation. This site should be investiaged if it is to be disturbed by continued landfill operations. ' Ca -Ora 272 - Located in the south canyon,, the site was recorded in 1969 , and is described as a small rockshelter with a fire blackened ceiling and very little midden. No previous investigations have been conducted at ' this site. Ca -Ora 689 - This small rockshelter site was investigated in 1977. Located in the east canyon area, it was previously recommended that the site be fenced and preserved. The site appears to be in good condition at this time and the original the recommendation for preservation should be followed. PILE/ UI IN61 PUFL DUdUi , ' Seagulls and pidgeons scavenge along the active working face of the fill, particularly during winter months. Landfill operators string wires between ' poles to obstruct this scavenging activity. 3.5 CULTURAL SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES A literature and records search and field survey was conducted for the ' Coyote Canyon landfill, by Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC), in order to identify the potential archaeological and paleontologi- cal resources which exist in the study area. The study area consists of the existing landfill operation area and the two potential borrow areas located to the west. The principal findings of this investigation are summarized below. The complete reports are located in Appendix E. ' Archaeology ' The records search indicated that a number of surveys and excavations have been carried out in the study area. These studies resulted in the recorda- tion of sixteen archaeological sites. Of these sixteen sites, fifteen are located in the landfill area and one is located in the borrow site area. Six of the sites were not inspected during the ARMC study because they have been destroyed or salvaged. These sites are: CA -Ora 227, 619, 620, 234, 235 and 233. Sites which were inspected as part of this project are: ' CA -Ora 673 (which is located in the borrow area), 797, 616, 232, 231, 236, 271, 272, 689 and 275. The specific site descriptions are presented ' below: CA -Ora 673 - A spot check survey confirmed the location of this site in ' the southern portion of the proposed borrow area. The site was described as a roughly oval scatter of shells with occasional lithic tools and been slightly darkened soil. Since no previous investigations have con- -ducted, this site requires a test level investigation to ascertain its ' significance if it is to be disturbed by borrow excavations. tCA -Ora 797 - Located and recorded in 1979, this site is described as an open air shell midden with lithic tools consisting of a mano and flakes. ' During the current assessment, this site could not be re -located since the 60 silty Ul ivewpart t5eacn t1 area was covered with a dense stand of matted grasses which obscured ' ground visibility. There have been no investigations of this site to date. The site is located outside of grading plan limits at the southerly , portion of the landfill area. Ca -Ora 616 - Located and recorded in 1977 by ARI, this site was described ' as a roughly circular shell scatter with darkened soil and few lithic , artifacts. Very little of the site could be seen during the current assessment due to the dense grass cover, however a few shell pieces were ' noted. This site is located outside of the landfill grading plan limits. Ca -Ora 231 - Excavated and officially recorded in 1967, this site is a large rockshelter with a shall midden located within the cave and on the talus slope in front of the cave. This site was re -located during the ' current assessment. Since 1977, when the site was last seen by ARMC personnel, a berm has been built up in front of the cave entrance. The , cave is almost completely buried and has been partially destroyed. Ca4ra 236 - Located near the limits of landfill grading in the south , canyon area, this larger rock shelter, containing a shell boundary medden was excavated by PCAS and recorded in 1968. The site was visited during ' the course of the survey and was found to be disturbed. Ca -Ora 271 - A small excavation was conducted in this small shelter in ' 1968 by PCAS and the site was recorded in 1969. The site was re -located ' during this assessment and is assumed to be part of the Coyote Cave com- plex and need not be given a separate designation. This site should be ' investiaged if it is to be disturbed by continued landfill operations. Ca -Ora 272 - Located in the south canyon, the site was recorded in 1969 , and is described as a small rockshelter with a fire blackened ceiling and very little midden. No previous investigations have been conducted at ' this site. Ca -Ora 689 - This Small rockshelter site was investigated in 1977. Located in the east canyon area, it was previously recommended that the site be fenced and preserved. The site appears to be in good condition at ' this time and the original the recommendation for preservation should be followed. UIL` UI "61 ,[JUI L aUdUi , CA -Ora 275 - Located in the east canyon area of the landfill site. It is a small open site consisting of a sparse shell and artifact scatter. The ' site is currently intact, and no investigations of the site have been conducted to date. ' Paleontology The paleontological study conducted at the site consisted of a literature and records search and one day of field reconnaissance. Results of this ' study indicate that the Coyote Canyon study area is underlain by sedi- mentary rocks of the Topanga Formation, intrusive igneous rocks and weakly ' consolidated sediments. Fragmental vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils have been previously reported and several additional occurrences ' of invertebrate fossils and plant fragments were recognized during 'the current study. ' The oldest bedrock unit within the study area is the Bommer Member of the Topanga Formation. This bedrock unit is located in the rugged eastern ' terrain of the study area and in the western portion of the San Joaquin Hills generally. The Topanga Formation is considered to be of moderate to ' high paleontological sensitivity since this formation has produced marine vertebrate fossils in other areas of Orange County. The western half of the study area and most of the present landfill site is underlain by the Los Trancos Member of the Topanga Formation. The ' literature search revealed that invertebrate, plant and vertebrate fossils were identified onsite. The vertebrate material included whale, fish, ' seal and sea lion fragments. The field survey during the present study revealed locally abundant marine invertebrates, oyster debris, molds of molluscs and plant fragments. The fragmental vertebrate fossils identi- fied within this formation lend credence to the potential for scientifi- cally important specimens being recovered from this Topanga Formation. Quaternary marine terrace deposits, located in the western portion of the study area, produced no fossil remains upon field examination and there is no previous record of fossils. Due to scattered marine invertebrates and marine and nonmarine vertebrate fossils found in similar deposits in the area, this deposit is considered to have moderate paleontological ' sensitivity. /-� 'sty Vr I'S 62 eam The disabuse intrusions and alluvial materials are not .anticipated to , yield significant paleontological resources. 3.6 LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANS 1 Onsite Land Uses , Landfill operations and open space are the primary land uses within the ' Coyote Canyon project area. The landfill activities include waste filling, borrow operations (for daily cover) and related support facili- ties. Landfilling is associated with an approximately 313-acre portion of the current Coyote Canyon lease area which includes the main, south and ' east canyons. The support facilities, which include the field offices, employee trailer, gate houses and equipment maintenance/storage areas are located at the north end of the site. ' The open space areas which surround the landfill working limits. are used , for excavation of daily cover soil. The more expansive open space within the eastern portions of the landfill lease area is used intermittently for , cattle grazing. Overhead power and cable television lines cross the northern end of the , landfill. filling in this area has required raising poles on several occasions. Inert fill materials have been placed within a fifty -foot ' radius of each pole to provide adequate support. The proposed borrow area consists of undeveloped open space. A number of t dirt access roads cross this area and the aforementioned power and cable , television lines are located along the eastern edges. The southerly por- tions have been previously graded and used for the dumping of fill and other construction wastes in conjunction with nearby developments. Surrounding Land Uses ' Coyote Canyon is situated within an open space area between the ,urbanized ' areas of south Irvine and northeast Newport Beach. A variety of existing and planned land uses surround the project area which are described in the ' following paragraphs and shown on Exhibit 14. City U1 1V 63 ►`JUFL DUacn , H h 1 11 i I 11 i� �,°,"r', 7' .-->s.,wr,;: ;,—.�- ^:ec '+.'�:'". y.i`aEv ,� a`.�a �-.:.i ., r�"�:;:, ,._� r..... _..-.,�-._ -f,,.� ,,;,•i i. f,_ '. },an. '.v�. � -�;a; ;is.K9if`ra,. ..�o� r _ ,- - •___ - f�l _s ._.._ � � - _ •+•r; . ,- - tf- •�'„'�'i�i✓ < .A 1 ti4 14...`. ~-' ;if - _ _ �-'"- ti e, 1e sue._ - ��•_:« `,� s� :-y f �� ., r..�. ,Ca . ,j 's� ., � 'f -t P4�Y 1 ?.. :,;°•3,` .i �! 't_` "f:� � `�.' _- �-' .y'F.�Yti" Lx,u .<l �� ra rp=t r--d Sn :L •'•''t - ' v�i' i_ 11r. . fbs ry'.;•s.�-a}=:.. �i £ if i, •'• • _ >- _ ffj \\�. ff 4� i' }_- f4 .a `- .!' - ' ��' il' 3 j. � ~� 9._l�.yr.,,. '=L- LR s,a _ .,t � � `�- - _ ',7 . 13 _ .- ,.v °. I�••" - _ ._ - ;�.. c i'„ .a ��'. .. ; s .•t ;',.� .ate .;'fi` .� _ , - -- - _- .L, `'S- .c�,�r. '',w--'� • -- .'�••�': ,` >; -- � ,.. -'� � ,,. �.rr -- i L)Fd'r^'ryt .,i3- _ �y-.3s �til��'!jy"=',m _ �_� ,- _ .� a,-•'F,t`:�i <f�1 a i1�!?'�Y.:::?'r', •• __ - � ,;I 37 .! _ ;9.i.6�_J -t d.' � - , �'I, g`r�. .r.. - _ - ir= - � O Y_=' -- ''_�,r�r4^~: •i, � ��',:%,k: -__ _ � -r,,:':� 'jig+.` �.' i :x?: �l �}';i�.Y •+ _ - �1 l,`yLC g[�L-i- z - _ - - - �A9' _ ♦� J F. �d= 4r.. Sr,�Y c.C,.wz,---'^a - rl - •L'f•ir•r ,t.� { '}... _ 1",-'`,, —.r: •sza.. T %•�•...- 'Fft_ - -,- :4 •�:.•n _ - r p1n -t `t,�:.rc'i.., _ �I• - - - _ Y'•''l �'✓' -'F. }•.``�. \'I\� 4'r,4 - -�' '2r'']7-3y"Y.l`i.;..' �, e_�-•1' .. - ,,, - 1 - -'"II - t Vie.,-,-.,'�= F's%Y `—i'• - _ ti,•:. .�:: • • .•w "s�:e 4'- ���_'�� it ��=l'-'_ s4 .�7 - • / fir'`_ - _ • - . - � _ _ ����.'nn�_ � ` - - : N p ��'.+++:rt.. !,klS rr-'�-r>�y- ��!,'�<<�, _ - ''` -- • • � - - - - l ` r'; e&;NY tx,•; , r .,`I. --�+ •,_ ,.,cJ '��' ��� - ,t vs-+.. •(1.�,r {'yii;.':'"\a rf „r 'i� ;�t ,!1 ��. 1r, - N, .J��>i 'r; .I ko 14 ek - ` INV Surrounding Land Use Legend 1 SAN JOAOUIN RESERVOIR 2 SPYGLASS HILL 3 HARBOR RIDGE 4 SEAWIND 5 HARBOR VIEW KNOLL 6 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER 7 HARBOR VIEW HILLS 8 AGRICULTURAL SITE 9 UCI 10 CHURCH COMPLEX 11 TURTLE ROCK 12 BOMMER CANYON AREA 13 SIGNAL PEAK 14 IRVINE COAST PLANNED COMMUNITY COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE o f - w - %h - 0 1150 2300 3450 .-e.poac ft- EXHIBIT 13 ' Residential - Located to the west of the landfill and proposed borrow area are the residential developments of Spyglass Hill (337 units), Harbor Ridge (268 units), Seawind (165 units) and Harbor View Knoll (119 units) ' within the City of Newport Beach. This residential area is characterized by a mix of single-family and clustered multi -family units constructed on ' the hillsides between San Joaquin Hills Road on the south and Ford Road on the north. A neighborhood commercial center is located at the corner of t Ford Road and San Miguel Drive. The closest tract to the site is Spyglass Hill which borders the southwest edge of the proposed borrow area. Additional residential developments, including Harbor View, Harbor Hill and Newport Hills tracts are located farther west. To the northeast is the residential community of Turtle Rock (2,812 units) within the City of Irvine. Single-family residential units are located ' along and between Bonita Canyon Road and Culver Drive at a distance (closest point) of approximately .8 miles from the landfill lease boun- daries. A major ridgeline extends between this residential area and the landfill boundaries. ' •San Joaquin Reservoir - The San Joaquin Reservoir is a potable water sup- ply storage reservoir located adjacent to the proposed borrow area. The reservoir is operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali- fornia (MWD) for purposes of storing Colorado River and State Water Pro- ject water supply for domestic use by the City of Newport Beach and the area served by the Irvine Ranch Water District. The dam and inlet/outlet ' feeder lines are located at the reservoir's north end. University of California, Irvine - The campus of the University of Cali- fornia, Irvine (UCI) is located north of Bonita Canyon Road. The Univer- sity's landholdings include the existing campus area as well as the currently undeveloped properties extending south to Bonita Canyon Road. Current uses include the central campus complex facilities and peripheral ' student and faculty housing areas. ' A variety of new development is being planned by the University for its southerly landholdings including construction of additional campus -related housing and plans for the extension of a southerly access route to Bonita 64 amity of ivewpon beacn Canyon Road.1 Long-range development plans for this portion of the univer- sity may ultimately include a mix of campus and community -related uses.2 Churches - A complex of three churches is nearing completion along Bonita Canyon Road between Coyote Canyon Road and Culver Drive, approximately one- half mile from the landfill lease boundaary. , Agricultural Site - A small agricultural parcel used for the cultivation of ' row crops is located northwest of the landfill along Bonita Canyon Road. Open Space - Undeveloped open space and rangeland surround the eastern, southern and northern perimeters of the project area. Present uses include , wildlife habitat, watershed and intermittent cattle grazing. Signal Peak - Regional communications transmission facilities are located ' atop Signal Peak to the southeast of the project area. ' Sommer Canyon - The City of Irvine is currently processing a proposed general plan amendment for a range of 1,751 to 5,216 units on approxi- mately 1,840 acres in the Bommer Canyon area located 2 miles east and northeast of the landfill lease boundaries. Estate, low, and medium -high density, residential, open space, park and general commercial uses are , proposed for this area.3 Irvine Coast Planned Comamunity4 - The 9,3451-acre Irvine Coast Planned Community is located to the south of and adjacent to the Coyote Canyon ' Project area. A variety of residential, recreation, commercial, open space and park uses are planned for this area which extends from the ' vicinity of Coyote Canyon south to the Pacific Ocean. Development plans for the areas in proximity to the Coyote Canyon area include medium density residential (215 affordable units), low density residential, ' residential recreation and a neighborhood commercial site. I Written communication from Mr. Paul Knoff, UCI Office of Physical Plan- ning in response to Notice of Preparation (see Appendix I)�, August 4, 1982. ' 2 Long-range Development Plan, University of California, Irvine, March lour. 3 Source: City of Irvine, August 1983. ' 4 Culbertson, Adams and Associates, First Amendment to the Irvine Coast Planned Community Development Plan and upp emen a_ex_, une , 19d. Uity 01 INUI65 out tieaLTI 1 I ' Land Use Plans ' The Coyote Canyon landfill and proposed borrow areas are located primarily within unincorporated Orange County and in part within the Cities of Irvine ' and Newport Beach (see Exhibit 2). The following is a discussion of the county and city land use plans and planning programs related to the project area. County of Orange General Plan - The Orange County General Plan Land Use Element designations ' for the project area and surrounding vicinity (Exhibit 14) include Public Facilities (4), Suburban Residential Communities (1B), Urban Residential ' Communities (IC), Rural Residential Communities (1A) and Open Space (5).1 A Solid Waste Facilities -Landfill Site overlay is also applied in combina- tion with the use designations for all lands within the current landfill ' lease boundaries. ' The Public Facilities designation, which encompasses the existing Coyote Canyon landfill operations area, identifies major facilities which are ' built or maintained for public use. The various residential communities designations provide for densities ranging from 1 du/4 acres (Rural) to 18+ du/ac (Urban). The Open Space designation identifies areas of notable scenic ecological, cultural, recreational or natural resource significance. n u H I u The Solid Waste Facilities -Landfill Site Overlay was established in re- sponse to recent state legislation requiring that all operating and planned solid waste facilities be specifically designated as such by the General Plan (AB 3302 and 3433). Previous County practice was to designate land- fills as open space or some other ultimate use. The purpose of the overlay is to specifically identify solid waste disposal facilities with surround- ing support use (e.g., borrow) or buffer areas, in compliance with the new state legislation. The overlay approach recognizes the existence of ulti- mate uses. As an interim designation, the overlay would revert back to the 1 County of Orange, EMA, Advance Plannin Pro ram Land Use Elemerr onent II, June 1982; Lan se emen ap as amenaeo Dy LU- , o upervisors Resolution No. 83-804, May 25, 1983. E 66 amity ar ivewport beacr I 1 underlying land use designations upon completion of the Coyote Canyon land- fill operations and final closure of the site. Other relevant Orange County General Plan land use planning programs for the project area are reflected in the Open Space and Conservation Elements and the Recreation Element - Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails. The Open Space and Conservation Elements show a proposed open space, conserva- tion and scenic corridor in proximity to the eastern portions of the pro- ject area. This corridor is intended to provide an open space linkage between the UCI area and planned recreational facilities within the Irvine Coastal area to the south and Laguna Canyon to the east. The Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails shows the planned Irvine Coast Trail (43) through the general vicinity of Bommer Canyon'on the east side of the pro- ject area. Community Profiles - The Community Profiles are a series of specific, community -level planning documents for the unincorporated areas of Orange County. They provide detailed planning information, including existing land use patterns, future uses and growth projections which complement and assist in the systematic implementation of the General Plan. The project area is located within Community Profile #50, South Irvine (landfill site), and #47, North Newport Beach (borrow area). The major portions of these community profiles are within the incorporated Newport Beach and Irvine areas. Land uses within the profile areas are grouped into categories which correspond generally to the broader General Plan Land Use Element designations. The corresponding Community Profile land use categories for the project area and surrounding vicinity are depicted on Exhibit 15.1 Zoning - The unincorporated portions of the landfill and proposed borrow area are currently zoned Al -"General Agricultural". Sanitary landfills and grading and excavation operations involving more than 5,000 cubic yards are uses permitted within the Al zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit.l ' 1 As amended pursuant to LU 83-1. 67 amity of Newport. Beach I C 0 I F I r- I �I I II I I 0 I Community Profile Land Use Designations Legend LOW DENSITY 1.2 (0.5-2.0 DU/AC) 1.3 MEDIUM LOW DENSITY (2.0-3.5 DU/AC) 1.4 D� MEDIUM DENSITY (3.5-6.5 DU/AC) 1.5 E�:j HIGH DENSITY (6.5-18.0 DU/AC) Eil1.6 HEAVY DENSITY (18.0+ DU/AC) 1.61 HEAVY DENSITY (18.0-28.0 DU/AC) 4.1 PUBLIC FACILITIES 5.12 CONSERVATION 5.2 RECREATION 5.3 NATURAL RESOURCES (�S LANDFILL SITE OVERLAY (S) SITE PLAN REVIEW 5.1 OTHER OPEN SPACE COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 tu LU LL I EXHIBIT 15 F L J I The inclusion of sanitary landfills as a conditional use in the Al zone was added to the Orange County Zoning Code in conjunction with the recently adopted Energy Recovery Ordinance.2 The primary purpose of the Energy Recovery Ordinance is to establish landfill gas recovery projects as a per- mitted use associated with existing or closed landfill operations, subject to the standards and regulations of a Landfill Gas Recovery Permit. The ordinance was also designed to include provisions which clarify the regula- tions regarding sanitary landfills and Use Permit processing requirements. City of Irvine Portions of the northern landfill lease and proposed borrow areas are located within the City of Irvine. The Irvine Sphere of Influence bound- aries include the remaining portions of the landfill lease limits and all but the southern end of the borrow area. ' General Plan3 - The City of Irvine General Plan Land Use Element designa- tions for the incorporated portions of the project area include Estate ' Density and Open Space (Exhibit 16). The Sphere of Influence designations for the remaining areas include Golf Course, Rural Density, Estate Density and Open Space. ' The Residential Phasing Plan, a component of the Land Use Element, identi- fies the desirable implementation timeframes for residential uses within the City.4 According to this plan, the suggested development timeframes ' for the designated residential uses in and around the project area are 1980-85 (westerly areas) and 1985-90 (easterly areas). Zoning - The incorporated City of Irvine lands within and surrounding the project area are presently zoned "A" Agricultural District and located within an "NO" Hillside Development Overlay District. I County of Orange Zoning Code, Section 7-9-55.3; as amended by Code Amendment CA 83-3, July 27, 1983 to include sanitary landfills. 2 Energy Recovery Ordinance, Code Amendment CA 83-3, adopted by Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 83-1176, July 27, 1983. 3 Cit of Irvine General Plan, Land Use Element, adopted September 15, 4 Land �Use Element, Residential Phasing Plan. 68 1 uity or r4ewport Beach Irvine/Newport Beach General Plan Land Uses Legend ,RY OF IRVINE RURAL DENSITY (LESS THAN .1 DU/AC) ESTATE DENSITY (0.1-1.10 DU/AC) LOW DENSITY (1.0-5 DU/AC) MEDIUM DENSITY 05-10 DU/AC) CITY OF IRVINE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOURCE: City of Irvine General Plan CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0-4 DU/AC) MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (10.1-15 DU/BUILDABLE ACRE) CRY OF NEWPORT BEACH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE SOURCE: City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL 'COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 11 LL •• EXHIBIT 16 ' The purpose of the Hillside Overlay District (Irvine Hillside Ordinance) is to provide regulations for the grading and development of hillside ' areas within the city in a manner which maintains their natural character and environmental and aesthetic values.1 Related policies include preserv- ing visually significant slopes and ridgelines, utilizing sensitive grad- ing design techniques and providing for proper slope stability. The ordinance is implemented through the grading plan review process. City of Newport Beach The southwestern edge of the proposed borrow area is located within the ' City of Newport Beach and designated for Low Density Residential Use. The City's Sphere of Influence boundaries also encompass the southern portions ' of the borrow area (Exhibit 16). The City does not establish land use designations for areas within its Sphere of Influence. The surrounding incorporated areas have been built out in accordance with the current tresidential General Plan and Zoning Regulations. ' 3.7 SOCIOECONOMICS ' Orange County, and its central coastal area, is expected to continue to grow significantly through the year 2000. Growth projections for the ' county are developed by the Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center. These projections are developed on the Community Analysis Area (CAA) level for input into the Southern California Associations of Governments (SCAG) ' growth policies. Population and housing projections through the year 2000 were recently adopted in Resolution 83-804 by the Orange County Board of ' Supervisors and are included in this analysis. Employment projections for the County were developed by MMTS Zones through the year 2020. This ' analysis includes county -wide projections and Coyote Canyon Service area projections through 2000. ' 1 City of Irvine Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Development "HD" Overlay Dis- trict, Article g., Section V.E-244-252. 69 Uty of Newport Beam I Population and Housing ', The County of Orange has experienced significant and rapid growth over the ' past thirty years and projections through the year 2000 indicate that this growth trend is expected to continue. The population of the county was estimated to be 1,932,709 by the 1980 census. This figure is expected to ' increase by 39% to 2,676,900 by the year 2000.1 A similar increase in the number of housing units is anticipated. The 1980 dwelling unit count, ac- cording to census data, was 721,514. The total number of dwelling units in the county is expected to increase by 43% to 1,037,700 by the year 2000.2 1 The Coyote Canyon landfill is located within the central coastal portion , of Orange County which has been designated as an area of rapid growth by County analysts. Three Community Analysis Areas comprise this central coastal area. These CAAs include: CAA 47 - .North Newport Beach, CAA 50 South Irvine, and CAA 61-Laguna Beach (see Exhibit 17). Community Analysis Area 47 is located immediately to the west of the land- fill area. Portions of the proposed project, including the borrow sites surrounding the San Joaquin reservoir, are located within this CAA. Devel- opment of the unincorporated portions of CAA,47 are primarily planned for residential uses and population and housing projections for the area indi- cate substantial growth between 1980 and 2000. The 1980 CAA population of 26,721 is expected to grow to 50,786 by 2000; this represents a 97% in- t crease. The number of housing units in CAA 47 is expected to increase by 69% from the 1980 level of 12,171 dwelling units to 20,663 dwelling units ' in 2000. The existing Coyote Canyon landfill operation is located within CAA 50 in ' South Irvine. This area is expected to experience very substantial growth through the year 2000. CAA 50 contains large amounts of vacant land which will ultimately be developed as a suburban residential area. Population projections for CAA 50 indicate that the area will grow from its 1980 popu- lation level of 20,078 to 57,460 by the year 2000. A correspondingly large increase in the number of housing units from 6,828 to 20,669 is expected ' for CAA 50 between 1980 and 2000. 1 Orange County Preferred III. CPA 83-3 adopted on May 25, 1983 by the ' Orange County Board of Supervisors. 2 Ibid. Uli OT IN 70 y port t5eacri � J 1 L�n Community Analysis Areas 1 ARRANCA R / t c a�_� r�� �� �� S ��`�.(' r �• 1 ♦�f W T M _ �, ' - ' � A �' � \ .•,'l �r � � .:[ -�� J� �. r � \•. �, � � �_ y ram. �} '� r � �♦ ~ �� urr�.'t i � � l ir�r 'R •�)7AA,S,� !� y '" _- -Y'-y'� -� -4 � r �' I, i SOUTH 1 VINE,. DP— / S;'-�` �,\ . •�'. `PA •cl' 7. r� �: 4. � �,_ .! 1. 1" Y -. c. �. L vy�2/�y. f� 1��{f.��•�'� ,� _ _.ems.• 44tt i. .. .t, c�- 1 L • h�. D I�,C i (,�� vim,. s ;i' , f �� -on..i Ali kv X p' `C• tP".." ,r � 'i•1 �l�l 1a- _-� y. ,•� gf � f! "'� �J'r 4 �f• �'* . :;. +�;,y�.a',,- C ':�-"' - {, Jy�,. �!= ^JL 1o .✓• �W � �^ �* � � i � '�. Y� ili P f � I ,� 1 f .Y / Dt cc \�m -,� y :;f' ( '' y .i yam'• ll� V._ \ t "L"e[ r�•„1L .. _'s 'ram f41 -11 k 5 r /State Palk us 1p Lr �, SANTARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE City of Newport Beach 0 600 1200 1800 Ul .. EXHIBIT 17 ' CAA 61 contains large portions of undeveloped coastal area between the landfill site and the southerly boundary of Laguna Beach. Much of this area is proposed for open space and conservation uses and, therefore, popu- lation and housing growth is expected to be relatively modest between 1980 and 2000. The population of this area is expected in increase approximate- ly 22% from the 1980 level of 31,605 to 38,601 in 2000. The number of dwelling units in the area will similarly increase by 25% between 1980 and 2000. ' Employment - General County -wide employment projections for jobs indicate an increase in the number of employment opportunities from 943,200 jobs in 1980 to 1,414,600 ' jobs in 2000, or an approximate 50% increase. Total employment in 1980 for the Coyote Canyon landfill service area was 164,627. The projected increase in job opportunities for the area, over the twenty year period, is 130,291 or 79%, which will bring the total number of jobs to 294,918 in the year 2000.1 Employment - Landfill Related ' Currently, 62 people are employed at the three County solid waste transfer stations and 75 people are employed at the four County landfills. Of these 137 people, there are currently 32 employees at the Coyote Canyon land- ' fill.2 3.8 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION A traffic study was prepared for the Coyote Canyon project by Kunzman Asso- ciates in August 1983. A summary of the existing traffic and circulation conditions for the area surrounding the landfill is presented below. The original report is contained in its entirety in Appendix F. 1 Final Technical Report. Projection of Jobs for MMTS Zones. Prepared for the Orange County Transportation Commission, 1981. 2 Solid Waste Management System for the County of Orange, prepared by ' Engineering Science, June 1982. 71 Uity or ivewport teach -r Site Access i Roadways that are used for access to the Coyote Canyon site include Coyote Canyon Road, Bonita Canyon Drive, and MacArthur Boulevard. Access condi- tions as they exist today are described below and are illustrated in Exhibit 18. Coyote Canyon Road: Coyote Canyon Road is an existing two lane undivided road used exclusively for accessing the Coyote Canyon landfill. Coyote Canyon Road extends as a paved road from Bonita Canyon Drive to the land- fill fee collection booths, a distance of approximately 0.75 miles. Access to Coyote Canyon Road is controlled by a gate located approximately 100 feet north of Bonita Canyon Drive. The gate is closed when the landfill site is closed. Coyote Canyon Road is on an uphill grade from Bonita , Canyon Drive to the site and no passing is permitted. Due to heavy truck use, the existing pavement on Coyote Canyon Road is rough in areas. Bonita Canyon Drive: Bonita Canyon Drive is an existing two land undivided roadway, extending east -west between MacArthur Boulevard, Culver Drive and beyond through the City of Irvine. The portion of Bonita Canyon Drive between Coyote Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard services the majority of trips to the landfill. This portion of the road has a curvilinear alignment and is posted with a 35 mile per hour speed limit. An advisory rough road conditions sign is also posted as portions of the structural roadway are failing. This portion of Bonita Canyon Drive also includes an approximate 0.4 mile length grade which is posted no stopping. t To the east of Coyote Canyon Road, Bonita Canyon Drive is a two lane undi- vided roadway with a 55 mile per hour speed limit. This portion is posted with a seven ton vehicle weight restriction which reduces its' useage as , major truck access route to the landfill. _. MacArthur Boulevard: MacArthur Boulevard (State Route 73) in the vicinity of Bonita Canyon Drive is presently a four lane divided roadway, and is posted with a 50 to 55 mile per hour speed limit. The intersection of , MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive is,controlled with a four phase traffic signal. A raised 300 foot southbound left turn pocket is provided 72 LAY OT IV ewport neacn �� I I u 1 1 iI 1 I p I I fi Legend 2U - Number of Through TrsW Larm D•Dhrided U•Undbided 0 Traffic Signd Stop Sign SOURCE: Kunzman Associates Existing Circulation Network ' COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE e lolly 01 IVewport Beam EXHIBIT18 for vehicles turning towards the landfill site. The peak hours of traffic on MacArthur Boulevard at Bonita Canyon Road occur between the hours 7:00 and 8:00 AM in the morning and 4:45 and 5:45 in the evening. ' Internal Circulation - Internal roads on a packed earth base of soil are used for access within the landfill site. Vehicles entering from the fee collection booths at the north end are directed by flagmen to the desig- nated disposal locations. ILandfill -Related Traffic Generation ' Information obtained from the County of Orange and traffic measurement con- ducted by Kunzman Associates indicate that the Coyote Canyon landfill oper- ation generates 2,300 vehicles trips on an average dry weather operating day (see Appendix F for additional details). The landfill -related traffic occurs during the normal operating hours between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. However, it was observed that the peak traffic generation occurs between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon in the morning and 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. in the evening. These late morning and afternoon peaks occur because the trucks collect trash in the early morning and afternoon and then travel to Coyote Canyon to dump their loads. ' The landfill traffic volumes are characterized by a mix of autos and light, medium and heavy duty trucks. Table 4 shows the observed vehicular mix and percent distribution by access route for the landfill traffic volumes only. IThis table indicates the following major trends: - 86.5 percent of all vehicles accessing the landfill entered from Bonita Canyon Drive via MacArthur Boulevard; - Approximately 61 percent of all vehicles entering the landfill are truck -type vehicles and they reach the site primarily via Bonita Can- yon Drive from the west and MacArthur Boulevard from the north. - The vehicles accessing the landfill from Bonita Canyon Drive east of Coyote Canyon Road, representing 13.5 percent of the total landfill ' traffic volume, are predominantly cars, vans and pickup trucks. ��Ly (Newport rseacn r m m m m m m Now WON m so m m m m "Elm V TABLE 4 VEHICLE MIX OF COYOTE CANYON' LANDFILL TRAFFIC BY ACCESS ROUTE Location Landfill Site Coyote Canyon Bonita Canyon Bonita Canyon MacArthur Blvd. MacArthur Blvd. Generated Road Drive a/o' w/o Coyote s/o Bonita n/o Bonita Coyote Canyon Canyon Canyon Canyon Percent of Total Site Generated Traffic 100.0 13.5 86.5 23.8 62.7 Type of Vehicles Percentage of Landfill Traffic by Location Cars, Vans, 1/2 ton Pickups 38.9 57.9 35.8 47.8 31.1 Flat Beds (2 axles) 11.1 24.6 8.9 6.7 9.7 Refuse Trucks (2 axles) 6.5 6.1 6.6 7.0 6.7 Refuse Trucks (3 axles) 7.8 1.5 8.9 9.9 8.5 Dump Trucks (2 axles) 3.5 4.5 3.3 5.3 2.5 Dump Trucks (3 axles) 8.3 4.5 8.9 11.1 8.0 Tractor and Tub or Trailer (5 axles) 11.5 0.0 13.5 0.0 18.7 Transfer Trucks (2 axles) 1.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.1 Transfer Trucks (3 axles) 11.1 .9 12.6 12.2 12.7 Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 City of Newpoit beach Existing Circulation Conditions i The average daily traffic volumes on roads surrounding the site are pre- sented on Exhibit 19. The volumes shown were obtained from the County of ■ Orange, the City of Newport Beach, the City of Irvine and CalTrans. Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values for the intersec- tion in the vicinity of the landfill, based upon manual peak hour measure- , ments conducted by �Kunzman Associates, are also presented on Exhibit 19.1 As shown, the intersections of Bonita Canyon Drive/Coyote Canyon Road and , Bonita Canyon Drive/Culver Drive currently operate at Level of Service A during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The Bonita Canyon Drive/MacAr- thur Boulevard intersection, however, shows more congested operations with a Level of Service D during its peak hours. I It is important to note that the peak ICU -of the surrounding intersections occurs during the peak hours of the arterials and not during the peak peri- ods of landfill traffic generation. For the Bonita Canyon Drive/MacArthur Boulevard intersection in particular, the landfill generates only 2.7 per- cent of the traffic occurring during the arterial commuting peak hours. Even assuming that large trucks operate at an equivalent of 2.5 passenger cars during the peak landfill generation periods, intersections in the vicinity of the site operate at a Level of Service B (62 percent ICU) or better during these periods. Circulation Planning r Circulation planning for the Coyote Canyon area and surrounding vicinity is reflected in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (Exhibit 20), the City of Irvine General Plan Circulation Element (Exhibit 21) and ' the City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways (Exhibit 22). Significant roadway improvements are presently or ultimately planned for the general Coyote Canyon area. The ultimate status of the existing and , future planned roadways for the area are described below. 1 ICU is a measure used to express utilization of an intersection's available capacity (as a percent), with respect to traffic volumes and turning movements,, and corresponding Level of Service (see Appendix E for addi�nA.1 details). 75 , OUL D(dacrl 0 Le Cnd 8$000• kn" Dally Tfeffic VAM D ICU•l.ewl of rv� •D • PM: ICU•Lewl of 2.1ce SOURCE Kunzman Associates Existing Daily Traffic Volumes and ICU's COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE e e %.ALY UI Newport Beac ii EXHIBIT19 I I I I .1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 SECONDARY ------- COMMUTER -----• — — iTRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ESTABLISHED CONCEPTUALLY. ALIGNMENT PROPOSED SOURCE: Kunzman Associates Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL .. COUNTY OF ORANGE .y or iwwport Beaci EXHIBIT20 I I I I I p I I Ii I i Legend ARTERIAL HIGHWAY DESIGNATIONS MAJOR HIGHWAY •� PRIMARY HIGHWAY �- SECONDARY HIGHWAY YYYYYYYp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SOURCE: Kunzman Assoclates City of Irvine Circulation Element COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 1U1 i Newport Beacl EXHIBIT 21 a C F n •v ADOPTED 11Y CRY COUNCIL .-. MARCH 11,1974 Legend . • • Routes That rEequie Further Coordination. •••••• SecoNday Road (Four lane Uxivided). --' primary Rand (Four Lane Divided). "- Major Road (Six lane Divided). .yYtts rE AR�pQA .r •a :s .p •r .s :O .O EEiij Prinxty Road Moaled. B Adopted Freeway Routes. m Wer• ......., Newport Beach Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF 11�iAN8 IN4ewport Beacr \/ EXHIBIT 22 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor - The San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor is a proposed major regional transportation facility link- ing the southeast and central portions of Orange County. The planned alignment of the corridor, as shown on the Orange County MPAH and now the subject of detailed design study, includes a segment extending through the northeast margins of the Coyote Canyon landfill lease area. An EIS for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is currently being prepared. The segment of the corridor adjacent to Coyote Canyon is not expected to be built within the projected life of any of the project alternatives. Pelican Hill Road - Pelican Hill Road is an Orange County MPAH-designated future Major arterial (six lanes, divided) extending through the eastern margins of the landfill site to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corri- dor. The road is also conceptually shown to continue north of the corridor as with a Primary Arterial status (four lanes, divided) to join Culver Drive. ' The Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways also shows Pelican Hill Road through the area (unclassified status). Pelican Hill Road how- ever is not shown on Irvine's Circulation Element. Bonita Canyon Drive - Bonita Canyon Drive is shown as an ultimate Major arterial on both the county and Newport Beach Master Plans. The Irvine Circulation Element designation is different, however, with a reduced Secondary Highway classification (four lanes, undivided) shown for Bonita ' Canyon Drive. The portion of Bonita Canyon Drive between MacArthur Boule- vard and Coyote Canyon Road may ultimately be eliminated in conjunction with the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. ' Coyote Canyon Road - The existing Coyote Canyon Road access route is not Canyon Drive, a shown on the county or city Master Plans. North of Bonita future Coyote Canyon Drive extension to UCI is shown as a Secondary arteri- 1 al on the Orange County MPAH. Current access to the Coyote Canyon landfill would be substantially modified with construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and the future Bonita Canyon Drive and Ford Road. MacArthur Boulevard - MacArthur Boulevard is shown on the county and city Master Plans as an ultimate Major arterial highway. I Uity or IN 76 ✓porgy beacn San Joaquin Hills Road - San Joaquin Hills Road is currently built to Spy- ' glass Hill Road just west of the Newport Beach city limits and the proposed borrow area. The future extension of San Joaquin Hills Road as a Major ar- terial highway along the southern margins of the landfill is shown on the Orange County MPAH. 3.9 AIR RESOURCES An air quality assessment of the Coyote Canyon area was completed by Hans D. ,Giroux, Meteorology/Air Quality Consultant, in August 1983. The follow- ing discussion of baseline air quality conditions in the area is summarized from Mr. Giroux's report which is contained in Appendix G. Climate Climatic conditions in the Coyote Canyon area, as with all of Southern California, are controlled primarily by the semi -permanent high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and by the moderating effects of the nearby , oceanic heat reservoir. California's position between the mid -latitude storm tracks to the north and tropical storms to 'the south minimizes the potential for weather extremes. , Temperature in the Newport Beach and Irvine areas average 620F with only small seasonal and annual variation. Rainfall, by contrast, varies marked- ly by day, season, and year. The average annual rainfall for the area is 13 inches. However, because most of the southern California's rainfall results from the fringes of middle -latitude storms, a shift in the storm track of a few hundred miles can mean the difference between a very wet ' year and one with drought conditions. For example, a single storm dropped almost seven inches of rain on the area within 24 hours in January 1956. However, even in the wettest years, there is little or no rainfall from April through October, which allows areas like the Coyote Canyon landfill to dry out even if there was significant rainfall penetration during a wet winter. 1 Solid waste disposal, as with most other outdoor activities, is generally not affected by weather conditions. Heavy rain does affect daily landfill ' uny OT r4uw`pon CSeacn operations. Special wet weather areas are used. Weather does play a sig- nificant part in the dispersion of odors from the landfill or in the occa- sional blowing of litter. Wind and temperature inversions are the key factors. 1 Wind Conditions ' Wind conditions are an important meteorologic factor influencing the local atmospheric effects of the Tandfill relative to odor, litter and fugitive dust transmission patterns. The diffusion of landfill odors, the dispersal of litter on windy days and fugitive dust impacts depend largely on wind direction and speed. Winds across the Newport Beach/Irvine area are primarily from the south- west, perpendicular to the Orange County coastline. At night, the winds, 1 reverse as they drain off the Santa Ana Mountains across the Tustin Plain toward the ocean. At night and in the morning, winds are typically light (averaging 2-4 mph) and sometimes go completely calm. Table 4 shows the annual wind distribution in the Irvine area during the calm or offshore nocturnal period and during the daytime onshore component. The marked difference between their two time periods is readily seen with respect to both wind speeds and directions. As shown, daytime winds comprise more than two-thirds of all winds from the ' SW between 4-9 mph while 80% of the nocturnal winds are either calm or have a weak component from the east between 1-3 mph. Odor complaints around the landfill are readily understood in terms of these wind patterns. At night, local air flow drains down the Coyote Canyon, carrying any landfill odors toward Upper Newport Bay with infrequent spillover towards the residential ' areas west of the San Joaquin Reservoir (e.g., Spyglass Hill). Landfill odor is therefore detectable mainly along the southern edge of the UCI campus and especially along Bonita Canyon Road from Coyote Canyon Road to MacArthur Boulevard. During the morning, the previous night's drainage flow reverses and is detected by receptors east of Coyote Canyon toward Turtle Rock. I 1 City of Newport Beach TABLE 5 IRVINE WIND -FREQUENCY _ DLSTRIB,UTION 971 9=80) 0.0 = less than 0.05%. Observations taken at IRWD Wastewater Treatment Plant near Michelson Road and San Diego Creek. City of Newport Beach ' Throughout the morning hours, the winds increase and sunshine warms the slopes around the landfill. The increased winds and heating creates me- chanical and convective turbulence, which soon mix any landfill odor emis- sions to where they can become undetectable except within the landfill site I itself. In the evening, as the sea breeze dies out and the ground cools, turbulence diminishes and the odor again becomes perceptible in the Turtle 1 Rock area. It is also faintly detectable at times further north within University Park. Once the land breeze becomes well established at night, the cycle is completed. A variation in the above -described typical wind pattern for the area occurs during the infrequent periods of high or very strong wind conditions. As shown in Table 5, winds of 20 mph or more almost always blow from the north-northeast and are characteristic of the periods when Santa Ana wind conditions prevail. These strong winds, which can result in increased ' litter and fugitive dust emission transport potentials, are funneled from the toe of the landfill into the upper canyon areas. 1 Ambient Air Quality ' The Coyote Canyon area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) where the general air quality is determined by: - The primary pollutants added daily to the air mass, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NO and NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), particulates and various hydrocarbons (HC); - The secondary pollutants already present in the air mass and formed by chemical and photochemical reactions (oftentimes involving primary ' pollutants) including ozone (03), photochemical aerosols and peroxyace- tylnitrates(PAN); and - Local and regional meteorologic and topographic influences. The air quality distribution trend within the general region is largely in- fluenced by the prevailing wind patterns. The previously described light morning and night winds allow for the stagnation of pollutants within the 1 Uty of NdWport t3eacn L southeast Orange County coastal corridor, whereas the stronger daytime on- shore breezes blow any local air contaminants well inland. As a result, — the inland valleys of the basin have high pollution levels in the summer when onshore flow is strongest, while coastal communities often have unhealthful air quality on winter nights when basinwide emissions drain seaward. Generally, air quality in,the coastal areas of the county is much , better than in inland valleys of the South Coast Air Basin, but no area of southern California is completely immune to periodic intrusions of polluted r air. Ambient air quality is described in terms relative to compliance with state and federal standards which have been adopted to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Table 6 summarizes ambient air quality data for the area from the last four years of monitoring (1978-81) at the closest South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) sta- tion, located in Costa Mesa.1 As shown, standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particu- lates, sufates, and lead have all been exceeded at times during the last , few years. These violations of standards are genearlly only a small increment above allowable levels. The data shows a slow but encouraging , improvement trend toward eventual attainment of the primary national ambient air quality standards as set forth by the 1977 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. In the rest of the air basin, pollution control measures ' have also created a significant improvement trend. The air quality in many areas is so degraded (primarily from photochemical ozone) to start with, however, that slow improvement means air quality will remain in excess of applicable standards for many years to come. 1 With regard to the current ambient air quality standards, the standard for , total suspended particulates (TSP), important in considering fugitive dust generation from landfills, is under consideration for revision by both the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Both agencies recognize that large soil particles from heavy equipment or agricultural operations are readily filtered by human breathing passages and TSP, therefore, does not represent a good measure 1 The most recent 1982 data have not yet been finalized and released. , city or iv 61 rpori tieacri 1 G I I I '1 I 1 I of dust -related health impacts. However, until a respirable particulate standard is developed and measurement devices are approved, the existing TSP standards will continue to remain applicable (see Table 6). The landfill operations at Coyote Canyon contribute incrementally to the local and regional ambient air quality conditions, as measured by ambient air quality standards. Contributions from the landfill in this regard relate to the exhaust emissions from onsite equipment operations; emis- sions from haul vehicles travelling to and from the landfill; and fugitive dust from soil cover excavation/placement, waste unloading and dirt road travel. Other air quality -related effects associated with the landfill are of more local nature and include fresh trash odors, decomposition gases and litter dispersal. The effects of the landfill on air quality are described further in the following section. Landfill Air Quality Effects Landfill Odors/Gases Nothwithstanding the complexities associated with landfill odors and their perception by humans, they can be broken down into three general categories which describe the odors generated by buried refuse. These three odor categories are referred to as "fresh trash", "residual decay" and "septic". Fresh trash - This is the odor emanating from the working face as the trash is dumped and spread prior to daily soil covering. Most fresh trash odor comes from the initial decay of small amounts of food items plus a large amount of wet newspaper, cardboard, and other paper items. It is the odor one commonly finds in a residential trash can or commercial dumpster. buried Residual decay - This odor results from the anaerobic decay of material generated when microscopic organisms digest organic matter. It varies greatly with the type of material buried, the age or state or decay, and the moisture content of the fill. The residual decay odor is the detectable component in the landfill gas which is about one-half methane and one-half carbon monoxide. The detectable component is only a few per- cent of the total gas emissions. It is, however, easily perceptible as 1 uty of iuewport tjeacn TABLE 6 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY —•COST MESA A D STATION Po utant 197a 1 9• 1980 1981 Ozone i HR L 0.10 ppm 52 26 20 28 1 HR > 0.12 ppm 25 16 5 6 1 HR 2 0.20 ppm 3 1 0 1 Max. 1-HR conc. (ppm)' 0.22 0.21 0.16 0.20 Carbon 1 HR 2 20 ppm 0 2 0 0 monoxide 8 HR e_ 9 ppm 9 28 7 4 Max. 1-HR conc. (ppm) 18 . 21 17 15 Max. 8-HR conc. (ppm) 12.8 15.9 13.9 11.7 Nitrogen 1 HR it 0.25 ppm 4 4 2 2 dioxide Max. 1-HR conc. (ppm) 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.29 Total 24-HR at 100 pg/m3 10/61 26/61 6/20 - suspended 24-HR > 260 }fig/m3 0/61 0/61 0/20 - particulates Max. 24-HR conc. (Ng/m3) 175 '252 125 - Sulfate 24-HR > 25 pg/m3 2/61 0/61 0/20 - particulates Max. 24-HR conc. (Ng/m3) 27,/2 24.2 13.5 - Lead 1-MO > 1.5 pg/m3 4/12 3/12 0/4 - particulates Max. 1-MO conc. (pg/m3) 3.11 1.90 0.82 - - Particulate monitoring discontinued mid-1980. City of Newport Beach ' some of the constitutents in this odor are detectable by humans in the parts per million or even a few parts per billion range. ' The residual decay odor is comprised mainly of organic compounds, including sulfur compounds such as pungent mercaptans, nitrogenous compounds such as amines, oxygenated compounds such as esters, alcohols, and organic acids, ' and substituted ethylenic or benzenoid compounds. It also includes some inorganic gases such as hydrogen sulfide '(a rotten egg smell) sulfur dioxide, and ammonia. ' Septic - Septic odors result from the breakdown of amino acids and are ' dominated by organic nitrogen compounds (e.g., indole and skatole). Their character is fecal and putrescent. The Coyote Canyon landfill experienced some of these odors during the periods of open air sewage sludge drying onsite, a practice which has since been replaced by landfilling the sludge ' directly. Landfil'led sludge itself contributes small amounts of septic odorant, but the rate of generation is usually small and the typical land- fill odor ususally does not have the septic smell. Septic odors can develop when canneries, packing houses, rendering plants, ' or food processors bury their wastes in landfills, especially fish cannery wastes. The Coyote Canyon landfill does not accept liquid waste from these sources and therefore does not experience the septic odors that may be noticeable at some other landfills. I The above -described residual decay odor constitutes the primary component of the landfill odor "plume" associated with the Coyote Canyon operations. The odor is pervasive, is dependent on the volume of landfilled waste, and, if uncontrolled, may persist for 10-20 years after refuse burial. The landfill odor "plume" is comprised of many compounds, each with a dif- ferent threshold level of detectability. 'As a result, the odor character of the plume changes with downwind distance. Farthest from the source, only the compounds with the highest concentration and the lowest detection threshold are typically noted. Closer to the source, new odorants become detectable and the character changes. Very close to the source, all odor- ants become detectable and the odor strength becomes overpowering. r k.ALy.V1 PN 841pOR rseaci i The general sequence of odor character is that the odor usually has a decay -like quality, which changes from a sour sensation farthest from the - landfi.11 (mercaptans and organic acids) to sickly -sweet at intermediate ' distances (esters and alcohols) to a pungent odor at concentrated sources on the landfill. At receptor sites off the landfill, the sour and sickly- ' sweet odor sensations are typically the only ones detected unless a major unearthing of buried trash allows a concentrated emission of odorants to escape from the landfill. The underlying decay component smells about the , same at almost every landfill in Southern California; some are just stronger than others. ' Given the complexity of these odors and no precise Coyote Canyon genera- ' tion data, it is difficult to quantify the odor effects associated with the landfill operations. However, the application of some standards odor concentration calculations together with generalized assumptions as to generation and dispersal, provides a means of estimating the limits of landfill odor detectability around the Coyote Canyon site. Utilizing this , assessment methodology, the limit of detectability for the existing Coyote Canyon landfill odor plume has been estimated at 1.45 miles.l This limit ' of detectability extends to the Spyglass Hill and nearby residential areas, to the Bonita Canyon Road/MacArthur Boulevard intersection, to the UCI campus, and covers the southern half of Turtle Rock. These areas are exactly where odor nuisance has been detected in the past. As described in previously, the odor dispersal and detectability patterns vary locally hesponse to the prevailing wind conditions for the Coyote Canyon area. Existing odor control practices at the Coyote Canyon landfill, as described in Section 2.3 of this report, include rapid spreading, compaction and ' daily cover of the refuse with soil (fresh trash, residual decay odors); specialized mixing techniques for sewage sludge disposal (septic odors), and routine correction of fissures in the landfill surface (gas ' emissions). 1 40 million cubic yards of material (refuse and cover) currently in , pl'ace at the landfill. See Appendix G for all assumptions and support- ing calculation methodology. UILY Ui iMewPUr L afdac;r ' Fugitive Dust 1 Fugitive dust is generated by borrow excavation and emplacement of cover soils, vehicular travel on dirt roads within the landfill and waste unload- ing activities. Of these activities, the the daily borrow excavation and soil placement operations are the most significant source of fugitive dust within the landfill. Each cubic yard of soil which is excavated and spread on the landfill is ' estimated to generate about 0.4 pounds of dust into the air. About 80% of this dust settles within the landfill; the rest blows downwind, usually across Turtle Rock and Bommer and ,Shady Canyons. Resultant downwind dust levels, associated with an average annual earth movement of approximately 500,000 cubic yards, are presented in the following Table 7. ' Table 7 COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL FUGITIVE DUST GENERATIONI 1J I I I I Distance from Particulate Concentration (Miles) (ug/m0 Upwind 80 0.00 500 0.25 349 0.50 267 0.75 217 1.00 205 2.00 107 Visibilit Miles 10.0 5.4 6.4 7.2 7.8 8.2 9.5 As shown, dust concentrations in excess of the allowable standards for par- ticulates (260 ug/m3, see Table 6) extend approximately one-half mile from the landfill. However, rapid dilution with clean air soon reduces the dust concentration to acceptable limits before reaching populated areas. 1 Source: Hans D. Giroux, August 1983. Based on dust generation factors contained in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42. See Appen 7R or assump- tions and supporting calculation methodology. I Ully oT IN 86✓port Ueacn I Table 7 also shows that the dust loading pattern can contribute to in- ' creased local haze levels until the plume becomes sufficiently diluted. Beyond about one mile, the dust plume is well diluted, but dust transport ' may be evident near the landfill and from surrounding roadways. Dust control practices currently employed at the landfill, as noted in Sec- tion 2.3, focus primarily on the daily watering of access roads, haul roads , and the perimeter of the waste fill working face. Airborne Litter , Airborne litter results from either high wind situations when debris may , be lofted during dumping and spreading, or from litter lost by transport vehicles. The open -vehicle transport problem can occur at any time, but ' is generally worse during the stronger Santa Ana wind conditions. The wind orientation from the north or east during high wind episodes results in a litter dispersal pattern southward toward the upper reaches of Coyote ' Canyon and westward toward the ridgeline between the site and the Newport Beach residential reas. Debris which is blown from the working face is ' trapped by the surrounding ridgelines and ususally remains within the landfill boundaries. The debris which is dropped from haul vehicles onto the landfill access roads is routinely cleaned by litter crews. ' Vehicular Emissions Exhaust emissions are generated by haul vehicles travelling to and from the landfill and by heavy equipment operations onsite. The daily pollu- tant emissions associated with landfill and onsite equipment useage have been estimated (see Appendix F) and are shown together with total county- wide emissions estimates in the following Table 8. 1 LI City of NdWport Beach i I I i I Table 8 DAILY AIR EMISSIONS Daily Emissions (tons/day) L'andfilll Landfill2 Orange3 Pollutant Traffic Equipment County CO 1.35 0.011 1,376.1 HC 0.12 0.004 270.2 NOx 0.24 0.054 234.2 Sox 0.03 0.004 27.3 Particulates 0.03 0.003 88.2 TOTAL 1.77 0.076 1,996.0 Air Quality Management Planning The State Lewis Air Quality Act (1976) and the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (1977) require the development of a program to meet state and federal air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin. The state has indicated a time frame of "at the earliest achievable date" and the feder- al government stipulates attainment of all primary national ambient air quality standards by 1982 with an extension of attainment deadlines to 1987 for some pollutant species provided resonable further progress (RFP) if demonstrated by 1982. In February 1979, the Southern California Assocation of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAQMD, 1979). A revised AQMP was prepared in 1982 and subsequently adopted by SCAG and SCAQMD as well as the State Air Resources Board. 1 2300 vehicle trips per day, average two-way trip length of 23.8 miles �nd a vehicle/truck mix: autos/light trucks (33%); medium duty trucks 17%) heavy duty gas trucks (17%); heavy duty diesel trucks (33%), as presented in Section 3.8, TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION (see also Appendix F for emission factors and additional assumptions/calculation method- ology). 2 Assumes six bull dozers, two compactors and four scrapers in use at the landfill working face, one bulldozer for the borrow operations, and an eight hour working period (see also Appendix F for additional assumptions/calculation details). 3 Source: AQMP, 1982. 88 Uty of Newport beach I In preparing the 1982 AQMP Revision, the SCQMD and SCAG have taken the position that 1987 is an unrealisitic deadline for attainment in southern California. If attainment is not predicted by the mandated deadline, then ' the EPA must impose a ban on the construction of major new sources of pol- lution. EPA also has discretionary authority to withhold funding for high- , way construction, sewage treatment facilities, and air programs. When California enacted legislation for a mandatory vehicle inspection and maintenance program, EPA released those restricted funds, but retains the ' authority to reimpose those funding sanctions, if necessary. There are no provisions of the AQMP or of these AQMD's supporting Rules and Regulations that specifically relate to landfill operations. However, the ' SCAQMD does have the ability to restrict the adverse impact landfill opera- tions may have on the surrounding community through its Rule 402 (Nuisance) ' Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) authority. Rule 402 states: "A person shall not discharge from any source whatso- ever such quantities of air containments or other material which cause injury, nuisance or annoyance to , any considerable number of persons or to the public ..." (SCAQMD, 1977) Rule 403(b) states-: I "A person shall take every reasonable precaution to , minimize fugitive dust emissions from wrecking, exca- vation, grading, clearing of land and solid waste dis- posal operations." (SCAQMD, 1977). These rules, particularly the nuisance rule, have been invoked on several ' occasions to issue abatement orders to some landfill operators whose opera- tional practices created strong odor concentrations. Encroachment of resi- dential growth into former open space buffer zones around landfills has led to a number of land use conflicts that have resulted in requirements for some landfill operators to control odorous emissions. Coyote Canyon , has been inspected and not subject to abatement orders in the past. r- I 89 City of Newport Beach 1 ' Landfill Gas Control/Recovery Planning ' The SCAQMD at one time considered developing a landfill gas emission con- trol rule to prevent the reactive organic gases (ROGs) generated by land- fills from contributing to basinwide ozone levels. These ROGs mix with nitrogen oxides (NOx) and react photochemically under abundant sunlight to ' form ozone and other irritants. Voluntary installation of gas recovery systems at various landfills within the basin to economically recover these gases (for sale or to generate electricity) or for subsurface gas ' migration and odor control, however, eliminated the need for this rule. The release of ROGs and odorous gases from a landfill operation can be significantly reduced with the installation of gas recovery systems. The SCAQMD Landfill Gas Emission Task Force concluded: "Finding 4. Air pollution control systems at land- fills in the South Coast Air Basin fall into three categories: a. Landfill gas recovery, purification and offsite sale of methane. b. Energy recovery (combustion onsite ' and heat recovery). c. Flaring onsite. ' The first two of these systems are most desireable and are strongly encouraged. The third is the least desirable, since it causes further pollution from nitro- gen oxides, with lesser amounts or car- bon monoxide and particulate matter, and no energy recovery involved. However, ' it and does minimize eliminates reactive organic gases objectionable odors." (SCAQMD, 1982) A gas recovery system is now being researched and planned for Coyote Canyon ' by Genstar, Inc. The system, as currently proposed, will extract landfill gas for electricity generation. It will be designed to trap gas migrating through the soil and to tap into the most productive gas -producing strata within the fill surface. Although the system is not designed specifically to control odors, odor control will be an important by-product of its installation. City of Newport Beach I Air pollution control systems at landfills, whether gas cleaning and treat- , ment, electrical generation, or simple combustion, are regulated by the SCAQMD's permit system under what is called "New Source Review" (NSR). The , District's NSR rule (Rule 1300 et. seq.) requires that any significant new source of emissions must use best available control technology; it must not ' cause a violation or make measurable worse an existing violation of clean air standards; and the applicant must offset the new emissions by retiring an equivalent amount of emissions from other basin sources. Air pollution ' control systems at landfills, while reducing hydrocarbon emissions from the landfill, often create increased NOx and carbon monoxide emissions. To ' promote energy recovery from solid waste, resource recovery projects that generate useful energy are exempt from the emission offset requirements of , NSR. As long as such systems use best available control technology, they are considered to create a positive air Nual'ity benefit whose application ' for landfill gas control is thus encouraged by the SCAQMD. 3.10 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT Mestre-Greve Associates completed a noise assessment for the Coyote Canyon , area in July 1983. The principal findings of this study with respect to baseline noise conditions are summarized below with the original report ' contained in its entirety as Appendix H. Noise Sources ' The noise environment in the Coyote Canyon area is determined primarily by traffic on surrounding roadways and by the landfill operations. Truck traffic and onsite earthmoving equipment (bulldozers, scrapers, compactors, ' etc.) are the major noise sources associated with the landfill operation. Noise Standards ' Surrounding residential areas are noise sensitive uses for which specific , standards are applicable. The Noise Element of the Orange County General Plan establishes both outdoor and indoor noise limits for residential land uses. The outdoor noise standard for exterior living areas is 65 CNEL. , The indoor noise standard is 45 CNEL. The same standards are reflected i'n the General Plan Noise Elements for the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. silty 01 im;;wport t5eacn I 1 The Orange County Noise Ordinance establishes exterior and interior noise standards designed to protect residential uses from nuisance noise intru- sions related to non -transportation sources (i.e., exclusive of motor vehi- cles, aircraft and trains). The ordinance is designed to control unneces- sary, excessive and annoying noise emanating from the unincorporated areas of the county. However, the impacting noise levels apply to all of Orange County, including the incorporated areas (i.e., City of Newport Beach). The County Noise Ordinance standards for the daytime and evening hours are indicated on Table 9. ' Table 91 ' ORANGE COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. ' Noise Level Not2 Maximum Allowable To Be Exceeded Duration of Exceedance ' 55 dBA 30 minutes/hour 60 dBA 15 minutes/hour 65 dBA 5 minutes/hour 1 70 dBA 1 minute/hour 75 dBA For any period of time During the nighttime hours (10•r00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), the exterior and in- terior noise standards are more stringent by 5 dBA and 10 dBA, respective- ly. Grading operations are exempt from the ordinance as long as they are conducted on weekdays and Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 P.M. Traffic Noise 1 Roadway noise levels were measured at two locations in the vicinity of the ' project area: along Bonita Canyon Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Coyote Canyon Road (the primary landfill access route) and on ,Culver Drive 1 north of Bonita Canyon Road (residential area). Table 10 presents the results. 1 1 i 1 Source: Mestre-Greve Associates. 2 Exterior and interior standards are the same between,7:0.0 a.m, and 10:00 p.m. 92 city or Newport Beach Table 10 ROADWAY NOISE MEASUREMENTSI ' Average Noise Level During ' Location Time Period Time Period (dBA) BONITA CANYON ROAD 10:39 to 11:09 a.m. 72.8 Between MacArthur Blvd, and Coyote Canyon Road (40' from centerline) CULVER DRIVE 9:43 to 10:13 a.m. 58.1 , North of Bonita Canyon Road 3:56 to 4:11 p.m. 59.9 (80' from centerline) Roadway noise along the major roads serving, the site vicinity were deter- mined utilizing the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model and the existing , traffic volume and vehicle/truck mix data provided by Kunzman Associates (see Section 3.8). The results are presented in the following Table 11. , Table 112 ' EXISTING ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadway (Feet)3 Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60CNEL CNEL 100' ' BONITA CANYON ROAD East of Coyote Canyon RW 31 66 57.3 West of Coyote Canyon 37 81 174 63.6 , CULVER DRIVE North of Bonita 'Canyon RW 35 76 58.2 ' MACARTHUR BOULEVARD South of Bonita Canyon 120 259 558 71.9 North of Bonita Canyon 130 280 603 71.7 , RW - Contour falls on roadway. 1 Mestre-Greve Associates, measurements made on July 18, 1983 utilizing Digital Acoustic 607P, Version 3, Portable Noise Monitor. 2 U.S. Federal Highways Administration, "FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Pre- diction Model", FHWA-RO-77-108, December 1978. See Appendix G for Sup- porting Assumptions data and calculation methodology. ' 3 The values given do not take into account the presence of any noise barriers or intervening topography that may affect ambient noise levels. , 93 City of Newport Beach i ' With respect to the roadways through the immediate project vicinity, the results of this analysis show that the higher traffic noise levels are associated with the primary landfill access route link of Bonita Canyon Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Coyote Canyon Road. This conclusion is consistent with the field measurement findings presented in Table 11. The only residential area located adjacent to the roadways through the ' project vicinity is Turtle Rock along Bonita Canyon Road and Culver Drive. The residential lots along these arterials are located approximately 100 ' feet from the roadway centerlines. Some of the units have rear yard walls which provide some degree of noise shielding; other units have only low walls or stake fences which provide little or no noise attenuation. With respect to these residential areas, the noise levels at 100 feet from the ' centerlines of Culver Drive and Bonita Canyon Road,, as shown in Table 11, are estimated to be approximately 58 and 57 CNEL, respectively. These levels are currently well below the County and City of Irvine residential exterior noise standards of 65 CNEL. 1 Landfill Noise Noise within the boundaries of the landfill is generated by waste filling and borrow operations. Measurements were conducted to determine the levels of noise associated with these activities. The waste filling operations can involve the use of up to six bulldozers, two compactors and four scrapers on or near the working face. During the measurement period, three scrapers, two bulldozers and one compactor were in operation as well as a variety of unloading trucks and vehicles. The borrow activities typically involve three or four scrapers and one bull- dozer. Three scrapers and one bulldozer were in use during measurement of the working borrow area. The waste filling and borrow activities were measured for a 30 minute peri- od at each location. Measurements were taken at distances of approximately 450 feet from the landfill working face and approximately 540 feet from the center of the borrow operations area. The results of this analysis are presented in the following Table 12. The measured noise is shown in terms 1 LAY of Newport t3eacn of percentile levels, for example L10 represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time. Also shown on Table 12 is the equivalent noise level (Leq) which represents the energy average noise level over the 30 minute measurement period. Table 12 NOISE LEVELS FOR WASTE FILL AND BORROW OPERATIONS Noise Levell (dBA) Percentile Level Waste Fill Borrow LO.1 73 70 L1 70 68 L5 66 66 L10 65 65 L33 63 63 L50 62 61 Leq 64 63 Residential Ambient Noise Levels The closest residential areas are located within the City of Newport Beach to the west of the landfill and proposed borrow area. Noise measurements were conducted to determine the ambient noise environment of this residen- tial area which includes the Spyglass Hill, Harbor Ridge, Seawind and Harbor View Knoll tracts (see Exhibit 13). Noise measurements were taken at two locations along the eastern edge of this area; one to the north (Seawind) and the other to the south (Spyglass Hill). These points of measurement have the closest proximity to the pro- posed borrow area. The results are shown in Table J3. l Noise measurements made utilizing Digital Acoustic Model 607P Portable Noise Monitor. 95 Gity of Newport Beach I ' Table 13 NOISE LEVELS IN NEARBY RESIDENTIAL AREASI ' Noise Leve13 (dBA) ' Percentile Leve12 Spyglass Hill Seawind LO.1 66 66 L1 64 63 ' L5 58 57 L10 54 54 L33 45 49 L50 43 47 ' L90 40 43 Leq 54 53 ' The noise levels shown are typical of quiet residenti.al areas. The land- fill operations were not audible at either location during the measurement periods which were taken during the late morning hours. The major sources ' of noise during the measurement periods were automobiles and occassional general aviation or helicopter overflights. ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' This section describes the current capabilities of the various public ser- vice and utility agencies that could be affected by the proposed project. Each of the agencies described herein has been notified in.writing of the proposed project; correspondence from the servicing agencies is contained ' in Appendix I. 3.11.1 Fire Protection The Coyote Canyon Landfill receives fire protection and emergency medical ' service from the Orange County Fire Department. The station presently serving the project area is: ' 1 See Appendix G for precise Noise Monitoring locations. 2 30 minute measurement periods taken during the late morning hours. ' 3 Noise measurements conducted utilizing Digital Acoustic Model 607P Por- table Noise Monitor. 1 Uty or Newport beacn Station 4 1 Engine Company #2 California 1 Truck Company UCl/Irvine, CA 1 Paramedic Unit ' I Rescue Unit 11 Paid Personnel ' The site is located 2-1/2 miles from this station and the approximate re- sponse time from Station 4 to Covote Canyon is 5 minutes. This station is ' supported by back-up stations in Newport Beach and Irvine through a co- operative agreement. I A 10,000 gallon capacity Water storage tank and water truck are located onsite to provide water in the event of a fire. Coyote Canyon personnel are prepared to respond to fires and a caretaker provides surveillance of the landfill. Additional fire safety measures at the Coyote Canyon landfill are required ' by the issuance of a Solid Waste Facility Permit. These measures include firebreaks which surround the periphery of the landfill and the clearance , of internal roadways which provide access to the site. A minimum clear- ance of all flammables around the boundaries of the disposal area and structures onsite is also required. Fire extinguishers must be provided in the office/lunch room and within 50 feet of the above ground flammable liquid tanks.. In addition, one fire extinguisher and one serviceable , shovel must be provided on each piece of heavy equipment. The project site and surrounding areas are located in a high fire• risk area as shown in the Safety Element of the Orange County General Plan. ' 3.11.2 Police 'Protection The Coyote Canyon landfill is located within the service boundaries of the Orange County Sheriff -Coroner Department. The closest dispatching facil- ity to the site is located at 550 North Flower Street, Santa Ana. One unit services the area on a 24-hour basis. Additional security measures ' at the landfill site include a fence which surrounds the landfill and a caretaker who is present during closed hours. I amity of iNewport Beach 1 ' 3.11.3 Water The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) provides water to the landfill through a 12-inch diameter pipe at the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and Coyote Canyon Road. This water is stored in a 10,000 gallon tank near the entrance of the landfill. This tank fulfills the requirements of the ' solid waste facility permit which requires at least 3,000 gallons of water onsite for fire protection purposes. Water from the tank is transported to other areas onsite by water trucks. These trucks transport water to freshly graded areas in order to control dust. 1 On the average, 35,000 gallons of water are used per day at the landfill. ' 3.11.4 Wastewater Sewer service is not provided to the site. The IRWD is planning a future sewer trunk to be located along Bonita Canyon Road. This trunk facility is planned to be installed as development progresses around the Coyote Can- yon landfill site. The earliest date forseen by IRWD for the installation of this trunk is 1988. ' 3.11.5 Utilities No electrical, gas or telephone service is provided to the project site ' and there are no plans to extend service to the site in the near future. Electrical lines are located on Bonita Canyon Road approximately one mile from the landfill site. ' Electricity is supplied by a portable generator and communications are con- ducted by two-way radio. ' 3.12 ENERGY CONSERVATION ' The consumption of energy resources at the landfill is generally limited to fossil fuels from the operation of heavy equipment and the transportation of solid waste by automobiles and trucks. Electricity at the landfill is provided by a generator, and no other electrical or natural gas service is provided to the site. Ulty C 98 ,port beacn 11 The landfill working face operations typtcal'ly employ five bulldozers, and one or two landfill compactors. Cover soil excavation activities typically involve the use of one bulldozer and three scrapers. Assuming that the 12 ' pieces of heavy equipment are in operation on any one day, the fuel con- sumption could total approximately 1,500 gallons per day.1 Annual consump- tion of fuel by heavy equipment (based on six days of operation per week) would therefore total approximately 468,000 gallons. , Operations at the landfill site result in the generation of an average' of 2,300 vehicle trips per day during dry weather periods. Of these trips, 38.9% are comprised of car, van and half -ton truck trips, and 61.1% are larger, trash truck trips. The haul distances from the source of solid waste range between 21 miles from Transfer Station I to areas within very few miles of the landfill. The boundary of the Coyote Canyon landfill is located approximately ten miles from the center of the current service area. This trip -length figure was used in this analysis in order to evalu- ate the energy consumption of vehicles which haul wastes to the landfill, and takes into account the wastes transported from Transfer Stations I and ' II as well as those from nearby areas. Energy consumption for car, van and half -ton trucks averages 20 miles/gal- lon. Based on 895 trips per day, with twenty mile round trips, daily fuel consumption is 895 gallons. The energy consumption rate for the larger t trucks is 6 miles per gallon. With approximately 1,405 twenty -mile trips, the daily consumption of fuel is 4,683 gallons. The total consumption of fuel, as it relates to the transportation of solid waste, is 1,740,336 gallons per year. 3.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Public health and safety considerations related to the operation of a sani- tary landfill can include vectors, odors and gaseous emissions, leachate , contamination of surface and groundWaters, potential illegal hazardous waste dumping, accidental solid or liquid Group 2 waste spills and explo- ' 1 Assumes an average speed of 5 miles per hour, 90 hours of operation (1 6 miles/gallop ours) and an average vehicle consumption per vehicle UILY Ui rvcVVNL)rL DUdUl I I 1 sions/fires. The potential risks are largely related to the types of wastes which are accepted for disposal at the landfill site, other influ- encing factors can include wind and temperature patterns, natural hazard potentials for earthquakes, floods or brush fires, other environmental 1 influences such as the presence or absence of a natural groundwater bar- rier, and landfill operation practices. 1 1 1 1 n 1 i 1 Coyote Canyon is designated as a Class II-2 sanitary landfill, accepting most types of waste including municipal refuse, inert construction/demoli- tion debris and sewage sludge. As a Class II-2 landfill, the disposal of liquid, hazardous, and infectious hospital waste is specifically prohibited at the Coyote Canyon site. All infectious waste is to be rendered non- infectious prior to disposal by approved methods such as autoclaving or incineration. The solid waste disposal operations at Coyote Canyon are conducted in accordance with State Minimum Standards. In addition to requiring the daily covering of disposed wastes, the State Minimum Standards set forth a variety of operation and maintenance regulations designed to promote a satisfactory landfill operation and minimize its adverse public health and safety implications. Representatives of the Orange County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency inspect the Coyote Canyon landfill on a weekly basis for compliance with State Minimum Standards. 1 The following is a discussion of the aforementioned public health and safety considerations as they specifically relate to the Coyote Canyon landfill. 1 Vectors F i i 1 Potential vectors or carriers of disease causing organisms from landfills include rodents and insects. Each of these vectors is described below: Rodents - Rats are commonly regarded as a potential nuisance and health problem associated with landfill operations. They can infest a landfill by transport in waste haul vehicles, or by direct migration from surround- ing natural areas. 1 LAY of NdWport tjeacn To date, no rat problems have been identified at the Coyote Canyon site.I Trapping and monitoring efforts have been undertaken but no rats have been , found at the landfill area. The rapid spreading, compaction and daily cover of refuse at Coyote Canyon prevents the conditions which are con- , ducive to harboring rat populations. , Flies - Coyote Canyon has a tendency towards harboring flies. This is a function of the area's moderate climate conditions with no real temperature ' extremes. A review of the landfill's inspection reports reveals that While the site was operating under performance standards, occasional violations of the fly population thresholds occurred at the working face. Fly popula- ' tions are typically higher during the warmer late spring and 'summer months. The site is no longer operated under Performance Standards which allowed ' waste fill to be left uncovered after daily operations concluded. Current refuse spreading, compaction and daily cover practices provide a means for controlling flies at the landfill to acceptable levels. , Birds , If not controlled, seagulls can occur in large numbers at an operating landfill, especially during the winter season when cold weather and storms drive the seagulls landward. Seagulls frequent the Coyote Canyon landfill. ' One of the potential problems associated with their congregation at the site relates to the nuisance and health effects of gull droppings on sur- ' rounding properties. Concern has been expressed in the past over the pos- sible health effects of gull droppings into and around the San Joaquin Reservoir which stores potable water supplies. Water quality in the reser- voir is monitored by the MWD and• no specific problems related to bird ' droppings have been identified. Although daily coverage of the refuse with soil reduces gull congregation problems to some extent, additional control measures are necessary. At certain times of the year at Coyote Canyon, gulls are controlled by mono - ' filament fishing lines strung on poles across the working face of the landfill. This disrupts the gull landing patterns and discourages the ' birds' attempts to congregate on or in the vi'ci'nity of the site. The pole I Orange County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency records. fully oT Iv lolport peach 1 I ' lines at Coyote Canyon are typically raised during the winter season when gull visitation to the landfill is highest. Odors/Gaseous Emissions Landfill gas and odors are the products of natural biological decomposition ' of disposed organic materials. As described in Section 3.9, AIR RESOURCES, the decomposition gas typically contains nearly equal amounts of carbon dioxide and methane with traces of other decomposition by-products, includ- ing odorous organic and inorganic gases. ' Carbon dioxide and methane (in its natural state) are odorless non -toxic gases, but methane mixed with air under the proper conditions may be explo- sive. For example, accumulation of methane within a poorly ventilated structure to concentrations ranging from 5 to 15 percent in air would be ' potentially explosive.) Thus, the subsurface migration of landfill gas into structures within close proximity to the landfill can represent a ' potential public safety problem. There are no known poorly ventilated structures in the vicinity of the landfill area. Odorous organic and inorganic gases (residual decay odors) constitute only a small percentage of landfill gas emissions. They are pervasive, however, and readily detectable by humans in low concentrations. Residual decay odors are largely a nuisance, aesthetic impact which can elicit a variety of adverse human responses including discomfort, disruption of activities discussion of and in some instances nausea (see Secton 3.9 for additional odors and odor effects). ' Odors have been identified as a problem at the Coyote Canyon landfill, par- ticularly those which extend into the nearby urbanized areas (e.g., Turtle Rock, UCI, Spyglass Hill). Odor complaints in the past have been partially attributed to the previous sludge drying activites at the site with only periodic soil cover when the landfill was operating under State performance Standards.2 Overall, complaints have been typically higher during the sum - The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Mission Canyon Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report, undated. 2 Orange County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency records. :y or NQWport t5eam mer due to the heat and increased refuse decay rates. Since the termina- tion of sludge drying operations at Coyote Canyon and the employment of daily refuse cover practices, the number of odor complaints received has ' reportedly dropped.l Long-term generation of odors and gases by a landfill cannot be stopped, ' although it can be controlled with the installation of a gas recovery sys- tem. At present, Coyote Canyon does not have a gas recovery systen in ' place. Leachate ' Insufficient data is available to determine the presence/absence of leach - ate. If leachate is present or develops over the life of the landfill, a ' 1-ong term monitoring, collection and disposal program will be implemented in conformance with RWQCB standards. The RWQCB has determined that there are no uses of groundwater within one mile of the site. , Accidential Spi11s t Potential waste spills or uncontrolled material release accidents could occur as the result of natural and man-made disaster events. Natural dis- asters could include an earthquake or flood, while- man-made events could include traffic accidents on the landfill access roads or brush fires. 1I The potential public health and safety effects associated with the afore- mentioned events could include the following: , • The sudden release of odors and/or uncontrolled exposure of the public to objectionable wastes as the result of strong seismic shaking caus- ing a disruption of the landfill surface, or spills caused by a traffic accident enroute to the landfill (e.g., if a sewage sludge transport truck was involved); and ' • Potential contaminiation of surface water and debris deposition associ- ated with the uncontrolled transport of wastes into offsite drainage 1 Ibid. City of Newport Beach 1 courses and water bodies during a flood in excess of 100-year storm ' magnitude, or from a truck accident spill near the surrounding water- ways. ' Fires/Explosions ' The potential for fires or explosions occurring from within a landfill is largely dependent on the volative nature of the wastes which are received, ' either in single form or in combination with other disposed materials. The presence of methane gas, which can be flammable under certain conditions, ' can also have an influence on a•landfill's explosion/fire potential (e.g., subsurface gas pockets). To date, no explosions or major fires have occurred at the Coyote Canyon site.1 Minor fires have occurred on occassion due to disposal of "hot" or ' smoldering materials. They typically occur in the shallow subsurface and are easily extinguished by operations personnel. A variety of measures are employed at the landfill to control internal fires and prevent a 1' manmade or wildland fire spreading to or from the site. (See Section ' 3.11, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES for details.) 3.14 AESTHETICS/VIEWS Existing Views from Surrounding Communities ' The project site encompasses a broad canyon and adjacent ridgelines in the ' undulating San Joaquin Hills. Signal Peak rises to 1,164 ft. msl near the southwestern corner of the site. This landmark is visible from large por- tions of the urbanized coastal plain to the north and west. Due to the shielding effect of surrounding ridgelines, the existing landfill site is not visible from most urban locations to the north, east or west. The ' series of photographs displayed and described below were taken from loca- tions on and around the landfill (see Exhibit 23). These pictures provide a first hand impression of the aesthetic context and character of the site. 1 OCSWEA records. H uty of Newport Beach Site Photograph Index COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 11 W%� = w EXHIBIT 23 I 2 City of Newpuit Buauh Site Photographs EXHIBIT 24 •• _ . . _�� _ Y �.r,- �"" � _ \c � � T ,q � , � , - �i � z _ _ _ It ���7 4� Site Photographs �+ ptl - r ve • � .w `_ — _ .. •• C\fa X`i:!'1.. ��Frv`✓t `�; • J'.��'v.'�9 �'''-�'��- _ t!' i'.�.�' t:�1'_�i�Y-!1 . �.Nj •; - ± ^'" ^"�l.t' i p' _£r� - .'`at • ~ .... tk ": Y amity of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 25 • y 7 h n.� r... ..�.--.�r�a_•sr-+ff..�S�Q•vtS�..l.3���'�g�s.w. += r - TIT +' -.. n 4 #•' yr e�,w;�Y •Y •� ffiTl f, ` I� `!r ---._. 'ie+,',}���%7ApsJ,3; fi _ � Ri+•i .'d ,rs:�'arrw��� � .y e^•f_- —�,. �,t '•.'.- r�`„ t `Yfi+.. M. Citv of UL e�wnnl >_ - �. °tir , .,wif'y''X1..,�i,,,n',R"#Y. 'JC7�f,'Y•-Ir k..sc`5y.,€. yTMv ^,y�F.aa >,_ „�` .... r - . � � � - K. v„tei�-�••'�ysa�> �y w� 1, 4+s. i 1. �:'�K � 'h Ft � ' - BHT-er,'@- 11 14 12 15 13 City of Newport Beach Site Photographs EXHIBIT 27 ' Photo 1 looks northwest from a ridge along the western edge of the site (see Exhibit 24). The major ridge visible in the left half of this photo shields the site from views from developed locations to the west in the City of Newport Beach. ' Photo 2 is taken from the same north -south trending ridge as Photo 1. In the center of Photo 2 is a low ridge that extends in an east -west direction north of Bonita Canyon Road. In the right center is the mouth of Coyote Canyon. Some of the larger buildings on the UCI campus are visible on the 1 right side of the photo beyond the east -west ridge. Photo 3 is taken from Bonita Canyon Road looking south. From this angle, the large north -south ridgelines between Harbor View Hills (right side) and the landfill site (left side) are clearly visible. The terraced slope of the landfill buttress shields the current landfill operations on the southern portions of the site. East of the site is a large northwest to southeast trending ridgeline which rises to over 700 feet msl. This ridge effectively blocks views of the existing landfill from the Turtle Rock area which is visible at the far ' left of Photo 4 (see Exhibit 25). Note the flat contour of the previously filled area at the right of the photo. In the center of the frame is the I top of the terraced front slope and the concrete lined drained channel at the north end of the site. 1 Photos 5 and 6 were taken from the higher elevations of Spyglass Hill to- ward the landfill site. In the center of each frame is the proposed borrow site area. Immediately beyond the borrow site area and not visible in the photo is the working portion of the landfill. Behind the landfill is the ' same ridgeline shown in Photo 4 from a slightly different perspective. In summary, the actual landfill operation is largely shielded from sur- rounding areas by several major ridgelines. Large portions of the proposed borrow site area are visible from numerous locations including Turtle Rock, Spyglass and Harbor View Hills, UCI, and other urban areas to the north and west. Li 1 City of Newport Beach 1 Character of the Landfill and Borrow Sites , ' Within the landfill area, the overall character is generally barren, flat exposed earth. The working face changes location almost daily. Photos 7 and 8 show landfill operations in progress (see Exhibit 26). In Photo 70 the large transfer station vehicles are approaching the back or top of the working face. In Photo 8, small private vehicles are unloading landscape waste near the base of the working face. I The southern portions of the landfill are characterized by flat, filled ' and covered areas surrounded by graded hillsides. Photo 9 is taken look- ing west toward the Spyglass/Harbor View Hills area. Photo 10 is taken looking north toward Signal Peak (center of photo). The small south canyon winds into the hills at the center of the photo. A large cut in the hillside to the left of the frame was made as a result of attempts to retrieve cover soil from this area. Photos 11-13 provide views of the small tributary canyons in the southern portion of the site (see Exhibit 27). Photo 11 looks east, up the southern ' canyon. Steep walls and large rock outcrops occur in this area. The road in the foreground is located on fill. Photo 12 is a view up the east (or northern) canyon. This canyon is somewhat broader than the south canyon and also contains fill. Photo 13 looks back down the east canyon toward the main canyon. In the center of the photo is a long line of commercial , trucks waiting to unload at the working face. The proposed borrow site sits beyond a ridgeline along the western edge of the landfill,. The southern borrow site is a gently undulating area slop- ing gradually north toward the San Joaquin Reservoir. Extensive grading has already occurred in the area as evidenced by the power line sitting on a remnant of the previous surface elevation (see Photo 14). An arm of the ' San Joaquin Reservoir can be seen in Photo 15. Photo 16 was taken near the center of the southern borrow site looking west toward Spyglass Hill , which is visible along the horizon. The overall impression of the borrow sites, with the exception of the reservoir and surrounding area, is a disturbed area with substantial man-made alterations of topography and ground cover. City of Newport Beach ' 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1 . 4.1 LANDFORM/TOPOGRAPHY ' Impacts Common to all three grading plan alternatives are the landform modification impacts associated with continued filling of Coyote Canyon and grading of the borrow arda for daily and final soil cover. The differences in impact ' among the three landfill grading plan alternatives relate to the final topographic form that each will achieve and its relationship to surrounding ' landforms and ultimate use of the site. Analysis of each plan in these regards is presented below. Following the alternatives analysis is a dis- cussion of the landform alteration impacts which will occur as a result of grading within the proposed borrow area. IAlternative One The Alternative One plan continues the current filling program at Coyote Canyon. As described earlier, filling activities to date have created a relatively broad, gently sloping landfill surface over most of the Coyote Canyon floor. This trend would be continued under Alternative One with ' additional filling and raising of surface elevations occurring primarily within the northern portions of the landfill and along the northeastern margins. Completion of the plan will result in the final topographic form shown on Exhibit 4. ' Finished elevations under Alternative One will' range from approximately 400 feet msl at the north end of the landfill to approximately 585 feet ' msl within the upper South Canyon area. 'Slopes overall will be gentle and range from 0.5 to 5 percent over most of the landfill surface. With the exception of additional raising of fill elevations in certain areas, the overall topographic character of the landfill as it exists presently would ' not be changed substantially if completion and closure were to occur under Alternative One. I I City of Newport Beach The broad, relatively level and uniform nature of the landfill surface in its final form will present a notable topographic contrast to the narrow ridgelines and intervening canyons which surround the site. An oblique aerial view perspective showing this relationship is presented on Exhibit 32 in Section 4.14, AESTHETICS/VIEWS. With regard to ultimate uses, the design of Alternative One does not attempt to create a final topographic form for the landfill which is .ex- pressly suited to a future recreational' use. In addition, the additional filling along the northeastern margins of the landfill would not provide suitable topographic grades for the latest proposed alignments of Pelican Hill Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor through this area. Alternative Two The Alternative Two plan would alter the current fill program and substan- tially change the final topographic form of the landfill surface. Under this plan, continued filling would occur in manner which creates an elongate ridge of mounded fill through the center of the site (see Exhibit 5). Additional fill would be placed throughout the central canyon as well in the adjoining South and East canyon areas. Finished fill elevations under Alternative Two would be increased to range from approximately 400 feet msl at the north end to approximately, 620 feet msl in the upper South canyon area. Slope gradients would also be in- creased to range from 3 to 12 percent over most of the landfill surface and up to 3:1 (33 percent) where the edges interface with natural grades. The design of the Alternative Two plan reflects an attempt, to create a final topographic form that is compatible with surrounding landforms (see Exhibit 33 in Section 4.14,). The final form furthermore could better accommodate future recreational and related residential uses of the site as well as accommodate the topographic grades needed for the future Planned alignments of Pelican Hill Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor. 108 City of Newport Beach I .! i I Alternative Three The Alternative Three plan would substantially alter the current fill pro- I gram and result in additional topographic modifications outside the cur- rent landfill lease boundaries. Under this plan, the fill will be mounded ' through the center of the site to form an elongate ridge similar to Alter- native Two. In addition, the Alternative Three plan call.s for covering ' the current front slope at the base of the main canyon with waste fill and the creation of a clean fill area further north. Additional waste filling would also occur within the east and south canyon areas. ' Under Alternative Three, the finished waste fill elevations would range from approximately 320' feet msl at the north end of the landfill to ap- proximately 620 feet msl within the upper South canyon area. Slopes will generally range from 3 to 20 percent over most of the landfill surface; slopes as steep as 3:1 (33 percent) would be created along the edges to be compatible with surrounding natural slopes. Creation of the clean fill area would involve the placement of additional fill in the northerly canyon area to depths ranging from approximately 20 to 120 feet. The design of the Alternative Three plan, like Alternative Two, attemps to create a final topographic form which is compatible.with surrounding land - forms (see Exhibit 34, Section 4.14). In addition, the plan seeks to create a topographic form which is compatible with ultimate recreational and related residential use of the site. It also can accommodate the topographic grades ultimately required for the future roadway alignments of Pelican Hill Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Borrow Area Grading of the proposed borrow area along the western and southwestern edges of the current Coyote Canyon lease boundaries will be required to ' obtain the soils needed for operational and final cover of the landfill. Grading and resultant modification of the existing terrain within the ' borrow area will occur to a certain extent, regardless of which landfill ' 109 ,1 City of Newport Beach I grading plan alternative is ultimately selected. Total earthworking re- , quirements for the alternative plans range from a low of approximately 3.6 million cubic yards for Alternative Two to as high as approximately 7.1 million cubic yards under Alternative Three. As stated in the PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Section 2.5), the only landfill grading plan which also provides a borrow area grading plan is Alternative Three. This alternative will require the largest amount of borrow soil and attendant grading. It can be expected that implementaton of Alter- natives One or Two, with reduced total cover material needs, would require , less grading and a lesser degree of resultant topographic modification. The borrow area grading plan for Alternative Three is presented om Exhibit 7. The overall topographic impact associated with this grading will be ' the lowering of existing ridgelines and plateaus extending through this area (see Section 4.14, AESTHETICS/VIEWS for discussion of view impacts). The proposed plan indicates a maximum excavation of about 105 feet and 90 feet for the west and east ridges within the northerly portions of the borrow area, respectively. The finish grade for both these ridge areas would have a gentle slope to the north. Within the southerly portions of the borrow area, maximum cuts of about 100 feet within the northern half and about 20 to 40 feet within the southern half are indicated. The ' finished grades here would also slope gently to the north except along the southern margin where finished grades along the future alignment of San ' Joaquin Hills Road would slope to the south. Overall, finished grade ele- vations within the borrow area will be lowered to range from approximately 300 feet msl (north end) to 670 feet msl (south end). 1 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures shall -be incorporated into the ultimate- , ly selected landfill and borrow grading plan alternative. Section 4.14 Aesthetics/Views contains additional mitigation measures related to Visual ' impacts on surrounding residential areas. City of Newport Beach 1 L J'i 1. A final borrow area grading plan showing more detailed fill and cut slope design criteria and other standard earthworking specifications will be prepared. Said plan will be reviewed and approved by the 1 County of Orange and, the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine prior to commencement of borrow site grading activities. Grading permits from these agencies may be required as appropriate. 1 2. Final grading plans for the borrow area shall incorporate, to the maxi- mum extent feasible, sensitive design treatment of manufactured slopes. Such treatments would include contouring and rounding of sloe edges ' and toes to avoid a monotonous or engineered appearance and recreate, to some degree, the impression of a natural landform condition. 1 1 1 0 I i 1' 1 1 I 1 i 3. Use of rapidly developing planting materials or hydroseeding of com- pleted slopes within the borrow and landfill areas should be considered as potential ways to establish quickly a vegetative cover which masks the newly graded, barren appearance. 4. All grading and earthwork activities will be performed in accordance with applicable County of Orange, City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach regulations. 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impacts The following analysis of potential geologic impacts addresses seismic, slope stability and erosion considerations and the geotechnical feasiblity of proposed grading activities within the borrow area. Borrow Grading Geotechnical Feasiblity A key factor in the recovery of daily and final cover soils for continued operation and closure of the landfill is the ease of excavation of the earth materials within the proposed borrow area. Related considerations include the volume of materials available and the quality of this material with respect to state standards for landfill cover (e.g., permeability). The total cover requirements for continued operation and closure of Coyote Canyon are projected to range from a low of approximately 3.6 million cubic yards under Alternative Two to a high of approximately 7.1 million cubic yards under Alternative Three. As stated in Section 2.5, the only land- fill grading plan which also provides a supporting borrow grading plan is Alternative Three. This alternative requires the maximum amount of borrow soil for both daily operation and cover. 1 Ill ion Beach LJ As shown on Exhibit 10, the geologic units occurring within the .proposed borrow area include bedrock of the Topanga Formation - Los Trancos Member, terrace deposits, slope wash, artificial fill and some diabase rock. The ' Los Trancos Member formation, consisting of interbedded siltstone, clay - stone, shale 'and sandstone, is the principal bedrock unit that will be encountered at the proposed borrow excavation depths. A seismic refraction survey of the proposed borrow area was conducted by , Woodward -Clyde Consultants to determine material thickness and depth char- acteristics. This survey was undertaken to assist in evaluating rippabil- ' ity characteristics and possible excavation difficulties. Based on the results of the seismic refraction survey, site reconnaisance efforts and ' boring data, the following conclusions were reached by Woodward -Clyde: • With respect to quantity, sufficient volumes of material are expected , to be available to meet the total cover needs for all three alterna- tives. Up to 13.5 million cubic yards of cover soil can be derived from this area. Limited blasting may be required in certain areas. • In terms of quality, the materials present will be suitable for use as daily and intermediate cover for the landfill. The material may also be suitable for use as final cover. Additional testing and design _ will be needed prior to site closure to determine specific performance standards. , For additional, more -detailed technical information concerning the borrow ' excavation analysis, the reader is referred to Appendix C. Seismicity The landfill and adjoining borrow area may be subject to groundshaking from future earthquake activity along the major active fault zones crossing , the southern California region. No active faults have been noted within the Coyote Canyon site. The potentially active Pelican Hill fault zone passes to the immediate southwest. The possibility exists for earthquakes to occur along the Pelican Hill fault. City of Nelwport Beach 1 The northern end of the canyon bottom beyond the terraced front slope con- tains alluvial soils with relatively high groundwater levels. This area ' could be subject to liquefaction during an, earthquake. Increasing the volumes of landfill waste within Coyote Canyon may increase the potential ' risks of fill (front) slope destabilization during a strong earthquake. It should be noted however that no sanitary landfill slopes have failed during major events in Southern California (i.e., 1971 Sylmar earthquake). ' This impact is potentially significant if habitable structures are even- tually planned adjacent to this area. ' Slope Stability ' Three types of natural slope failure are possible within the general Coyote Canyon area. These are: • Bedding plane failures - increased hydration of expansive clay and ' claystone i'nterlayered with the more common sandstone provide slip planes for slides to occur, especially along west facing slopes (e.g., within the proposed borrow area); ' Rotational slides - such failures occur regardless of bedding planes and thus could' occur throughout the site. A large rotational slide ' has occurred on the northeast face of the canyon. This natural slide area had been aggrevated by borrow activities in the area; and ' Soil creep - high clay content of soils and other overburden coupled with moisture may cause slow non -sudden down -slope migration of over- burden. Emplacement of waste and soil fill in the canyon will tend to stablize or ' buttress adjacent slopes on the canyon walls thereby reducing the poten- tial for slope failures. All three slope failure types could be induced The risks by slope cuts during borrow or grading operations. potential are essentially the same for all three grading plan alternatives. ' A review of the landfill grading plan alternatives and borrow grading plan for Alternative Three indicates that most manufactured slopes will not 1 113 ,ort tjeacn exceed 3:1 (horizontal :vertical). This design will provide a good margin ' of safety and stability. Further evaluation of manufactured slopes within the borrow area and the landfill will occur in conjunction with final de- sign level geotechnical and grading plan review. Another potential slope stability impact relates to the effect that the , vibrations from excavation equipment or blasting activities may have on the slopes within the proposed borrow area. While vibrations can be expected ' to occur, they would not be anticipated to achieve a magnitude sufficient to cause uncontrolled slope failure (additional discussions of potential vibration effects is presented in Section 4.10, ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT). _ Settlement Subsidence of the landfill surface will occur for several years after com- pletion of the grading plan. Subsidence of up to 25 percent of the origi- nal depth of fill can be anticipated. This is a particular problem for , Alternative One. While Alternatives Two and Three mound the fill higher in the center to provide for settlement, Alternative One proposes a flat ' finished contour which, after settlement, will have a large concave bowl in its center. This would have significant adverse impacts on drainage and ' productive ultimate use. Generally construction of any structures on the landfill surface should subject to very careful engineering design. , Erosion Soils within the landfill and borrow area would be subject to increased erosion potentials once clearing and grubbing activities have removed vege- tation. In particular, the lower portions of the terrace deposits which - may be exposed by grading within the borrow area have been identified as being highly susceptible to erosion. During final contouring of the land- ' _ fill surface upon closure, increased erosion potential would prevail until revegetation occurs. These impacts are es§entially the same under any of , the alternatives. City of N "'port Beach 1 , I J n J r Vibration Effects Heavy equipment used in landfill and borrow site operations could cause noticeable ground vibration in the immediate proximity of the equipment. At the vibration frequencies typical of landfill equipment, peak vibration velocities must reach at least 0.01 inches per second to be barely notice- able, 0.1 inches per second to be annoying, and exceed 0.•5 inches per second to be damaging to structures. A study of vibration at the Palos Verdes Landfill was recently conducted for the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.l This study indicated that vibration caused by heavy landfill equipment would not affect nearby residences. The peak velocity recorded out of 470 individual measurements, as close as 15 feet to the sensory devices, was only 0.029 inches per sec- ond. This peak velocity is in the barely perceptible range, and is only 1/17 of the value needed to approach the velocity needed to crack plaster walls. ' The Palos Verdes test results can be considered a "worst case" finding for the Coyote Canyon project. At Palos Verdes, scrapers and tractors were excavating and moving dirt on solid ground as close as 15 feet from the sensors. At Coyote Canyon borrow operations would come no closer than 200± feet to nearby residences. Thus we conclude that significant vibration impacts to adjacent properties are not likely to occur. Mitigation Measures ' The following mitigation measures, which generally encompass standard geo- technical engineering practices, shall apply to the alternative grading plan ultimately selected. 1. In support of final Rrading design for the borrow area comprehen- ' sive geologic and soils ,plan engineering reports shall be submitted to the Director, EMA/Regulation for review and approval. Concurrent review in this regard shall also occur through the Cities of Irvine and Newport ' Beach, as applicable. ' 1 L.A. County Sanitation Districts. Mission Canyon Landfill Final EIR. Page 264. 115 Uty of Newport tieacrn 2. The final cover materials obtained from the borrow area should be , further tested by a certified soil engineering laboratory to ensure compliance with state standards. 3. Fill should not be placed whose purpose is to pond or retain moisture, ' 4. Existing natural or manufactured slopes exceeding 3:1 (horizontal: vertical), which are confined to smal1 areas in the southern canyon , perimeter, need to be specifically examined for stability problems - during final design; 5. Final design plans will need to examine the need for special surface preparation for placement of high fill over alluvial soils, and possible placement of excavated keys extending to bedrock where fill is in contact with steeply sloping bedrock; and ' 6. Refuse/inert cover interface should be no less than 2:1. This slope design criteria should provide an adequate margin of safety. ' 7. Erosion potential will continue to be reduced and controlled through the use of rapid revegetation techniques and existing/new slope terrace ' drains, down drains and brow ditches; the program of which will be ex- panded to include the proposed borrow area and, if Alternative Three is ultimately selected, the new front slope to the north. , 8. Vibration monitoring should be accomplished during excavation activi- ties. If blasting is a requirement, a well designed program of test shots coupled with detailed monitoring would be required. The re- sultant analysis should recommend specific blasting guidelines. 9. In areas of the landfill where arterial road alignments cross the site, inert fill should be substituted to eliminate refuse related , settlements. -- 10. A careful program of dust control by application of water, mulch and , other measures such as control of surface drainage will greatly lessen the erosion of the soil. 11. Topsoil, if present, should be salvaged from the proposed borrow area before removal of overburden. Detailed salvage maintenance and final placement/revegetation plans for conservation and reuse of topsoil need to be made for final design. , 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY , Impacts ' The impacts of the alternative plans on ground and surface water quantity and quality are described below: 116 , City of Newport Beach 1 ' Surface Drainage ' None of the alternative grading plans will significantly increase down- stream surface runoff volumes over existing conditions. When the site is ' completed and revegetated, runoff rates and downstream peak flood velocities will be less than existing flows. As noted in the description of the three alternatives (Section 2.5), Alternative One will not provide finished slopes at a grade sufficient to ensure adequate runoff from the landfill surface. This is a significant adverse impact which cannot be mitigated by this alternative. In ' addition, long term drainage improvements were not developed for this plan. Interim drainage facilities which include lined and unlined channels are not designed for long term use. This is also considered significant since the landfill must be protected over the long term from inundation by a 100 year flood storm. Alternatives Two and Three both ' provide adequate slopes for sheet drainage and long term drainage improvements and flood protection (see Exhibits 6 and 8). Surface Water Quality Surface water quality may be adversely impacted by landfilling operations, ' particularly during periods of heavy rainfall and surface runoff. Large open areas of denuded soil on the landfill and within many of the borrow areas contribute to suspended sediment load. Based on limited data, there is some indication that impacts may also include increased levels of oil and grease, coliforms, and some heavy metals. This runoff eventually en- ters upper Newport Bay and could impact beneficial uses there. ' Continued landfill operations under any of the alternatives will contri- bute to sediment loads. Alternative Three would continue this sedimenta- tion longer into the future and would contribute the largest amount of ' sediment to downstream receiving waters. ' Insufficient data is available to definitively relate deterioration of surface water runoff from the Bonita Canyon Wash to past landfill activity ' of Coyote Canyon (see Appendix C). If there is an adverse surface water airy of iv 117 ✓porgy beacn quality impact currently, additional landfilling could contribute incremen= ' tally to the generation of pollutants in the form of leachate. During periods of heavy rain, precipitation and runoff could infiltrate the , working face or newly covered waste fill. Depending upon the particular elevation and slope of the working face at that time, this contaminated runoff could migrate offsite. Upon completion of the landfill, Alterna- tives 2 and 3 will significantly enhance surface runoff and thus reduce the potential, for ,precipitation to infiltrate the fill mass and produce ' leachate. - It has been noted that seagulls and other birds travelling to or from the landfill may deposit excrement or food wastes in the San Joaquin Reser- , voir. Past water quality sampling from the reservoir has not detected a change in water quality attributable to this impact, however, the birds ' could have a minor impact on water quality within the reservoir. Continua- tion of landfill activity would extend this potential impact from three to five years, depending on the alternative selected. , Groundwater ' The potential for the landfill to generate leachate exists now and in the , future. Existing water quality data indicates that there may be leachate contamination of the alluvial groundwater in Coyote Canyon. However, the data is sparse and conflicting such that no definitive statement can be , made with respect to the presence or absence of leachate on or adjacent to the site. , A water balance analysis was conducted by Woodward -Clyde Consultants. ' This analysis evaluates all of the potentialsources of water entering the landfill relative to the absorption capacity of the completed fill mass: ' The analysis indicates, theoretically, whether leachate will be produced taking all factors into consideration. : The result of the analysis ,in- ' dicated that the co -disposal of dewatered sewage sludge with solid waste would not, in and of itself, or with the water contributed by surface runoff, moisture within the municipal solid waste itself and moisture , created by decomposition of the waste, contribute to formation of leachate. Thus, continued landfilling of solid waste and dewatered sludge under any ' uity of ive�wport t5eam 1 IJ 1 11 1 of the three alternatives would not significantly impact the formation of leachate. Sufficient data was not available to quantify the contribution of groundwater to leachate generation. Gases such as hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide may be pre- sent in the landfill. It is not anticipated that these gases would have a significant impact on groundwater quality. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated on water within the San Joaquin Reservoir. The hydrostatic pressure of the water in the reservoir would preclude infiltration from surrounding strata. Decreased loads on bedrock in the, San Joaquin Dam abutment area may cause changes in seepage rates around the dam. This is considered a minor impact. Mitigation Measures 1. To protect against erosion of the landfill and to minimize the impacts of run-on i'n terms of the water balance, drainage improvements should be designed to drain water from the periphery of the landfill. This drainage system should be sized to protect the landfill from the amount of runoff characteristic of a 100 year storm. 2. As part of final design, the drainage system should control sediment loads and meet other water quality criteria. As part of the drainage design,, desil.ting basins should be included. All relevant and fea- sible BMPs in the Regional 208 Water Quality Plan and Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Plan should be used during landfill operation and closure. 3. A revegetation plan, in conjunction with desilting basins, would signi- ficantly reduce sediment loads. 4. To reduce bird impacts on water quality i-n the reservoir, continued application of daily cover will minimize exposure to food sources. The Metropolitan Water District should continue to string piano wire or monofilament line over the reservoir to discourage visitation until the final cover is in place. 5. Careful water balance management should be implemented to reduce poten- tial generation of leachate. 6. Procedures for storm season operation should be reviewed to assure that runoff does not contact the working face or newly covered fill, and migrate offsite. 7. Adequate slopes to sheet drain surface runoff from the landfill sur- face can be assured with either Alternative Two or Alternative Three. 119 1 city or ivewporE tseacn 8. The final soil cover is required to be six feet of compacted fill. Soil size ranges which may be available from the borrow area range , from silty sands to clay. This size range is considered to have good performance in terms of reducing moisture from entering the fill and reducing landfill gas venting. Standard grain size analysis need to ' be performed during final design to verify mechanical properties and permeability of the cover material. Calculations in Appendix C indicate no moisture would percolate through this -cover under southern California's climatic conditions. Detailed final design of cover , utilizing various EPA design manuals need to be completed prior to site closure under any of the plans. ' 9. All State and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and regulations with respect to surface and groundwater quality and landfill cover requirements shall be met. ' 10. Ground and surface water downstream of the landfill will be periodi- dally monitored for indications of leachate. Surface runoff should be tested during peak storm flows for COD, Fe TDS, pH, suspended solids , and selected purgeable organics. Additional groundwater monitoring wells should be constructed to determine conclusively if a leachate problem exists. Parameters for groundwater testing .should include ' selected purgeable organics, selected trace elements, COD, Fe, TDS and pH. A semi-annual monitoring effort is recommended at a minimum. ' 11. A contingency plan for leachate collection and recovery should .be developed if a leachate mitgration problem is encountered. ' 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Impacts Any of the three grading plan alternatives will have an impact on the bio- logical resources of the site. Alternative Three will have the most signi- ficant impact due to the larger area covered by this alternative. The re- ' moval of vegetation in new borrow areas represents an incremental loss of the county's botanical resources and general loss of faunal habitat. The ' bulk of the habitat slated for removal is coastal sage scrub and grassland with lesser amounts of chaparral. ' The removal of natural habitat from the project area has or can be expected to exert a further irreversible adverse impact of undetermined magnitude ' upon the local and regional wildlife populations. Landfill activity has and will continue to disturb all wildlife onsite and in adjacent areas. , Individuals of species still present may move to adjacent areas of similar habitat, if available, at the onset of further land disturbance. These , UILY Ui I-AUWPUF L Beau i 1. I displaced individuals will increase competition in the adjacent habitats. ' This competition will be temporary in nature, since it will result in death to part of the population, as the population size returns to carrying capa- city levels. Species of low mobility and those refusing to emigrate will be eliminated outright by site preparation. This is particularly true of most amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals. The introduction of surface runoff or leachate into any of the drainages poses the possibility of offsite, downstream degradation of water quality 1 through: 1) contamination by site -generated pollutants; and 2) increased turbidity as a consequence of streambank erosion and bottom scouring re- sulting from increased flow velocities (see Section 3.3 and 4.4 for addi- tional detail on water quality considerations). Such degradation in water quality could reduce the invertebrate fauna which depend upon the riparian 1 habitat during some part of their life cycle. I, u 1 1 1 1 F A variety of birds restricted to natural habitats could be further dis- placed by expanded activity at the site. Sensitive avifaunal species included in the National Audubon Society Blue List as declining in popula- tion nationwide or species of special local concern which may, be impacted adversely are the following: Grassland • loggerhead shrike • grasshopper sparrow • western bluebird • marsh hawk Woodland • red -shouldered hawk • ruby -crowned kinglet • Cooper's hawk • barn owl • Bewick's wren • red -shafted flicker Coastal Sage • black -tailed gnatcatcher While all of the alternatives will produce similar impacts on biological resources, Alternative Three will disturb the largest area and therefore would disturb the most habitats. This difference is not considered signi- ficant. Mitigation Measures The following measures are proposed or have been designed into the project to mitigate the adverse impacts identified in this section. 1 Uty or NdWport Leach 1. Natural open space areas should be retained where feasible. These , areas include the upper portions of the east and south canyons, the swale above the east arm of San Joaquin Reservoir, and the northern portions of Coyote Canyon near its intersection with Bonita Canyon. , 2. In accordance with EMA policy, any trees of five inches in diameter or greater removed as a primary or secondary result of the project will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. Trees considered under this replacement ' policy include: native trees such as oaks and willows; exotic trees which have long been a component of the local environment, e.g., euca- lyptus; and large plants that, when smaller, are commonly considered ' shrubs, but when of sufficent size constitute trees, e.g., toyon, elderberry, laural sumac, etc. Project tree replacement plans will be submitted for review and approval to the Manager, EMA Open Space/Recre- ation, Service Area Programs. 3. After selection of a preferred alternative, a resource management plan ' for the oak and riparian areas which are retained shall be developed which will assure the long-term health and survival of the trees and the habitat as a whole. , 4. To the extent feasible, vegetation should be removed on a phased basis to minimize habitat loss impacts. Revegetation will be accomplished on all graded areas where structures or improvements are not constructed. t Consideration will be given to the use of drought tolerant plant mater- ials, especially species native to the foothills and coastal plains of southern California. Native plant materials should be derived from , local stocks. Salvage of plants in areas slated to be cleared should be coordinated with local native plant preservation groups. 5. Measures to control erosion, sedimentation, and augmented ,stream flow velocity will be implemented through development of a comprehensive runoff and erosion control management plan as part of final grading design and submitted to the Manager, EMA Development Services. ' 4.5 CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES Impacts Archaeology , The impact to potential archaeological resources within ,the study area is , dependent on the alternative grading plan chosen for the Coyote Canyon , landfill. The potential exists for covering or uncovering previously unre- corded archaeological resources during grading activities, particularly in ' the southern portions of the landfill and borrow areas. Four of the archaeological sites located within the study area will not be ' affected by any of the alternative plans nor the proposed borrow opera- UILY UI IN 122FPUrL DeaUf I t L 1 tions. These sites are CA -Ora 232, 616, 275, and 272. Sites which may be affected by one or more of the alternatives are discussed as follows: CA -Ora 271, 236 and 689 - These sites have been previously investigated and are considered significant. They will be affected by Alternatives 2 and 3 if additional landfill operations are conducted in the east and south canyons. CA -Ora 231 - This site will be affected by adoption of any of the three alternatives. This site is considered significant based on previous inves- tigations. CA -Ora 673 - This site will be affected by grading at the southern edge of the borrow site. This site has not been investigated to date. CA -Ora 797 - This previously recorded site which was not relocated by the survey for this EIR is located in close proximity to areas proposed for waste fill in Alternatives One and Two and borrow grading in Alternative Three. If it exists at this location, it may be directly or indirectly affected by the relevant alternative. Paleontology The presently recognized surface occurrences of fossils are not in danger of adverse impact, however, the potential exists for unrecorded paleonto- logical resources to be impacted during grading activities within the proposed borrow area. Mitigation Measures Archaeology Mitigation measures for the project will be in accordance with county standard cultural resources management policies (County Policy BR-77-856). These mitigation measures are as follows: 1. A County certified archaeologist shall perform a subsurface test level investigations and surface collections of the sites identified above. Uly or IN 123✓port beacr I The test level report evaluating the site shall include discussion of ' significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations and cost estimates. The testing shall be completed and a report submitted prior to development of final grad- ing plans for the landfill and borrow areas and sufficiently in advance ' of grading to permit subsequent final archaeological excavation. Based on the report recommendations and County policy, final mitigation shall be carried out based upon a determination as to the site's disposition , by the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. Possible determina- tions include, but are not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage, or no mitigation necessary. ' 2. A County -certified archaeologist shall establish procedures for archae- ological resource surveillance in cooperation with GSA Waste Management Program. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are dis- covered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine , appropriate actions, in cooperation with GSA Waste Management Program which ensure that the resources will not be destroyed before explora- tion and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation, and ' disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. 3. If archaeological resources are discovered during grading, further , grading of the resources area shall be deferred temporarily to permit a County -approved archaeologist to examine the site. The archaeologist shall make a preliminary determination of the scientific value of the , site and contact the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. Prior to resumption of grading, a determination shall be made by the Director of EMA as to the final disposition of the resources. , Measures to mitigate the potentially impacted archaeological sites will ' vary depending on the nature of the archaeological site and the status of investigation previously performed for the site. These specific measures for potentially impacted sites are presented below: ' 1. CA -Ora 271, 236, and 689 - These sites will require salvage investiga- ' _ion n t e even a Alternative 2 or 3 is selected. The scope of salvage investigation will be determined upon adoption of a specific alternative. ' 2. CA -Ora 231 - Salvage investigations will be required for this site. The scope of this investigation will be determined when the final ' alternative is chosen. 3. CA -Ora 673 and 797 - Since they have not been investigated, these site will require a test level investigation to ascertain the significance , of the resources present. Once the significance of the sites is deter- mined final mitigation measures can be formulated. 4. Additional sites may be impacted and shall be investigated consistent , with the above and County policy. idly 01 1,4e\124 urt t5eaun , ' Paleontology 1. Due to the potential for scientifically .important specimens to be re- covered from the site, future surface cutting in and near this area shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. 2. A paleontologist should be notified if fossils are discovered during grading operations. Cutting activities that pose a threat to poten- tially significant fossils will be halted until the resource can be examined and a determination of significance made by the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. ' 4.6 LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANS ' Impacts Onsite Land Uses Selection of any of the alternative plans will result in the continued use ' of the site as a sanitary landfill. Landfill operations can be expected to continue until the estimated closure date which ranges from approximately ' June 1986 (Alternative 2) to October 1988 (Alternative 3). This project therefore, will not effect the primary landfill use which has been underway since 1964. I 1 Each of the three alternatives does imply different grading proposals which will impact the existing open space land uses located onsite. The key dif- ferences between the alternatives are summarized below relative to ons.ite land uses: • Although all alternatives result in landfill operations in the east and south canyons, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in greater area cover- age. Alternatives 2 and 3 also would result in filling to higher ele- vations (see Exhibits 4, 5, and 7 in Section 2.5). • Alternative 3 proposes the emplacement of "clean" fill (soil) at the mouth of the main canyon extending outside of the existing lease boundaries. A small area of landfill would also extend beyond the northern limits of the lease boundary under Alternative 3. 125 uny of ivewpon riewn l �J • All alternatives will require grading for borrow materials outside of , the lease boundaries to the west of the main canyon. This borrow material will be used for daily cover, for the final six feet of land- ' fill cover, and -for clean fill material in Alternative Three. Generally, all three of the alternative would result in approximately equal impact to existing onsite land uses. The differences between land coverage associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 and Alternative 1 is not considered , significant. The primarily impact to onsite land uses would occur as an incremental and additional loss of natural open space lands. I Upon closure of operations, the landfill site will be converted to another , use which is contemplated to be recreational in character (e.g., golf course). Alternatives 2 and 3 are considered most compatible with this future onsite land use in that they result in a final landform suitable for golf course development. These alternatives also provide for the best site drainage and avoid the possibility for water ponding which could have long- ' term water quality implications. Surrounding Land Uses ' Impacts to surrounding land uses can be divided into two distinct categor- ies: ' 1) The continued use and operation of the landfill implies a continuation , of impacts that are already existing (i.e., operational impacts); and 2) The alternative grading plans result in different and permanent alter- , landforms that will effect surrounding land uses (i.e., landform impacts). These impacts are discussed separately below since the effects will be dis- tinct in character. Operational Impacts , I City of Newport Beach 1 E 1 Operational impacts to surrounding land uses include dust generation; odors; truck traffic and associated air quality and noise effects; fitter; 1 and other effects associated with the use and operation of a sanitary landfill. These operational impacts can be expected to continue and/or 1 increase until the estimated closure date of each alternative. As dis- cussed in Section 2.3, EXISTING COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL OPERATIONS, the County of Orange employs control programs in accordance with state regula- tions to minimize these effects. 1 Each of the potential operational impacts are discussed in greater detail throughout Section 4.0 of this EIR. Where possible, additional mitigation 1 measures have been suggested to further minimize these impacts below exist- ing levels. Although these impacts can be substantially controlled, the 1 operation of the landfill may continue to adversely effect surrounding land uses. Operational impacts will continue to be experienced primarily by the communities of Spyglass Hill, Harbor Ridge, Seawind and Harbor View Knoll 1 (Newport Beach); University of California, Irvine and, the Village of Turtle Rock (Irvine). 1 1 1 1 1 i L 1 The operational impacts of the landfill are primarily short-term in nature and, upon closure of the facility, will largely crease to exist. Alterna- tive Three extends the length of operations and related impacts by approxi- mately two years over Alternatives One and Two. Odor impacts may continue for several years after closure, although these impacts can be substantial- ly reduced with implementation of a gas recovery program. Landform Impacts Landform impacts relate to the ultimate grade selected for the landfill and the grading that will be necessary to achieve daily and final soil cover (i.e,. borrow materials). These impacts will be experienced over both the short- and long-term and vary substantially between each of the three alternative grading plans. Given the location of the proposed borrow site adjacent to the western edge of the landfill, the surrounding land uses most effected by daily grading activities will include the residential communities of Spyglass Hill,, Har- 1 city or iveftort beacn i bor Ridge, Seawind and Harbor View Knoll. All of these residential commun- ities are located within the City of Newport Beach. Short-term grading impacts to other surrounding land uses are less direct and are considered insignificant. Over the long-term, the proposed, alternative grading plans will result in permanent modifications to the existing landform. These alterations will be characterizied by 1) raising the elevations of the actual landfill to accommodate additional materials disposal and cover soils, and 2) lowering the existing ridge to the west of Coyote Canyon to achieve the necessary volumes of borrow material. These permanent landform alterations will affect surrounding land uses primarily by altering views. Again, the Newport Beach communities to the west of the site will be most directly impacted. The visual impacts of each of the grading plans are discussed more thoroughly in Section 4.14 of this EIR. Permanent landform alteration impacts will be experienced with al'l three of the alternatives. These impacts can be expected to in however, as the volume of borrow material increases. Alternative, 3 involves the greatest amount of grading for borrow material and would, therefore, be expected to result in the greatest impact. Upon closure of the landfill operation, the landfill and adjacent borrow area will be developed for alternate land uses. These uses will likely in- clude golf course/recreation (landfill site) and residential (borrow site). Additional (although less extensive) grading will likely be necessary to establish these uses. The development of these uses with associated land- scaping will effectively eliminate the visual impacts that may be exper- ienced during the final years of landfill operation. Proposed borrow operations may also impact the existing San Joaquin reser- voir primarily with respect to water quality and bank stability. Engineer- ing standards will need to be established to ensure the long-term protec- tion of this facility. Land Use Plans Provided below is a brief discussion of the project's compatibility with adopted land use programs regulated by the County of Orange, City of Irvine, and City of Newport Beach. UILY U1 INUWPUFL DUacrl 128 I I E I i I J I I i County of Orange ' All of the alternatives are inconsistent with the existing County General Plan in that only the area within the existing lease boundary is designated with a Solid Waste Facilities - Landfill Site overlay. Expanded landfill outside of the existing lease boundary (Alternative 3 only) and borrow sites outside of the lease boundary (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) will need to ' be given the Landfill Site Overlay to establish General Plan consistency. Any of the three alternatives will be capable of supporting the general ' plan open space corridors and regional riding and hiking trails upon esta- blishment of ultimate land uses. ' All of the alternatives will also require an amendment to the County's Com- munity Profiles (Nos. 50 and 47) to reflect the maximum extent of the land- fill operations. In accordance with the County zoning ordinances, approval of a conditional use permit will be necessary prior to any grading activi- ties on proposed borrow sites and prior to any landfill expansion outside of the existing lease boundary. Prior to establishment of ultimate land uses, zone changes will be necessary from "A-1, Agriculture" to "Open Space" (landfill area) and from "A-1" to "Residential" (non-landfill/borrow areas). None of the alternatives are expected to impact the proposed extension of ' San Joaquin Hills Road. Alternative 1, however, would have a significant adverse impact on the proposed alignments of the San Joaquin Hills Trans- portation Corridor and Pelican Hills Road. These alignments traverse areas proposed for landfill which would constitute an unstable roadway base. ' City of Irvine All of the alternatives would require an amendment to the City of Irvine General Plan to designate an LS-Public Facilities overlay on the landfill and borrow sites. The ultimate use of the project site for open space and recreational pur- poses is generally consistent with the City of Irvine General Plan Land Use Element (sphere of influence area). Grading operations within the City's 129 City of Newport Beach corporate boundaries will be subject to review under the Hillside Develop- ment Overlay District and may require a grading permit. All of the alter- natives provide for grading and landfill activities within the City's boundaries, although Alternative 3 requires the most extensive earthwork. The City of Irvine may also require a conditional use permit for the actual landfill operation located within the City. City of ,Newport Beach All of the alternatives would require an amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan to provide for an LS-Public Facilities overlay on the small portion of the borrow area located within the city limits. The city would also review proposed grading plans for activities within its juris- diction and may require a use permit. Mitigation Measures Onsite Land Uses The temporary loss of onsite open space lands needed to support the con- tinued landfill operation is considered unavoidable. Given the already disturbed nature of the site, the significance of this impact is greatly reduced. Restoration of the landfill site for ultimate use as a recrea- tiohal facility will have a beneficial effect on the human environment. Surrounding.Land Uses The following measures will partially reduce impacts to surrounding land uses: 1. Continue to comply with state -mandated control ,programs designed to minimize the operational impacts of the landfill use. 2. Adopt and implement the mitigation measures contained in this EIR, par- ticularly those measures related to the following topical environmental issues: traffic, air quality, noise, odors, litter and visual protec- tion. 3. Prohibit grading for borrow materials between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and all day on Sunday. To the extent possible, grading on borrow sites should also be avoided on Saturdays. UILY UI IN 130po rt Dea(; l 7 L✓' ' 4. Develop and implement grading phasing plans for borrow sites that will preserve for as long as possible the natural topographic features between the site and the City of Newport Beach. 5. Immediately upon the completion of grading increments, the land should be re -seeded to establish a more natural, open space appearance. ' Land Use Plans 1. Prior to implementation of any of the alternatives following approvals and permits shall be secured: ' Count of Oran e: 1) General Plan Amendment to Land Use Element to prov'i�e or t e expanded Land Use Element to provide for the expanded %S" site designation; 2) Conditional Use Permit for landfill and bor- row areas. CCii_ty of Irvine: 1) General Plan Amendment to Land Use Element to de- signate overlay on existing and proposed landfill and borrow area; 2) Grading plan review pursuant to "HD" overlay district and grading permit, if necessary; 3) Conditional Use Permit (if required) for ' landfill use in agricultural zone. Cit of Newport Beach: 1) Amendment to General Plan to provide for ' "LS ing overlay on plan review borrow site and permit, located within City boundaries; 2) Grad- if necessary; 3) Conditional Use Permit (if required). ' 2. If Alternative 1 is selected, the proposed alignments for Pelican Hills Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor shall be re- located or the landfill plans shall be modified to maintain "clean" soil under the proposed alignment. ' 4.7 SOCIOECONOMICS Impacts ' Additional housing units proposed in and around Coyote Canyon (as desig- nated on the Orange County and City of Irvine General Plans) will generate population growth in the area. Since growth projections for the South ' Irvine and North Newport Beach CAA's are expected to be substantial, this development is consistent with the growth trends forseen for the central coastal region of the county. Since Coyote Canyon began operation in 1964, several affluent residential ' communities have been built with a mile of the site. These include the Spyglass and Harbor View Hills areas in Newport Beach and the Turtle Rock 1 uny or ivewpun tseau I area in Irvine. As noted above, significant new development is planned for ' the vicinity of the landfill however phasing of new development is most likely well beyond the closure date of any of the alternatives. Potential ' impacts on property values in either existing or future homes related to one of the three grading plans are noted below: , • Alternative One would not provide for an ultimate use of the site. This large area could be a visual blight if not planted and irrigated ' for open space uses such as a golf course. This could have a negative effect on onsite as well as surrounding property values. ' • Alternative three continues landfill operations longer into the future ' and could have an indirect effect of creating short-term (86-89) value impacts until closure and landscaping occurs. ' • All alternatives could have adverse property value impacts resulting ' from odors and landfill gas emissions. Implementation of a methane gas recovery system as described in Section 4.9 will reduce signifi- cantly the potential for this problem. , In the discussion of property value impacts it should be noted that studies ' conducted as part of the Mission Canyon EIR on.similar types of residential units in the Bel Air/Encino area found no perceivable effect on the sale- , ability or the property values of homes related to proposed landfill expan- sion in that areal Another unquantifiable effect of potential landfill expansion is emotional distress or, in the extreme, life disruptions such as relocation related to ' odors or other potential adverse impacts. Because this is a highly subjec- tive matter, no clear determination -of significance can be made. It is ' possible however, that extending the life of the landfill operations could contribute to existing problems or could induce new problems. , Due to the predominately residential and recreational nature of the devel- opment proposed for the area, the general employment profile will not be I Mission Canyon Landfill Draft EIR, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles ' County, Solid Waste Management Department. ' LILY Ui ivIdWPUR DUacrl ' affected substantially. Currently, 32 people are employed at the Coyote Canyon landfill. It is anticipated that -the eventual closure of the land- fill will eliminate these positions, but employment opportunities for some of these displaced employees may become available as other solid waste ' operations come on-line in the County. In terms of the fiscal and economic tradeoffs between closing the landfill in 1986 vs. 1989, please see Section 6.2 in Alternatives. 1 Mitigation Measures No mitigation'measures are proposed at this time. 4.8 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ' Impacts F U The three project alternatives do not differ significantly with respect to future daily traffic volumes on surrounding roadways. This is because the disposal demand rate is projected to remain relatively constant for the planning horizon of the three alternatives. The primary differences in impacts among the alternatives are related to: - Regional growth of traffic on surrounding roadways, and the different time frames over which landfill related traffic will continue for the three alternatives; and - Implications of the grading alternatives for the alignment and design of future arterial roadways which are planned to cross the site. ' Traffic volumes ' Exhibit 28 shows the daily traffic volumes on roads in the vicinity of the 1. In site which can be expected annually to the year 1989 for Alternative a similar format, Exhibit 29 shows future daily traffic volumes for Alter- ' native 2, and Exhibit 30 shows future daily traffic volumes for Alterna- tive 3. 1 uny or iwvvport rseacn 1984.48,000 1985- 50,000 1986- 52,100 1987 - 54,400 1988- 55,300 1989- 57.700 1984.48,000 1985.50,100 1986.52,300 1987.54.500 1988.56,400 1989.58,900 1984.4900 1985-5000 1986.5200 1987 - 5300 1988- 3500 1989. 3600 1984.3200 1985.3400 1986-3500 1987-3600 1988.3500 1989-3600 1984.2300 1985.2300 1986.2300 1987-2300 1988.0 1989- 0 *SITE SOURCE: Kunzman Asaoctates Future Daily Traffic Volumes Alternative 1 COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL a COUNTY OF ORANGE ;wport Bead EXHIBIT E 1984-48,000 1985. WOW 1986 - 52,100 1987 • 52,900 1988. 55,300 1989- 57,700 1984.48,000 1985- 50,100 1986. MOO 1987 •54.000 1988. 56,400 1989- 58,900 1984.4900 1985.5000 1986.5200 1987.3300 1988.3500 1989-3600 1984.3200 1985-3400 1986-3500 1987.3300 1988.3500 1989-3600 1984.2300 1985-2300 1986-2300 1987-0 1988. 0 1989' 0 *SITE SOURCE: Kunzman Associates Future Daily Traffic Volumes - Alternative 2 COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL .. COUNTY OF ORANGE Gity ui IVewport Beach EXHIBIT 29 ' Unlverslt Dt1`w 1984.3200 1985-3400 ' 1984 - 48,000 1986. 3:00 1985.50,000 1987.300 1986- 52,100 1988- 3800 19B7 - 54,400 1989.3600 1988 - 56,700 1989- 57,700 1984.4900 1985.5000 ' 1986.5200 1987 - 5300 1988.5500 Goy e0Oj! 1989 - 3600 Cd� 1984. 48,000 Drive ' 2300 1985- 50,100 1985-2300 n 1986.52,300 1981986 2300 a 1987. 54,500 7.1988.56,900 1982300 1988. 2300 ' 1989- 58,900 1989-0 u 0 ' o SITE ' SOURCE: Kunzman Aasoclates Future Daily Traffic Volumes- Alternative 3 COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE UILy UI Newport Beach EXHIBIT30 ' To account for regional growth on roadways, future traffic volumes have been calculated based on a 4.4 percent annual growth rate for the non -land- fill component. This rate of growth is based on a review -of traffic volume counts taken on MacArthur Boulevard south of Bonita Canyon Drive from 1971 1 to the present. Regional growth has been added to the daily and peak hour non -landfill component of the future traffic volumes on both MacArthur ' Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive. Determination of the landfill and non - landfill 'components of existing traffic volumes is based on the data as Presented in Section 3.8 of this EIR. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Future ICU's for the project alternatives are shown in Table 14. The ICU ' calculations are based on the existing intersection geometrics and the regional growth ratio of the non -landfill component of existing peak hour ' traffic volumes. ' From this table it can be seen that for 1989 conditions, all of the inter- sections in the vicinity of the site will operate at a Level of Service A or better for project alternatives, except the intersection of MacArthur ' Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Road. ' The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive will oper- ate at a Level of Service E in the morning peak hour for 1985 conditions and will operate at a Level of Service F in the morning peak hour for 1988 for all project alternatives. Future decreases in the Level of Service on MacArthur Boulevard are primarily related to the regional growth in the ' non -landfill component of traffic, and will occur irrespective of the oper- ations of the landfill site. If MacArthur Boulevard is widened to provide for three through travel lanes in each direction, the intersection of Mac- Arthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive will operate at a Level of Service ' C or better for all project alternatives for all future analysis periods. Planned Arterial Roadway Alignments As identified in Section 3.8 of this EIR, future roadways are presently ' planned which will cross the landfill site. These roadways are Pelican uity UI r4ewpOft t5eaun Q TABLE'14 ' i FUTURE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ' Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Intersection/ AM Peak PM Peak _AM Peak PM beak AM Peak PM Peak Year ICU-LOS ICU-LOS, ICU-LOS ICU-LOS ICU-1,O8 ICU -LADS MacArthur/Bonita Canyon 1984 87-D 84-D 87-D 84-D 87-D 84-D 1985 91-E 88-D 91-E 88-D 91-E P8-D 1986 94-E 91-E 94-E 91-E 94-E 91-E 1987 98-E 96-E 97-E 95-E 98-E 96-E 1988 19B9 101-F 105-F 99-E 103-F 101-F 105-F 99-E 103-F 102-F iO5-F 100-E 103-F Coyote Canyon/ Bonita Canyon 1984 22-A 24-A 22-A 24-A 22-A 24-A 1985 22-A 24-A 22-A 24-A 22-A 24-A 1986 22-A 25-A 22-A 25-A 22-A 25-A 1987 22-A 25-A 00-A 00-A 22-A 25-A 1988 00-A 00-A 00-A 00-A 23-A 26-A 1989 00-A 00-A 00-A 00-A 00-A 00-A Culver/Bonita Canyon 1984 22-A 29-A 22-A 29-A 22-A 29-A 1985 22-A 30-A 22-A 30-A 22-A 30-A 1986 23-A. 30-A 23-A 30-A 23-A 30-A 1987 23-A 31-A 23-A 30-A 23-A 31-A 1988 23-A 31-A 23-A 31-4 24-A 32-A 1989 23-A 32-A 23'-A 32-A 23-A 32-A 11 City of Newport Beach 1 ' Hill Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Because of settlement in the landfill, it is highly undesirable to construct any por- tion of a roadway over Group 2 waste fill. ' Alternative One, prepared in 1977, is not fully consistent with the latest planned road alignments through the site. The disposal of solid waste ' along the northeastern margins of the landfill would conflict with the alignment of Pelican Hills. Road and, potentially, with the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The limits of fill shown on Alternative One also do not provide for con- tinued use of the existing Coyote Canyon truck access road. This road would be covered to depths of almost 100 feet with no provision for alter- native access onto the landfill as the grading plan reaches completion. ' Alternative Two provides for inert fill disposal consistent with the future Pelican Hill Road alignment. The limits of fill and final grades at the northern end of the landfill site are compatible with the planned rSan Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor alignment through the area. A third circulation consideration is the relationship of this grading plan alternative to the existing Coyote Canyon road access route. Unlike the Alternative One, this plan limits the landfill boundaries to the eastern ' side of this roadway. Access would be maintained throughout the operation- al lifespan of the landfill and during the closure and final cover phases. ' Alternative Three is consistent with the planned alignment of both Pelican Hill Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The existing ' Coyote Canyon Road access to the site is maintained throughout the life - span of disposal operations and extended to the south to intersect with the San Joaquin Hills Road after- closure. ' Precise schedules on the implementation of these future roadways are un, known at this time. Implementation of the presently considered inter- changes of San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor prior to the comple- tion dates of any of the project alternatives would result in the need to modify the existing access from Coyote Canyon Road. Construction of ' Pelican Hill Road prior to the completion of landfill operations would 1 uity of rveWport t5eacn potentially divide the landfill site and 'impact future landfill operations. ' This division will not adversely affect landfill operations. However, it is anticipated that neither Pelican Hill Road nor the Transportation Corri- dor will be constructed before landfill operations at Coyote Canyon are completed. ' Other Traffic Impacts - , Traffic signal warrants have been calculated for future traffic volumes on , Bonita Canyon Drive and Coyote Canyon Road. The installation of a traffic signal at the site access intersection wilt not be warranted for any of the project alternatives. Future increases in non -project traffic on Bonita Canyon Drive are not expected to be sufficient to warrant construction of a channelized left turn pocket at the intersection of these two roads. ' Future increases in through traffic on MacArthur Boulevard are expected to rejuire the lengthening of the existing southbound left turn pocket for t' vehicles turning on to Bonita Canyon Drive. Bonita Canyon Drive between MacArthur and Coyote Canyon is in disrepair and in the need of improvement. Mitigation Measures ' 1. The existing southbound left turn pocket on MacArthur Boulevard should , be extended an additional 150 feet to prevent left turning vehicles to Bonita Canyon Drive from queueing into the through travel lanes. ' 2. When precise schedules for construction of planned roadways in the immediate vicinity of the landfill are known, the effects on operations ' of the landfill site should be analyzed and alternative site access plans and operating procedures prepared if necessary. 3. Inert fill materials only shall be placed in the vicinity of the future , planned Pelican Hill Road alignment across the landfill site. 4.4 AIR RESOURCES ' Impacts , Short-term and long-term air quality impacts are associated with both oper- ation and closure of the Coyote Canyon landfill. The short-term impacts, OILY VI IVe%137, which include fugitive dust, litter and vehicle/equipment emissions, will continue to occur as a fuction of the life expectancies provided by each of the three landfill grading plan alternatives. The long-term impact of the Coyote Canyon operation is the generation of landfill odors (i:e., residual decay) and gases which will continue to occur for some time into the future, regardless of which grading plan alternative is ultimately selected. Landfill Odors/Gases Residual decay odors are the principal impact problem associated with the generation and dispersal of landfill gas emissions. They constitute a local nuisance or aesthetic impact which can persist for 10-20 years after refuse burial. The generation of odors from residual decay depends on the volumes of land- filled'refuse. With respect to the three grading plan alternatives, odor generation will result from the range of about 45 million cubic yards in place under Alternative One to about 55 million cubic yards under Alterna- tive Three. The odor generated by Alternative Three will last slightly longer into the future and may be slightly more intense as compared to the other two alternatives. However, none of the alternatives can change the fact that the bulk of the odor generation material is already in place. Utilizing the previously mentioned odor strength and dispersal assessment methodology (see Appendix G), the limits of odor detectability associated with each grading plan has been estimated as follows: Alternative One - 1,53 miles Alternative Two - 1.62 miles Alternative Three - 1.69 miles The differences between the three alternatives as well as the existing con- dition (1.45 miles) are much less than the absolute accuracy of the odor impact assessment technique. As a result, the odor differences among the alternatives are not statistically significant. The areas, surrounding the landfill which experience odor problems today (i.e., Turtle Rock, Spyglass �� ,,,��Purt t5eacn Hill, UCI) will continue to be impacted in the same fashion into the future, regardless of which alternative is selected. The odor impact area would also include future residential or other urban uses having a location in proximity to the landfill. Fugitive Oust All three grading plan alternatives will result in the continued generation of landfill -related fugitive dust emissions Which contribute to locally elevated particulate levels in the area. Due to the inert nature of soil particles, adverse health effects are not generally associatedwith these fugitive dust emissions; however, they may increase downwind soiling from dust deposition and local haze levels. Given that the level of landfill activity under the three alternatives will remain essentially the same over their respective operational time frames, so will dust generation be directly attributable to waste unloading'activi- ties and dirt road travel. In this regard, dust generation will last longer under Alternative Three and be of proportionately less duration under Alternatives One and Two. The additional volume of cover soil re- quired by Alternative Three including the 1.6 million cubic yards of clean soil fill will also increase the intensity of dust generation impacts relative to Alternatives One and Two. As mentioned earlier, borrow excavation and placement activities are the major generators of dust from the landfil'1 operation. With the relocation of borrow activities from within to outside the current lease boundaries fugitive dust impacts will be experienced by nearby residential areas of Newport Beach. Potential fugitive dust impacts here will occur beyond the life expectancy of solid waste disposal to include the duration of borrow- ing needed to complete final covering of the landfill site. Taking into account that fugitive dust generation is directly proportional to the amount of soil, movement and combining it with durational considera= tions, greater dust impacts from borrow activity overall would be asso- ciated with Alternative Three. The dust generation impacts for Alterna- tives One and Two would correspondingly be of lesser proportion. 1L'11 v vi 1AUVVPU1 L Deacn ' Airborne .Litter ' Litter is a direct function of the duration of landfill operations and the volume of trash hauled to the site. The longer Coyote Canyon continues ' operating and the more refused handled, the more opportunity there will be for occasional litter nuisance., The primary litter impact associated with ' the Coyote Canyon operation is the dropping of debris from trucks along the landfill access route. u L The principal difference in impact between the three grading plan alter- natives relates to their closure dates. The occasional litter nuisance problem is, therefore, prolonged for the greatest amount of time under Alternative Three. Another litter dispersal -related impact associated with the project is the effect that borrow grading may have on the debris trapping potential of the ridgelines along the western edge of the landfill. Reducing the•ridge- lines elevations here could result in increased opportunities for litter blowing into the nearby residential areas, and onto the borrow area it- self, during high wind episodes. The potential for this impact can be con- sidered greater for Alternative Three which will require the •most amount of grading within the borrow area. With lesser borrow grading require- ments, Alternative One or Two may retain a more substantial physical bar- rier between residences and the landfill. Vehicle/Equipment Emissions The generation of pollutant emissions from waste haul vehicle trips and heavy equipment operations at the site will continue through closure of the landfill. In addition to the emissions occurring while the landfill is open, a further increment of short-term emissions will be associated with the earthworking equipment operations during closure and final covering of the site with soil. On a regional scale, the total countywide emissions are not appreciably affected by the Coyote Canyon operations. Referring to Table 8, the total Coyote Canyon vehicle/equipment emissions represent less than 0.1 percent H amity or iw-"Avport rsewn of the countywide total. As long as Coyote Canyon continues to operate, so ' will the generation of these emissions at essentially the same level. Upon closure, the vehicular emissions will continue at potentially increased levels as portions of the present Coyote Canyon traffic are diverted to a more distant ultimate replacement site, i.e., Prima Oeshecha or the future , Bee Canyon landfill. The differences in vehicle/equipment emissions impacts between the grading ' plan alternatives relates to both the local and regional, level. Alterha- , tive Two has the earliest anticipated closure date and, correspondingly, would achieve the earliest reduction in local landfill -related vehicle/ equipment emissions. , On a more regional scale, the timeframe before which traffic will be di- , verted to the replacement site for Coyote Canyon with resultant potential emission increases would be prolonged by Alternative Three. For comparison , purposes,, the vehicular emissions associated with hauling to Bee Canyon, the closest replacement site, were calculated to total 2.15 tons per day.1 ' Th,is would represent an approximately 21 percent increase in daily emis- sions over that associated with Coyote Canyon (1.77 tons/day, see Table 8). If Bee Canyon is not operational, trip lengths and resultant emissions ' would further increase the difference in emissions between Coyote Canyon and• an ultimate replacement site. Thus, Alternative Three reduces vehicu- lar pollutant contributions on a regional scale, compared with the other alternatives. ' Microscale carbon monoxide (CO) concentratons with and without landfill ' traffic were calculated using the CALINE 3 roadway dispersion model under maximum traffic and minimum dispersion conditions. These calculations measure the "worst case" of vehicle generated emissions for persons stand- , ing along streets leading to and from the landfill. Maximum hourly CO levels from landfill traffic alone were shown to total less than 1 ppm at ' 20 feet from any impacted roadways compared to an hourly standard of 20 ppm. Elimination of landfill traffic will not significantly change local ' 1 Average round trip length calculated at 28.8 miles, see Appendix G for additional details. ' 141 ulty OT 1%4ewpOfi t5eacrl I ' CO distributions which are generally well within allowable levels. Calcu-- lated hourly CO distributions (including a 5 ppm hourly background from ' non -local sources) were as follows: ' Table 14a HOURLY CO CONCENTRATIONS ' (Ppm) Landfill Without Traffic Landfill Location• Only Traffic Background Total BONITA CANYON ROAD ' W of Coyote Canyon Road 0.9 0.9 5.0 6.8 E of Coyote Canyon Road 0.1 0.6 5.0 5.7 ' MACARTHUR BOULEVARD N of Bonita Canyon Road 0.6 8.4 5.0 14.0 S of Bonita Canyon Road 0.2 8.4 5.0 13.6 I n Microscale CO concentrations are dominated by non -landfill sources and by non -local background levels. Landfill traffic impacts are less than the 1 ppm limit of accuracy of CO measurements and are therefore not significant under any of the grading plan alternatives. Air Quality Management Planning Operation of the Coyote Canyon lan8fill has only a nominal impact on air quality within the South Coast Air Basin as measured by ambient air quality standards. As mentioned previously, air quality within the basin is show- ing a slow but encouraging improvement trend as a result of implementing pollution control measures in response to federal and state legislation and the South Coast Air Basin Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Neverthe- less, attainment of acceptable standards for the basin is still many years away; an impact to which operation of Coyote Canyon incrementally contri- butes. It should be noted that use of any of the alternative landfill sites identified in Section 5.0 of this EIR would increase vehicular source pollution relative to continued use of Coyote Canyon. 142 City of Newport Beach H Regardless of which grading plan alternative is ultimately selected, the Coyote Canyon operation will still be subject to the regulations and con- trols embodied in SCAQMD's Rule 402 (,nuisance) and 403 (fugitive dust) as applicable. The installation of a gas recovery system at Coyote Canyon would be consistent with the SCAQMD Landfill Gas Emissions Task Force Find- ing 4 encouraging the implementation of such systems to control reactive organic gas emissions and odors emanating from landfill operations. Mitigation Measures Employment of the following mitigation measures for the ultimately selected grading plan alternative will work to reduce resultant impacts on air resources: 1. For control of odors and reactive organic gas emissions escaping from the landfill: - Installation of a landfill gas recovery system which includes an appropriate flare backup system when generation facilities are not operational; - Continued daily refuse cover and repair of fissures in the landfill surface which may emit gas; - Maintaining proper drainage to prevent excessive water intrusion into,the landfill (moisture appears to accelerate odor production); and - The proposed six feet of final soil cover and revegetation of the landfill surface which can prAide effective long-term odor filtra- tion. Refusal of unusually odorous materials. 2. Continue current watering program for the landfill working face peri- meter and dirt access roads to control fugitive dust emissions associ- ated with waste filling activities. Expand this program to include watering of access roads and graded areas within the borrow area as well as on the landfill site itself. Due to the proximity of existing residential areas to the proposed borrow sites, more frequent watering of the borrow area during excavation and rapid revegetation of com- pleted slopes should be undertaken to minimize potential dust soiling nuisance. 3. Continue routine cleaning of litter along Coyote Canyon Road and Bonita Canyon Road between MacArthur and Coyote Canyon. To minimize potential increased litter problems on windy days, extra measures should be taken 143 City of Newport Beach I I 11 11 which can include use of protected dumping areas during high wind epi- sodes, maintaining a smaller working face, cautioning drivers to exer- cise care in unloading, chain -link fencing around active areas, and ' extra clean-up patrols. Several of these measures can also work to reduce excessive fugitive dust emissions blowing offsite during high wind episodes. ' 4.10 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT L' I I 1 n Impacts Potential noise impacts may arise from noise generated from trucks on local roadways, landfill activities and borrow site activities. Potential im- pacts from each of these activities are addressed below. Traffic Noise Continuation of activities at the Coyote Canyon landfill will mean that noise generation by landfill -related traffic will also continue along the roads in the vicinity of the site. Because the level of landfill disposal activities is anticipated to remain more or less constant under any of the three alternatives, the project is not expected to result in higher ambient truck traffic noise levels along roads in the vicinity. Traffic volumes reported in the traffic study were used with the FHWA High- way Traffic Noise Model to project future, unmitigated noise levels in the project vicinity. The last year the landfill site will be in operation was modeled for each alternative since this would result in the loudest noise levels during the life of the project. The modeling results are reported in Table 15 in the form of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These projections do not take into account any barriers .or topography that may reduce noise levels. The data in Table 15 indicate that the CNEL noise levels along Culver Drive will not differ significantly between alternatives. The traffic noise levels along Culver Drive in the proposed final years of landfill opera- tions will not be substantially higher than existing levels, and will be lower than those which will occur with ultimate traffic conditions. The n 144 . uiLy ut ivewpon beacn TABLE 16 PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS ---------------------- ------------ -.............................. DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR FROM CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY (FEET) .............................. ROADWAY 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL CNEL AT 300' -------------------------- m...... - ALTERNATIVE 1 (1987) CULVER DRIVE Campus to Bonita Cyn. RW 39 84 58.9 BONITA CANYON ROAD East of Coyote Cyn. RW 33 71 57.8 West of Coyote Cyn. .38 82 176 63.7 MACARTHM BOULEVARD South of Ronita Cyn. 134 288 621 71.9 North of Bonita Cyn. 142 307 661 72.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 (1986) CULVER DRIVE Campus to Bonita Cyn. RW 38 82 58.7 BONITA CANYON ROAD East of Coyote Cyn. r RW 33 70 67.7 West of Coyote Cyn. 38 82 176 63.7 MACARTHVR BOULEVARD South of Bonita Cyn. 130 280 603 11.7 North of Bonita Cyn. 138 297 641 72.1 ALTERNATIVE 3 (1988) CULVER DRIVE Campus to Bonita Cyn. RW 40 87 59.1 BONITA CANYON ROAD East of Coyote Cyn. RW 34 72 57.9 West of Coyote Cyn. 41 88 191 64.2 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD South of Bonita Cyn. 138 297 -641 72.1 North of Bonita Cyn. 145 311 671 72.4 --------------------------- --=----- NOTE: 1., RW - Contour falls on roadway. ................................................................. UIty ui lMtaVV05& PI L Butwh ' residences along Culver Drive are projected to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL. The noise levels along MacArthur Boulevard are not projected to change significantly over the next six years. In summary, the traffic associated with landfill operations will not result in noise levels significantly higher than anticipated with ultimate traffic condi- tions. Landfill Operation Noise ' The residential areas nearest the proposed landfill area are located within the City of Newport Beach (approximately 2,400,feet distant for all three ' project alternatives). Extrapolating the noise measurement data for land- fill operations to this distance results in a projected L5p level of 47dBA ' at 2,400 feet. This is well below the Orange County Noise Ordinance stand- ard, and should result in acceptable noise levels in the nearby residential areas. Borrow Site Operation Noise ' The borrow site Tocations proposed extend west from the landfill to within ' 200 feet of the existing residences with the City of Newport Beach. All alternatives will use the same borrow sites. L50 noise level (i.e., the ' level of noise exceeded 50% of the time) was used to assess the impact of the proposed borrow site operations against the Orange County Noise Ordin- ance standard. The County standard also applies to incorporated areas ' within the City of Newport Beach. The County Noise Ordinance standard for the L50 level is 55 dBA. ' The distance from the borrow site for various L50 levels was determined, ' and is presented in Table 16. The analysis assumes no intervening topo- graphy or sound walls that would reduce the noise levels. t [I� 1 City of Newport Beach n ., TABLE 16 L50 NOISE LEVELS FOR BORROW SITE OPERATIONS L50 (dBA) DISTANCE FROM SITE (FT.) 71 200 70 215 65 382 60 680 55 1,209 The data in Table 16 indicate that the L50 noise level when the borrow site is at it nearest point to the residential area will be approximately 71 dBA. This noise level is excessive and significant, being 16 dBA higher than the ordinance criteria level. The projected L50 noise contours for the borrow site operations at a loco= tion close to the residences is presented in Exhibit 31. The exhibit depicts one of the closer borrow areas to the existing residences. Other proposed borrow areas are as close to existing residences, specifically, the borrow areas proposed north of the San Joaquin Reservoir. The borrow site operations would need to 'be confined to more than 1,200 feet from existing residences to maintain a L50 level at the .residences of 55 .dBA without additional mitigation. The proposed grading plans are not consis- tent with this setback distance.. The County Noise Ordinance specifically exempts grading operations. The ordinance defines grading as "any excavating or filling of earth material, or any combination thereof, conducted at a site to prepare said site .for construction or other improvements thereon". Grading operations are exempt from the ordinance as long as they are conducted on weekdays and Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 P.M. Mitigation Measures 1. Grading operations not confined to weekdays and Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM will .be subject to the requirements of the County Noise Ordinance. I Ll I n H 1 147 Ulty U1 I-AUWPOI L Deacr ' 2. Borrow operations nearest to residences should be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Grading activities during other hours will be limited to more distant locations in the ' borrow area. 3. Consideration should be given to the installation of upgraded mufflers ' on borrow site earth moving equipment in order to reduce noise levels at the exhaust stack source. 4. Reduction in the number and size of equipment could lower the noise ' levels. However, by reducing the rate at which earth is moved, this type of change would mean that operations would be near residences for a longer period of time. ' 5. Borrow site operations will be phased so that a temporary berm of unex- cavated material is left between active borrow operations and nearby ' residences for as long as possible. If this berm could be left so that the line -of -sight between the equipment and the residences were ob- structed, this would reduce noise levels significantly. ' 6. Temporary barriers made of plywood could be constructed so that the residents' line -of -sight to the borrow site equipment were obstructed, this would reduce noise levels. ' However it may be impossible to ' achieve effective noise 'attenuation in this manner because of local topographic conditions. 7. A performance condition may be imposed by the County Environmental Health Division, HCA, on the borrow site operations, such that opera- tions could proceed as long as specified noise levels are not exceeded. With this approach equipment would have to be modified or operated in ' such a way that would result in acceptable noise levels in the adjacent residential area. ' 4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' 4.11.1 Fire Protection ' Impacts ' The expansion of the landfill operation and the continuation of use will' result in continued fire potential at the site and surrounding areas. Al- ternative 3 would result in approximately 2 years of additional operational ' fire potential than Alternatives 1 or 2. No explosions or major fires have occurred at the site to date. Minor fires and localized smoldering have occurred due to disposal of hot materials. As in any landfill, the poten- tial for underground fire exists during operation and after closure. Risk ' 148 1 City of Newport Beam is higher during operation due to the continued placement and compaction , of waste material potentially containing hot or combustible substances. ' The area currently receives an adequate level of service and this project will not require additional facilities or manpower. ' Mitigation Measures , 1. Limiting confined air spaces by thorough compaction of'wastes will pre- vent gas from accumulating. ' 2. Extraction of landfill gases can prevent the potential' accumulation of methane to explosive levels. , 3. A fire road and fire breaks around the perimeter of the site shall be maintained for emergency use. 4. Onsite Water trucks should continue to be available for firefighting ' with adequate onsite reserve. 5. Established fire control procedures by, and training of, landfi-11 oper- ators will be utilized to extinguish small waste fill fires. ' 4.11.2 Police Protection Impacts 1 The proposed project will not significantly affect the agency's ability to ' continue service. Mitigation Measures , No mitigation measures are proposed. 4.11.3 Water ' Impacts ' The expansion of the Coyote Canyon landfill site will result in the con- , tinued use of domestic water ons:ite at a rate consistent with current use. City of Newport Beach 1 1 ' ' During final grading for site closure, water will be sprayed to minimize dust emissions and to compact cover soil 1 Mitigation Measures 1 No mitigation measures are proposed. 1 4.11.4 Wastewater ' Impacts 1 No direct impacts on wastewater collection or disposal would result from any alternative. ' Mitigation Measures ' No mitigation measures are proposed. 1 4.11.5 Utilities 1 I_.Lcts 1 The proposed project alternatives will all require the continuation of use of current energy sources and communication methods. No impact to utili- ties is anticipated. 1 Mitigation Measures 1 No mitigation measures are proposed. 1 4.12 ENERGY CONSERVATION ' Impacts ' Continued use of Coyote Canyon will result in approximately the same number of annual vehicular trips through closure of the landfill. DeRending on 1 the Alternative chosen, the number of heavy equipment vehicles operating 1 %.,ILy U1 i-4tMport Deacn onsite may vary somewhat. The fuel consumption analysis presented under , the existing conditions section assumed a maximum or worst case analysis. Therefore, total gasoline and diesel fuel consumption through 1989 will be ' 1,763,736 gallons per year, or 5,653 gallons per day. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed. ' 4.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ' I_pacts ' The three alternative grading plans exhibit no signfiicant differences with ' respect to potential public health and safety impacts. The only differ- ences are related to the extension of the life of landfill operation for several years. With existing control measures, potential problems or risks ' associated with vectors, odors, gaseous emissions, leachate, accidential spills, and fires/explosi,on will continue at theiir,present level, at least ' until closure of the site. Certain problems such as odors and gaseous emissions could continue after closure. As described in Section 3.13, there are no significant public health and ' safety problems at Coyote Canyon. The risk of fires, explosions, spills, and accidental discharge of wastes is present, however the potential for a major accident is considered remote based on the past performance at the ' site. Mitigation Measures ' 1. Potential public health and safety risks will be controlled through continued compliance with State Minimum Standards and continued inspec- tion by the County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency. ' 2. Routine monitoring of vector populations will be continued, as will current,vector control practices. ' 3. The development of a landfill gas recovery system wil-1 continue to be encouraged. The landfill will be operated in such a way that gas , recovery can be conducted simultaneously. AIL^y ime\ 151 L Beau i 1 I 6 C 0 H �II 4.14 AESTHETICS/VIEWS Impacts The following section will evaluate the visual and aesthetic impacts of the alternative landfill grading plans. Computer -aided oblique perspectives are presented to compare and illustrate the relationship of the three plans to surrounding landforms. Cross -sections are provided to indicate the cu- mulative effect of landfill and borrow site contouring on views from sur- rounding residential areas. Finally, computer generated ground level view perspectives will indicate the landforms which will be visually exposed to surrounding residential areas after project implementation. Comparison of Alternative Grading Plans The three alternative grading plans for the landfill were presented in Ex- hibits 4, 5 and 7 in Section 2.5 of this document. These plans illustrate the land contouring which is proposed by each alternative for the landfill site. Exhibits 32 through 34 in this section are "birds eye" oblique perspective drawings of the site as it would be modified by each of the grading alter- natives. The computer -drawn images show elevated views from northwest of the site looking toward the southeast. The limits of fill for the three alternatives are shown by a dashed line in these drawings. The relatively flat landform to be created on the fill site by Alternative one can be readily seen in the drawing. The mounding of fill in Alternatives Two and Three can also be seen. This mounding would accommodate more fill (parti- cularly Alternative Three), and would create a landform more compatible with the surrounding hill topography. It would also settle more evenly than a flat surface and allow water to run off to the edges rather than settle in the middle of the fill. ' Viewshed Modifications 11 Any of the landfill grading plans will ultimately improve the existing ' appearance of the landfill area. Nevertheless, each of these plans has 1 City of iiefton t5eacn a Elevated View of Landfill From the Northwest City of Newport Beach Grading Plan Oblique Perspective Alternative 1 yL—eegend �_J ageDENOTES FILL LIMITS EXHIBIT 32 i Elevated View of Landfill From the Northwest City of Newport Beach Grading Plan Oblique Perspective Alternative 2 Legend 2�DENOTES FILL LIMITS EXHOIT 33 Grading Plan Oblique Perspective Alternative 3 Legend ir' DENOTES FILL LIMITS Elevated View of Landfill From the - Northwest City of Newport Beach EXHBrf 34 P 1 ' significantly different final forms and resultant impacts on viewsheds from adjoining communities. Alternative Three is used for analysis purposes as ' it "mounds" the landfill higher than Alternatives One or Two. Alternative Three also requires the largest amount of borrow soil for both daily opera- tion and final cover. The cross -sections shown in Exhibits 36 and 37 provide a clear indication ' of how existing views into the site area will be mod-ified by Alternative Three (see View Sections Index, Exhibit 35 for location of sections). ' Section AA is taken from the Harbor Ridge area in Newport Beach through the ' northern borrow site to the northwestern edge of Turtle Rock. Grading of the borrow site area would be clearly visible from both residential commun- ities. Harbor Ridge would have a considerably closer view than would Turtle Rock about one mile distant. ' Section BB is taken from Harbor Ridge Crest to a higher elevation on the northwesterly face of Turtle Rock. The natural ridgelines which surround ' the site screen most views of proposed grading and sanitary landfill along this view plane. 1 Section CC is a similar situation. Views from the upper portions of exist- ing development in Turtle Rock are generally screened by the large inter- vening ridgeline to the west. Spyglass Hill views along this orientation may include the very top edges of the borrow and landfill activities. ' Sections DO & EE indicate the existing views from Spyglass Hill and Harbor ' Ridge prior to proposed borrow or landfill activity (upper arrows). The lower arrows clearly indicate that if the intervening hills in the borrow ' area are removed, the adjoining landfill will be visually exposed to these residential areas. ' Section FF provides a distant viewshed analysis from the top of the Engi- neering Building on the UCI Campus. The ultimate landfill contour will be ' visible from this and other southerly locations on the campus some 1 to 1.5 miles away. 0 City of New Beach Cfi{zlmICor: 11 E u II Exhibits 38 and 39 show computer -generated "ground level" perspective views into the site from Turtle Rock and Spyglass Hill. These drawings depict existing views from these subdivisions, and show how these views would be altered by Alternative Three. From these drawings it appears that visual impacts on Turtle Rock would be minor. Visual impacts at Spyglass Hill would be more noticeable because of the removal of the intervening ridge - line in the borrow site area. Mitigation Measures 1. When a landfill grading plan is selected, a detailed borrow site grad- ing/phasing plan should be prepared. This plan should identify speci- fic soil quantities and locations within the borrow site which can be removed without exposing adjoining residential areas to views of land- fill operations. This could entail preservation of key ridgelines along the western edge of the proposed borrow site until final closure grading and planting. 2. A plan for revegetation of the landfill and borrow area should be pre- pared and implemented in a timely manner. The revegetation plan should create an aesthetically pleasing appearance and should also be consis- tent with the ultimate uses of the graded and filled site. Use of indigenous species is preferred as appropriate. 154 City of Newport Beach 0 200 AA VIEW PLANE FROM HARBOR RIDGE VIEW PLANE FROM HARBOR RIDGE CREST San Joaquin Reservoir Approximate Area to be Lowered for Cover (Rnrrnw Ritp) Approximate Area to be Lowered for Cover (Borrow Site) Approximate Area to be Lowered for Cover (Borrow Site) Approximate Limits of Proposed Clean Soil Fill Approximate Limits of Proposed Sanitary Landfill Anproximate Limits of Pronosed Sanitary Landfill VIEW PLANE FROM TURTLE ROCK VIEW PLANE FROM TURTLE ROCK View Sections 800 600 400 200 oAA 800 600 400 200 p BB 0 0 0 200 800 600 400 200 FFn 600 400 200 EEO VIEW PLANE FROM UCI Approximate Area to be Lowered for Cover (Borrow Site) VIEW PLANE FROM SPYGLASS HILL VIEW PLANE FROM HARBOR RIDGE San Joaquin Reservoir Approximate Area to be Lowered for Cover Approximate Limits of Proposed Sanitary Landfill Approximate Limits of Proposed Sanitary Landfill Approximate Limits of Proposed Sanitary Landfill �.- .,............. ..T- ....:.......... ......:.:.. View Sections 800 600 400 200 FF iTii►rdXl'iTiTi�i: Ah 71 e Existing View Looking Southwest from within Turtle Rock Highest Point C'Ity&w4MffGra^^�°°:port Beach Ground Level View Perspective - Turtle Rock EXHIBIT 39 I 1 1 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1 In most of Section 4.0 of this EIR, three alternate grading plans were evaluated with respect to impacts on the environment. The following sec- tion will summarize the results of this evaluation as well as assess sever- al "non -design" alternatives including alternative landfill and/or borrow sites, transfer station alternatives and alternative solid waste disposal 1 methods. In addition to these technological and locational alternatives, an examination of the CEQA mandated "no -project" alternative is presented. 1 5.1 "NO PROJECT" ALTERNATIVE 1 The no -project alternative for Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill is divided into two scenarios: (1) Immediate closure of the site in its present con- figuration; and (2) Closure under the existing grading plan (Alternative 1) with no use of borrow sites outside the lease boundary. 1 5.1.1 Immediate Closure 1 Immediate closure of the site would result in major environmental and eco- nomic problems. In its present configuration, the site is traversed by major cuts and is not contoured for proper drainage. Previously, filled 1 areas are generally covered by only one foot or less of soil with relative- ly high permeability. It could be anticipated that, with no further modi- fications to the site in the form of permanent drainage improvements, con- touring or final cover, serious maintenance, drainage and leachate problems would develop. As the fill material settles, depressions will be created 1 which would trap rainwater and allow it to percolate through the solid waste. Landfill gases would be created at a higher rate and easily perme- ate the thin cover. It is also quite certain that regulatory agencies such as the RWQCB would not allow the site to be closed in its current condi- tion. Obtaining cover from the adjacent borrow site as proposed by the project alternatives could reduce some of the problems noted above. Never- theless, creating sufficiently sloping contours with clean soil fill to 1 provide adequate long-term drainage would be extremely expensive if not impossible given maximum projected soil volumes. 1 1 City of NdWport Beach In any case the economic and offsite environmental consequences of imme- diate closure would also be significant. All of the wastes currently hauled to Coyote Canyon would have to be hauled to one of the other three operating landfills: Olinda, Santiago or Prima Deschecha. This would result in substantially higher refuse dispsal costs for households, can- merce and industry in the Irvine - Newport Beach -Costa Mesa area. It would also create increased air pollution, fuel consumption and traffic congestion due to the greater distance that the collection and transfer vehicles would have to travel. Finally, this alternative would substan- tially reduce the useful life of the remaining operating landfills. 5.1.9 Closure Under Alternative One - No Offsite Borrow The second "no -project" alternative would be closure of the landfill under the currently permitted grading plan (Alternative 1 described in Section 2.5) with no use of borrow areas outside the lease boundary. As noted in Section 2.50 'Alternative 1 was developed in 1977 and projected at that time to close in the early 1980's. Over the past several years, the life of the landfill under this plan has been extended due to greater compaction of the waste, excavation's created from borrow activities within the lease area, and major remedial filling in previously completed areas to correct depres- sions which resulted from waste fill settlement. As stated in Section 2.5, the current projection of the life of this plan is late 1986-early 1987. Throughout the EIR, numerous problems with the physical design of Alterna- tive One were noted. These included improper slopes for drainage and ulti- mate use, high maintenance cost expections due to settlement -created de- pressions, confl icts with planned road alignments, and lack of well defiPed drainage facilities. However the most significant aspect of this "no -pro- ject" alternative is the lack of sufficient cover material to properly operate and close the site. For several years, the County has tried unsuc- cesfully to excavate cover material from the surrounding hillsides within the current lease boundaries. They have encountered extremely hard materi- als as evidenced by the numerous aborted cuts on the faces of these hills. Daily cover is currently supplied by excavations within remaining unfilled portions of the main canyon. This daily cover source could be expected to ,1 City of Newport Beach ' last until 1987.1 Any other cover available within the lease would be ex- tremely difficult to excavate and does not possess suitable characteristics for use as final cover. Inability to properly cover the site would result in the same deleterious problems noted above including leachate generation, increased gaseous emis- sions and potential vectors and health problems. Productive ultimate use ' of the site would not be possible. Because of the environmental and economic impacts noted above these "no -project" alternatives were rejected ' as infeasible. ' 5.2 ALTERNATIVE WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECOVERY METHODS 5.2.1 Alternative Disposal Methods Alternatives to sanitary landfilling include other disposal methods such as ' ocean disposal, abandoned deep mine or quarry disposal and incineration. Ocean disposal of solid wastes is prohibited by the U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency and is therefore not considered viable for use in this pro- ject. Because there are no deep abandoned mines or sizeable quarries in ' the vicinity of the coastal waste generation areas, this alternative method is not feasible. Incineration, per se, is not permitted in Southern Cali- fornia because of stringent air pollution standards. An alternative method of heat recovery incineration, with necessary pollu- tion control mechanisms to clean the flue gas before discharge, is consi- dered under the materials and energy recovery alternatives presented in ' Section 5.2.2 below. ' Another alternative is to reduce the amount of refuse requiring disposal. into two Reduction of wastes to be disposed generally can be divided groups: (1) source reduction and (2) source segregation and separate col- ' lection. Both will reduce the amount of soild waste to be disposed of by other methods. Source reduction of solid waste requires voluntary or ' 1 GSA Waste Management Program. 157 ' 1 amity of Newport Beach government -mandated changes in manufactered and food products packaging, in obsolescence rates of manufactured products, and in many other consumer , consumption characteristics of the U.S, lifestyl-e. Changes 'in these source reduction factors will require both state and federal legislation which is ' beyond the scope of this EIR to influence. Implementation of a comprehensive source separation program at the local level will require considerable time and effort on the part of local gov- ernment. Numerous independent programs are in operation currently in Orange County. The Engineering Science (1982) report reviews these pro- ' grams in depth. In terms of the need for landfill capacity which is the subject of this EIR, it is not considered feasible to reduce sufficiently, by , or eliminate, the need for landfill capacity based on source separation 1989. In combination with other technologies or systems, separation would reduce landfill demand over the long-term (10-20 years). This reduction , is addressed further in the following section. , 5.2.2 ,Materials and Energy Recovery ' Materials and energy recovery alternatives are discussed separately from others because they are somewhat independent of implementation of the proposed landfill expansion. Neither materials nor energy recovery elimi- nate the need for landfills. They do, however, reduce the volume of waste requiring disposal and thereby decrease landfill capacity requirements. Materials recovery operations would lengthen the useful life of Orange County's existing landfills. The amount of this reduction would depend, , upon the type and extent of the reclamation methods employed. A variety of materials and energy recovery processes are currently avail- able or are in the latter stages of development for commercial use which recover various amounts of reuseable materials and energy. Materials and ' energy recovery processes and procedures available, or soon expected to be available, include: ' o Source segregation and separate collection ' o Centralized manual or mechanized materials recovery o Energy materials extraction t UILy iwwport Beach I ' o Processing to convert organic materials to a synthetic fuel o Processing to convert organic materials to a various chemical ' compounds o Energy extraction in the form of heat o Energy extraction and generation of electricity The feasiblity of materials and energy recovery operations in Orange County is directly related to the quantities of solid waste generated, the compo- sition of that waste, the quantity and quality of each reuseable material ' type, and the markets for recovered materials and refuse derived fuel (RDF). These factors are discussed in the sections which follow. 5.2.2.1 Solid Waste Quantities Information contained in the report "Solid Waste Management System for the County of Orange, June, 1982" indicated that the estimated per capita daily ' waste production was 8.5 pounds in 1982 and is projected to increase to 9.9 pounds in 1992 and to 11.4 pounds in the year 2002. ' Based on an estimated 1982 population of 2,029,000, Orange County annually generates 3,147,000 tons of solid waste. This amount is projected to increase to 4,365,000 tons in 1992 and 5,612,000 tons in 2002 (see Table 17). Of the 1982 quantity, about 2.1 million cubic yards of refuse (about 1.26 million tons) was disposed of in the Coyote Canyon Landfill (about 40% of the total). ' In addition to the residential and commercial waste that contains consider- able organic substances, 57,000 and 303,000 tons of inert wastes (from industrial and demolition sources, respectively) also are expected to be ' deposited during the same years. Because only the residential and commer- cial waste containing a large amount of organics (combustibles) are suit- able for incineration or various of the materials recovery processes, the inert materials still must be landfilled at some site together with what- ever residues are left by alternative materials and energy resource ' recovery processes. Some or all of the inert materials could be used for fill in land reclamation if such a need arises in the future. 1 City of NdWport Beach 5.2.2.2 Municipal Solid Waste Generation ' Table 18 lists the estimated composition of Orange County urbanized area ' waste based on a decade -long sampling performed by the City of Los -Angeles. Paper content approximates 34 percent of the total. Other combustibles amount to about 35 percent, with all combustibles totaling about 69 per- t' cent. Metal-s, glass, other inorganics, and sand, soil and stone make up the balance. While these composition estimates were not derived from Orange County residents, they are indicative of the Orange County waste stream (Engineering Science, 1982). ' 5.2.2.3 Waste Applicable to Materials and Energy Recovery , Based on the data presented in Table 17, the municipal waste expected to be suitable for materials and energy recovery processing in 1987 amounts to 3',084,000 tons per year. The 1987 quantity is of concern because it will take at least 4 years to design and construct a recovery plant. Permit processing and approval complexities could increase this start-up -- estimate to as long as 10 years. ' Orange County currently operates three refuse transfer stations and four sanitary landfills. Exhibit 3 in Section 2.2 shows the location of these t facilities and the approximate flow of waste through the system. Current- ly, the waste from Transfer Stations I (Stanton) and II (Huntington Beach) as well as the Saturday waste from Transfer Station III (Anaheim) are taken to the Coyote Canyon Landfill. The weekday refuse from Transfer Station III is taken to the Olinda Landfill. Present and projected daily quantities by service area are shown in Table ' 19. The service areas are shown graphically in Exhibit 40 along with the projected daily quantities for the year 1987. Note that the transfer sta- tions average slightly more than 2,100 tons per day, while the landfill service areas aside from the transferred waste average about 1,000 tons ' Per day. In order to be more generally applicable, the following analysis will consider a nominal 1,000 ton per day (tpd) facility rather than a ' potential 2,000 tpd. Table 20 lists the esimated quantities of reuseable materials which suitable recovery facilities would reclaim each day, were , recovery practiced county -wide. VIly Ui Neu POR tseacn I ' YEAR TABLE17 PROJECTED WASTE PER CAPITA COUNTY WASTE PROD. POPULATION (lbs/day)(1) (x103) QUANTITIES ANNUAL SUBJECT COUNTY TO RECYCLING TONNAGE (tons x103)(2) (tons x103) 1982 8.5 2,029 3,147 2,592 1983 8.6 2,074 31266 2,690 2,788 1984 8.8 21119 3,386 1985 8.9 21164 3,510 21891 ' 1986 9.0 2,202 3,626 21994 1987 9.2 2,241 3,745 3,084 ' 1988 9.3 2,280 3,867 3,185 1989 9.4 2,318 3,991 3,287 ' 1990 9.6 2,357 4,119 3,392 1991 9.7 2,391 4,241 3,493 1992 9.9 2,425 4,366 3,596 1993 10.0 2,460 4,495 3,702 1994 10.2 2,494 4,626 3,810 ' 1995 10.3 2,528 4,759 3,919 1996 10.5 21558 4,888 4,025 ' 1997 10.6 2,588 5,019 4,133 1998 10.8 2,617 5,151 4,242 1999 10.9 2,647 51289 4,356 2000 11.1 2,677 5,428 4,470 2001 11.3 2,681 5,519 4,545 ' 2002 11.4 2,686 51612 4,622 ' (1) Increase at 1.5% per year, as stated in "Solid Waste Management System for the County of Orange", by Engineering ' Science, June, 1982. (2) Waste subject to materials and energy recovery is from residential and commerical sources only which total 7.0 pounds per day out of the 8.5 as stated above. 1 City of Newport Beach TABLE 18 ESTIMATED COMPOSITION OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE IN ORANGE COUNTY Category Residential Commercial Weighted Combustibles (percent of total) Average Cardboard 4 22 11 11 Newspaper 7 4 6 6 Misc. Paper 9 29 17 17 Plastic Film 3 2 3 3 Molded Plastic 2 2 2 2 Leather, rubber 2 1 1 1 Textiles 3 1 2 2 Lumber 7 1 5 5 Tree Trimmings 13 0 8 8 Ceramic, Stone 2 2 2 0 Garbage 4 13 8 8 Grass, Dirt 30 1 19 6 a Steel Cans 5 6 5 0 Glass 7 15 10 0 Nonferrous 2 1 2 0 Total 100 100 100 69 Source: Final Report, Preliminary Feasibility Analysis, Co - Combustion of Refuse and Sewage Sludge, by Engineering - Science, October, 1982. a Assumes grass in 6 percent and dirt is 12 percent City of Newport Beach I t TABLE 19 PRESENT AND PROJECTED DAILY TONNAGE BY SERVICE AREAA Daily Tonnageb,c (TPD) Overall Service Area 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 Increase (percent) Transfer Station I 1,875 2,110 21350 2,620 2,890 54 Transfer Station II 1,845 21065 21280 2,600 21920 58 Transfer Station III 1,950 21285 21620 2,860 3,100 59 Coyote Canyon 960 11255 1,550 1,850 2,150 124 Olinda 950 1,135 1,320 1,460 1,600 68 Santiago 500 735 970 1,395 1,820 264 Prima Deshecha 520 715 910 1,215 1,520 192 Total 8,600 10,300 12,000 14,000 16,000 86 a Represents waste generated within service area boundaries. Does not include waste transported in from other areas. b lbs/cap/day = 8.5 in 1982, 9.9 in 1992, 11.4 in 2002 (1.5 percent increase per year). c Waste generation proportional to increase in population by Community Analysis Areas. 7 day per week basis. It was assumed for these analyses that the composition of the solid waste in Orange County will remain substantially unchanged over the next 20 years. City of Newport Beach los angeles county Huntington Beach pacific ocean 1•. OUNDA san bernardino county SANTIAGO 00. San Juan Capistrano • PRIMA San Clemente V, riverside county L.. san diego county Waste Generation By Service Area, 1987 Legend 123 'SERVICE AREA TPD Q DAYS PER WEEK) SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE �ch EXHIBIT 40 TABLE 20 - POTENTIAL RECOVERY PROCESS -MATERIALS BALANCE AND REVENUE ANALYSIS (1000 Tons per Day Facility) Component Waste Recovery Daily Annual a Price b Annual Content Factor Yield Yield Per Ton Revenue (8 Weight) (Tons) Tons ($) ($) Ferrous Metal 5 .75 37.5 11,700 20 234,000 Aluminum 1.5 .70 10.5 3,300 760 2,490,000 Corrugated 11 .80 88.0 27,500 61 1,675,000 Newspaper 6 .70 42.0 13,100 51 668,000 Glass (Mixed 10 .60 60.0 18,700 25 468,000 Color) Residue 73.7 'c - 737.0 229,900 - - Total Annual Sales Revenue 5,535,000 a 312,000 tons per year throughout. b Typical prices paid in Orange County Region, June, 1983 c Adds to 107.2 because 7.2% recovered materials are lost to residue in processing or missed in manual separation. City of Newport Beach 5.2.2.4 Recovered Materials and Energy Markets Varying markets exist for paper, ferrous metal, aluminum, mixed non-ferrous metals, and energy products --synthetic gas and oil, steam and electricity. Table 21 lists potential purchasers of recovered materials and energy that could be available for sale were a suitable materials and energy recovery facility constructed. It should be emphasized that even though potential purchasers of these materials exist locally, there is no guarantee that the extracted quantities can necessarily be sold at expected prices at any given time because both prices and demand vary widely. Quantities purchased presently are constrained by the manufacture of pro- ducts using these secondary materials. As materials recovery is imple- mented in Southern California, supply may exceed demand, or, with supply increasing, purchasers may be able to negotiate lower prices due to compe- tition on the part of suppliers such that prices paid may decline. In some instances, particularly in the case of metals, as supplies of recovered materials increase, secondary metals producers may be able to increase their production such that prices will be maintained or even increase. Historically, prices of materials have been volatile responding to pres- sures of international, national, and regional economies. As indicated in Table 21, markets exist for recovered newspaper, cardboard, aluminum, and other non-ferrous metals within Orange County, with virtually no markets for ferrous or bimetal cans or glass containers. In some cases, certain materials would have to be shipped into Los Angeles County at distances of 25 to 50 miles to obtain maximum prices. Three forms of energy are of interest to the Southern California Edison Company --medium to high heating value synthetic gas, oil, and electricity. The Southern California Gas Company is interested only in high BTU value synthetic gas. Major area industries are also potential consumers of recovered energy. 5.2.2.5 Materials Recovery Plant The quantity of solid waste requiring ultimate disposal could be reduced by processing the waste to recover reuseable materials, including glass, I J 165 ICILY UI NUW`JUf L DUdU i I 1 i 1 1 TABLE 21 RECOVERED MATERIALS MARKETS ORANGE COUNTY (partial list) Waste Material Friedman Industrial Salvage 1327 East Edinger Santa Ana Joe Silva 927 East Santa Ana Santa Ana 1 Waste Paper LJ 1 CR & R Corp. 11262 Western Stanton Dalton Enterprises 1801 Tuffree Blvd. Placentia ' Golden West Paper Fiber 16512 Buena Vista Orange i 1 i 1 i 1 i Plastic Scrap Bobco Marketing 1577 East St. Gertrude Santa Ana Recycling Centers (paper, metals and glass) Orange County Scrap and Recycling 500 South Atchison Anaheim Rayell Co. 15471 Del Amo Tustin Viejo Paper Fibers 2101 East 1st Santa Ana J & T Paper Recycling 1233 East Central Ave. Fullerton Men Cal Corp. 1003 East 4th Santa Ana Orange County Waste Paper 3200 E. Frontera Anaheim Sunset Fibre Industries 16852 East Construction Way Irvine Plastic Recycling, Inc. 1321 North Blue Gum Anaheim Reynolds Aluminum Recycling Cent 210 East Meats Ave. Orange Turner More Recycling Yard c/o Richard Frank McNamee 113 1/2 Del Puniente San Clemente 1 City of Newport Beach TABLE 21 RECOVERED MATERIALS AND'ENERGY MARKETS IN ORANGE COUNTY Metal Salvagers (partial list) , A Key Scrap Iron and Metals Co. Buds Trading Post 902 East Santa Ana Blvd. 3026 West 5th ' Santa Ana Santa Ana A & M Metal & Salvage Co. General S_ Hardware ' 2323 West 5th 1658 Superior Santa Ana Costa Mesa Admore Auto Salvage and Scrap Metal Liobert Industrial Metals 8188 Katella 1051 East 6th Stanton Santa Ana Anaheim Machine Schorr Metals, Inc. , 408 South Atchison 837 South Kraemer Anaheim Placentia Bruce Metal and Salvage Trader Sam 920 East 6th 11151 Westminster Santa Ana Garden Grove, ' Synthetic Fuel Gas or Oil Southern California Edison Power Plant , 8120 Garfield Street — Huntington Beach Electricity Southern California Edison Power Plant 8120 Garfield ' Huntington Beach All other major energy users for gas or oil also are potential purchasers of electricity directly. 0 City of Newport Beach 1 ' aluminum, miscellaneous non-ferrous metals, corrugated paperboard and newspaper. A limited amount of high grade paper, such as ledger stock, ' computer cards and printouts also might be recovered but amounts likely to be present in the waste stream are not known. ' The volume of materials which could be recovered by such a facility and the expected sales revenue are presented in the previous Table 20. A comparison of the economics of this system with the costs of operating other types of resource recovery processes is presented in a subsequent ' section. The overall environmental impacts of a materials recovery facility would be less than those of the proposed project. Traffic impacts at the facil- ity or landfill would be about the same. Dust, odor, noise, and vector ' control would be better at the facility because the reception tipping floor and all processing operations would be enclosed in a building with positive ventilation using bag houses to remove particulate and dust from processing operations. A substantial increase in the use of energy in the ' form of electric power would be required for the facility compared with operations at the landfill. In terms of .visual impact, an effective appearance can be achieved for a materials recovery facility without exces- sive additional cost. Construction and operation of the materials recovery facility would result in a reduction of 21.3 percent by weight in the amount of solid waste dis- posed of at a landfill after recovery processing. 5.2.2.6 Materials Recovery and Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Plant ' Through the use of additional processing at the materials recovery plant, •the lighter weight fraction of the waste stream can be converted into refuse derived fuel (RDF) which can be burned as a supplementary or pri- mary low sulfur fuel in a suitable furnace or boiler. For this process, manual extraction of corrugated and newspaper is still retained because ' these materials have substantially greater value in this form than as RDF constituents (on the order of $45 per ton versus $10). This type of facility should be located within no more than a few hundred yards of an RDF purchaser's plant. 1 LAY of NPWport beach - l L The volume of material that would be recovered by this process and pro- ' jected revenue is shown in Table 22. It is emphasized that these costs and revenues are indicative of expected economics, based on the presumption ' that the RDF could be sold to a large user in the area. This may not be Possible, however, because Southern California Edison has not indicated an ' Interest in using RDF as a substitute or supplementary fuel because the boilers cannot readily accommodate solid fuels Which leave ash. Therefore, economics could vary plus or minus 15 percent. ' Overall environmental impacts of the materials recovery and RDF plant com- pared with the proposed project would be very similar to those of the materials recovery plant discussed above, provided the plant were located , adjacent to the RDF user's facility. Were the plant located at some dis- tance from the .user's facility, then RDF would have to be trucked to the users's facility adding to truck traffic on the rroads to the plant. If ' truck transport of RDF had to be used, then it would be necessary to store the material in one or more large bins which would not likely be visually , appealing unless additional funds were expended on suitable architectural treatment. Combustion of the RDF in the purchaser's boilers would reduce ' pollutants released to the atmosphere compared with fuel oil, but would increase pollutants somewhat compared with natural gas. Construction and operation of this type of plant would result in a reduc- tion of 64 percent in the quantity of solid waste disposed of at a landfill ' after materials recovery and RDF processing. 5.2.2.7 Mass Burning Heat -Recovery Incineration Plant Another method for recovering energy from the solid waste stream is heat - recovery incineration, which is gaihing in Use both in the United States , and world-wide. Both raw and pre-processed waste can be introduced into the combustion chambers of a waterwall incinerator which, in effect, is a specially designed boiler for combustion of solid waste. Because of the ' stringent air pollution control regulations i'n Southern California, it appears that introducing shredded and somewhat homogenized waste into the ' ihci'nerator rather than raw, as -received waste will facilitate more thor- ough buying, better combustion control (excess air, temperature, etc.) and 169 VIly or r4ewport tseecn I ILI I II II II II TABLE 22 - MATERIALS RECOVERY& RFD PROCESS - MATERIAL BALANCE AND REVENUES (1000 Tons per Day Facility) Component Waste Recovery Daily Annual a Price b Annual Content Factor Yield Yield Per Ton Revenue (� Weight) (Tons) Tons ($) ($) Ferrous Metal 5 .75 37.5 11,700 20 234,000 Aluminum 1.5 .70 10.5 3,300 760 2,490,000 Corrugated 11 .80 88.0 27,500 61 11675,000 Newspaper 6 .70 42.0 13,100 51 668,000 Glass (Mixed 10 .60 60.0 l8,700 25 468,000 Color) RDF(Shredded)55.1 .95 523.5 163,332 18.11 2,958,000 Residue 33.4 - 334.Oc 104,200 - - Total Annual Sales Revenue 81493,000 a 312,000 tons per year throughout. b Typical prices paid in Orange County Region, June, 1983 c Adds to 109.6 because 9.6% recovered materials are lost to residue in processing or missed in manual separation. d Based on 70T fuel oil prices - $4.30/MM BTU - times HHV RDF - 20.7 x 106 BTU/Ton. 1 City of Neviiport Beach r1 �J flue gas temperature and composition. These controls, in turn, will reduce the pollutants in the flue gas and permit better removal of particulates. Thus, for this application, a water -wall incinerator with, pre-processing of the waste is considered. In this process, all solid waste received is coarse shredded, followed by , ferrous metal magnetic removal, after which the waste is conveyed to a _ large hopper for introduction into the combustion champer of the incinera- tor. Residue removed from the incinerator ash pit will include non-ferrous metal, glass, inerts and ash from the combustion process. The residue is , conveyed to large trailers or semi -trailers for transport to a Class I _- landfill site. Another alternative would be mass burning without any pre- ' processing whatever. The proportion and type of waste recovered by this process and the expected ' revenues are indicated in Table 23. This presumes that one or more large users of steam within a 1 mile radius of the facility will pay a price ' equivalent to the cost of energy needed were they to generate the steam in their own boilers. Again, Southern California Edison has indicated no ' interest in purchasing steam at its Huntington Beach Generating Station, although it has indicated it would be willing to particiapte in a program in which high pressure and temperature steam is made available to be used directly in a steam -turbine -generator which may require use of a boiler ' rather than an incinerator. The economics of the system are shown in comparative matrix form in a subsequent section of this chapter. In any event, capital and operating costs could vary by plus or minus 15 percent. ' Overall environmental impacts of a heat -recovery incinerator plant (or high ' pressure and temperature boiler plant) compared with the proposed project would be comparable in terms of traffic. The visual intrusiveness of the , plant is likely to be greater because of the incinerator or boiler, flue gas cleaning equipment and flue gas stack(s). Combustion of the waste would result in additional air pollutants compared with the proposed pro- ' ject, and the pollutant load would be less than for combustion of fuel oil but more than for use of natural gas. The same comments apply to this ' process as to the use of RDF above. r� City of Newport Beach 1 TABLE 23HEAT RECOVERY INCINERATION - MATERIAL BALANCE AND REVENUES ' (1000 Tons per Day Facility) Component Waste Recovery Daily Annual Price Annual Content Conversion Yield Yield Per Ton Revenue (% Weight) Factor (Tons) (Tons)a ($) b ($) Ferrous Metal 5 .75 37.5 11,700 20 234,000 All Combustibles69 1.00 69 215,280 5.73 81084,000 ' 4.51 x 106 1.41 x 109 1000 lbs d lbs Steam c lbs Steam II 7 f1 J r� I� II II 91 Residue' 27 - 275 a 85,800 - - Total Annual Sales Revenue 8,318rOOO a 312,000 tons per year throughout b Superheated steam at 600 psig and 700OF c Based on fuel oil at $4.30/MM BTU times 1MM BTU/1000 lbs steam delivered to user via pipeline (allowing for heat losses) divided by thermal efficiency of 75 percent for incinerator or boiler. d $4.30/MM BTU divided by 0.75 thermal effeciency e Adds to 102.5 to include small ash amount removed from incinerator 1 City of Newport Beach Application of the heat -recovery incinerator process to the Orange County wastes would result in a reduction of 74.Z percent by weight, of the waste material processed through the facility. Portions of the waste stream not processed through the facility would require disposal at a landfill. The residue from the incineration process must be buried at a Class I (hazardous waste) landfill. 5.2.3. Transfer Stations The No Project alternative (scenario one only), alternative project loca- tions and possibly any of the resource recovery facilities used to reduce the amount of waste remaining for final disposal may create the need for one or more transfer stations. Addition of transfer stations would mini- mize the cost of long-distance solid waste'hauling from the generation cen- ters to the processing facility and/or disposal sites. For a materials and/or energy recovery facility located close to the waste generation centers, but at some distance from the disposal site, the facility could supplant a transfer station. Depending upon the location of the alternative landfill sites and/or mater- ials/energy recovery facility (which must be located adjacent to or on the fuel user's or landfill site), two 500 ton per day transfer stations or a single 1,000 ton per day transfer station and associated sets of truck tractors and semi -trailers may be required for use by the cities of Irvine and/or Newport Beach. Limited processing may be performed on the solid waste at a transfer sta- tion. Corrugated paper products and newspaper may be manually separated, and in some instances the waste may be shredded to facilitate separation of ferrous metal. In such an instance, the transfer station real'ly consti- tues a limited materials recovery facility. The transfer station considered in this assessment is a facility through which the waste passes in the process of being transferred from smaller collection trucks to larger transfer trailers. This is to achieve minimum cost of long-distance transportation to the final disposal site or a dis- tant materials/energy recovery facility. The economics of operating such a system in comparison with other options are discussed below. �1 L 1 LI I L� city of iveIN wport tseacn LL For a 1,000 ton per day transfer station located in the vicinity of the Orange County airport, traffic impacts would be similar to that for the ' landfill, except that the transfer vehicles would constitute additional traffic amounting to between 25 and 35 percent of that of the collection trucks. Visual impacts of the transfer station would be significant al- though suitable architectural treatment of the building and landscaping ; could reduce these impacts. Dust and noise resulting from the transfer ' station activities would be less than for the proposed project. Energy use, in the form of truck and tractor fuel, would be increased when consi- dering the total transfer and subsequent disposal operations because the transfer station activities would be in addition to the landfill opera- tions. However, use of the transfer station compared with use of a distant tlandfill without the transfer station (requiring collection trucks to haul the waste directly to the -distant landfill instead of only to the much ' closer transfer station), results in a decrease in truck fuel and use and improvement in air quality. ' 5.2.4 Economic Comparison of Resource Recovey/Waste Reduction Alternatives ' Two categories of consequences can result from the implementation of the proposed project or any of the alternatives presented and described in this ' section: economic in terms of the costs of solid waste management to the citizens of the area and environmental quality in terms of the various im- pacts that would likely result. This section briefly summarizes and com- paratively discusses the economic implications of the proposed project and ' alternatives thereto. ' Table 24 lists estimated costs and capabilities of the proposed project (i.e., landfill expansion) and the "non -landfill" alternatives. It is ' important to note that all of the "non -landfill" alternatives still require landfill capacity for a portion of the municipal waste stream. Shown for each are the capital investment required, major operations costs, total ' estimated annual revenues from recovered materials and energy sales, and net annual cost per ton of solid waste based on the 1984 quantity of ' 312,000 tons. Also listed is the quantity of solid or residual waste after processing that will require disposal in a landfill. 1 Newport Bead 0 TABLE 24 COMPARISON OF ECONOMICS OF PROPOSED PROJECTED AND RESOURCE RECOVERY ALTERNATIVES Material's Materiais Mass Transre Recovery Recovery Burning Station & RDF o Incinerator c I I Capital Invest. 51000,000 40,000,000 91,000,000 1101000,000 31000,000 ' Annual Operations Cost ($) 51360,000 12,200,000 14,,790,000 820,000 Amortization & ' Maint.Operating a 41000,000 8,170,000 51380,000 1,170,000- Disposal 1,610,000b 7301000b 600,000 1,870.000 Total 1,872,000 10,970�000 21,100,000 20,1770,000 3,857,000 , Annual Prod. Sales 0 5,540,000 8r490,000 8,310,000 0 Revenue ($) ' Net Annual Cost 1,872,000 51430,000 12,510,000 12,460,000 3,867,000 Net Cost/Ton Waste ' Received ($) 6.00 16.90 40.10 39.90 12.40 Residue Remaining for Disposal (Tons/Yr) 0 229,900 104,200 85,800 312,000 ' Percent Remaining for Disposal 0 73.7 33.4 27.5 100 , All resource recovery facilities 11000 ton per day capacity, ' nominal, operating six days per week reception and front-end processing, and continuous for combustion. Average annual operations 312 days per year. , a Amortization based on 12 percent interest for 20 years. b Facility located adjacent or near to materials or energy purchaser requiring residue transportation to landfill; ' disposal cost $1 for transportation and $6 for landfilling, totalling $7 per ton. c Source: Brown and Caldwell, "Los Angeles County Solid Waste ' Management Plan & Triennial Review ", Volume I: Non- hazardous Wast", Preliminary Draft, July 26, 1983. City of N,•gwport Beach 1 u It should be emphasized that the costs and revenues shown are the best es- timates currently available. These estimates may vary plus or minus 15 t percent or more depending upon numerous variables and implementation timing that cannot be precisely forecast. While the costs may vary in absolute ' terms, they are probably within a few percent on a relative basis among the proposed project and its principal alternatives noted in Table 24. ' Table 24 indicates that the proposed project would provide the lowest unit cost with the transfer station having the second lowest unit cost, the ' materials recovery facility having the third lowest unit cost, and materi- als recovery/RDF and the mass burning incinerator having the highest unit cost. All alternatives to the proposed project would result in increased costs of solid waste disposal ranging from slightly more than twice to ' nearly seven times more costly. In addition to the cost differential, it should be noted that Coyote Canyon ' is on-line and operating currently. Any of the "non -landfill" alternatives would take from one to five years to design and secure government approv- als. Finally, it would take 4 to 5 1,000 tpd resource recovery facilities to handle the waste stream received at Coyote Canyon. ' 5.2.5 Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Each of the alternatives discussed in this section will have associated en- vironmental impacts which comparatively may be either better or worse than ' the proposed project. To summarize the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the project and its alternatives on a comparative basis, Table ' 25 lists estimated impacts in five categories for each alternative. ' As an example of the manner in which these degrees of impact were derived, the estimated impacts of a materials recovery and refuse derived fuel facility are described. ' This facility would be totally enclosed in an attractive industrial build- ing set on a fully landscaped' and, as necessary, visually screened site. Site topography, soils and geology must be suitable for such a facility ' which would require about 8 acres of level ground, accessible by a two- or 176 city of r4ewpor eacn TABLE 25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES i C7 3 b 3 r- N ++ N N C) C d (ay oil N rt1 • r d C U N r U S_U id C Q• 4- a)OO�1 O •r i 7 M O fn r 4- 7 4- W +� 7 r 5.. > •O 7 0 CL •r i o i M •r LS ^ E C E N b N 7 W W U N _I Z d' 1-O [N N C4 Q h Z S L S L S L S L S L S L S L S L S L S L S L S L S L S L Alternate Location with Transfer Station [a] o0 0o eo 0o ee ee ee ee eo ee ee oo ee o0 Materials Recovery Facility 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 e 0 0 e 8 ++ 8 8 0 0 8 8 8 8 V Materials Recovery and RDF Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 8 8 8 0 0 8 8 ++ ++ 0 0 8 8 ++ Heat -Recovery Incin- eration Facility 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 8 e e 8 8 0 0 8 8 ++ ++ 0 0 8 8 ++ Proposed Project -- 00 Oe es 88 08 _00 88 -- 00 00 68 88 80 KEY: + Positive or beneficial impact 8 Minor positive or beneficial impact 0 Neutral or no significant impact 0 Minor negative or adverse impact - Negative or adverse impact S Short term L Long term [a] Impacts shown are for transfer station only. — � �1tY�fJ`��9W01'�SaGfL — I 1 1 1 i J 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 preferable a four -lane highway. In burning the RDF to generate electri'cty, a new stationary air pollution source would be created. Given these condi- tions could be met, there would be no measurable impact of the facility on land topography, soils or underlying geological formations. Because the site must provide proper drainage facilities in accordance with existing codes and regulations, only minor impacts on water quality would result. There would be an increase in truck traffic in the vicinity of the plant which would increase the concentration of internal combustion engine emis- sions. Nearly all refuse trucks are diesel powered. Such vehicles emit less CO, HC and NOx than the average gasoline powered vehicle, more nitro- gen dioxide and far more particulates that do newer catalyst -equipped gaso- line engines. Recent EPA data (Ketcham and Pinkwas 1978) has suggested that particulates, in the form of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are potentially carcinogenic. As of this writing there are no specified emissions standards for PAH or PAH derivatives. The plant itself with the best possible air pollution control equipment in use, is expected to have a moderate positive impact on air quality because the RDF produced would replace fuel oil which, when burned, emits more pollutants (including some sulfur dioxide) than does RDF. Traffic impacts are noted as having a minor adverse effect because of the necessary concentration of large trucks entering and leaving the facility. However, the truck arrivals (and associated departures) are spaced out fairly evenly throughout the working day, with some peaking at midmorning, early afternoon and mid -to -late -afternoon. This avoids adding to the con- gestion at regular morning and evening traffic rush hours. Noise in the vicinity of the plant is expected to have a minor adverse impact because of increased truck traffic. However, adoption of new noise regulations is anticipated in the near future and will substantially reduce the noise level of heavy trucks, thereby significantly mitigating noise impact. Because the plant would be totally enclosed and kept clean by frequent washdown of the tipping floor and all waste receiving and handling equip- ment, the impact on vector propagation in the vicinity of the plant will be minimal. Assuming the plant site is located so that no items of histor- ic, archaeological or paleontologic value would be disturbed or destroyed, the facility would have no impact on antiquities. 1 mewport Beach Because the plant building and appurtenances would be of substantial size, , some visual impact is unavoidable. However, with proper architectural ' treatment of the buildings and appurtenance enclosures, site layout and landscaping, the facility could be quite pleasing visually. ' Employment would necessarily increase in the area in order for the plant to operate. Some 20 to 40 new jobs would be created in unskilled',, semi- skilled, and skilled worker categories, thereby providing a beneficial impact on areawide employment. , Because of Orange County coastal area is highly urbanized with a larbor market generally equal to that for Southern California overall, it is esti- mated that ,more than adequate labor resources would be available avoiding ' the necessity for in -migration of workers and their families from other areas. Thus, there would be no growth -inducing factors resulting from construction and operation of the plant. , Because the facility produces substantially more energy material in the , form of electricity than it uses in producing and consuming RDF, it would have a beneficial impact on use of energy resources in the area. , The facility would have negligible- impact on community services such as ' water supply, sewerage systems, police and fire protection. The facility would occupy about 8 acres of industrial zoned land, thereby ' occupying land that might be used for other industrial purposes or left vacant. Thus, it would have some impact on future land use and tax base ' in the area. Because the plant would recover reusable materials and energy values from the solid waste stream which would reduce demand on non-renewable natural resources, it would have a definite beneficial impact in the natural , resources category. Table 25 lists estimated impacts for both short-term and long-term opera- tions of selected alternatives. These are similar for most impact factors , evaluated. However, for the proposed project, benefits would increase as 179 , City of Newport Beach 1. ' the site was developed and reclaimed by landfilling and ultimate covering ' and planting of the site for use as a public park or other recreational facility. This would provide a definite long-term benefit to land use. ' The visual impact of a resource recovery facility would be unsightly during the construction phase until it was fully developed and landscaped. ' Table 25 indicates that the estimated impacts of the various alternative resource recovery facilities are similar. The exception is the materials ' recovery plant which does not recover energy resources and results in a less positive impact on natural resources. The proposed project would ' have beneficial long-term land use impacts resulting from planned park or other recreational use of the completed landfill site. ' Overall, the project alternatives are not anticipated to have any over- whelming differences in environmental impacts. ' It should also be noted that materials and energy recovery alternatives reduce the volume of waste requiring land disposal, but do not eliminate the need for landfills. Im- plementation of a number of these alternatives would however, substantially lengthen the useful life of the County's existing landfills. ' 5.3 ALTERNATIVE SITES ' 5.3.1 Alternative Landfill Sites ' The county currently operates three other landfill sites in addition to Coyote Canyon: Olinda, Santiago and Prima Deschecha. The county is also ' in the process of negotiations with The Irvine Company and the City of Irvine related to acquisition and operation of the proposed Bee Canyon ' landfill. Lawsuits have been filed on this matter and the outcome of the negotiations and the lawsuits will determine whether, and/or when, Bee Canyon will become operational. Clearly, the proposed development plans for Bee Canyon relate closely to ' the alternative plans for Coyote Canyon. While alternatives to landfilling are rapidly becoming economically and institutionally feasible, portions of ' the waste stream presently deposited in Coyote Canyon will continue to be landfilled. ' : 180 1 City of Newport Beach Given that a major portion of municipal solid waste generated in central - coastal Orange County will need to be landfilled for at least the next 5 to 10 years, the additional two years provided by Alternative 3 must be compared with alternative landfill sites. If the proposed expansion provided under Alternative 3 from 1987-1989 were not implemented and a new replacement landfill - Bee Canyon - is not on line, then wastes presently being hauled to the Coyote Canyon landfill would have to be taken to one of the three other landfills - Olinda, Santf- ago, or Prima Deschecha. This would result in 'substantially higher refuse disposal costs for housesholds, commerce and industry in the Irvine - New- port Beach -Costa Mesa communities, increased air pollution and fuel con- sumption due to the greater distance that the collection and transfer vehi- cles would have to travel, increased traffic congestion on roads leading to the other landfill sites, and a substantial reduction in the useful life of these landfills. If Bee Canyon were never developed, then these penalties would be invoked permanently. Opening a transfer station in the vicinity of the Orange County Airport or at the Coyote Canyon Landfill rather than Bee Canyon could serve to reduce haul costs and thus environmental problems somewhat; however, long hauls to the north or south county sites would create major economic impacts. The economics of alternative landfill site options are very difficult to calculate, although some order of magnitude estimates can be made. If the County's budget for landfill operations is $10 million annually, and if this represents 10 percent of the total waste management costs, then the total costs to Orange County residents, businesses and industry would be about $100,000,000 annually. If Coyote Canyon Landfill were to be closed in 1986 and Bee Canyon Landfill were to be opened concurrently, annual total costs might increase by about 5 percent. This would be due to in- creased county costs caused by opening a new site and by hauling further from the transfer stations in Stanton and Huntington Beach. Increased costs would also accrue to solid waste collection in the Cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and to'some degree Irvine. If Coyote Canyon were to be closed in 1986 and Bee Canyon Landfill were to be opened in 1988, then the annual cost might increase by as much as 15 181 %.ALY VI IVCW` UI L DCdC:I i ' percent. This would be due to increased county costs because the transfer vehicles would have to travel further to existing landfill sites other then Coyote or Bee Canyon. The majority of this cost, (75 to 80 percent) would accrue to solid waste collection in the Cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and Irvine. The number of vehicles needed would increase' by 50 to 100 percent, depending on the allocation of waste to the other three landfills. The life of Olinda Landfill would be reduced by about 2 years, with corre- sponding reductions in the lives of Santiago and Prima Deschecha. ' If Bee Canyon Landfill was never opened and no expansion were achieved at Olinda or Santiago Canyon Landfills, then closing Coyote Canyon Landfill in ' 1986 would cause the closures of both Olinda and Santiago Canyon Landfills by 1990. After that time, only Prima Deschecha Landfill would remain open. ' The economi-c impact of this option would be an additional $25 million annually, in present dollars. ' Prior to selection of Bee/Round Canyon as the next county landfill site, twenty-five alternative sites in the Lomas de Santiago foothills were in- vestigated by a County Interagency Task Force in 1975-76. These alterna- tive sites were addressed in the Bee and Round Canyon Final EIR. This ' foothill study area was considered to be the most suitable for location and development of a new santiary landfill and the nearest to the refuse gener- ation areas using the Coyote Canyon Landfill. A total of 25 candidate dis- posal sites met the County's minimum standards. In early 19760 the Task ' Force, consisting of three representatives of the County's Solid Waste Management Division, one representative each from the County's Project Plans Division and Environmental Services Division•, and a solid waste man- agement consultant visited each of these potenital sites. Each site was evaluated in -terms of six environmental factors: Land Use o Compatibility with surrounding land use (existing and proposed) ' o Appraised value of property o View from surrounding areas I1 City of Newport Beach 2. Site Engineering o Availability and suitability of cover material for landfill use o Flood control due to drainage volume through site o Ease (and cost) of site preparation o Ease (and cost) of landfill operation o Availability of utilities 3. Environmental - Disposal Site o Quality (diversity) of vegetation and wildlife o Threatened species o Water quality protection o Odor 4. Environmental- Access Road o Noi se o Traffic and circulation o Proximity to residential area 5. Access Road Design o Steepness of grade o Roadway width o Pavement design o Cost of right-of-way, earthwork, and pavement 6. Location - Haul Distance o Cost in time and fuel o Air quality As a result of these evaluations, Sites, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in Bee and Round Canyons were selected for further consideration. The principal reasons for rejecting the other sites were: proximity to urban areas, proximity to the Sinks (a unique geologic area proposed as a park),B difficulty in routing access roads, and high visibility from residential developments. City Cat N 183 ' Nui L PUMA E ' 5.3.2 Alternative Borrow Sites ' As noted in the discussion of the "no -project" alternative previously, re- maining cover soil avaialble within the confines of the lease area is ex- tremely difficult to extract and is not suitable for use as final cover. As part of the development of Alternative Three, Robert Bien, William Frost and Associates (RBF) conducted a study of potential borrosoil areas around Coyote Canyon. The alternative selection process included the fol- lowing steps: ' - Define project objectives i ' - Develop evaluation criteria Select borrow sites ' Step 1 - Define Project Objectives - The key objective of the borrow site study was to locate a sufficient quality and quantity of cover material for ' both operation and closure of the landfill. ' Step 2 - Develop Evaluation Criteria - Criteria were developed to evaluate potential .alternative sites. These criteria measured the ability of a po- tential alternative to feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and also avoid or reduce significant environmental effects. t J J 1 1 Criteria were developed in the following areas: Waste Management Engineering o Cover (borrow) material must have sufficient workability, per- meability and slope stability o The ratio of cover to fill must be consistent with State guide- lines. Land Use Compability o Excavation for cover material should conform to the location and grade of the following planned roads: San Joaquin Hills Road, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and Pelican Hills Road. 0 1 Uly OT N 184 ✓port tseaci Environmental and Public Health Cost o Visual/aesthetic impacts on surrounding residents and other receptors should be mitigated. o The final appearance should be compatible with surrounding land uses. o Interference with existing or planned .utility lines should be avoided. o The existing topographic landforms of the region should be pre- served. o No grading should take• place Within the San Joaquin Reservoir, or in areas which could undermine the reservoir. o Development plans should reduce borrow haul distances and elevation differences, and amount of grading required. Political/Institutional o Borrow and landfill operations should be timed to simultaneously phase out landfilling at Coyote Canyon, develop useable acreage at borrow sites, and accommodate road projects. o Ultimate use of the site should be consistent with policies of the Coastal Plan and other areawide plans. Step 3 - Select Borrow Sites - At the outset, soil types were identified that would meet the engineering criteria of workability, permeability and slope stability. Three soils were identified in the region surrounding Coyote Canyon: Marine terrace deposits, Topanga Formation Los Trancos Member, and Diabase Intrusions. Based on the availability of one or more of these three soil types within the proximity of the existing landfill, six potential borrow sites were identified (see Exhibit 41): UILy UI IN 185 rPUF L D(idL;l i as j Alternative Borrow Sites COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 600 1200 1800 :M" •• EXHIBIT 41 F F o Site 1 - North of San Joaquin Hills Road, south of San Joaquin Reservoir and westerly of the Coyote Canyon Landfill. o Site 2 - Southwest corner of the intersections of San Joaquin Hills Road and Pelican Hill Road. ' o Site 3 - North of San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. J n I I I 1 n o Site 4 - North of San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; o Site 5 - East of the landfill along the San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor. o Site 6 - Surplus material from the proposed cuts and fills along the alignment of the Transportation Corridor from Bonita Canyon Road to Pelican Hill Road. These six sites were evaluated with respect to engineering, land use com- patibility, environmental and public health, cost, and political/institu- tional criteria. Two of the six sites, Site 1 and Site 3 were considered acceptable, as they met most or all of the criteria. 'The other four sites were eliminated from further considerations for the following principal reasons. o Site 2 - Excavation could conflict with existing utility lines. o Site 4 - The site is visible from the community of Turtle Rock and would have significant visual/aesthetic impacts. - The hauling distance and elevation difference is prohibitive. o Site 5 - The material would not be available at the time of need. n UILy vi IN.5,YVPUr L DUdU I I The grading of this site would be too costly. ' - Access to the site -could confl'ict with the Pelican Hill Road ' project. ' o Site 6 - The grading of the site may conflict with the locations of the pl.anned Pelican Hills Road. 1 - The amount of fill available is relatively small. t In addition to the sites analyzed in the RBF study, other potential borrow sites were suggested. One potential source is dredge spoil from Upper New- , port Bay. Use of This material is not considered feasible due to a high moisture content (requires drying prior to application) and high percent- ages of fine silts and clays. The economics of transporting this material to the site would also be probibitive to its use given the options available, i.e., costly truck hauling or the the construction and operation of a ' slurry pipeline from the Bay to the landfi'll. Another potential source suggested was excess fill from eventual residen- tial development around the site. This alternative is not considered ' feasible due to: (1) the phasing of development in this area is unknown and cannot be relied upon to meet state standards for daily cover; (2) haul distances and site access would be prohibitive; and (3) excess material , from residential development in this area is not likely due to surficial geology. ' I City of Newport Beach G 1 1 5.4 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT,DESIGNS This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates, at a similar level of detail, three alternative grading plans for the Coyote Canyon Landfill. This section of the EIR summarizes the impacts expected for each of these alternatives. It also describes the process which was used by the county to develop alternatives, and discusses other alternative landfill plans which were considered but eliminated from further consideration. 5.4.1 Alternatives Selection Process ' Overview. The development of alternative landfill completion plans for Coyote Canyon involved a systematic evaluation of potential borrow sites ' and grading plans (RBF, 1981, and Emcon Associates, 1981). The evaluation of alternative borrow sites was summarized previously in Section 5.3.2. The alternative landfill grading plan selection process included the ' following four steps: ' Step 1 - Define project objectives Step 2 - Develop evaluation criteria ' Step 3 - Select borrow sites (discussed previously in Section 5.3.2) Step 4 - Develop grading plans ' These steps are described in greater detail as follows: ' Step 1 - Define project objectives. The objectives of the Orange County Waste Management Program in developing a plan for the Coyote Canyon Land- fill were described in Section 2.4, PROJECT OBJECTIVES and.reported below: ' 1) To continue to operate and expand the landfill toward an acceptable closure plan in a manner which minimizes impacts on adjacent communi- ties; and 2) To close the landfill in a safe, maintainable manner which is compat- ible with surrounding land forms. City of NOWport Beach Step 2 -,Develop evaluation criteria. Criteria were developed to evaluate ' potential alternative landfill plans. These criteria measure the ability of a potential alternative to feasibility attain the basic objectives of ' the project, which are consistent with the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (Resources Agency of California, 1983). They , also measure the ability of an alternative to avoid or reduce significant environment effects, even if doing so impedes to some degree the attain- ' ment of the project objectives or is more costly. Criteria were developed in the following areas: , Waste Management 'Engineering '' • Cover (borrow) material must have sufficient workability, permeability ' and slope stability. • Landfill grading plans must consider the eventual differential settle- ' ment of the waste and availability of cover material. • Use of previously landfilled refuse as fill or cover material should be avoided. ' • The ratio of cover to fill must be consistent with State guidelines. , • Construction grades should be designed to avoid water ponding after estimated settlement has occurred. , Land Use Compatibility ' • The final landform, after settlement, should be compatible with recrea- tional or open space use. • Landfill•ing and excavation for cover material should conform to the , location and adequate subgrade of the following planned roads: San Joaquin Hills Road. ' City of N6Wport Beach ' The final landform should allow for potential access, from the future Pelican Hill Road, to a proposed golf clubhouse. ' New buildable acreage should be created at borrow sites. 1 • Potential future land uses such as access roads or buildings should be sited on natural ground, or inert fill, to minimize settlement and other landfill -related impacts. Environmental and Public Health ' Visual/aesthetic impacts on surrounding residents and other receptors should be mitigated. ' The final appearance should be compatible with surrounding land uses. • Interference with existing or planned utility lines should be avoided. ' The existing topographic landforms of the region should be preserved. • Regional Water Quality Control Board criteria, which include routing sheet flow around landfill areas and providing a surface which rapidly removes runoff, must be met. • Formation of leachate should be avoided or reduced by controlling water inflow into or on to the refuse. ' Landfill gas hazards should be avoided or reduced. ' No grading should take place within the San Joaquin Reservoir, or in areas which could undermine the reservoir. ' Cost ' Grading plans should reduce borrow haul distances and elevation differences, and amount of grading required. City of Ne'ivport Beach Political/Institutional ' • Borrow and landfill operations should be timed to simultaneously phase ' out landfilling at Coyote Canyon, develop usable acreage at borrow sites, and accommodate road projects. • The landfill plan should be consistent with policies of the Coastal Plan and other areawide plans. Step 3 - Select Borrow Sites. (See Section 5.3.2 above.) ' Step 4 - Develop Landfill Grading Plans. In this step of the analysis, t alternative grading plans for the Coyote Canyon Landfill were developed. These plans were designed to meet the overall project objectives, while ' considering the location and amount of available fill and other engineering criteria, as well as considering the land use compatibility, environmental and public health, cost and political/institutional ' criteria. Three alternative plans were identified: • 111977" Plan (Alternative 1 with no offsite borrow) ' • "Emcon" Plan (Alternative 2 with no offsite borrow) ' • "RBF" Plan (Alternative 3) The three alternative landfill grading plans are analyzed in detail in ' this EIR, so that decision -makers can choose among them. The rationale behind development of these plans, including reasons why other alternative , plans were eliminated from further considerations, is described as follows. ' "1977" Plan (Alternative 1 with no offsite borrow) , See Section 5.1 above. "Emcon" Plan (Alternative 2 with no offsite borrow) In 1981, Emcon Associates conducted a study of the Coyote Canyon Landfill ' (Emcon Associates, 1981). The purpose of the study was to develop a con- ' ceptual plan for completion of the landfill which provided a sloped sur- UILy UI IN 191 rPUFL CSUaGH ' I 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 C' 1 1 E i 1 face that would reduce long-term maintenance as well as a suitable base for a golf course or other open space. The study was conducted .in three phases. First, a preliminary grading plan was prepared based on existing fill grades, estimated settlement and overall site slope required. Second- ly, using this preliminary grading plan, a "construction grading plan" was prepared based on data from the Emcon technical staff, the County of Orange Solid Waste Division, The Irvine Company, and a golf course architect. Lastly, the solid waste engineering, land use compatibility, environmental and other criteria were used, in several iterations,. to develop a final conceptual grading plan. This final grading plan (the "Emcon Plan") is Alternative 2 as evaluated in this EIR. Alternative 3 - "RBF Plan" In 1981, RBF also conducted a study of the Coyote Canyon Landfill. The study was conducted in three phases. The available borrow sites (and volumes) were first determined, as described previously. Based on the available cover material, the development potential of Coyote Canyon was maximized, subject to engineering, land use compatibility, environmental and public health, cost and political/institutional criteria. Four pos- sible landfill expansion plans were identified: Plan A - Verticle expansion primarily within the existing landfill. Plan B - Major expansion northeast of the existing landfill buttress with solid waste Plan C - Major expansion in the East Canyon Plan D - Major expansion in the South Canyon Based principally on potential conflicts with existing and planned land uses, conflicts with future road projects, grading requirements, difficul- ty of access and haul length, and impacts on sensitive resources, Plans B, C, and D were eliminated from further consideration. Plan A, the "RBF" plan is Alternative 3 evaluated in the EIR. 1 City of Newport Beach 5.4.2 Summary of Impacts Table 26 presents a comparison of the three alternative grading plans. The , table indicates numerical differences among alternatives, where applicable, and summarizes the principal environmental impacts. For each identified impact, the table indicates whether the impact is significant (S), insigni- ficant (I), or potentially significant but capable of being mitigated (M). 11 I. . 1 1 City of NdWport Beach 1 Evaluation Category TABLE 26 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE GRADING PLANS Alternative I Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Landform/Topography S M M Geology and Soils M M M Hydrology S M M Biological Resources I I I Cultural Resources M M M Land Use M M M Socioeconomics M M M Transportation M M M Air Quality M M M Noise I I I Services and Utilities I I I Energy and Resources I I I Health and Safety M M M Aesthetics M M M (I) = Insignificant impact. (S) = Significant adverse impact, not fully mitigable. (M = Potentially significant impact which can be mitigated. City of Newport Beach Borrow Site M M M I M S M M S S I I M S I 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 6.0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLE- MENTED The following impacts -shich would result from implementation of one of the three proposed alternatives are considered significant and not mitigable. Landform/Topography Alternative 1 - Creates final contours which are not compatible with sur- rounding landforms, productive ultimate land use, or planned transportation system improvements. Borrow Site - Significantly alters the existing natural and man-made landforms within the proposed grading area. Geology/Soils No significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. 1 Hydrology 1 1 1 1 1 Alternative 1 - Would allow surface drainage onto and within landfill sur- face to pond, and contribute to formation of leachate. Biological Resources No significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. Cultural Scientific Resources No significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. 1 Land Use 1 1 Borrow Site - Grading for cover material for all alternatives will create compatibility problems with residential uses located immediately adjacent to the proposed borrow site in the City of Newport Beach. 1 UILY ui Nt4WPU1_L aeach J Socioeconomics 1 No significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. ' Transportation/Circulation ' No significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. 1 Air Quality Alternative i 3 - Short-term fugitive dust emissions will extend further into the future and be larger in quantity under this grading plan. 1 Borrow Site - Increased dust generation will be experienced by nearby residential areas in Newport Beach. 1 Acoustic Environment 1 Borrow Site - The noise projections for borrow operations at the extreme ' western edge of the borrow site may exceed county and city standards. Public Services and Utilities 1 No significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. , Energy Conservation No significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. 1 Public Health and Safety 1 No significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. 1 Aesthetics ' Borrow Site - Views from Spyglass Hill and other communities in Newport 1 Beach adjacent to the proposed borrow site will be altered by grading activities. During landfill operation and closure, these views may be considered undesirable. After implementation of ultimate land uses and 1 installation of landscaping visual impacts will,be removed. Ci Ly u� N 196, Nurt gGau, i i J 7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM _USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ' Selection of the final grading and closure plan for the Coyote Canyon Sani- tary Landfill represents the final, major decision affecting the operation and life of the facility. The decision will also determine the condition 'in which the site will be left upon closure of operations. The long-term ' productivity of the site will enhanced with the selection of a grading plan that maximizes compatibilities with surrounding uses and landforms, ' and accommodates future productive use of the land. ' Since 1964, the site has undergone significant alterations as a result of the landfill use. The availability of this site for landfill purposes has ' accommodated growth and the development of other land uses throughout Orange County. As a result of almost twenty years of use as a landfill facility, the short-term use of the site is no longer a significant issue. ' What remains a significant issue is to ensure that the site is left in a condition that accommodates future long-term productivity. ' To the extent that Alternatives Two and Three create a final land contour ' that is 1) more conducive to planned recreational uses, 2) more compatible with planned transportation corridors, and 3) better suited for site drainage, long-term productivity will be enhanced. Continued use of the Coyote Canyon facility may also enhance productivity of other countywide lands by delaying the need to develop new landfill facilities on currently undeveloped sites. Given the already disturbed condition of the Coyote Canyon site, it seems practical to maximize its potential within safe and ' reasonable limits. I City of Newport Beach I n 1 n 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITTMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES The direct environmental changes resulting from selection of a final grad- ing and closure plan will occur primarily as a result of alternatives to the physical environment in the form of a commitment to land. This commit- ment was already largely made when the landfill operations commenced in 1964. Current alternatives will expand this commitment to the extent that each requires additional land area for borrow and, in the case of Alterna- tive Three, additional' land for landfill purposes. The landfill itself does not require a significant amount of energy or other non-renewable resource. Transport of solid wastes to the facility does have, however, energy use implications. This issue is discussed in ' Section 4.12 of this EIR. ' Over the long-term, the Coyote Canyon site may be viewed as an opportunity for the extraction of energy and other non-renewable resources. It is feasible, and may prove economically prudent, to extract these resources from the site at some future date. This is particularly the case for energy resources in the form of methane gas. The Coyote Canyon sanitary landfill may, therefore, be seen as a depository of potentially valuable ' energy and non -renewal resources. The ability to retrieve these resources is dependent upon economic factors, land use considerations, resource recovery technology, and a number of other possible factors, all of which ' are the subject of current study for Coyote Canyon. t City of Ne118 wport Beach n 11 u n u 1 9.0 GROWTH INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 9.1 Growth Inducing Impacts The continued economic and land development growth of any urban area re- quires the establishment and maintenance of a complete community, services system. Adequate provisions for the disposal of solid waste materials is one component of this service system. Failure to provide adequate service systems could imply a curtailment of growth as imbalances begin to reach unreasonable limits. ' Historically, in Orange County, growth has been monitored and approved by the local jurisdications in control. he supporting service systems have continued to expand to levels necessary to accommodate that growth. To ' date, service system restrictions have not been a major factor in limiting new economic and urban development. n Since the Coyote Canyon sanitary landfill presently receives about one-half of the solid wastes generated countywide, it can be seen as a response to past and present growth within its service area. The continued use of the landfill over the next several years implies that some level of growth will continue to be accommodated. It would be speculative to attempt to quantify the amount and nature of this growth given that Coyote Canyon is but one of four operational landfill facilities serving the entire county. It can be stated, however, that the Coyote Canyon sanitary landfill is a vital facility in the present solid waste disposal system and that without this landfill the ability to continue to service the existing population may be jeopardized. The selection of a final grading and closure plan may result in more direct ' growth inducements. The final grade of the landfill area will determine its ability to accommodate future land use development. These future uses will be limited primarily to open space and recreation since buildings can not be placed on the fill area. The final grading•and closure plans also require significant borrow materi- al for purposes of compaction during the final years of operation and for purposes of the final six feet cover material. The grading that will be 6 uliy OT IV 199 innn- beacr necessary to achieve this borrow material will result in relatively flat , pads that, with some additional landform alterations; could be developed for urban uses. Existing general plan designations for the identified , borrow areas as well 'the areas around the landfill, indicate that future land uses will be residential. Although development of these residential ' uses could proceed irrespective of the landfill operation, it can be anticipated that the landfill borrow operations will enhance development ' opportunities. This potential growth inducement appears most significant with Alternative 3 in that this alternative involves the most grading for borrow •materials. ' With the- exception of the potential inducements relating to recreation and residential uses on and adjacent to the landfill, no other direct growth inducements can be identified. As discussed previously, the continued use ' of the lanfill implies a continuation of the facility's growth -accommodat- ing characteristics. Cumulative Impacts ' Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). Cumulative impacts can become significant when the effects of a series of individual projects ' are considered together. The impacts associated with the continued operation of, and final grading/ closure plans for, the Coyote Canyon sanitary landfill have been discussed thoroughly in Section 4.0 of this EIR. Operational impacts can, be expected to continue until the selected closure date which ranges from June 1986 (Alternative 2) to October 1988 (Alternative 3). To the extent that new ' development occurs in proximity to the landfill prior to its closure, cumu- lative impacts may result. No definitive projects in the landfill vicinity are planned for implementation during this timeframe. The potential exists, however, for several projects to at least be initiated during this period. Provided below is a brief listing of projects that hold the poten- tial for development prior to 1988, and that could involve a cumulative impact. UILy U1 ,NUffNul t 1 1) University of California, Irvine - Accessory uses to the existing campus including student housing and a southerly road extension to ' Bonita Canyon Road. ' 2) Bommer Canyon (City of Irvine) - An 1,840 acre residential community with supporting uses. ' 3) Irvine Coast Planned Community (County of Orange) - A 9,345 acre com- munity which proposes medium to low density residential uses and a neighborhood commerical site in proximity to the landfill site. ' These projects are discussed more thoroughly in Section 3.6 of this EIR. The County of Orange and the City of Irvine have General Plan designations ' for other properties adjacent to or nearby the Coyote Canyon facility but development of these properties.is not anticipated until after landfill closure. To the extent that the projects identified above are initiated prior to tlandfill closure, the following cumulative effects could be anticipated: ' increased degradation of surface and groundwater quality. ' increase loss of biological habitat effecting the subregional area. • increased traffic levels, particularly on Bonita Canyon Road, MacArthur ' Boulevard and Culver Drive. ' increased levels of noise and air pollutants resulting primarily from vehicular traffic. • increased modifications to the aesthetic (i.e., rural character) of the ' general area. • increased opportunity for land use conflicts between the landifll acti- vity and proximate residential uses. City of Newport Beach Quantification of these cumulative impacts is not practical since specific , development and phasing plans are not available.) It can be anticpiated, however, that the most significant of these impacts would relate to the , land use compatibility issue. Land use impacts include primarily views, odors, dust generation, and other health and safety considerations. Devel- opment of new residential land uses can be expected to create an increase ' in complaints as new residents move into the area. Land use incompatibil- ity impacts can be expected to increase as 1) the life of the landfill ' extends into the future, and 2) new urban uses are developed in proximity to the landfill. ' Cumulative impacts are not anticipated to be significant given the rela- tively short remaining life of the landfill (3-5 years) and the uncertain phasing status of potential nearby projects. Prior to approval of any new development projects by the local agencies,, the Coyote Canyon Sanitary ' Landfill should be taken into account. Mitigation measures may need to be applied to any new projects to enhance land use compatibility until land- ' fill closure. I For purposes of assessing "worst case" traffic, air quality and noise conditions, the traffic analysis prepared fob this EIR assumed esti- mated traffic increase on effected roadways to account for general ' growth and development in the subregion. These estimated increase Provide for reasonable analysis of cumulative traffic impacts. 202 %.ALy U1 iNCWPUI L Bead i 1 ' 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ' Participants ' The personel who participated in the preparation of this EIR include: ' Principal -In -Charge Phillip R. Schwartze Project Director p Mitchell K. Brown ' Project Manager Robert B. Kemble Environmental Research and Analysis Carolyn J. Kellis ' W. Walton Wriglit Graphics Mary Crowthers Bob Klekner Word Processing/Editing Pamela Richardson Celeste Rasins Consultants ' The project consultants who participated in the preparation of this EIR ' include: Archaeological Resources Marie Cottrell ' Archaeological Resource Manage- ment Corp. 12942-A Magnolia Street, Suite 65 ' Garden Grove, CA 92641 Acoustical Engineering Fred Greve ' Mestre-Greve Associates 200 Newport Center Drive, #213 Newport Beach, CA 92650 Geotechnical/Geohydrological Engineering Robert D. Morrison Mike Tiller Woodward -Clyde Consultants 203 North Golden Circle Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 Meteorology/Air Quality Hans D. Giroux ' 26 Sun River Irvine, CA 92714 Ron Jones 203 City of Newport Beach I Traffic/Circulation 'Waste Management Engineering Project Coordination/Editing Individuals and Agencies Consulted County of Orange General Services Agency - Management Program Solid Waste Enforcement Agency Environmental Mangement Agency • Environmental Analysis Division • Advance Planning • Project Planning City of Irvine City of Newport Beach The Irvine Company 204 Kunzman Associates 4664 Barranca Parkway Irvine, CA 92714 Kenneth K. Hekimian, Ph.D. Hekimian Van Dorpe Associates 2207 Orangewood Avenue Orange, California 92668 Lloyd W. Bookout Michael Brandman and Assoc., Inc. 18021 Sky Park Circle, Suite E-2 Irvine, CA 92714 Ray Rhoads Frank Bowerman Mike Luke Jack Goetzinger Joe Maturino Bill Olson Robert Rusby Mike RUane John Buzas H. Nakasone Ed Moore Richard Masyczek Pam Sheldon Dennis Trapp Fred Talarico Pat Temple Fred Rice I 11 1 11 A City of Newport Beach 9 11.0 REFERENCES tCounty of Orange, Codified Ordinances, Zoning Code. County of Orange, General Plan, Land Use Element. 1 H LJI n County of Orange, _Open Space Element, Orange County General Plan, January 1978. County of Orange, Conservation Element, Orange County General Plan, Oanu- ary 1978. County of Orange, Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails, Recreation Ele- ment, 1981. County of Orange, Master Plan of Arterial Highways, 1983. County of Orange, EMA. Advance Planning Program Land Use Element Commun- ity Profiles Component II, June 1982. County of Orange, EMA Advance Planning Program Community Profiles Compon- ent III, May 1983. City of Irvine, General Plan, Land Use Element, 1982. City of Irvine, Circulation Element General Plan, undated. City of Newport Beach, General Plan, Land Use Element, 1978. City of Newport Beach, General Plan, Circulation Element, undated. Culbertson, Adams and Assocaites,, ned Community Development Plan to the Irvine EMCON Associates, "Conceptual Design Report Coyote Canyon Sanitary Land- fill", April 1981. Engineering Science, Soild Waste Management Systems for the i une 1982. ' Irvine Company, correspondence to the City of Irvine re: September 1982, February 1983. ' Lockman and Associates/PRC Toups, Station Environmental Tmnart F Bommer Canyon, ms Landfill Disposal ' Phillips Brandt Reddick/Larry Seeman Associates, Master Environmental Assessment Irvine Ranch Water District Orange coun a i orm a, une 1979. ' Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, "Landfill Expansion Development Coyote Canyon", December 1981. ' The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Solid Waste Management De- partment, _Mission Canyon Landfill Environmental Impact Report, 1982. ' UILy U1 1VU,205 UVL DUacr South Coast Air Quality Management District and Southern California Associ- ation of Governments. Draft Air Quality Management Plan, August 1982. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rules and Regulations, Janu- ary 1977. United States Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service, Soil ' Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, 1978. 0 11 I� 11 I J I I 1 206 City of Newport Beach t . r `' v • , s COUNTY -OF OR A—N . mh 1 y + rt.• F. ^ �'f't• f :.9`§r..-d ; :tt M1 " � tf ,...., . ..y- t: sM. ,}F) 4j, .. Y •ig. coy"- -ii6•`��1a'»'y�.y-.,�..n �y. ••. � i u. ,. yM1 .4 _`9L•t•µ h�u �a w.x t, � iM.H:T."+'. 1..r T' - � •. ., i, . ..uW, , 4•, ,tlau. •,'� i 4Fr -M «A '. r"l �f a.� r�v, .M x _ i �.• _"Y d.'1, ems: h rl. .. - A. «.+�( K�.t'.f ^t y • a t�. jy.. t:• -v.• 1w 'Me �pMA ipp' •'y . f .� � - ,» ,r .rw��R. -. K: Jw :A r�K"-klv _ - t 'a', ��uk.. piµ �•a �. _... City of Newport Beach I ' TECHNICAL APPENDIX ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #507 COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL Prepared by: ' PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, INC. 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 Il 1. Contact Person: Mitchell K. Brown (714) 641-8820 Prepared for: ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY WASTE.MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Contact Person: Ray Rhoads (714) 834-3595 Environmental information for use by: THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA LEAD DIVISION/DEPARTMENT: EMA/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 12 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Contact Person: Bob Rusby (714) 834-2070 SCH # 82082004 City of Newport Beach TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page A. NOTICE OF PREPARATION/INITIAL STUDY I B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 23 C. GEOLOGY/HYDROLOGY REPORT 116 D. BIOLOGICAL SPECIES LIST 164 E. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT 17 F. TRAFFIC STUDY 197 G. AIR RESOURCES ANALYSIS 241 H. NOISE ANALYSIS 266 I. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES CORRESPONDENCE 287 ■ 1 I� I r I 0 I i I 1 I I I L I I I A. NOTICE OF PREPARATION/INITIAL STUDY City 0 ENVIRONMENTAL FRAEvAGEh1L i AGENCY P.O. BOX 4048 • r4j� SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 NOTICE of PREPARATION ' RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Subject: Notice Of Intent To Prepare A Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion Applicant: County of Orange, General Services Agency, Waste Management Program The Orange county Environmental Management Agency has conducted an Initial Study for the subject project and has determined that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. The County of Orange will be the Lead Agency for the subject project and will prepare the EIR. In order for the concerns of your agency to be incorporated into the Draft EIR, we need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency must consider the EIR prepared by the County of Orange when considering your permit or approval for the project. The project description, location, and an analysis indicating the probable environmental effects of the proposed action are contained in the attached materials. Pursuant to Section 15085.5 of the State EIR Guidelines, your response must be sent as soon as possible but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice dated June 23,•1983 If any changes in the proposed project occur, we will advise you promptly. I£ you have need for information, contact Robert Rusby of the Environmental Analysis Division at (714) 834-2070. Submitted by,, F. W. Olson, Manager (/ Environmental Analysis Division RT'R/ kc 1 Attachment 103.(4/City of Newport Beac h Description of tha Proposed Project Please see explanations of items checked on the Environmental Analysis form which gives a description of the proposed project. Location of the Proposed Project Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill is located partially within unincorporated Orange County and partially within the City of Irvine, California. Please see the attached location map. 0 2 City of Newport Beach X. r \ „jam ` •��� \,/ �. 1� � �• f� OSANTIAGO #25 ORANGE COUNTY OYOTE 1 C REFUSE DISPOSAL FACILITIES ANYON I (JAN. — 1975) LEGEND O SANITARY LANDFILLS (ECtSTING) .a TRANSFER STATIONS VI G r .w 4 \ • PRIMA ' (Or DESHECHA > \ • # 26 r �: C;ity' NPwi mH-.q :V Mr. J. Smith State Solid Waste Mgmnt. Board P:O. Box 1743 1020 Tenth Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Envir. Planning Branch Chief State of California Dept. of Transportation, District 7 Box 2304/Terminal Annex Los Angeles, CA 90051 Mr. Bob Graves So. Coast Air Quality Management Dist. District Headquarters _ 9150 Flair Drive E1 Monte, CA 91731 So. Calif. Assoc. of Governments 600 So. Commonwealth Ave., Suitb-100 Los Angeles, CA 90054Dear Sirs: Mr. Larry Hogle, Director Dept. of Community Development 17200 Jamboree/Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92713 Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Ray Lewis, Chief Engineer Co. Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue/Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Mr. Rob Selway Orange County Historical Committee P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702. I RENOTIFICATION LIST FOR THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL EXPANSE June 23, 1983 I H I I I U I I 1 Mr. Fred Estrada Juaneno Indian Band 325 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92702 Ms. Judy Curreri, Land Use Director ' League of Women Voters of Orange County 33081 Acapulco Dana Point, CA 92629 Mr. Sam Couch The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Avenue/Box 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. R. H. Hennessey Orange County Fire Department 180 South Water Street Orange, CA 92666 u, i m ewport Beach r Mr. Iry Pickler, Ch. rman Orange County Waste Management Advisory Commission c/o GSA Waste Management Program 1300 South Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 Mr. Ray Rhoads, Program Manager GSA/Waste Management Program 1300 South Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 Mr. Don Poer, Manager Mr. Jack Spruill, Env. Coord. Calif. State Fish & Game Dept. Region 5 350 South Golden Shores Long Beach, CA 90802. Mr. Gordon Anderson Calif. Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 6809 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 ' Riverside, CA 92506 Mr. Peter Venturini, Regional Programs Calif. State Air Resources Board 1102 Q Street/P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812. Mr. Don Lollock California State Fish & Game Dept. 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Jack Getzinger Solid Waste Enforcement Agency 1300 South Grand Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Ms. Fern Pirkle, President Friends of the Irvine Coast 1038 White Sails Way Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Mr. Bob Wingard, Program Manager EMA-Open Space/Recreation County Service Area Programs. Mr. Bill Zaun., Program Manager EMA/Transportation/Flood Program Office U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2110 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Ms. Terry Roberts State Clearinghouse Office of Planning & Research 1400 Tenth Street, Roan 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 utI i IN ewport Beach Mr. Bryan Speegle, gager EMA/Advance Planning. Mr. Tim Neely, Manager EMA/Current Planning and Development Assistance. Mr. Bob Rende, Manager EMA/Project Planning. City of Newport Beach C l I i I I I i I I ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEN I AGENCY P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 -Mr. Bob Rends, Manager RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Subject: Notice Of Intent To Prepare A Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion Applicant: County of Orange, General Services Agency, Waste Management Program The Orange County Environmental Management Agency has conducted an Initial Study for the subject project and has determined that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. The County of Orange will be the Lead Agency for the subject project and will prepare the EIR. In order for the concerns of your agency to be incorporated into the Draft EIR, we need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed'project. Your agency must consider the EIR prepared by the County of Orange when considering your permit or approval for the project. The project description, location, and an analysis indicating the probable environmental effects of the proposed action are contained in the attached materials. Pursuant to Section 15065.5 of the State EIR Guidelines, your response must be sent as soon as possible but not later than 45 days i after receipt of this notice dated August 12, 1-982 If any changes in the proposed project occur, we will advise you promptly. If you have need for information, contact Robert Rusby of the Environmental Analysis Division at (714) 834-2070. Submitted by, Kenneth E. Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division RPR/ kc Attachment 103.(4/,O)City of Newport Beach Description of the Proposed Project Please see explanations of items checked on the Environmental Analysis form which gives a description of the proposed project. Location of the Proposed Project Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill is located partially within unincorporated Orange County and partially within the City of Irvine, California. Please see the attached location map. ti+ City of Newport Beach owxi•••- vz 1 1 -1 • \ h ,l ORANGE COUNTY ; REFUSE DISPOSAL FACILITIES (JAN.-1975) LEGEND O SANITARY LANDFILLS (EXISTING) FJ�TRANSFER STATIONS O cit.� beach NOTIFICATION LIST FOR THE: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TILE COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFI-T.L EXPANSTON U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2400 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, CA. 92677 Peter Venturini, Regional Programs Calif. State Air Resources Board 1102 Q Street/P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA. 95812 Don Lollock Calif. State Fish & Game Dept. 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA. 95814 Ms. Terry Roberts State Clearinghouse Office of Plnng. & Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA. 95814 Mr. J. Smith State Solid Waste Mgmnt. Board P.O. Box 1743 1020 Tenth Strdet, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA. 95814 Mr. Walt Brussel, Chairman Solid Waste Management 'technical Advisory Council GSA/Support Services 1300 So, Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA. 92705 GSA/Solid Waste Management 1300 So. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Don Poet, Manager Envi.r.Planning Branr.h Chief State of California Dept. of Transportation, District 7 Box 2304/Terminal Annex Los Angeles, Calif. 9005.1 Mr. Bob Graves So..Coast Air Quality Management Dist District Headquarters 9150 Flair Drive El Monte, CA. 91731 So.Calif. Assoc. of Governments 600 So. Commonwealth Ave., Suite 100 "Los Angeles, CA. 90054 Mr. Larry Hogle, Director Dept. of Community Development 17200 Jamboree/Box 19575 Irvine, CA. 92713 Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Dept. 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport 11each, Calif. 92663 Mr. Ray Lewis, Chief Engineer Co. Sanitation Districts of Org. 10844 Ellis Avenue/Box 8127 Fountnin Valley, C.A.. 92708 Mr. Rob Selway Orange Co. Historical Committee P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, Calif. 92702 Mr. Fred Estrada Juaneno Indian Bnnd County M. Gordon Anderson 325 N. Broadway Calif. Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana, Calif. 92702 Santa Ana Region 6809 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 Ms. Judy Cur.reri, Land Use Director Riverside, CA. 92506 League of Wumen Voters of Org. Co. 33081 Acapulco Jack Sprwill, Env. Coord. Dana Point, CA. 92629 Calif, State Fish & Game Dept. Region 5 350 So. Golden Shores Long Beach, CA. 90802 I r I I City of Newport Beach I 1 I i I I I P I I [1 I I I a ENVIRY OF ORANGE ONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PROJ. FIER C 1u1 I Ito Cl $,M ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICIES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL LIUALITY ACT OF 1970, THIS DOCUMENT COMBINED IV11H THE ATTACIIED"CNVI• RONMENTAL INFORMATION" FORM AND SUPPORTING DATA CONSTITUTES THE INITIAL STUDY ON THE SUBJECT PROJECT. THIS IN171AL STUDY PROVIDES THE BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ETIIIVIRONMENT IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AW -ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WILL BE PREPARED WHICH FOCUSES ON THE AREAS OF CON CERN IDENTIFIED BY THIS INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST. ITEMS NOT MARKED HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE NO SIGNIFICA147 EFFECT ), ARIA WILL INC PAOPOSAL ACSVLT IM lu MAI Y, �LjftqjjiAL RfS9vAktSWILL INe Lu ..,of OA It AFFECTED 61: AOPOSAL ALSUL IN: A. UNSTABLE EAllm CONDITIONS OR IN A. CHANGE IN THE DIVCASIIT DI HA CNGES IN CLOLD41C SUASIAUCIUACST — Species. OA NUMBER OI ANT SI'CL Hs 01 PLAN$$ 02 ANIMALS C]MCLUDIN4 I. DISRUPTIONS, ols 0 LACTMIMIS, COM- IAEt S, $MR.&$, GRASS, CAOFS, ►ACTION OR OYIRCOVC41NG 0/ THE SOIL1 MICROFLORA, AQuATiC PtMIS. ILIAD$, C. (MANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY C OA GROUND LAND ANIMALS, AEITILt f, 'ISM AND S"ClLf IIMI IINTNIC-0•WIIIS.5. SURFACE AILsir Pt AIVRI S7 ♦ INSECIS OR MICAOFAUNA)t 0. The 0I$1AVCTI0N, COVtA:w OA I. It DUCTION 0/ InE NU11S(AS Of MT MODIFICATION Of ANY UNIQUE GEO- -IV III, Al SiM(li[AL LT SI4 NI IICANI. LOGIC OR PNI1ICAL ICAIUAES7 'AARE OR IMDANCLIEII SPICIIS 01 PLMII OR MIn.IS} L. AMT 181AIALI IN MIND OR ..It. L AOSION 01 SO IFS, CI THIA ON 04 Off C. INIAODUCTION Of New SPECIES DI Inl SITE? PLANTS OR ANIMALS I1,101M A•(A, 01 IN • a•ABILR IO IMC NORMAL011 AIPLIM- �.y f. CHANCES JN Ot POSITION Oa 1AOS- Db M14 RAt1ON 01 lXIS11NL CI ION Of BEACH lM.IS, OA CMAn44S IN 0,1cliI SIIC II SI $111M ION, DEPOSITION OR IROSION . Mn ICH MAT MOLIFI In( CNANNIL OF A D. RLDVn IOH IN ALJL.4( of ANI •$VIA 01 STREAM OR lot 610 01 THII AGAICUITUTAI C40PP OCIAN UR MT SAT, INL(T OR LA.EI _ t. Dt 1l Ain•N ION 01 LA IfI 1MG IIsH C. 1100SURE O/ people OR PROPERIT 0• WILDLIFE nM IIA1I 10 CLOLOGI4 "AZARCS SUCH AS LA•In- QUAaf I. LMUSLIOLS, HUOSLIOES, :ROUND 3. CVLTWAL/SCI(NTIIIC 1I10Ult(S f A1LVAl, OR SIMILAR HAZARDS? WILL lml'PAGPOSAL R/SVL7 IN M ALIIRAIION OF A Sl'.MlflCM: ARCfIAt. 1. AIR WILL INl PROPOSAL ACSVLT IN' OLOGICAI 04 HISTORICAL $III, SIAUC. I URE, 00VC(1 OA RUIL0l44, PAIEOM. A. INCREASID AIR EA15110NS OR Df- TOLD61CAL 1171, OA OTMtR INpORT.HT 118101AII DI'DI AMRIt MI Ala QUALIFY! CULIYAAL/SCIt NTIP1C Ae SDVACLI I THE CAIAIIIN OF OSVECIICNASLI 1. MALYf_"1. !1)LI If WILL IMC ODOAS.1 �. PWUPUSAL AISIIT IN C. ALILRAIICN Of AIR MOVt MINI, A. MCR(Alt III THE RATE Of USE Of ME,ISIUAE OA 31N0111AIUAL, OA ANI ANT NAIU•AL AISOuarll IHM.1 11, L.IM.IL. EIIMtA LOCAILT _ DA lllj .AILIW a. DIPLL7I0N Of AN' NOMAINL.AILC 0. EXPOSURE OF FIASDII 1O LOCALLY MAIUMAL ALSOUMLE, INC.L'DINM 4641. CULIVAAt SOILS UN OPEN $PACtt t LLVAILD lLY1t5 Of AIR POLLU110N1 1. 1AIjY YILL TnI PROPOSAL RESULT IN: 7, _ WILL TMI PROPOSAL ESULIf IN The OaSTAUCIIIIN 01 M'1 A. L.AN4(S IN CURRENTS, OR the SCLNIC VISTA 01 VltW OPIN TO Int PUALIC, OA WILL Ent PROPOSAL CMA61 Oa DIAEC1104 OF MAILA MOVE- RESULT IN INC C41AIlON OF AN Me MIST IN IIIntR MARINE OR ratio ALSTM9711ALLT OFf ENSIVL SITE OPEN MAIt•ft to PVSLIC VIEW? \ J a CnANLES IN ABSORPTION RATES, A. • T WILL THE PROPOSAL RESULT in: Dp AJNA6L IA111ANS, 01 In( RATE MO M AIOMI DI SURFACE WAICR AUNO/FI A. USC Of AINORMALLT MIGN MW,INIt C. At ItaAllONS 10 IN( CQVA$t OR Of FULL OA EMERITI FLOW of FLOOO WA7taS1 A. INCREASE DEMAND Upum ERIIIING D. CMANCI IN 1.E MOUNT 01 sum. SOURll3 D/ For New SO Re QVIAp TnE IINIA411MI hi 0/ MEW $DQA(Ef UP FACE MAIIA IN MT MAMA AODTt I MIRGT} 1. 011c"A0,41 INTO 1ua(ACL MATCMS, J. `NO VCU WILL INC PROPOSAL OA IN MI AYIt AATICM, Of SURFACE RESULT IN. PAVIA QUA.IT1. INCLUDING WI NOT LIMITED 10 IEAPt XATORE, DISS06VLD A. CWILICI WLTM ZONING OR CEM. O1TllN OR IUIXIDI111 CAR, PLAN DISIG IAIIONi FDA Int f. ALIEIAIIDN Of INC DIALCTION OR PA OPlRTT1 AAII Of FLOW Of &SOUND NAIIASI a. CONFLICT WITH ADJACENT, CRISI- //!!��I• G'.. CHANGE IN 1Mt QVANIIIT 02 QUA$- INL OR PLANNED LAND USIST ITT OF GROUND WATERS, LIT"EA 1NAOV4H C. IICDUCEMLNT Of UIIM GAOWTN7 DIRECT ADDIIIONS OA WITHDRAWAL$, OA tMAUU6N INIIACIPIION DF AM AQUIILA Acm 10. ISANSPORIATION/CIRCULATION WILL IT CUTS Oa t4CAVA11CMSl THE PAOPDSAI A/SUIT IN. n. RLDuC11uN IN the MOUNT Of A. GENEa A110N Of ADDITIONAb VCMI- I WAILS OInEAWI$t AVAILAILE FOR CULAR MOVCNtNtt — PUI.IL Wltl sU PILIISi Lt11TIML � 1APOW11 DI PEOPII OR PROP(R11 LIIEC71 PANKING I. ING A E 1ACILlIl S. 0O1 OtMAMO /Oa ME W AS IO WATta A1.A110 MACAADS SUCHIMaIN4T f LOODIN4 OA IIDAL WAVES$ . 6 F0100 t. 11►Aft WIN [Lllla N PLAw.OD �. IW\INtAi lmm IIIICwSi 1/' %�41L-fL'SILLL a'Y' util III, Lu • 1 �L gV01q .., M LII(1 4. µIll N011d rµttuq 41 Cie. CPLATIF 4A IOrtawt of 01NLt Amet Wen, as al w,1 Iw'A mate Ip4 411 N 111[1tl IIAINH Im AN, 01 INS, ' N Montt /111 i1K Altµ. 1� At 114 Y/tleNK. "It 14 All A. Ile# ra OTt.tlwl 1""let 1, mOce ILOtt[lllml J. 1WPIt AIJY21 TO tpOHt#Iw1. mIIN r[wlC•l\. e1ttA11lt. as _ t. S&NMI1, — rUl pmlrmll _ 4. #4444 0, atw12 /itmlAtla•t {. utAlta Or 141Uq 4CIACVLA- /ACILllltf! IIA INUIw11 11, ktllm 11LL Iw( NQrpH\ ...RRR 1. 1Y IwlI4W;t 0, "&L1l #All• \I1I11. lw[•YDlwi 4N011 T— A%It\ -1 LIt AI104. 4111411utIM, 1tm1111, N tA011w NI/ N am — I141a4 , N uluHl iAN _ 00fw rMVLAljfr 1I Am µ/A# {. f4wl.uwl[A11411 IT/11m It ^ It. Siloam Vitt 1.4 9411041AL: — A. sales A. lrllfl Allt la w K tI, l4 t cattle [114t1 A 11 IN A4AI11bµ IWHK1 I. It** N 1tlllf twalt — Y "61- mµla N114µt1 A. Ill" &I MrlkTfee_ — NOI 41CL 01 LNI, VatIt[/ l wfellat 4. SOLID 1At It AND e1 pONli IL 4 At 11tt The 010FISA1 I. state I11VIC14/ 19WL IN w ImFAft wl" lwt Wll• 111 N 4uw1111 01 Ill\t144 l6\I• _ It- µlfaAa OR4\11wIt1U1 — _ )� rt i' i�FJ tltr#I•.#Tat( Q�rMillL.p IA• 4YL1LwIl•'I^ ••• „rllr •ILL a npr04N. �. D,we4 •:bYiu L+rIH •I n A. 1410110 or, 416111 Urt011T O0 INCIT slot Alt or mlt A40:Y1 Wog tIw[al Iwt'1Y011L.01., r[NIt I0t/. N 4141AIuw1 710E Ic✓INE CA G0:1f/TL/ SA IQ7A71d%# - — I. circl I'll 94:o111mil Iy Orf1CIc7) ls3rl'lau-r/ teat. "I.,# 11. 09W PILL to 140041SAL ntSYIT IwA. �`� Lyv ur.wt w. •_ qr(�. .nr i.,,I t NlAt11tA11 41 UIItIK Vitala. SFNYIf DI F01,t to wp111 LI Lt IILI In 0 14t111 1 [DM11 I,wp Yitl - - I" US" 1 MLAAAU YIIL to 140• — 10LA1 PSWVLI 4111144t N 1,AH1 fall FINDINGS: A. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL 70 DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF THE 'ENVIRONMENT, SUBSTANTLALLY REDUCE THE HABITAT OF A FISM OR WILDLIFE POPULATION TO DROP BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVEL'S, THREATEN TO ELIM- INATE A PLANT OR ANIMAL COMMUNITY, REDUCE THE NUMBER OR RESTRICT THE 'RANGE Of A RARE ENDANGERED' PLANT OR ANIMAL OR ELIMINATE IMPORT -ANT EXAMPLES OF THE MAJOR PERIODS OF CALIFORNIA MFSTORY OR PREHISTORTT B.DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ACHIEVE SNORT --TERM, TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG-TERM, ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS? (A SHORT-TERM IMPACT ON THE ENYIRONMENT IS ONE WHICH OCCURS IN A RELATIVELY BRIEF, DEFINITIVE PERIOD OF TIME WHILE LONG -TERN IMPACTS WILL ENDURE WELL INTO THE FUTURE.) V_ _ C. DOES ThE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS WHICH ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED, BUT CUMVLATIVELT CONSIDERABLE? (A PROJECT MAY IMPACT ON TWO OR MORE SEPARATE RESOURCES WHERE THE IMPACT ON EACH RESOURCE IS RELATIVELY SMALL, BUT WHERE THE EFFECT OF THE TOTAL OF THOSE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT IS SIGNIFICANT.)•_ D. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL CAUSE SUB- STANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR IK- DIRECTLY? Dlr't1ERMINATION: ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL EVALUATION: 1 FIND THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE — EVVIRONttihT, AND A NEGATIVE D£CLAILATIOM WILL BE ►tEPAOIED. 1 FIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE MITIGATION MEASURES DESCRIBED Ott AN ATTACHED SHEET HAVE EEEN f ADDED TO THE PROJECT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATIOM WILL BE PREPARED. T,•E P\•YCS PiC.t:T MAT MA'4! ♦ SICr:F 1CJ1r.T EPTECZ W IMF ENYIRp.— �'I MEN-, AEG A.-L. E NYI ItONMENTA 4MANAGEMCNT A `�LI (r:J' �I New ! i OAT E:,C .: 1,/•,:r 13 I �I IS 012PO7006 Explanation of items checked on the Environmental Analysis form: This initial study covers the proposed continuation of the disposal of solid waste by the County of Orange at the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill, and exercising a lease agreement with the Irvine Company for the duration of disposal activities and closure of the site. As part of the continuation of disposal operations and closure of the site, the following items are being considered: 1. Evaluation of the existing grading plan (Plan A), and two pussiblc alternate grading plans. Both alternate grading plans involve an increase in the disposal capacity of the landfill. Plan B increases the site's capacity by raising the grading plan elevations through the center of the landfill while staying es- sentially within the current limits of solid waste fill. Plan C would do the same as Plan B and also move the limit of solid waste fill to the north, towards Bonita Canyon Road. The remaining disposal capacity and estimated life spans for the three grading plans are: PLAN CAPACITY (CUBIC YARDS x 106) A\TICTPATED CLOSURE A 5.6 1985 B 6.6 1986 C 14.5 1989 2. Identification and evaluation of areas to be used as borrow sites to provide soil for landfill operations, site improvements and final site closure. Two primary areas have been identified as potential borrow sites. While both of the Sites are west of the landfill, one is south and the other is northeast of the San Joaquin Reservoir. Both of these sites extend beyond the limits of Elie current lease boundary. 3. Construction of permanent drainage structures in and around the landfill. 4. Evaluation of the co -disposal of solid waste and digested, sewage sludge in th& landfill. This initial study does not cover the impacts of methane gas recovery from the landfill. Under terms of the existing lease between the County of Orange and the Irvine Company, the Irvine Company will solely be responsible for taking care of any environmental documentation, permits, zone changes or general plan amendments that may be necessary to permit methane gas extraction. IA Geologic maps indicate that landslide areas and possible landslide areas exist in each portion of the proposed landfill and borrow site areas. No active faults, exist on the landfill, although the landfill is relatively clusa to the Newport/Inglewood fault to the southwest and the Whittier fault to the north/northwest. Three inactive faults are mapped as extending onto the land- fill from the west near San Joaquin Reservoir. I city of iveWport beacn 0 The City of Irvine General Plan Seismic Response Areas (SRA) map indicates that the majority of the site is in SRA 4, with one part of the western area In SRA 3. SRA 3 indicates shallow alluvium over and abutting bedrock. areaGrou� motion is the primary potential seismic hazard. SRA 4 indicates highlands characteristically over 202 slope. It is potentially less stable thar. SRA 3 due to the larger incline. Liquefaction potential is extremely remote. 1B There are three primary geological units in the area of the landfill and tho potential borrow sites. These units are the Topanga Formation Los Trance and Bommer Tranco memberMembers sdmarine terrace deposits. Ta andthemarineterracedepositmaterialisgenerally tacceptaule for use in the operation of the landfill. Use of these materials for land- fill cover material will result in the disruption, displacement and conpt,ction of these soils. 1C The landfill and proposed borrow sites consist of a main Canyon (Coyote Canyon) canyons, and a second ridgeline in the potential borrow si11) two smaller tributary canyons, ridgelines and ridgeline plateaus enclosing tile ---- te northeast of San Joaquin Reservoir. Depending on the grading plan or combination of grading plan selected for the landfill, there will be a change in the topography and general surface relief features of these areau'. Because of the amount of modification to take place the landforms (ridges) surrounding the existing fill area of the landfill, these features may be destroyed. It should be noted that the area identified as Potential Borrow Site I on the proposed landfill grading plans covers approximately 118 acres. Nearly one half of this area has been used in the past as a borrow site by contractors for projects unrelated to the operation of the landfill. This same area has also been used for the uncontrolled dumping of debris and for the construccion of debris basins to contrul the runoff area that drains to San Joaquin Res- ervoir. The southern portion of the borrow site appears to be in its natur:�l condition. A small strip of the eastern portion of the site, that w:iich borders the existing landfill, has been used in the past as a borrow sits for landfill operations. The area identified as Potential Borrow Situ II covers Other than a small area along the eastern side of the as a borrow site for landfill operations, ,the area is condition. approximately 97 acres. site that has been used essentially in its natural i I I I lE Movement of soil to be used to cover material deposited in the landfill will result in an increase in wind and water erosion of this soil within the land- fill itself and outside of the landfill boundaries. Dust from the landfill operations may be a particular problem. IF Erosion of soil from the landfill site could potentially impact Bonita Creek, Bonita Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, San Diego Creek, and Upper Newport Bay. 1C 'See IA above. Because of the number of landslides known to exist on the landfill site, people operating or visiting the landfill during an earthquake could be subject to this hazard. 15 City of Newport Beach ` 2A Disposal of waste materials including sewage sludge has been known to cause odors So eminate from the landfill. These odors are objectionable to resiJents, particularly in the Turtle Rock area of the City of Irvine. 3B With the movement of large quantities of cover material within the landfill and proposed borrow sites, changes in soil absorption rates and drainage pat- terns will occur. It is also anticipated that the amount of surface water runoff from the landfill will increase as vegetation is removed from the land- fill and borrow sites now covered'with this vegetation. It should be noted that the landfill area overlies essentially non -water bearing sedimentary rocks consisting of conglomerated sandstone, sillstone and Interbedded siltstone and sandstone. There is no known usable groundwater in the vicinity of the site. Pelican Hills Road will be constructed through a portion of the landfill. Placement of fill material for this roadway could disrupt the flow of water through the areas of fill. Impacts of the disruption of the flow of this water must be investigated. 3D During times of high rainfalls there is the possibility of drainage devices installed with the landfill being unable,to handle the amount of water these devices are designed to handle. In this case, runoff of these flood waters I may be expected into Bonita Creek, Bonita Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. The impacts of this runoff must he investigated. debris 3E Runoff water from the landfill carrying soil or other could impart Bonita Creek, Bonita Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir and San Diego'Creck. If lechate were to be formed from the breakdown of waste deposited in thy land- fill then this material could impact the aforementioned bodies of water. Lechate production and its contamination of the water supply is a particular concern of the California Regional Water Control Board, Santa -Ana Region should wet sludge (25% solids) be allowed to be deposited directly into the landfill. Sludge is currently dried to at least 50% solids by the County •Sanitations 1 District before it is buried in the Coyote Canyon landfill. The impacts of burying wet sludge (25% solids) directly into the landfill must be thoroughly investigated to resolve this issue. borrow introduced 4A The majority of the landfill area and proposed sites are grasslands. The majority of these grasses are non-native. The eastern portion of the landfill as well as portions of both potential borrow sites contain coastal sage scrub. Also, a small amount of oak/riparian woodland vegetation is present on the east side of the landfill. Landfill operation will result in the removal of this vegetation. Wildlife present within the project area includes coyotes, rodents, reptiles and various species of birds. The area is believed to be of local habitat value, but not of regional significance. :A number of birds, particuarly sea gulls, frequent the landfill to feed on materials deposited there. These birds create a nuisance -for landfill operations and may create a health hazard, particularly if bird droppings were to con- taminate Bonita or San Joaquin Reservoirs. City of iNewport Beach 4C Landfill operations introduces a number of vectors and other pests which are carried in with the material deposited in the landfill. These pests could create•a health hazard for surrounding land' uses. Filling in of additional canyons within the landfill could result in creating a barrier to migrating animals. 4E Removal of areas in the landfill or potential borrow sites now covered with native vegetation may cause a deterioration in the wildlife habitat of the area.. 5 Although a complete archaeological survey of rite entire landfill anJ potential borrow sites has never been performed, surveys of limited scope have identified 20 archaeological sires in these areas. Continued landfill operation will result in the covering or destruction of some of these sites. The Topanga Formation is part of the marine sedimentary rock fotutd in the San Joaquin Hills area. The Topanga Formation is a shallow marine sandstone succession that has yielded locally abundant marine invertebr4tes throughout Southern California. This formation is considered to be of very high order paleontologic significance. Other geologic materials found on the landfill site have been known to produce fossils, although they are not considered to be a major producer of significant fossils. Therefore, landfill,operationb may result in the covering, destruction or need to relocate paleontological resources. 7 One of the potential borrow sites is located within the viewbhed of Spy Clabs Hill. During landfill grading operations a ridgcline between Spy Class JIM and the landfill may be lowered. Lowering of this landform could open landfill activities to this residents, creating an aesthetically offensive view. 9A Although the landfill is primarly within unincorporated County area, the northern area is within the City of Irvine. The southwest edge of Potential Burrow Site 1, borders the City of Newport Beach. The only land use within the project area is the existing landfill operation, Lilt: County Sanitation Districts sludge composting operation and.cattie grazing. Surrounding properties are used for: West — San Joaquin Reservoir, residential North — Churches, grazing cattle East — Undeveloped, unused South — Undeveloped, unused The General Plan designations for the project area and surrounding properties are: AREA Project Area CITY OF IRVINE North Rural, estate, low and medium residen— tial, institutional (church) IRVINE SPEHERE OF INFLUENCE Open space/golf— course, estate, rural residential COUNTY OF 01A14i;E Recreation, low and medium residential I i I 17 GILL ut hquwport Beach I • IRVINE SPHERE OF AREA CITY OF IRVINE INFLUENCE COUNTY OF ORAl;GE East Rural, estate low residential South -- -- Low, medium -low, high, heavy resi- dential, recreation, natural resou-ces West Estate residential, Open Space Low residential, open space natural resources, recreation Continued landfill operations could conflict with these existing and proposed land use, especially since the boundaries of the landfill will have to be expanded to accommodate additional land needed for soil to cover waste materials, and for cover materials for final site closure. The physical General Plan expansion of landfill boundaries may necessitate the need for a Amendment as well as a zone change. The need to Luke those actions must be determined and their impacts examined. 1 9b The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County currently dries sewage sludge produced by their operation and buries it in the landfill. Continued landfill operation will necessitate the filling of the area now used fur sludge drying with waste materials, displacing this land use. The impacts of displacing sludge dryin operations must be determined. 10A Landfill operations will result in the need for continued vehicular traffl. or roadways in the vicinity of the landfill. This traffic• will continuo to Impact Bonita Canyon Road, especially between Mac Arthur Blvd. and Coyote Canyon Road, The Irvine Company is proposing to construct Pelican Hills Ruad through n portion of the landfill. Although the impacts of this roadway Will be examined in a seperate environmental document, the impacts of the fill that will be 1 needed -to be placed within the landfill and the impacts of this fill oil land- fill operations should be examined. IOC The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will be constructed within close proximity to the landfill. Impacts, if any, from landfill operation and or closure of the landfill on this Corridor must be addressed. 12A Landfill' operations may result in continued odor problems experienced in the past by Turtle Rock area residents. Removal of certain landforms needed for cover material for landfill operation could result in exposing Spy Class Hill residents to an unaesthetic view. 14A Due to the nature of materials deposited at the landfill, there is a potential for explosions, or the release of oil, pesticides and other harmful materials in the landfill, with possible contamination of surrounding land uses. 1 18 T City of Newport Beach 15A Expansion of Sandifll activites could potentally increase the amount�of land- fill noise experienced by Spy Class Hill residents. 17B Continued use of Bonita Canyon Road between Mac Arthur Blvd. and Coyote Canyon Road for access to the landfill will subject this road to continued dererio- ` ration and need for repairs. ld Recently, performance standards used for the operation of the landfill leave been changed to reflect changes in -State legislation which allows greater local control in determining these standards. As a result, materials deposited in the'landfill are no longer covered each day. The change in daily cover is believed by some to create problems with control of landfill odor, blowing debris, pests and vectors brought into the landfill in material to be deposited therein. Thest: impacts must be examined. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region IN also considering whether to allow wet sludge (25% solids) to be deposited dirOctly into the landfill. It is believed that the Water Quality Control Board may insist on daily covering of this material in order to prevent the production of lechate. Therefore, the impacts of the need to cover wet sludge each day to prevent lechate production must be addressud. i I I I I City of Newport Beach I 'I;il ' , r, n,. .�• lL., ,' .!.y• . r1 •. rJ,ni ,yJ rl.,,)h;:^•i•, Ilt .�.:� , �/` I�'''S?�•r\�^� ''r I�'�I i''`Y �;Y.':11,,�1J��,� 'i�l�ti �,��A -, I II ' 1?11„e,:;t.i ..l ..)1�f.�•.,�'''bt �M..�1�'i I •iF+ 't'F', _ �'/.'11 '�'"'1 1�\�. t17I�• Jai , ;�.. M1i1A� I'., t,i/.I I , I\ r...••,> .•1�1rr\11!r'I )y1(�I��rl' II. '� Q � \\'.I a%, , 1 _ • '��. h;, ''f.: i, X '�'I� 1 `•`'.��'• l+ I LJ illi •Il. ?'}\1.',� t ��' i?e ;; '2<<C,•,Y . I� %� .. Y:iI .. u i / ; \T7J %ff -�I ✓i%' I r ., <fI 1�].\" F �• f" ..:.ram f••— ',. '�.�J'T� •,S) _�-7—I� oral. �\n<tT r.vans�T�,Ts�/cJv��_�;i��'� W ;.. <f / } Viz. ; i�:•` ! . _..1� i,c� ir . r�' 4�,�. ,IIt°J'I' II'� '\,� "t�:1.�_� �•! \�'\,CILI, ',r ��' ..\�"+�tJ., ��.r•.i� � � '�l III I •' Z' /1�1' ,�, •.,', '�:; •.-�!''i ,';, '. I ',, .` t I -� a r.-/.. _ /'' �t AT,^la��l �•/fir:, ,'. -ll' -J., ..; \'"' �'�',/.�'t,'( , J',I I t�1 ) �.:,�, , ,��tt,,�/��R;�✓iffvi.--'�ri,:' ��.' �1•.: \, �•11 •• 'I'�•....___.-• .��-�'F.-.. E� rw� << � .'' 'K='' I% 9r :, ).i � : _ �-,•., •-••i t� .. �� lit ir--�".-..�.�<'.• ,"(,..^-i ,, f iC I, � t, /..�_._-..-,.,. .•�•.,k i l fir' !•y5 / J, _ _.i"`. .. • B D :,.I "L:`•;f:^ :'; i G'f � 4 I` \ ' ^`\ Y.;J"' •..j.i ! •: Y� <7,'�':���!1'm,,.ti f City of Newport Beach I 9 '1 1' 1 1 r : I,. r./ Lllprrr "••jr, t'•'1'y i•`..• .i� '�r:'�l�1%q 'iJiit%.'�f • i,••.'1: ' 1. ,. i 7�i .ly , ��,,�i r . i rj7�' , 1 tt �! 'rjf?"1 �. �!`�1 ,. !i �1{`, • ', ti�•' ''•, i ,.1 )� /'•`r.`. ,.:�YYr ;��,. I .11:,+1'�i�t,�T �•,i !:�^'rr • Ii ,r i�.'.•.! :.\;• 'r •r r.1 `I.1'1 r•'i 7i 9: ..!%i•• i +! 1 ', 1 \ •• •\ •}!.4: t�/•r••'\r `,••`�/•]• 1'7(1,•,rj�i�/•..il r7Cr�/: f .�' i��•% � ,�'"'e./ 1 r��, lla� F'1.1�. �.F%`='�."� / �� li t •� �)1•r,r yi z �J N J u w O ,I n u �` v� l71`r,' ice• •t1 1 '��'~11 /'/--ram iN,_, �.1�\�'�,rl t\ � '�'•� \�rZ.i-''��_l jr'i_�.t:^� 7r �r`�- !•y,1i{I .,t 1 •'`,., 01 //� .�.��^ •„•,.... )1: t • • • iy v!:' .. • rli -� // ...:._..._+• � �'} ,�, rV;... •�•i�) I • � 7 � w I .� j',� _^ •, l AA �•" � ati _.-.:•�.. - a.r.• i' h ,. .` : ;' i •._ { T '•l}✓' ` - r •1 \ 2 W 1. 1 SA 1... _. r \ o`, i{•l Orr' . `��--'.�_y. { ,• 1 +�alr I I City of Newport Beach I c I I I II II 11 J .i i �. ` ,.: �•,�.: .r : �, ..., _ ; 4='•-••ice � , .:, r..- 22 f City of Newport Beach Lj I I I 1 I i I I I I I 1 i I I B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 23 City of Newport Beach In order to provide an opportunity for concerned citizens and affected agencies to comment on the proposed project and scope of the EIR, two Notices of Preparation were distributed and two scoping meetings were conducted. The following items which relate to the public participation program for the Coyote Canyon EIR are presented as follows: 1. Notice of Preparation Responses 2. Irvine and Newport Beach Scoping Meetings - Newspaper Articles, Advertisements and Press Releases Ads • Daily Pilot, July 17, 1983 • Irvine World News, July 17, 1983 • Los Angeles Times, July 17, 1983 ' Articles • Irvine World News, July 14, 1983 • Daily Pilot, July 19, 1983 - Letter to Homeowner's Associations Regarding Scoping Meetings and Distribution List - List of Attendees - Agenda - Summary of Public Comments I t City of Newport Beach 1. Notice of Preparation Responses 25 City of Newport Beach ",,Z]VED AUG 1 6 '1933 STATE OF CAUFORNIA—THE RESOURCES / qCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gammor CALIFORNIA WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD IWO NINTH STREET, SUITE 30D SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 ' AUG 8 � � 1983 Mr. F. W. Olson, Manager ' EMA - Environmental Analysis Division County of Orange P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92792 Dear Mr. Olson: ' Subject: Notice Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Expansion of the Coyote Canyon Landfill, SCH #82082004. Thank you for 'the opportunity to update our comments on the subject Notice of Preparation (NOP). I have attached a copy of our October 27, 1982,,response to your initial NOP on this project. In addition to the actions identified in the attached letter, the Board must receive a finding from the county that the site expansion is consistent with the County General Plan, designated in the General Plan and the surrounding land uses are compatible with the landfill. We have no further comments on this NOP. If you have any questions on the foregoing information, please contact Odis Marlow at (916) 322-0460. Sincerely, 1 Dou ' s L. Stradc , Chief V7as Management Division cc: Ray Rhoads, Orange County GSA Jack Goetzinger, Orange County LEA Terry Roberts, Office of Planning & Research MGrima:cr 1 AUG 101983 1 City of Nev�port Beach IEMIA RESOURCES AGENCi G. BROWN STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 1020 NINTH STREET, SUITE 000 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA .95814 M7 271982 Kenneth E. Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division County of Orange Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 p11L i Subject: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Expansion of the Coyote Canyon Landfill ' Dear Mr. Smith: , The Board, below, has provided the information you requested on the scope and contents the environmental impact report and the Board's statutory responsibilities concerning this project: ' Staff has reviewed the initial study attached with your Notice of Preparation and determined that it accurately identifies the potential impacts which could result from the implementation ' of this project. To assist you in preparing this document, staff has attached a j detailed checklist of the items that could be included in this document. The following items, in the checklist, should be given special attention: Noise Traffic Fire Control Dust Control Litter Control Odor Control Emissions from vehicles and equipment Soil Erosion Protection of Surface and Groundwater Site Security Gas monitoring and control In addition to the above -mentioned items, this document should r address the resource recovery alternatives to the continued landfilling of this waste. To determine the most appropriate alternative(s) to landfilling, an economic assessment should be made of appropriate resource recovery options. These options should include increased use of recycling centers, the establishment of commercial, industrial, end residential source separation programs, material recovery programs at the landfill, a waste -to - RECEIVED , OCT 2 9 1982 City of Neyrport Beak EMA 100%POiM RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 Kenneth E. Smith 11 I C 1 1 I I f, I I I I CJ I energy facility, and the composting of the organic portion of the waste stream. Current and projected costs/ton for each option should be developed and then compared with the costs of continued landfilling. Before this facility can be established, the Board by law must consider the following actions: 1) The Board will need to approve 4n amendment, which will include the proposed facility, to the County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP). The expansion of this facility is not mentioned in the existing plan. 2) Once the plan is amended, the Board must determine whether or not the facility, as proposed, does conform to the CoSWMP. 3) The Board must concur with the revised Solid Waste Facilities Permit prepared by the local enforcement agency for this site. As a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Board will have to use this environmental document when it considers the above mentioned discretionary actions. In order to ensure that this document is adequate and fully complies with CEQA, it will be necessary that this agency be given an opportunity to both review this draft EIR and all comments and responses to those comments on this draft. This concludes our comments. If you have any question about the comments, please call John D. Smith of my staff at (916)322-0462. Sincerely, II Douglas L. Strauch, Chief Waste Management Division cc: Ray Rhoads County of Orange General Services Agen Jack Goetzinger County of Orange Solid Waste Enforceme Terry Roberts Office of Planning an JSmith:mgz City of N e DISPOSAL SITE EIR CHECKLIST I. GENERAL BACKGROUND INFOR&TION A. Project Location -B. Need for the Project C. Area Served D. Population Served E. Population Projections F. Existing Facilities G. Conformance to County Solid Waste Management Plan H. Regional Map II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Site Description 1. Topographic map 2. Size of the site (acres) 3. Site layout map (showing areas to be filled, sequence of filling, and property boundaries) 4. Total capacity of the site 5. Average quantity of waste received daily 6. Expected site life 7. Current land use S. Current zoning 9. Land use within 1000 feet of site boundaries 10. Owner/operator of the landfill 11. .Classification of site (Class I, II-1, etc.) 12. Classification of wastes to be received (Group 2, 3, etc.) 13. Ultimate use 14. Height of fill 15. Public#and/or privNew oft Beach -2- 16. Permits required by local and state agencies to implement the project B. Operations Description 1. Compliance with SSWMB standards for handling and disposal 2. Method of disposal (area/trench) a) Construction of cells 3. Depth of excavation 4. Height of completed fill 5. Cover a) Frequency of cover b) Thickness of cover c) Suitability of cover material d) Amount of cover material needed for the entire project e) Source and supply of cover 6. Anticipated compaction 7. Number of employees 8. Equipment 9. Hours/days of operation - days/weeks of operation 10. Fire control provisions 11. Vector control provisions 12. Litter control provisions 13. Traffic a) Access routes b) Present loading - project induced load c) On -site roads 14. Scales 15. Odor control provisions amity or ivewport Beach -3- 16. Dust control provisions 17. Record keeping 18. Erosion controls 19. Sedimentation controls 20. Gas monitoring and control systems 21. Leachate controls a) Liner (if applicable) 1. Permeability of liner (cm/sec) 2. Sensitivity of liner to acidic or caustic compounds b) Compaction of underlying soils 1. Permeability achieved after compaction (cm/sec) c) Collection system d) Recirculation e) Impermeable barriers 1. Permeability of barrier (cm/sec) 22. Leachate monitoring system 23. Description of areas for bulky items 24. Provisions for special wastes handled (i.e., liquids, sludge, etc.) 25. Resource recovery provisions 26. Fencing and provisions for site security 27. Police protection 28. Drainage facilities and surface water routing 29. Flood protection facilities 30. Site improvements a) Water b) Bathroom c) Telephone d' U1. 3` it Newport Beach C. Closure Procedures 1. Final cover a) Thickness b) Permeability (cm/sec) _ c) Grading 2. Revegetation 3. Responsibility for maintenance 4. Responsibility for monitoring 5. Length of maintenance and monitoring responsibility (years) III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT A. Climate 1. Average precipitation a) Seasonal b) Annual 2. Seasonal temperature range 3. Wind a) Direction b) Velocity 4. Evaporation rate a) Seasonal b) Annual B. Air 1. 2. 3 Baseline air quality data' Existing vehicular emissions a) Landfill equipment b) Refuse vehicles Projected vehicular emissions a)Landfill equipment.�port Beach b) Refuse vehicles a -5- 4. Evaporative emissions (from wastes disposed at site) C. Surface Water 1. Existing surface waters (streams, rivers, etc.) 2. Drainage courses i 3. Average seasonal flows 4. Greatest anticipated 24 hour or 6 day rainfall amount 5. Beneficial uses of waters 6. Water quality analysis 7. Watershed characteristics D. Subsurface Water 1. Existing subsurface water (aquifer, aquiclude, etc.) 2. Water quality analysis (from site specific tests) 3. Beneficial uses of waters 4. location of wells within 1 mile of site 5. Depth to groundwater (from site specific tests) E. Geology 1. Description of subsurface strata (in place) a) Unified soil classification (CH, OH, etc.) .b) Percent passing #200 sieve c) Liquid limit d) Plasticity index 2. Permeability of soil (from field samples and not textbook figures) 3. Seismicity a) Faults underlying the site b) Estimate of seismic risk at the site (distance to nearest fault, maximum projected earthquake of the fault, etc.) 4. Boring logs (including boring locations) 5. Mineral deposits amity or iNewpon beach SE F. Land 1. Descriptions of the site surface 2. Visibility from surrounding area 3. Maximum slope on the site 4. Slope stability (recommended allowable cut) G. Flora 1. Description of site flora 2. Vegetation which will require permanent removal 3. Relation between vegetation and slope stability and erodability 4. Rare and endangered flora H. Fauna 1. Description of site fauna 2. Resident population of rodents and other vectors 3. Rare and endangered fauna I. Noise 1. Background noise levels at and adjacent to the site 2. Location of noise receptors 3. Noise levels generated by landfill operation J. Social 1. Growth inducement 2. Land use compatibility a) Zoning b) General plan compatibility c) Regional plan compatibility d) Adjacent land use 3. Aesthetics a) Viewshed impact uty of Newport Beach -7- K. Historic 1. Archaeological sites 2. Historical sites IV. IMPACTS, MITIGATIONS, AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS A. Climate B. Air C. Surface Water D. Subsurface Water E. Geology F. Land G. Flora H. Fauna I. Noise J. Social K. Historic V. ALTERNATIVES A. Alternative locations reviewed (not an indepth analysis but a general description) B. Transfer station to transport to another landfill C. Resource recovery and/or processing then disposal D. Other alternatives E. No project VI. STA MARY 'A. Brief summary of project and existing environment B. Identification (by use of matrix, outline, table, etc.) of project impacts and their respective mitigation measures City of Newport Beach IM VII. ORCANIZATION AND PEOPLE CONSULTED A. Public meetings B. Public response to the local project C. Persons contributing to the report and their qualifications 'D. Persons consulted City of Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92063.3884 August 8,, 1983 Bob Rusby EMA Environmental Division P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Subject: NOP - Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Draft EIR Dear Mr. Rusby.: The City of Newport Beach appreciates the receipt of the above subject Notice of Preparation (NOP). Based upon the information transmitted to the City via the NOP and provided at the July 19, 1983 Scoping Meeting, the City has concluded that is it a Responsible Agency for the subject project. A portion of the proposed project borrow area is within the City of Newport Beach and the City's adopted Sphere of Influence. City of Newport Beach certification of the EIR and approval of that portion of the project related to the City of Newport Beach will be required. related to the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach respectfully requests that the following questions be responded to and alternatives explored in the environmental document. 1. An alternative that would provide for the continued use of a transfer station within the existing (1983) lease area. 2. An alternative that would' provide for a closure of the facility in the same time frame of Alternative No. 2, with a transfer station and the design parameters of Alternative No.3. 3. A discussion of the timing/phasing of all activities in the borrow area. 4. A discussion of the ultimate disposition of each of the borrow areas, roads and other facilities projected by the proposed project. 5. A discussion of the local collector road shown on Alternative No. 3, the timing of its construction related to San Joaquin Hills Road, Pelican Hills Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. 11 I I I 3300 Newport Bb' MVA' P) U4VEp 37 Bob Rusby August 8, 1983 Page 2 6. A discussion of Alternative No. 1 without expansion into borrow areas outside of the existing lease area. As shown at the proposed Scoping Meeting, this alternative is not a true "no project" alternative. 7. A discussion of Mitigation Measure design to allow for the approval of conceptual development plans by the City of Newport Beach for areas within the City of Newport Beach and its Sphere of Influence prior to implementation of any activity contemplated for these areas by the proposed project. 8. A discussion to include if the proposed project would in any way prohibit a Transfer Station, public usage of recreational facilities or encourage the extension of residential, to commercial or other land uses. ' 9. A discussion of the anticipated height of usage of each landfill alternative. ' 10. A discussion of the impacts of the ultimate closing of the landfill on the City of Newport Beach public services and facilities. 11. A discussion to explain why six (61) foot of fill was chosen. 12. An explanation of the relationship between this project, energy recovery and ultimate interim uses of areas affected. 13. An analysis of the impact on the views from residential areas within the City of Newport Beach for each alternative. 14. An analysis of the impact if any on the San Joaquin Hills Reservoir. 15. A boundary of the proposed ultimate lease area, a discussion ' related to if this area could in the future be expanded again and analysis of uses interim and long range. 16. A discussion of the length of time until the golf course you have projected will be completed. A review of any lease or other requirements that might prohibit it from being a public course and the relationship of the concept of a public golf course ' with the lease agreement. 17. A detailed discussion of the issues raised at the Scoping Meeting of July 19 and 20, 1983. I 1 ; City of Newport Beach Bob,Rusby , August 8, 1983 Page 3 The City of Newport Beach looks foreward to working with you on this interesting project. If you have any questions related to our comments please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director 4 By X, Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator FT:imp I 1 City of Newport Beach y MR. & MRS. WALTER S. RADOS 5672 Highgate Terrace Irvine, California 92715 August 5, 1983 ' Mr. Robert Rusby EMA Environmental Division Post Office Box 4048 ' Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Gentlemen: ' Regarding the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill EIR, we request that the following items be addressed in the EIR: ' 1. The dump odors negative impact on the health and safety of the Turtle -Rock Community. ' 2. The negative visual impact of the finished dump elevation on the Turtle Rock Terrace community, especially the finished elevation of the dump if it is allowed to stay open until 1990 - Alternate Plan ##3. 3. Will the EMA require the Irvine Company to notify new home buyers of the negative impact the dump will have on the value of their homes due to the health hazards and the noxious odors. I I 4. In order to mitigate the odor, will the EMA require in Alternate Plan 2 or 3 the daily covering of all trash during the continued operation of the dump. Th s requirement may necessitate the daily closing of the dump at 3:30 p.m. Thank you for your attention to the above. ' M/M WSR/jt Very truly *ter ours Mr. & Mrs. Rados Representing the Turtle Rock Terrace Community cc: Turtle Rock Terrace Community Association 1 Aty of Newport t3each RECEIVED AUG 8 1983 EMA STATE OF CALIFORNIA-HEALTH AND WELFARE YCY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 2151 BERKELEY WAY _ BERKELEY, CA 94704 4151540-2665 40 Guorge Deukmejian.co.moo August 21 1983 , F. W. Olson, Manager EMA-Environmental-Analysis Division County of Orange ' P.U. Box 4U48• Santa Ana, CA 927UZ-4048 SUBJECT: County of Orange Notice of Preparation WOP) on the proposed expansion of the County's Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill SCH #82082004 , Dear Mr. Olson: The Department has reviewed the subject environmental document and offers the ' following comments. In response to the above NOP, we are enclosing a document prepared by the Noise ' Control Program entitled, "Guidelines for Noise Study Reports .. .1t, which pro- vides some general guidelines as to what this office considers important in Environmental Impact Reports. ' Specifically, the Environmental Impact Report should provide quantitative estimates of operational noise levels at nearby residential and religious uses, and of the impacts of truck noise on land uses along the major routes , to and from the landfill site. If you have any questions or need further information concerning these comments, please contact Dr. Jerome Lukas of the Noise Control Programs Office of Local Environmental Health Programs, at 2151 Berkeley Way, Room No. 613, Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665. Sincerely, Stuart E. Richardson, Jr., R.S., Chief , Office of Local Environmental Health Programs ierom7 �t . eeS. Lukas, Ph.D. Coordinator Noise Control Program , Enclosure cc: Environmental Health Division RECEIVED ' State Clearninghouse AUG 8 1983 FMA City of Newport Beach 1 ASk ' Guidelines for Noise Study Reports as Part of Environmental Impact Reports ' California Office of Noise Conaol California Department of Health Services 2151 Berkeley Way Berkeley, California 94704 FI I LJ� . May 1982 Because complaints. ab9kt.environmental-noise are so frequent, the Office of Noise.Comrol• recommends that every project with a potential for increasing environmental noise levels or which may be affected by existing or future noise sources should have a Noise Study Report. This report assesses how noise levels associated with the project may affect people. The infor- mation contained in the Noise Study Report should be summarized in the Environmental Impact Report or Environmental Impact Statement, and kept on file by the lead agency for review by those with a specific interest in noise. The attached is designed to help those who prepare Noise Study Reports and Environmental Impact Reports and reviewers of Environmental Impact Reports. Because there are so many different combinations of noise sources and receivers (people impacted by those sources), it is virtually impossible to develop guidelines that cover all situations. Nevertheless, the guidelines ' should help to bring some consistency to the way noise information is presented in environ- mental documents. 1 I I i City of Newport Beach U 0 0 1 Suggested Conuz::._ Noise Study �;�.:•;€ ' I. A brief description of the project in terms of its effect on the noise environment and a description of the existing noise environment and its impact upon the project (homes•near a freeway, for example). , II. Two scale maps -- one showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses, receptors, and noise sources identified, and the second map showing the future condition (use a time span of no less than 10 years, unless the project's life span is less) with the proposed project and proposed land uses, receptors, and noise sources identified. III. A detailed survey of the existing noise environment. A. The noise survey should encompass the proposed project area and must include any noise sensitive receptors, both near and far. The survey should establish the exist- ing ambient noise level which may then be used to evaluate compliance of the pro- posed project with applicable noise standards. The standards should be local (city, county) but in their absence state or federal standards may be used The ratignale. for. the 'seledrion' of noise survey sites should be included in the report. B. The survey should cover the time periods when the noise environment may be ' affected by the proposed project. C. The survey should encompass enough days to be representative of the existing "nor- 'noise mal" environment. Discussion of the similarity or dissimilarity of the noise environment during the survey period with that during other times of the year should be included. D. For the time periods measured, the reported noise data should include the L«, Lt, Lto, Lso, Lgo, and identification of typical noise levels emitted by existing sources. If day and night measurements are made, report the Ldn also. Ld is approximately equal to CNEL; either descriptor may be used. It is imperative that the descriptor % ' conform to that used in the appropriate standard. E. Summarize the present environment by providing a noise contour map showing lines of equal noise level in 5 dB steps, extending down to Ld,, — 60. In quiet areas lower contours should be shown also. F. Identify the noise measurement equipment used in the survey by manufacturer, , type, and date' of last calibration. IV. A description of the future noise environment for each project alternative. The scope of the analysis and the metrics used will depend on the type of project, but as a minimum the following information must be provided: A. Discussion of the type of noise sources and their proximity to potentially impacted areas. , B. Operations/activity data: 1. Average daily level of activity (traffic volume, flights per day. hours on per day, etc.). 2. Distribution of activity over day and nighttime periods, days of the week, and seasonal variations. 3. Composition of noise sources M trucks, aircraft fleet mix, machinery type, etc.). Gay or NewworE Beam 2- ' 4. Frequency spectrum of sources (1/3 octave band data are preferable). 5. Any unusual characteristics of the sources (impulsiveness, tonality, etc.). C. Method used to predict future levels. 1. Reference to the prediction model used, if standard (e.g., FHWA-RD-77-108, etc.). ' 2. If corrections to a standard model are made or empirical modeling is used, state the procedure in detail. 3. Show typical levels (e.g., Lt, Lio, etc.) at the receptors. ' 4. Give 'any other data yielded by the model you used. D. Contours of future levels should be included (down to Ldn 55 where applicable), and tsuperimposed over projected population (receptor) densities. V. Impact A. Quantify anticipated changes in the noise environment by comparing ambient infor- mation with estimated source emissions. Evaluate the changes in light of applicable standards. B. Discuss how this project relates to the Noise Element of the applicable general plan. C. Discuss the anticipated effects of increased noise levels (speech interference, sleep disturbance, disruption gLwildlife habitat, etc.)..— VI. Mitigation ' A. Discuss how adverse noise impacts can be mitigated, suggesting alternative tech- niques for! mitigation, their relative effectiveness, and feasibility of implementation. Provide a!table listing the most and least effective techniques. For this table, ' effectiveness should be defined in terms of the number of people being exposed to noise at some given level. B. Responsibility for effectuating the mitigation measures should be assigned. ' C. Discuss any noise impacts that cannot be mitigated, and Why mitigation is not feasi- ble. 1 P 1 City of Newport Beach ONC 5/82 Summarization of Noise Study Reports in Environmental 1 Impact Reports or Statements ' Information included in the Environmental Impact Report or Statement should be a summary of the noise study. The following information must be included: A. Maps showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses ' and noise sources identified. Pertinent distances should be noted. B. A description of the existing noise environment. C. The change in the noise environment for each project alternative. ' D. A discussion of the impacts for the alternatives, E. A discussion of the compatibility of the project with the applicable Noise Element of , the General Plan or the most applicable noise laws or ordinances. F. A'discussion of mitigation measures, clearly identifying the locations and number of people affected when mitigation is not feasible. ' G. Statements of: (1) where to obtain a copy, of the Noise Study Report from which the information was taken (or the Noise Study Report may be included as an appen- dix, and (2) the name of the consultant who conducted the Noise Study if it was not , conducted by the author of the Environmental Impact Report. 1 1 1 1 i I 1 /. i City of Newport Beach 1 ONC 5/82 ' UNIVERSITY OF CALIFC _.NIA, IRVINE BERKELEY • ➢AVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANCELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN D1ECO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ ' OFFICE OF PHYSICAL PLANNING IRVINE, CALIFORDHA 92717 ' August 4, 1983 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency 811 North Broadway Santa Ana, California 92702 Attention: .Robert P. Rusby 4 Re: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Dear Sir: ' Thank you for your letter of July 6, 1983, informing the University of the proposed expansion of the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. The University is affected by the landfill operation and is concerned about its expansion. The University's concerns center around odors, traffic, and the possible pollution of the San Joaquin Reservoir. Odors The University is developing its landholdings in the southern portion of the ' campus for housing, research and community related uses. Recent construction in the area includes 100 apartments for faculty and 300 apartments for students. An 80 unit recreational vehicle park housing approximately 150 students will be ' expanded in the near future. A University/Community Conference Center was recently completed in the area. Research facilities for the Physical Sciences, Engineering and the Computer Sciences are either under construction, or in the ' design stage. The Regents recently approved the construction of 260 units of for —sale housing for faculty and staff as the first increment of a larger housing program. Plans are being developed for additional housing for fraternities, sororities and other organizations. Upon the completion of these projects, the resident population on campus will be approximately 6000 persons. ' All of the facilities in the southern portion of the campus are, or will be, affected by odors from the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Numerous complaints ' of nausea caused by odors from the landfill operation have been expressed by residents of the current Faculty Apartment complex and the Recreational Vehicle Park. It can be anticipated similar complaints will be received from the new I 1 City of Newport Beach ' 300 units student apartment complex when the units are occupied this fall. The odors could also have a negative effect on the marketing of the for -sale housing units. As this ,program is intended to provide affordable housing for faculty and staff to encourage the recruitment and retention of qualified faculty and ' professional staff, the lack of marketability of the housing due to off -site environmental conditions could have a serious impact on the quality of teaching and research programs. I was particularly concerned to hear, at the scoping ' meeting held in Turtle Rock, that although the sanitary landfill has been in operation since 1963, it has only been during the past 4 months that special action has been undertaken to reduce odors. ' Traffic At the present time, a major approach to the campus from the beach cities is ' the MacArthur Boulevard -University Drive -California Avenue route. With the continued development of research facilities within the Campus's Health Sciences Complex, the construction of other academic facilities, and the expansion of , the on -campus resident population, it is imperative that additional access roads be constructed from the peripheral roads to the central portion of the campus. The University intends to extend the Health Sciences Road in the ' southwest portion of the campus to Bonita Canyon Road as a first step in the improvement of access to the campus from the coastal communities. Eventually this road would connect to Bison Road and the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. The effectiveness of the Health Sciences Road to Bonita Canyon Road ' will be seriously reduced and traffic hazards increased 'by all manner of disposal trucks now using the landfill. It is the plan of the University to develop the Bonita Canyon Road access to the campus within the next two years. ' San Joaquin Reservoir The University is also concerned over any possible contamination of the San ' Joaquin Reservoir from the sanitary landfill. Under an agreement between the University and the Irvine Ranch Water District, the University purchased a ' share in the storage capacity of the reservoir. The University would lose a valuable source of water if the reservior were closed. In consideration of the above factors, the Universtiy urges that the Coyote ' Canyon Sanitary Landfill be closed at the earliest possible date. Under no circumstances should the operation be extended past the present lease terms, ' and all fill operations should cease by 1986/87 per Plan B. �0Paul H. Knopf Assistant Director ' Environmental Planning PHK/nh/R-4 cc: Ed Morre - City of Irvine Fred Talarico - City of Newport Beach Doreen Marshall, - Board of Supervisors - Fifth District ' amity or rNewport Beach 1 Rite} R1M11 ut�Y lt�, :rt IRVINE RANCH WITER DISTRICT P.O. Box 0•I. 18802 Bardeen Ave. •Irvine, CA 92716.6025 • (7141 633.1223 July 26, 1983 Ms. Carolyn Kellis ' PBR 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 ' SUBJECT: COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL EIR 1 1 1 1 u H Dear Ms. Kellis: 0138y40377/83 PL 26.2 The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has reviewed your request for comments regarding the Coyote Canyon Landfill grading project. The following information is provided for your use. IRWD provides water service to the landfill site through a 12-inch diameter pipe at the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and Coyote Canyon Road. This water serves a small portable elevated water tank near the entrance to the landfill. IRWD records indicate an average useage of about 5000 gallons per day of domestic water over the past year. Sewer service is not provided to the site. IRWD is planning a future collected within the IRWD lechate from the landfill sewer could ultimately be City of Irvine. For this system is installed arouni underground migrations. sewer trunk along Bonita Canyon Road. As sewage service area is reclaimed for irrigation, any that infiltrates the proposed Bonita Canyon trunk distributed and cause an impact throughout the reason it may be appropriate if a monitoring the periphery of the landfill to detect any such IRWD formerly participated with the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSOOC) in composting at Coyote Canyon Landfill solids produced during wastewater treatment as an ultimate solids disposal method. Although another means of solids disposal is currently being utilized, IRWD would like the option of participating in landfill disposal methods with the CSDOC if the need should arise. Therefore, IRWD would like the EIR to include a discussion of CSDOV s Coyote Canyon Landfill composting or other disposal operations. 1 .. . .. City -of Newport Beach Ms Carolyn Kellis July 26, 1983 PL 0 Page 2 of 2 If the landfill, or a portion thereof, should be converted to a golf course as currently indicated in the City of Irvine's General Plan, then IRWD will be responsible for providing irrigation water. This water could be either domestic water or reclaimed water if an irrigation quality water distribution maim is installed along Bonita Canyon Road. IRWD Uses a duty factor of 4 acre-feet of water per acre per year to estimate golf course irrigation demands. Thank you for this opportunity to offer comments on the EIR, and we look forward to receiving a copy of the Draft'EIR when it becomes available. REY/SLM:jf Sincerely, IRYINE,RANCH WATER DISTRICT E. YoVfij r of knAineeri 1 anning City of Newport Beach ® F880.123.1 O le: DR-EIR *County of Orange a Idmin. DATE.nn 25 MAI F. W. Olson, Manager �•p. Attn: Robert Rusby DEPT/DIST: Environmental Analysis Division EMA-Open Space/Recreation/ E•ROM: Program Manager Special Districts Program Office Program staff has reviewed subject N.O.P.'1nFbPfhx'Y`tK11f 1Zw5n?'n ) I recommendations to foster consistency with the Open Space and Recreation Elements and the programs of this Office: 1. The EIR should discuss potential visual impacts on the proposed ' Residential Recreation Area (Buck Gully) within the Irvine Coast Planned Community in addition to impacts on Spy Glass Rill. This analysis should include cross sections and proposed viewshed controls/edge treatments. Mitigation measures should include: ' o Operation phasing program to include interim use and ultimate use of area. ' o Reclamation program to include naturalistic recontouring of landform and extensive landscaping program. It should be noted that said plans and programs should be completed and approved prior to issuance of permits in a manner meeting the approval of the Director, EMA. 2. Proposed borrow sites and landfill operations may destroy 20 known archae- ological sites in Buck Gully as well as paleontological resources of the Topanga Formation (Item 5 of Environmental Checklist). Due to the pres- ence of the archaeological and paleontological resources, the significance of these resources and the expressed strong interest of the Natural ' History Foundation and others in the proper treatment of these resources, cultural/scientific resource management steps and County policy•should be carefully followed. Standard mitigation measures regarding research, ' survey, testing, excavation or preservation, and grading observation/col- lection should be applied. Therefore, the EIR should include the following mitigation measure: ' a. Prior to issuance of permits, a County -certified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to complete literature and records,,.,-- research for recorded sites and previous surveys. In addition, '�a ' field survey shall be conducted by a County -certified archaeologist unless the entire proposed project site has been documented as previously surveyed in a manner which meets the approval of the ' Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. A report of the literature and records research and the field survey shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager of the Environmental Analysis Division. Future mitigation shall depend upon the recommendations of this report. b. The project applicant shall retain a County certified archaeologist to perform a subsurface test level investigation and surface collection as appropriate. The test level report evaluating the site shall include discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resources), final mitigation recommendations and cost 50 1 LAY of Newport tjeacn I 1 I I i Cl I I I F. W. Olson, Manager Page 2 estimates. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and based on the report recommendations and County policy, final mitigation shall be carried out based upon a determination as to the site's disposition by the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. Possible determinations include, but are not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage, or no mitigation necessary. c. If the determination is•made that onsite monitoring of grading is required, a County -certified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant and be present at the pregrading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are.discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. If the archae- ological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure that the resources will not be destroyed before exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. d. If archaeological resources are discovered during grading, further grading of the resource area shall be deferred temporarily to permit County -approved archaeologist to examine the site. The archaeologist shall make a preliminary determination of the scientific value of the site and contact the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. Prior to resumption of grading, a determination shall be made by the Director of EMA as to the final disposition of the resources. 3. Erosion of soils from the landfill site could potentially impact Bonita Creek, Bonita Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay (Item IF of Environmental Analysis Form). Potential impacts include leaching of toxic materials into the above drainage and water bodies. The EIR should identify the type of dump site proposed and the associated potential impacts, and make provisions for continued biological integrity of said drainages and water bodies. Analysis and recommenda- tions should be provided by qualified biologists and geologists approved by the Manager, EMA/EAD. If you have any questions, please contact Gary Medeiros or Marck Tomich at Ext. 3148. ' MT/GAM:dthDR810-18 7/22/83 City of Newport Beau —•rc.�..du...+t»wHrtwi64�.yiMu��' 067 "'�� 7ELEPNON ES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ��f .! : AREA CODE 714 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 962 24'11' P. O. 8OX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 ' 10844 ELLI5 AVENUE (EUCLID OFF -RAMP, BAN DIEGO FREEWAY) July 22, 1983 Mr. Robert P. Rusby County of Orange Environmental Management Agency P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Bob: Attached is Cal Tech's Plan of Study for conducting a deep ocean sludge disposal research study off Orange County. The plan of study was designed by Cal Tech's Environmental Quality Laboratory under the guidance of a panel of marine scien- tists representing regulatory and academic institutions. I would like to direct your attention to Table 2.2(a) Page 14. This table lists the concentrations of constituents in our various sludge streams. Since the printing of the plan of study (November 1982) the concentrations of some consti- tuents have fallen as a result of our Industrial Source Control Program. I have written in a listing of our best understanding of the concentrations now present in the sludge. By mid -August, the Sanitation Districts will provide a final version of the constituent levels in the sludge presently being hauled to the Coyote Canyon landfill. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Am Attachment cc: Gregg Pamson Bill Clarke Hilary Baker A a y, - P. Anderson Director of Operations I C F I I I E 11 H U'ity of Newport Beach C SLUDGE STREAM Plant No. 1, Primary, Digestedb Plant No. 2, Primary, DSgestedb Plant No. 1, WAS Unthickened, Undigestedb Plant No. 2, WAS Unthickened, Undigested Trickling gilter Humus, Digested TOTAL to Total (mg/kg Dry Weight Basis) Table 2.2(a) Projected Quality Characteristics in Various CSDOC Sludge Streamsa Vol. TSS VSS BOD Ag Cdc Cr Cu NI. Pb 2n PCB CHC Pesticides HGD mg/l MR/1 mg/1 mx/l mg/1 mR/1 mR/l mg/l mgil MR/1 pR/1 YR/1 0.30 25,000 13,000 2,500 2.0 3.1 14 55 6 17 '70 200 5 0.50 25,000 13,000 2,500 2.5 3.1 10 35 4 17 50 70 0.90 5,000 3,800 1,000 0.15 0.5 3 6 0.3 1.5 7 40 1.30 8,000 6,000 1,600 0.3 0.8 3 7 0.3 2.5 7 20 0.02 20,000 16,000 2, 000 1.5 8 25 50 2 18 80 Soo 3 11.500 7,000 1,70D 0.8 1.4 5 16 1.5 6 20 50 70 110 440 1400 130 500 1700 5 70 10 4oD (600 27- 720 15'oo 14•2 a Projections are based on 1981 influent quality and operational parameters assuming that planned secondary treatment capacity at CSDOC Plant No. 2 is on-line. Source of figures: Enclosure 1I to Orange County Sanitation Districts' letter, dated 25 November 1981. b£igures are based on data representative of the period July 1979 to June 1981. CThe cadmium figures provided are based on current plant operations and reflect industrial waste source control improvements implemented after November 1981. Source control measures planned for 1982-83 are expected to reduce the average cadmium concentration in CSDDC sludge (combined) to approximately 85 mg/dry kg before the end of 1983. City of Newport Beach 9 1 3 50 4 F+ F 0.4 7-83 yESj•1M�1TF S ➢,�tcro.e of F'�s Mtti1pA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS j , � TELEPNON7" AREA CODE 71.1 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 962-24111 P. O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 1DS44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF -RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) , July 20, 1983 ' Mr. F. W. Olson, Manager Environmental Management Agency Environmental Analysis Division P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attention: Robert Rusby Subject: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIR Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion This office has received the above -mentioned Notice of Intent and would like to bring to your attention in connection with Page 5, Item 9B, that the County Sanitation Districts' composting and air drying operation was discontinued in January of this year. State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 82-299 issued to the County of Orange on December 10, 1982, modified the solids content of digested sewage solids. Solids content of 20%, with a thirty -day average of 221% or greater, was approved in said order. The Sanitation Districts are depositing directly into the land- fill digested sewage solids which are co -mingled with the solid waste material. A copy of this order is included with this letter and it should be included in your Notice of Intent. If you have any questions, please do -not hesitate to call. REL/ddk Enclosure ?ay Le si f. gineer RECEIVED ii II I .1 1 r I CI I P J City of New ort Beach 1 California Regional Water Quality Control Board 1 Santa Ana Region ORDER NO. 82-299 An Amendment to Order No. 77-210, Waste Discharge Requirements for County of Orange General Services Agency, Solid Waste Management Division Coyote Canyon Landfill Disposal Station No. 24, Class II-2 Orange County 1 The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (here- inafter Board), finds that: 1. On October 14, 1977, the Board adopted Order No. 77-210, prescribing waste discharge requirements for the disposal of 1 wastes at the Coyote Canyon Landfill. 2. Discharge Specification A.7. of Order No. 77-210 states, in part: "Liquid wastes shall not be discharged at this site." The Board has defined "liquid wastes" as those wastes containing less than 50% solids. 3. The discharger has requested revision of Order No. 77-210 to 1 allow the disposal of dewatered sewage sludge with a solids content of no less than 20%, 1, 4. The disposal of dewatered sewage sludge containing a solids content greater than 20% should not cause a pollution or nuisance if carried out under the specifications contained in this order. S. This order results only in the amendment of waste discharge 1 requirements for an existing facility and, as such, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Ac•t (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) in accordance 1 with Section 15101, Chapter 3, Title 14, California Administrative Code. 6. The Board, in a public meeting, heard and considered all comments 1 pertaining to the amendment. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Order No. 77-210 be amended as follows: 1 1. Replace Discharge Specification A.7, w-ith the following: 1 117. The discharge of wastes containing significant quantities of water, other than as below, is permitted prohibited: a. Dewatered•sewage sludge with a minimum solids content 1 of 20% and a 30-day average of 22.55 or greater may be discharged under the following conditions: 55 /flrlf i M&a;;4f'f Order No. 82-299 - continued Page 2 1 (1) At least 10 cubic feet of solid waste shall be mixed with each cubic foot of sewage sludge in each cell. (2) Any landfill area containing dewatered sewage sludge shall be covered daily. (3) Upon discovery of any surfacing of leachate, the discharger shall construct and maintain a leachate collection and disposal system to prevent any leachate or other liquid waste from entering surface or groundwater. b. Water used during disposal site operations shall be limited to the minimal amount reasonably necessary for dust control purposes."' 2. All other limitations and provisions in Order No. 77-210 remain unchanged. I, James W. Anderson, Executive Officer, do hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, on December 10, 1982. I :1 I JAMES W. ANDERSON Executive Officer , 1 I REVIVED jnnq City of Newport Beach - � i F I South Coast AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CA 91731 (213) 572-6200 July 18, 1983 i Mr. F. W. Olson Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 - Dear Mr. Olson: Notice of Preparation ' Coyote Canyop Sanitary Landfill Expansion AOMD No. B306275 Thank you for the opportunity to review the above document. Your agency will need to prepare an environmental impact report which discusses the consistency of this project with the Air Quality Management Plan. The existing environ- mental air ouality setting for the project should be discussed as well as the following: 1) The waste stream sources should be defined in detail since the materials deposited will ultimately result in somewhat differing air pollution potential. 1 2) The EIR should address the control of dust and odors from ongoing operations. Areas that have the potential to cause dust should be watered continuously and odors should be minimized with daily covering. Highly odorous materials such as sewage sludge should be covered immediately upon receiving. 3) The installation of a perimeter probe monitoring system to test for methane, non -methane hydrocarbon and vinyl chloride is required. The frequency of testing should be addressed. Initially, if no methane, non - methane or VC is detected a monthly check would be sufficient. If methane or VC is detected that probe should be checked weekly for those materials. ' All records should be maintained for 2 years. 4) Preliminary data indicates the possibility of explosions occurring. This ' should be defined in more detail and what measures will be taken to nrevent such explosions and accompanying air pollution. ' 5) The time frame for the future installation of a methane recovery system should be stated with approximate dates of when it will be put in. A permit from the AQMD for such an installation is required. 6) Any excavation of buried materials requires the submittal and approval of an excavation plan by the South Coast Air Ouality Management District under Rule 1150. ' E,u vu) 57 .1111. 2 01983 ('.itv of NPwnnrF Rpa(,r VVIa r Mr. F. W. Olson 2 July 18, 1983 If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 572-6418. Sincerely, 5e� Arian Farris Senior Air Quality Specialist Planning Division BF:wc City of Newport Beach eto RECEIVED 1 " 919B3 EMA 1 i RECEIVEDJUL. 'L 19$3 July 15,.1983 , I F. W. Olson, Manager Orange County Environmental Management Agency, Environmental Analysis Division P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL I Dear Mr. Olson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your most recent Notice of Preparation for the above -mentioned project. The City of Irvine responded to your original Notice of Preparation, dated August 12, 1982, and those concerns identified in our letter dated September 22, 1982, should still be considered. Since our September 22, 1982 letter, several additional issues have come to light in the City of Irvine, which we would like to have considered within ,the EIR for the Coyote , Canyon expansion project. These concerns and issues are summarized below. 1. While the principal issue to bediscussed within this EIR are alternative grading plans for Coyote Canyon (which would result in an extended life -span and area for the landfill), the City feels that there are secondary impacts to this project which should be considered. In terms of the expansion itself, the EIR should discuss the impacts on surrounding development, and the ' residents of the area. IN qzybw�p 2. Coyote Canyon is an integral component in the Orange County Solid Waste Management Program. AM e ldp particular, the EIR should discuss Coyote Canyons relationship with the proposed 11g3The timing of closure of Coyote Canyon and opening d be discussed, along with what interim impacts would be created on the City of Irvine and its sphere of influence by the dual operation of both facilities. RECEIVED JUL 2 01983 ' City of Newport Beach FMA i F.W. Olson July 15, 1983 Page 2 1 3. It is felt that the EIR for the expansion of Coyote Canyon should go beyond the analysis of grading alternatives. In addition to grading alternatives, other alternatives such as resource recovery, and the institution of transfer stations to move waste to other landfills within the County system should be 1 considered. 4. In terms of this EIR, the future use of the landfill site should be discussed in relationship to the three grading alternatives being proposed, and those alternatives submitted above. The actual disposition of the landfill both immediately after abondonment by the County as a landfill site, and its long- term use should be discussed. In particular, what impacts the proposed methane gas recovery program will have on the landfill's future use should be discussed, as well as any consideration for Coyote Canyon being a future site for a transfer station. 5. We have noted that the landfill encroaches into the City of Irvine. Consequently, the City should be considered a responsible agency, as that portion within the City will require a general plan amendment according to 1 current State law. 6. The ro osal co 1 result in the landfill being visible from Describe how the landfill site will be protected M From—vievr from Turtle Rock and adjacent uses. 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 7. 8. 9. The proposal lies within an area governed by the City's hillside ordinance overlay zone (see attached). Please respond as to how the grading plans will comply with this ordinance and what impacts the grading plans will have. 10. What traffic mitigation measures are being proposed for the T-intersections at Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard (i.e. dual left -turn lanes, free right -turn movements, etc.)? 11. Provide a detailed determination and comparison of the proposal versus a transfer station with hauling to Prima Deschescha landfill in San Juan Capistrano. 12. Describe in detail the proposed after -use and how proposal will affect that use. 13. City of Newport RParh F.W. Olson July 15, 1983 Page 3 14. The area is not showing any natural buffer areas. How will adjacent future land uses be impacted by the landfill? The above concludes the City of Irvine's comments on the Notice of Preparation for the , Coyote Canyon expansion. We look forward to reviewing the draft EIR as soon as it is made available. We hope that in the environmental process, you will include a number of meetings within the City of Irvine and residents In impacted areas to discuss the issues at hand with the regard to the expansion of this facility. Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment on your Notice of Preparation. nental Services 221-192 c: Senior Planner - Intergovernmental Services Richard Masyczek Director of Community Development Manager of Development Services Senior Planner - Environmental Services City Council Director of Public Works !I 1.1 I r, I I I I r C`itxi of NAwnort Beach 1 • L1Fketi'., ZONING ARTICLE g. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT "HD" OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. V.E-244. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to provide regulations for the development of those areas in the City of Irvine which. due to their topography, require special consideration to assure that they are developed in a way that will substantially maintain their natural character. and environmental and aesthetic values in accordance with thew. ol(Ord is set forth in section V.E-246, 96, § 15.1. 2.26.74) Sec. V.E.245. Applicability. The regulations contained herein shall be considered as a supplement to the regulations contained in the city's to theosubjectpted rProperty- dinances which are applicable (Ord No. 96, § 14.2, 2.26.74) Sec. V:E-246. Policies. The policies of the City of Irvine with regard to development in hillside areas are as follows: (a) To preserve the most visually significant slope banks and gddelines in their natural state by clustering development into meaningful neighborhood units- (b) Minimize the effects of grading and insure that the natural character of the hillsides is retained. (c) (d) (e the hillside areas and for emergency the hillside areas. (h) To provide safety against unstable slopes or slopes subject to erosion and deteriora- tion in order to protect human lives and property. (i) To permit only those developments which are not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord No. 96. § 15.3, 2.26.74) Sec. V.E-247. Standards and guidelines. The planning commission shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove plans in accordance with the provisions of section V.E-246 of this ordinance and by following the standards and guidelines. The "Standards and Guidelines for Hillside Development" shall jllowed in reviewing and making udgmentsbe oon the plans submitted. (Ord. No. 96, § 15.4, 2.26.74) Preserve visually significant r ock nsorural pings, native plant materials, hydrology, and areas of historical or visual significance identified by the general plan or through the environmen- tal impact report procedure to the maai- mum extent possible. To encourage variety in housing types, padding techniques, gradingtechniques, lot sizes, site design, density, arrangement, and spacing of homes and developments. ) To encourage innovative architectural, landscaping, circulation and site design. n To discourage mass grading of large Pads and excessive terracing. (g) To provide for safe circulation of vehco- lar and pedestrian trsffic to and within to provide access necessary to serve Sea V.E-248. Review procedure In order to implement the policies of the City of Irvine for the development of hillside areas, project plans for the development of property in the "HD'• District shall be subject to review as follows: (a) Change of underlying district: At the .time that an application is filed for a change of district the applicant will be required to submit the following in addition to the materials normally required to be filed: (1) Three copies of a conceptual grading plan which shall be reviewed and considered by the planning commission, concurrently with consideration of the district change - Areas which will not agraded natural developed because of important features or topography shall be delineated on the plan. The plan shall encompass the entire site athsten foot cont ur e of one inch equals 200 feet, wi intervals The planningproposed grading concepts find that the 8ie compatible with the natural topogra- phy of the site, and are in conformance with the spirit and intent of this ordi- name before approving or conditionally approving the grading plan. This deter- mination shall be made prior to a 4661 uty ui rvewport rseacn $ V.E•248 DIVINE CODE recommendation of the planning commis Sion fora Pproval of the district change. ingress and egress. Access for the (2) Two copies of the Conceptual grading handicapped shall 'be provided as required by law. Plan, which indicate areas of proposed cut and areas of proposed fill in contrast• L The location and general nature of landscaping ing colors, (NOTE: The land use map within the development for elements. g. Any other information which may be plan the PC" shall show the locations of proposed required by the director of planning. Permanent open space and proposed () Requirements for all deuelopmerua developments including their uses and densities) a. Twenty-five (25) prints of a grading Plan for the tract drawn at (b) Tentative tract or parcel maps: Prior to a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet with t. or coincidental with the submission of a Iwo foot contours, including profile.. illustrating tentative tract or parcel map for an Of the "PC" (planned Communit )' the typical Proposed grading concepts drawn at a scale of one inch as ea following shall be submitted for approval, by equals Forty feet or other appropriate the planning commission; scales as may be approved by the director (1) Requirements for side family develop. of planning. The grading Plan shall include the information menu Twenty-five (25) print& of It de. tailed site necessary to determine the location of plan of the specific area in which approval of the development is cuts and fills, the elevation of pads in relation to natural proposed. The area plan shall be drawn to contours, the nature of proposed grading concepts, scale and indicate clearly the following: natural features (trees, rock outcrop. a. Average lbt size for each sin le g Pings, eta) that will be preserved and revisions to the family residential area. natural' hydrology and unique engineering features b. Typical building siting on individual con- temPlated by the developer, lots. b. Twenty-five (25) Prints of a land. a Provisions for public and private open scaping Plan which is drawn to scale space. and indicates dearly the location, d. Provisions for Pedestrian, bicycle and nature and extent of all plant materi• als including vehicular circulation includinga of ingress and egress, Program for their Preservation and maintenance both wring and after construction. e. Location of Perimeter walls. (c) Grading and building permits. Prior to I Any other information which may theissuance of grading or building permits required by the director of planning, drawn t� scale. She fi al. emitted land (2) Requirements for commercial and multi• approved by the Planning department. The family development: Twenty-five (25)' Planning department shall approve the final Prints of a site plan which is drawn to scale and indicates clearly the following: grating Plans only if they are in substantial conformance with a. Lot or site dimensions, plans previously approved by the planning commission. In the absence b. All buildings and structures to is of previous approval by the planning tom, mission the approval of the final -, dnde location size, height and pro posed use. grading plan shall be granted by the director of a Walls and fences to include location, planning if he determines that it is in conformance with the Policies of these district height and materials regulations, (Ord. No. 96. § 15.5, 2.26.74) d. Oil -street parking. Sea V,E-249. Erosion control. e. Circulation for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles including All manufactured slopes shall be planted or points of otherwise Protected from the effects of storm 4662 City of rgbwport Beach . I ZONING run-off and erosion within thirty (30) days after completion of grading. Extensions may be granted by the director of community development. Planting shall be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain and the ' character of development. (Ord. No. 96, § 15.6, 2.26-74; Ord. No. 185, § 13, 2-&77) I I I I r [1 I I I 1 Sec. V.E-250. Appeal. The decision of tl shall be final unless the city council. (Ord. e planning commission appealed in writing to No. 96, § 15.7, 2.26.74) Secs. V.E-251, V.E-252. Reserved. Supp. No. 5 ARTICLE h. SEISMIC HAZARD OVERLAY "SH" DISTRICT Sec. V.E-253. Purpose. The purpose of the Seismic Hazard Overlay District is to protect life and property in the City of Irvine from the hazards of seismic activity and to set requirements for the level of earthquake consideration that must be incorporated into development proposals prior to design and construction. (Ord. No. 96, § 16.1, 2-26.74) Sec. V.E-254. Uses permitted. All uses permitted in the underlying district are permitted subject to the obtaining of a conditional use permit approved by the Planning commission. (Ord. No. 96, § 16.2, 2-2fr74) Sec. V.E-255. Site development stan- dards. (a) All the development standards and requirements sei forth in the underlying zone shall be complied with (b) Standards and requirements in excess of those' in the underlying zone may be required in the conditional use permit to mitigate possible seismic related impacts. (Ord. No. 96, § 16.3, 2.26.74) Sec. V.E-256. Geological soils investiga- tion. (a) All applications for a conditional use permit in the SH District shall be accom- panied by a combined in-depth geologic and soils investigation prepared by a registered geologist, certified by the State of California as an engineering geologist, and by a licensed civil engineer qualified in soil mechanics. (b) Required geologic and soils investiga- tions shall be based on the following consid: erations: (1) Adequate geologic mapping, trenching and boring to determine that surface fault- ing and ground breakage has not occurred on the site, and is unlikely to occur in the future; (2) Adequate boring and field and laboratory testing to determine accurately the sub• surface profile and the static/dynamic properties of the soil/rock materials: 460 , City of Newport rseacn f �•42x MVM. CODE (3) Thorough regional studies of all possible ARTICLE L WILDLIFE HABITAT AND t causative faults and fault systems which NATURAL VEGETATION OVERLAY _ could generate motions at the site; "WV" DISTRICT (4) Studies to determine the character of ground motions at, the site; Sec. V.E-260. Purpose. (5) Calculation of design response spectra based The purpose of the "WV" District is to provide for the continued availability of land on utpetition and on structural' Properties (damping. ductility for the conservation of natural resources and (6) Careful dynamic design of cohesive strut- the preservation and protection of wildlife habitat areas and areas with significant tures with each dement working as a natural vegetation as limited resources. (Ord part of the entire structural system; No. 96. § 1 7.1, 2.26.74), (7) Thorough study the ways in which the di structure might disassemble it it were t See V.E-261. Uses permitted subject to fail. and the inclusion of redundantt a conditional use permit backup features to control disassembly so All uses permitted in the anderlying zone that outright collapse cannot occur, and shall be Permitted in the "WV" District (A) Design of anchorage and bracing for all subject to the obtaining of a conditional use criticsl instrucsure systems (examples; Emergency power. hest, light. permit approved by the planning enmmis• aion (Ord No: 96. § I72 2.2G741 oxygen supply, eta), based on factors derived from dynamic analysis, providing gener- See V.E-262. Site development Stan. ous and conservative safety factors. The dards manufactured equipment and appur• (a) All the development standards and tenances purchased for such a facility requirements set forth in the underlying zone should be designed likewise. (Ord No. 96, shalt brcomplied with. § 16.4, 2.26.74) (b) Additional standards for development See V.E-257. Cost. may be required in the conditional use permit to insure that modification to existing natu- A11 cost and expenses incurred as a result ral vegetation and any disturbance of the of the requirements of this article, including terrain and natural land features are compat- the cost and expense of an independent ible with adjacent areas, and will result in a review of the material submitted hereunder by minimum disruption to the wildlife habitat qualified persons retained by the city shall be and natural vegetation on the site. (Ord No. borne by the applicant for the conditional use 96. § 17.3. 2.26.74) permit. (Ord. No. 96, § 16-5. 2.26.74) sea V.E•263. Cost Sea. V.E-25& V.E-259. Reserved. All costs and expenses incurred as a result of the requirements of this article including the cost and expenses of an independent review of the material submitted hereunder by qualified persons retained by the city shall be borne by the applicant for the conditional use permit. (Ord No. 96, § 17.4. 2.26.74) = Seca. V.E-264, V.E-265. Reserved. I Sapp Na 3 4664 66 City of Newport Beach LINTY OF CAM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING July 6, 1983 I I Paul Knopf, Community Planner Office of Physical Planning University of California - Irvine Administration Building, Room 426 Irvine, CA 92717 IDear Mr. Knopf: FILE • MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA AN A, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702.4048 TELEPHONE: (714)834-4643 Recently we heard that the University was interested in the County's plans for the possible expansion of Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill and its impact on the proposed facility housing project being considered by the University. Attached is a copy of the Notice of Preparation of an EIR on the landfill expansion which contains background material on what this project is all about. If you have concerns that you believe should be included in the landfill EIR, please let us know. Also attached is a copy of the summary of issues identified to date that will be 1 included in the landfill EIR. These issues were discussed at the landfill EIR prepreperation meeting held on June 16, 1983. Had we know you were interested in this project we would have invited you to this meeting. There is of course still ample opportunity to learn more about the proposed landfill expansion. An EIR scoping meeting on this project will be held in the near future in the Irvine area. We will send you a notice of this meeting. We are adding your name to the mailing list on this project. If you have any questions on the landfill expansion EIR, please do not hesitate to call Robert Rusby of the Division staff. Very truly yours, F. W. Olson, Manager ' Environmental Analysis Division RPR:jkj 1 Attachments cc,: Frank Bowerman - GSA/Waste Management Mitch Brown - PBR 1 Pny or iN4eWport Beach MURRAYSTORM OIRECTOR, EMA RECEIVED JON 2 7 1983 ROBERT G. FISHER O F DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA G E MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702.4048 VIFlONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING TELEPHONE: (7 t4(E344643 June 23, 1983 FILE Fern Pirkle, President Friends of the Irvine Coast 1038 White Sails Way Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Ms. Pirkle: On August 12, 1983 the Environmental Management Agency sent you a Notice of Preparation (NOP) that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be prepared an the proposed expansion of the County's Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Because of a number of delays, EMA is just now in the process of preparing the landfill EIR. Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to let you know that the landfill EIR is being processed and solicit any comments you have on issues that should be included in the landfill EIR. All the information sent with the original NOP is attached so you may refamiliarize yourself with this project. If you have any questions on the project, please call Robert Rusby of the Division staff at (714) 834-2070. RP R: j kj Attachments Very truly yours, F. W. Olson,( Manager Environmental Analysis Division 68 L'ity of Newport Beach J I 1 I I I I I I HMO DATE: ® F850-123.1 June 16, 1983 DEFT/DiST: EMA/EAD - Initial Studies a FROM SUBJECT: Coyote Canyon Landfill Expansion EIR - Coastal T}1e EIR for the expansion of the Coyote Canyon Landfill should include the fpllowina items: Project Description to A complete discussion of the scope and purpose'of the expansion o A discussion of any land use approvals required for the Coyote Canyon expansion (e.g. Land Use Element (LS) overlay, zoning approvals) Surrounding Land Uses Section o A graphic and textual description of existing and planned land uses surrounding Coyote Canyon Landfill Relevant Planning Section o A discussion of existing (agency) plans and programs which impact the Coyote Canyon expansion (e.g. County General Plan, County Maste Manage- ment Plan). o Discussion of long-term land uses planned for Coyote Canyon (if applicable) and their relationship to existing County and City plans. Al ternative Section o This section should include a comprehensive examination of project alterna- tives examination of project alternatives including but not limited to alternative landfill site and grading area locations and waste disposal alternatives. Should you or the EIR consult have any questions regarding the above items or ' wish to discuss these items at a separate meeting, please contact Michael Ruane at 834-5380. MR:crn cc: Bryan Speegle I 1 City of Newport Beach ® FOM12I TO FROM DATE: June 16, 1983 DEFT/DisT: EMA/EAD - Initial Studies - Boas sueJECT: Coyote Canyon Landfill Expansion EIR The EIR for the expansion of the Coyote Canyon Landfill should include the fol-lowing items: Project Description o A complete discussion of the scope and purpose of the expansion o A discussion of any land use approvals required for the Coyote Canyon expansion (e.g. Land Use Element (LS) overlay, zoning approvals) Surrounding Land Uses Section o A graphic and textual description of existing and planned land uses surrounding Coyote Canyon Landfill Relevant Planning Section o A discussion of existing (agency) plans and pro'jrams which impact the Coyote Canyon expansion (e.g. County General Plan, County Maste Manage- ment, Plan). o Discussion of long-term land for Coyote Canyon (if uses planned applicable) and their relationship to existing County and City plans. _ Al ternative Section o This section should include a comprehensive examination of project alterna- tives examination of project alternatives including but not limited to alternative landfill site and grading area locations and waste disposal alternatives. Should you or the EIR consult have any questions regarding the above items or wish to discuss these items at a separate meeting, please contact Michael Ruane at 834-5380'. ' MR:crn cc: Bryan Speegle r r 70 City of Newport Beach 1 MEMO ® F8641Y3.1 County of Orange DATE: June 16, 1983 1 TO- Robert Rusby, Chief DEFT/DisT: EMA/EAD - Initial Studies FROM: Patrick Lee Chief L EMA/land Planning - Coastal SUBJECT: COYOte Canyon Landfill Expansion EIR _ 1 The EIR for the expansion of the Coyote Canyon Landfill should include the following items: Project Description o A complete discussion of the scope and purpose of the expansion o A discussion of any land use approvals required for the Coyote Canyon ' expansion (e.g. Land Use Element (LS) overlay, zoning approvals) Surrounding Land Uses Section ' o A graphic and textual description of existing and planned land uses surrounding Coyote Canyon Landfill Relevant Planning Section o A discussion of existing (agency) plans and programs which impact the Coyote Canyon expansion (e.g. County General Plan, County Maste Manage- ment Plan). o Discussion of long-term land uses planned for Coyote Canyon (if applicable) and their relationship to existing County and City plans. Alternative Section o This section should include a comprehensive examination of project alterna- tives examination of project alternatives including but not limited to alternative landfill site and grading area locations and waste disposal Ialternatives. Should you or the EIR consult have any questions regarding the above items or ' wish to discuss these items at a separate meeting, please contact Michael Ruane at 834-5380. MR:crn cc: Bryan Speegle 'I I J 1 City of Newport Beach WALTER S. RADOS 5672 Highgate Terrace Irvine, California 192715 October 29, 1982 !� L5 L7 IS U L'1 L5 I II I The Honorable Larry Agran lfU Nov J 3 1��2 I� Mayor or Irvine _Irvine, California 92714 CITY OF IRVIIVE Dear Sir: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE - ,moo^ �r .. �•I �1 L ice•"' On Tuesday evening, September 28, 1982, you spoke at the Northwood's Community Association meeting regarding the proposed landfill site at Bee Canyon. You stated that you have recommended that the Coyote Canyon Dump continue to operate and implied that the residents of Turtle Rock are willing to allow the Coyote Canyon Landfill to remain open for an indeterminate amount of time. Your statement was both irresponsible as well as ridiculous. Let me assure you that the residents want the dump closed. Your statements seem to indicate that the City is lobbying for an extended usage of the Coyote Canyon site. We are opposed to our tax dollars being used to finance the City's effort to keep the dump open. Since the noxious odors continue to adversely impact the communities adjacent to the Coyote Canyon site, the dump site should be moved to a location where the prevailing ocean winds do not blow the odor towards an adjacent neighborhood, but away from the population. To obtain a clarification of the City's position regarding the Coyote Canyon Dump, would you please respond to the following questions: 1. When will the dump be closed? 2. What program has been implemented to eliminate the offensive odors? 3. What enforcement procedures have been implemented? 4. Does the City of Irvine and the County of Orange intend to make it a requirement that the Irvine Company inform all prospective new home buyers in the Village of Turtle Rock of the noxious odors that prevades the atmosphere? Specifically, will the Irvine Company be required to advise potential buyers in the new development at Turtle Rock Ridge of these noxious odors and the adverse economic impact these odors will have on their property? , 5. Does the City of Irvine and the County of Orange intend to make it a requirement that all buyers be informed of the unhealthful environment that exists due to the Coyote Canyon Dump? Al /�/✓ Uty of Newport Beech 1 The Honorable Larry Agran Mayor of Irvine October 29, 1982 ' Page 2 rYour immediate response to the above questions is requested. .However, please do not respond by saying that the odor problem is I under control, because as we write this letter in the patio)! of our Turtle Rock home, the smell from the dump is readily discernible. Very truly yours, Mr. & Mrs. Walter S. Rados /vb ' cc: Irvine City Council✓ Irvine Company Turtle Rock Terrace Community Association Supervisor Riley I 11 I 1 73 City of Newport Beach WE 1DWM� N G E ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 180 SOUTH WATER STREET '.0. 80X $6, ORANGE, CAL IFORNIA12666-0086 17141 538.3651 i September 24, 1982 LARRY J.•HOLMS I DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED ARE OF ORANGE COUNTY AND THE CITIES CYPRESS IRVINE LA PALMA LOS ALAMITOS PLACENTIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO TUSTIVILLA ' • ILIA PARK YORSA LINDA r r Environmental Management Agency Regulation Division 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 Subject: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion We have reviewed this application and we have no comments or conditions at this time, Sincerely, Gene Hutain Fire Protection Planner GH:AP:vm r 1 r i r 74 UI Ly ofmN&vvVwtl�Beach 1 September 22, 1982 SEP 2 4 1582 Kenneth E. Smith, Manager ORANGE COUNTY HAA Environmental Analysis Division ENyIR6gt4EXTALMALYS*OW. Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA, 92702 rlie: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion, Notice of Prep- aration of an Environmental Impact Report EIR . Dear Mr. Smith: The City of Irvine, Department of Community Development, has ' reviewed the subject Notice of Preparation and has found it to be quite comprehensive. However, to insure that all concerns of the City of Irvine are addressed the following comments axe submit- ted: 9A 1. CITY OF IRVINE GENERAL PLAN The City's Land Use Element designates the proposed expansion site for the following uses: open space, golf course., and estate and rural residential. Because the proposed grading plan will change the ultimate land configuration, describe how the proposed project will affect Irvine's General Plan and future land uses? How will the existing phasing of development be impacted? How has the County coordinated with the landowner and local jurisdictions to -assure compatibility of land uses? All three grading plan alternatives should be analyzed. Identify which has least impact on planned uses and the City's General Plan. 1 C&D 2. TOPOGRAPHICAL CHANGES a. The Notice of Preparation indicates that the proposed grading plan or combination of grading plans may require ' a change in the topography, particularly the destruction of existing ridgelines. Identify what ridgelines may 'be,destroyed and relate the plan to Irvine's Hillside Ordinance. Discuss all ' alternatives to the destruction of these ridgelines and related impacts. b. The Notice of Preparation also mentions that the ' existing landfill has been used for the uncontrolled dumping of debris by contractors for projects unrelated to the operation of the landfill. What measures will be taken to stop or mitigate uncontrolled dumping? How will this be enforced? 1 .^ (. of ;: \'t'If i ...,. _ . „! :... �".. .. rrl G� �' 1�;:?7. �. �... _. _ :. . _ _ i;�•% :�•_n: 1 Lity of Ne, 75 port beacn Kenneth E. Smit) September 22, 19v1 Page 2 1 MG c. As stated in the Notice of Preparation , the Irvine General Plan Seismic Element shows the site in Seismic Response Area (SPA) 4, with the west section in SPA 3. Because the grading plan could create an increase in landslide potential, what mitigation measur'es will be proposed to ensure the safety of people operating or visiting the landfill? iA 3. AIR QUALITY ` The Notice of Preparation mentions that the disposal of waste materials including sewage sludge has been known to cause odors to eminate from the landfill. These odors are objec- tionable to residents, particularly in Turtle Rock. What mitiga- tion measures -will be used to reduce or eliminate landfill odors which impact Irvine residents? How will the sewage sludge be processed? Specific operational procedures should be discussed in detail. , 3 ME 4. WATER QUALITY It is discussed in the Notice of Preparation that the grading process may cause changes in soil absorption rates and drainage patterns. Specifically, landfill drainage devices may be unable to control surface water runoff and runoff of flood waters into neighboring bodies of water such as Newport Bay and San Joaquin Reservoir. This may lead to contamination. Discuss thoroughly all rela-ted impacts and list all possible mitigation measures to ensure slope stability. Also discuss any re -charge system to hold and transfer ground water. Discuss how the pro- posed project will impact the 208 Water Program, particularly Impacts to Upper Newport Bay. 5. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS , 4C" a. Insects and other vectors have been carried in with the material deposited in the landfill, as stated in the Notice of Preparation. Because these pests could create a health hazard for surrounding residents, describe all mitigation mea- sures which will be used to eliminate this health hazard. With no current daily cover of landfill deposits, how will odors and resultant pests be controlled? AE b. The proposed landfill expansion could cause a change in patterns of migrating animals and resident wildlife. Address all impacts the proposed landfill expansion will have on wildlife and list all possible alternatives and mitigation mea- sures. , 6. TRAFFIC l0A As stated in the Notice of Preparation, landfill operations will result In the need for continued vehicular traf- fic on roadways in the vicinity of the landfill. This traffic will continue to impact Bonita Canyon Road, especially between City OT iwwpOfi neacn Kenneth E. Smit September 22, 1982 ' Page 3 MacArthur Boulevard and Coyote Canyon Road. Include in the draft ' EIR the scope and magnitude of anticipated traffic volumes. Describe types of vehicles that will use the road and what types of roadway improvements will need to be made to accommodate increased traffic. How will these improvements be financed? Also, how will these changes in traffic affect neighboring land uses, e.g., agriculture? List mitigation measures. Also discuss the impacts of the proposed Pelican Hills Road which would pass through a portion of the landfill. List project scope, location of roadway, changes in grading, traffic volumes and related impacts. 10C Because the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will be constructed in close proximity to the landfill, any impacts related to landfill access, traffic volumes, and con- struction should be discussed. The opportunity to comment on this project is appreciated. Please keep us informed on the progress of the draft EIR. Sincer y, Y HOGLE irector of Community Development LH:amg 211-104/CDD F 77 L I 1 City of Newport Beach L STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 (213) 590-5113 EDMUND G ecnwu . September 21, 1982 Robert Rnsby r County of Orange Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 , Dear Mr. Rusby: We have reviewed the Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIR for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Expansion. To enable our staff to adequately review and comment on this project we recommend that the following information be included in the document: 1. r 2. Documentation of the direct, indirect, and cumulat;.ve impacts which would adversely affect biotic resources within and adjacent to the r project site. We recommend that the document include a.I assessment of potential impacts that affect biotic resources by the grading and excavation of borrow areas. In addition, we believe CEEQA requires a discussion within the EIR of specific mitigation measures that the County proposes to implement. ' 3. Any diversion of the natural flow or alteration of the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake will require notification (fee) to the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 1601 of the , Fish and Game Code. This notification and the subsequent agreement must be completed prior to commencement of the diversion or alteration. We request that any such notification include a copy of the Final EIR. ' This state law may require significant changes in project features associated with streams or streambeds. Fbr this reason, we strongly urge compliance with this code section prior to finalization of the , specific project design. 1 City of Ne ftort Beach I Robert Rusby -2- September 21, 1982 4. An assessment of potential impacts to regional and local biotic resources that could occur from implementation of Flans A, B, and C (as described in the Initial Study). We may prefer selection of j Alternative C because it would provide the County a^role time to i investigate and select a method of disposing urban waste without further destruction of wildlife habitat. 5. A discussion of future use of the landfill site when it is phased out. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Jack L. Spruill or Kris Lal of our Fhviron- mental Services staff at (213) 590-5137. Sincerely, Fred A. Ybrthley Jr. Regional Manager Region 5 cc: Office of Flarnin g & Research City of Newport Beach . 6101 wIF CALIFORNIA—NEMIN AND WEEFAF' 4GENCY 'EDMVND G BROWN 1R. Gevern, PARTMENT OF HEALTH StRVICES 2131 RERKE:EY WAY , IERKEIEY, CM 94704 415/540-2665r September 16, 1982 1 Mr. Robert Rusby % ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MMAGMENT AGENCY Post Office Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702 SUBJECT: Orange County's NOP for Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion - SCH #82082004 Dear Mr. Rusby: 1 The Department has reviewed the subject environmental document and offers , the following comments. In response to your Notice of Preparation, I am enclosing a document pre- pared by the Office of Noise Control entitled, "Guidelines for Noise Study Reports as Part of Environmental Impact Reports", which provides some gen- eral guidelines as to what the office considers important in EIRs. In addition to the concerns expressed in the County's Environmental Analysis, the EIR should describe the noise impacts of trash trucks upon residential I / areas adjacent to the routes used by'those trucks. ' If you have any questions or need further information concerning these comments, please contact Dr. Jerome Lukas of the Office of Noise Control ' at 2151 Berkeley Nay, Room 6130 Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665. 40 poord e S. Lukas, Ph.D. inator OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL Enclosure ' cc: EHD SCH ' City of Ilewport Beach 1 I Guidelines for Noise Study Reports as Part of Environmental Impact Reports California Office of Noise Control California Department of Health Services 2151 Berkeley Way Berkeley, California 94704 May 1982 Because complaints about environmental noise are so frequent, the Office of Noise Control recommends that every project with a potential for increasing environmental noise levels or which may be affected by existing or future noise sources should have a Noise Study Report. This report assesses how noise levels associated with the project may affect people. The infor- mation contained in the Noise Study Report should be summarized in the Environmental Impact Report or Environmental Impact Statement, and kept on file by the lead agency for review by those with a specific interest in noise. The attached is designed to help those who prepare Noise Study Reports and Environmental Impact Reports and reviewers of Environmental Impact Reports. Because there are so many different combinations of noise sources and receivers (people impacted by those sources), it is virtually impossible to develop guidelines that cover all situations. Nevertheless, the guidelines should help to bring some consistency to the way noise information is presented in environ- mental documents. City of Newport Beach I 0. Summarization of Noise Study Reports in Environmental ' Impact Reports or Statements Information included in the Environmental Impact Report or Statement should be a summary of the noise study. The following information must be included: A. Maps showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses and noise sources identified. Pertinent distances should be noted. B. A description of the existing noise environment. C. The change -in the noise environment for each project alternative. D. A discussion of the impacts for the alternatives. E. A discussion of the compatibility of the project with the applicable Noise Element of , the General Plan or the most applicable noise laws or ordinances. F. A discussion of mitigation measures, clearly identifying the locations and number of People affected when mitigation is not feasible. G. Statements of: (1) where to obtain a copy of the Noise Study Report from which the information was taken (or the Noise Study Report may be included as an appen- dix, and (2) the name of the consultant who conducted the Noise Study if it was not , conducted by the author of the Environmental Impact Report. n L 77 L �n Ld LJ 11 In u City of Newport Beach ONC 5/92 1 I -z- 4. Frequency spectrum of sources (113 octave band data are preferable). 5. Any unusual characteristics of the sources (impulsiveness, tonality, etc.). C. Method used to predict future levels. 1. Reference to the prediction model used, if standard (e.g., FHWA-RD-77.108, etc.). 1. If corrections to a standard model are made or empirical- modeling is used, state the procedure in -detail. 3. Show typical levels (e.g., Lt, Lto, etc.) at the receptors. 4. Give any other data yieldedby the model you used. D. Contours of future levels should be included (down to Ldn 55 where applicable), and superimposed over projected population (receptor) densities. V. Impact A. Quantify anticipated changes in the noise environment by comparing ambient infor. mation with estimated source emissions. Evaluate the changes in light of applicable standards. B. Discuss how this project relates to the Noise Element of the applicable general plan. C. Discuss the anticipated effects of increased noise levels (speech interference, sleep disturbance, disruption of wildlife habitat, etc.). VI. Mitigation A. Discuss how adverse noise impacts can be mitigated, suggesting alternative tech. niques for mitigation, their relative effectiveness, and feasibility of implementation. Provide a table listing the most and least effective techniques. For this table, effectiveness should be defined in terms of the number of people being exposed to noise at some given level. B. Responsibility for effectuating the mitigation measures should be assigned. C. Discuss any noise impacts that cannot be mitigated, and why mitigation is not feasi. ble. 1 City of Newport Bead ONC 5182 I Suggested Contents of a Noise Study Report I. A brief description of the project in terms of its effect on the noise environment and a description of the existing noise environment and its impact upon the project (homes near freeway, for J a example). 11. Two scale maps -- one showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent ' land uses, receptors, and noise sources identified, and the second map showing the future condition (use a time span of no less than 10 years, unless the project's life span is less) with the proposed project and proposed land uses, receptors, and noise sources identified. ' Ill. A detailed survey of the existing noise environment. A. The noise survey should encompass the proposed proiect area and must include any noise sensitive receptors, both near and far. The survey should establish the exist- ' ing ambient noise level which may then be used to evaluate compliance of the pro- posed project with applicable noise standards. The standards should be local (city, county) but in their absence state or federal standards may be used The rationale , for the selection of noise survey sites should be included in the report. B. The survey should cover the time periods when the noise environment may be affected by the proposed project. C. The survey should encompass enough days to be representative of the existing "nor- mal" noise environment. Discussion of the similarity or dissimilarity of the noise environment during the survey period with that during other times of the year should'beincluded. ' D. For the time periods measured, the reported noise data should include the L« Lt, LID, Lye, 1.90, and identification of typical noise levels emitted by existing sources. ]f day and night measurements are made, report the Ld, also. Ldo is approximately equal to CNEL; either descriptor may be used. It is imperative that the descriptor conform to that used in the appropriate standard. E. summarize the present environment by providing.a noise contour map showing lines ' of equal noise level in 5 dB steps, extending down to Ldn — 60. In quiet areas lower contours should be shown also. F. identify the noise measurement equipment used in the survey by manufacturer, ' type, and date of last calibration. IN'. A description of the future noise environment for each project alternative. The scope of the analysis and the metrics used will depend on the type of project, but as a minimum , the following information must be provided: A. Discussion of the type Of noise sources and their proximity to potentialll impacted areas. ' B. Operations/activity data: 1. Average daily level of activity (traffic volume, flights per day. hours on per day, etc.). 2. Distribution of activity o%er day and nighttime periods, days of the %eek, and seasonal variations. 3. Composition of noise sources (% trucks, aircraft fleet ' mix, machinery type, etc.). 84 City of Newport Beach oNC 5/82 1 0 rO arrociarl ------------ 600 touth Commonwealth Rvenue • Juite 1000 • Lor Rngeler • California . 90005 . 213/385-1000 DATE: September 14, 1982 to: Mr. Ken E. Smith, Manager Environmental Management Agency P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Metropolitan Clearinghouse SUBJECT: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion SCAG File Number: OR-20473-NP Thank you for submitting the Notice to Prepare the environmental document for the referenced project for SCAG review. SCAG staff does not have comments at this time but ,looks forward to reviewing the environmental document when available. Sincerely, /;' )/,a, � a., t" U5 MARK ,ALPERS Clearinghouse Official MA:wp SE F 21 1982 City of N85 ewport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BUX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663.3884 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2197 September 14, 1982 Robert Rusby Environmental Analysis Division Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 I I SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental ' Impact Report "Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion" Dear Mr. Rusby: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment on the above subject Notice of Intent. The City wishes to express its thanks to you for the cooperation we have received from the Environmental Management Agency related to this project. The following comments are offered related to the Initial study and contents of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR): Comments Residential areas in the City of Newport Beach are closest to the project area. Potential borrow sites I and II are immediately adjacent to the City. Staff feels that residents of our community will be the most directly impacted by the project, although from your exhibits it appears that the entire project falls outside of the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach. 1. The Draft EIR should indicate existing conditions in terms of: a. Land Use b. Public Improvements c. City boundaries d. City and'Codnty General Plans e. City and County Zoning f. City Spheres of Influence g. Special District and Agency Jurisdictions 2. The Draft EIR should evaluate if the project will impact local air quality in the areas of the City of Newport Beach adjacent to potential borrow site. 3. The Draft EIR should discuss any impacts of the project on San Diego Creek and other drainage ares of the Upper Newport Lay Ecological Reserve. The compatibility of the project with the City of Irvine, Newport Beach, County of Orange and State of California cooperiUve projects for the Upper Newport Bay Reserve needs to be discussed. SEr i 3300 Newport w Boulevard, Neport Beach VILy L 86 1Nui L PUMA i ,- ti. I ' Robert Rusby ' 9/14/62 Page 2 ' 4, The impact on water quality in the San Joaquin Hills Reservoir should to be 'addressed and mitigated if necessary. ' 5. As previously indicated the Draft EIR needs to address General Plans, zoning and policies of the City of Newport Beach. Page 4, Item'9A & 9B of -the Initial Study should be incorporated in the Draft EIR and expanded to include the City of Newport Beach. Since borrow site I is ' completely within the City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence a discussion seems most appropriate. 6. We agree that the project will result in exposing residents of Spyglass Hill in the City of Newport Beach to an unaesthetic view. This should also be expanded to include possible impacts on residents of Harbor View Knolls, Harbor Ridge, and Seawind in the City of Newport Beach. ' Measures to mitigate this impact should be addressed and incorporated into any project approval for both the short and long range. 7. The areas within the City of Newport Beach described in No.6 above and ' any other areas that might be impacted by an increased amount of noise from activities should be addressed. S. The transportation and circulation impacts of the project need to be discussed in detail. Existing, planned and committed capacities of all roadways within the vicinity of the project should be discussed. Additionally, any impacts of the project on San Joaquin Hills ' Road, Bonita Canyon Road, future Pelican Hills Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, Ford Road and San Miguel Boulevard need to be ' discussed. 9. The secondary noise impacts of vehicles on highway mentioned in No.8 above should be evaluated and mitigated. ' 10. We would also request that the Draft EIR explore the following alternative. "A combination of the Plan B timeframe (1966) and the Plan C grading plan together with a 2000 TPD refuse -to -energy plant. This would cut the daily capacity of the landfill in half but would ' extend its life sixty years. The Plan C grading plan would be used, but the landfill would be closed in 1986. The land fill would be reopened when an on -site waste -to -energy facility is built with a capacity of approximately half the current capacity of the landfill. Assuming that after 1986 the Plan C grading plan would allow another 3 years of landfilling, the halfing of the capacity coupled with the tenfold decrease in volume achieved by water -to - ' energy processings yields a 60 year landfill life (3x2x10=60)." City of Newport Beach Robert Rusby 9/14/82 Page 3 The City of Newport Beach would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this above alternative with staff of the Environmental Management agency and City of Irvine. We look forward to working with you on this interesting project. t Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT DAMES D. HEWWICKER, Director By.---__ T��� Fred Ta_arlco, Environmental Coordinator FT:kn City of N00 ewport Beach STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND O. BROWN JR., Governor ' AIR RESOURCES BOARD ccgg�� 1102 Q STREET P.O. BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812 _ ' September 13, 1982 Mr. Kenneth E. Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division Environmental Management Agency Orange County P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Smith: ' At your request, we are providing your agency with some suggestions for the preparation of a draft environmental impact report (DEIR). The DEIR is for the proposed continuation of solid waste disposal at the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. The County of Orange is the project proponent. To ensure a thorough analysis of the air quality impacts, we recommend the following information be included in the DEIR. 1. A description of the proposed project which should include: ' a. type of wastes, b. characteristics of the waste including chemical speciation and quantification, toxicity and volatility, c. combustion processes, if any, associated with the facility , ' along with estimated fuel consumption, and d. start-up date and planned expansions (if any). ' 2. A description of the environmental setting before commencement of project construction including: ' a. existing air quality, b. meteorology and topography, c. existing air emission sources adjacent to the proposed facility, and d. population distribution in the area. RECEIVED SEP 1.61982 City of NeWport Beach r-' I - Mr. Smith -2- September 13, 1982 3. An analysis of the potential air quality impacts associated with ' landfilling activities. Both criteria pollutants for which an ambient air qua'lity standard has been established and non -criteria pollutant (chemicals for which no ambient air quality standards ' exist) emissions should be quantified. 4. A discuss ion of mitigation measures and alternatives to minimize the atmospheric emissions. 5. A description of applicable federal, state and local regulations and a discussion of measures to be taken which would allow the , project to comply with these regulations. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. If you have any questions, please contact David Chan or George Lew of my staff at (916) 322-6017 or (916) 322-2886, respectively. Sincerely, Ronald A. Friesen, Chief ' Project Engineering Branch Regional Programs Division , cc: Sanford Weiss, SCAQMD OPR 90 City of Newport Beach i STP -E OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AL .:Y EDMUND G. BROWN J 'r LIrORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION 6609 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 200 ' RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506 PHONE: (714) 684-9330 September 7, 1982 _ Mr. Kenneth E. Smith ' Environmental Analysis Division P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, Ca 92702 Dear Mr. Smith: NOP:_Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion We have reviewed the NOP for this project. The Draft EIR should ' address at least the following issues related to water quality: - Applications or permits required. ' - Impacts on ground water quality. - Impacts on surface water quality. We are specifically interested in short- and long-term leachate control/mitigation measures, interim and final grading plans/erosion- siltation control plans.and impacts on Bonita Creek, San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. Please call if you have any questions. ' Sincerely, L"— Gordon K. Anderson Environmental Specialist ' GKA:kyb RECEIVED ' SEP 8 7982 EIIIA 1 City of Newport Beach MM O 111i IV'vG is"J 1 County of Orange DATE September 2, 1982� Ken E. Smith, Manager A DEPT/DIST: F-"A/Environmental Analysis Division , 40Mf Bryan Speegl_e,_Manager f,n EMA/Advance Plannins,, 3JECT:.NOtice of Preparation fbr.'Coyote Canyon .Landfill Expansion The Land Planning section suggests that environmental documentation for the Coyote Canyon Landfill Expansion include a vicinity map which would allow 1,) more accurate identification of the site's location on the Land Use Element , and Community Profile maps and 2) the relation of the site to existing and planned arterial highways (e.g. San Joaquin Hills Road) and land uses (e.g. Irvine Coast). However, based upon the information submitted, the Land Planning Section has the following comments: 1. The project site is designated for open space and residential uses on the Land Use Element (LUE) and Community Profile and zoned A-1 (Agricul- tural).A general plan amendment and zone change to redesignate the neces- sary existing land fill and expansion site to 4.0 public facilities (Land Use Element) and OS Open Space (Zoning), respectively is appropriate. The borrow sites outside of the actual landfill and expansion area boundaries f should be redesignated as necessary to reflect their ultimate use. A use permit is necessary for the landfill and would be required for grading of the borrow sites if more than 5,000 cubic yards of earth are to be moved. ' The environmental document should address the environmental impacts ultimate land use and of necessary grading. 2. Future construction of arterial highways (e.g. Pelican Hills Road and San ' Joaquin Hills Road) upon a former landfill site (ie. Coyote Canyon) may present a significant safety hazard and maintenance problem which environ- mental documentation for the Coyote Canyon project should address. 5. As mentioned in the Notice of Preparation, impacts of the project (ie, cir- culation, visual, sensory) upon surrounding land uses (ie. existing and pro- ' posed) must be addressed within the environmental document, 4. The project may involve disposal of wet sludge within the landfill. This could have a significant affect upon the quality of Groundwater and surface runoff and may result in adverse aesthetic and safety impacts (odors, addi- tional potential for methane generation). The environmental document needs , to address such impacts and mitigations and alternatives to reduce such impacts. 5. A program which includes methods to reduce solid waste generation and thus lessen the need for expansion of the Coyote Canyon landfill as well as a discussion of alternative landfill site; should be considered in the alter- natives section of the environmental document. ' t City of Newport B%oCA 1 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND NVILDLIFE SE.RVICI: ECOLOGICAL SERVICE>; 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92677 - September 1, 1982 Mr. Kenneth E. Smith Environmental Analysis Division County of Orange P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702 Re: Notices of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Smith: We are unable at this time to respond to your below listed requests for comments due to manpower constraints. This does not preclude input at a later date should significant impacts to public fish and wildlife resources b.n identified, and funding and manpower resources be increased. NOP DEIR 416 Rossmoore Leisure World Area GPA 82-3 and Zone Change 82-38, dated 12 August 1982 NOP DEIR Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion, dated 12 August 1982 NOF DEIR 263 Laguna/Laurel Canyon CPA and Zone Change, dated 20 August 1482 Sincerely yours qaW6� Ralph C. Pisapia Field Supervisor City of Newport Beach County of Orange Ken Smith, Manager TO- Attn: Robert Rusby, FROM DATE: U ruoo-ito.i AUG 311982 ' DEPT/DIST: EMA-EAD EMA-Open Space ecreation Special Districts Frog. Ofc. UBJECT: Notice of Preparation for EIR: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion , File: DR-EIR ' Program staff has received subject N.O.P. and offers 'the following comments: 1. The proposed project site appears to be in close proximity to a proposed open space, conservation and scenic corridor as identified in the Open and Conservation Elements of the General Plan. This open space/recreation/ scenic designation was established to provide critical open space linkages between the University of California at Irvine, Crystal Cove State Park, Laguna -Laurel Canyon Regional Park, etc. (i.e., riding and hiking trails, ' preservation of wildlife habitat and wildlife migration corridors, natural stream courses, native vegetation resources, etc.). To this extent, subject report should include a discussion of potential impacts of subject project upon said corridor, and necessary mitigations to enhance it where appropriate. 2. In light of the concerns identified in item 1 above, the biological section of subject EIR should include a thorough discussion of the impacts of the proposed project on existing wildlife .habitat and vegetation resources. Program staff recommends that a habitat management plan be developed in ' conjunction With subject project along with a habitat restoration and enhancement plan for the existing landfill operation area. 3. Subject EIR should indicate ultimate land use for subject site (i.e., methane recovery station, park, arboretum, etc.). R. F. Tlingard GAM:jnDR800-10 U City of Newport Beach '1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORIA71ON AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN 1R., Ga,,mw ' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90051 (213) 620-5335liar, August 20, 1982 . 07-ORA-999 NOP DEIR for ' Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion ' Mr. Kenneth E. Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division Environmental Management Agency ' P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, Ca 92702 Dear Mr. Smith: ' Caltrans staff have reviewed Notice Of Preparation for the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion DEIR. We are not a Responsible ' Agency. Our only concern is for the traffic on MacArthur Boulevard Since it is presently being used by traffic to the fill site, our only concern is for any increase to traffic to the site. Yery truly yours, / K. D. STEE'E, Chief Environmental Planning & ' Citizen Participation Branch I LJI C RECEIVED AUG 2 61982 FIAA 1 City of NeWport Beach I ;h1to of ralifilritial .'1 "•\ GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH :•�� n 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 GDMUNO G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOA DATE: August 17, 1982 TO: Reviewing Agenci�es�� FROM: Terry Roberts �y"_ 4� M SUBJECT: Orange County's NOP for Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion SCHn 82082004. 1 • 1 1 ,i . 1 Attached for your comment is the Notice of Preparation from Orange County for a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their concerns and comments on the scope and content of the EIR, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 45 days of receipt of this notice. We encourage commenting agencies to respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Robert Rusby Orange County Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 714/834-2070 with a copy to the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the review process, call me at 916/445-0613 attachments cc: v400bert Rusby n P 1I I 1 i 1 1 1 fI 1 1 Citv of Newport Beach 1 0257;IBUTSCM u. SCN 8 2 0 8 2 0 0 4' Air nesoltl Board Yative American 49rita5e Ca.�w. ' 1102 1 Street 1400 Tentn Street Sacramento, CA 95814 O Sacramento, CA 96814 916/322-c010 916/322-7791 Bareara Xieroaw Vier. del C10000 OCoot. of Boating and ':atarnays Office of Historic ?rtsarvation 1629 S Street 12'M r Street .Mail, Third Floor Sao, aomtto. CA 95814 1+ Sacramento, CA 95814 916/322-4165 9lS/=-a703 Gary Hollaay Maurice "Sud- Getty OCalifornia Coastal Commission Door. of Parks and Fetr+.ation $31 Howard Street, 4th Floor O 1220 K Street .Mall, Third Floor San Freneise, CA 94105 Sacramento, CA 9$874 415/5434533 916/445-7067 ' XIS Emerson 6eor" Harsh, Enr. Section OCalifornia Z.Nry C.-teeisslen Public Utilities Coeeaission 1111 Howe Averwe, M :9 m ?tAliistar Street Sacramento. CA 9F.SZ5• 0 San Francisco, CA 94102 916/920-75a 415/557-M Surd 41114r- loom Sherman Caitrans - 0lvisica of Aerrmautia PubiieWors Board ' O 1120 M Street O $30 How Avenue sac:=m to, CA 95814 Sacramento♦ CA Sea$ 916/'?22-9964 916/920-472 ' lsary ully Mai Schorr-= Caltr= - 734rm ma Reclatsaiiort Board 1120 Y Street 1476 Nim *t Street `.J Saeraem.m. CA 95814 ���J// Saermmi=, CA 95314 916/445-3821 9l6/445-3624 Esther 'ft"r, Esv. Prsgr3ee Coord. ftb4rt Batita Oem of Cansarvation S.F. on Bay Consarrasi3 UY't. Cam. 1416 .41= Street. ROM 1.=4 O M vat Yeas Avemm, 9oas 3011 Y Sacramenta, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94102 916/=-U73 415/557 3526 Harry Xrade rank Plosko ' O OM.. of Food and Agriculture Solid '/asta MAnagecrmt Board 1220 Y Street 1020 Yinth Street. Roca•3CC Sad.-amento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 96314 916/=-1992 916/32.-0129 OW Luck* led Fukusilum OCent. of Forestry State Lands Cmmaissien 1416 Yinth Street, Ps. 1506-17 O 1807 - 13m Street Sacramento, CA. 95814 Sacrastanto, CA 95814 ' 9l8,(=-Z996 916/=-i813 Janes Hargrovt John Huddieson ' O Cant. of 30mral Services O State 'watar �scurces Cantrol Boars 1015 L Street 1416 3inth Street Sac.-asxtto. CA 95814• Sacramento. CA ?5814 916/445=A7EA 41r��§1�211 ' Harvey Collins f Cant. of 4e41w 714 P Street, 2cam 40 O Oivlsion of '.ater Mants Sacrsmmto, CA 95814 O 916/311-Z8 Celts Unit Oa-re'Jillia:aat Can Fel%WS O .eat. of Housing 3 Gmwni :/ Cav' _. cot. of meow ;esaurc s ' 321 - iat-T Street. Sty Floor O i416 aintn Street Sac.zgm to. CA 3681s Sac—.-- mtto. CA 95814 316/-4725 ?16/455-7416 uliy OT IVewpnD � PNR Iw t+pvM Drum Iw Rwho Dais: gg OFERT4'.dzn NTY ABGIONAL BRANCH ✓JZ'l�C/ ,(,ti "`+-,/'AZTG/ V Mignolwv/App,m. l ORvdmvnvndatlen 4c Olnvhli,flm In(wmol/m OAUIon OFIIv OCamypr i rywvr�wy� OPiepory Rupmu OCompleb by PM Irp�,vn1 In1,�,1nI ®F550-123.1 1 &0unty of Orange �+ �'+ ��u 0 August 2, 1983 DATE: 06 FDEPT/DIST: . W. Olson, Manager EMA/Environmental Analysis Division 1 ROM: Jerry E. Bennett, Manager EMA/Transportation Planning Division 1 NOP - Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion JBJECT: As requested by Bob Rusby's memo dated June 23, 1983, we have reviewed the 1 above -referenced Notice of Preparation. The County is preparing an EIR to address the impacts of a proposed project to expand the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. 1 We have the following comments regarding circulation and air quality: Circulation 1 o if the daily operations at the landfill increase, the EIR should address increased traffic, especially truck traffic on MacArthur ,Boulevard and the , need for acceleration lanes. o An Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis should be prepared for the 1 MacArthur Boulevard/Bonita Canyon intersection. o The analysis should recognize that increased truck traffic will decrease the pavement life on these arterials. 1 Air Quality o If gases or particulates from the landfill become airbornei the EIR should 1 address the harmful effects and/or objectionable odors created by the landfill. o The EIR should examine whether vehicular traffic associated with the landfill 1 causes a significant increase of air pollutant emissions. cry E. ennett, Manager ran rtation Planning Division RHM:mlt 1 DT08-73(KBR) 1 u LJ 1 F Citv of Newport Beach 1 F II d H 1 1 1 E 1 NOTICE OF SCOPING TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS WILL BE HELD TO HELP DETERMINE TOPICS TO BE ADDRESSED IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE GRADING PLANS FOR THE COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL 1 ONE OR MORE OF THESE PLANS MAY INVOLVE EXPANSION OF THE SITE. t �..� �emmnc.wvaw YMfMT1AM4 �a� e 1 oamw YY M T. 4,Y WHERE/WHEN • Oasis Center • Turtle Rock Community Park Marguerite at Fifth Turtle Rock Drive Corona del Mar, California Irvine, California Tuesday, July 19, 1983 Wednesday, July 20, 1983 7:00 to 10:DO p.m. 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. 1 The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency will conduct two scoping meetings to help determine the issues to be addressed by an Environmental Impact Report on the Coyote Canyon sanitary landfill. The study area will Include the Coyote Canyon landfill and surrounding area located south of Bonita Canyon Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Culver Drive. 1 The meetings are scheduled to afford an opportunity for the public to learn about the alternative currently under study, to advise the County as to the feasibility of these alternatives, and,the anticipated environmental impacts of these alternatives. The County will consider all written comments re- ceived in response to the scoping notice and all testimony received at the 1 scoping meetings in deciding the issues that will be covered in the EIR. Failure to participate in the scoping process or to comment on the scope and content of the envi rommental document shalt be considered agreement with the Project description, list of possible significant environmental impacts, and 1 other scoping matters contained in this notice on which no comment is received. An initial study (Environmental Assessment) has been completed on the proposed alternative grading plans for the Coyote Canyon landfill. It is anticipated that approval of one of these alternatives could have an impact on the follow- ing environmental factors: Landform, air quality, water quality, biological resources, cultura7/scientific resources, aesthetics, land use, transportation/ 1 circulation systems, housing, public health and safety, noise, and public services and utilities. This initial study and other project information is available for inspection at the County's Envi Ponmental Management Agency, Environmental Analysis Divi- 1 sion, 400 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California. Written and oral statements from any interested person or group regarding the proposed landfill improvements will be received at the EIR scoping meetings for entry into the official transcript. Written comments on environmental concerns to be covered in the EIR will be accepted until 4:00 p.m. August 8, 1983. Comments and any questions on the EIR should be sent to Mr. Robert Rusby, EMA Environmental Analysis Division, Post Office Box 4048, Santa Ana, California 92702-4048, 714/834-2070. 1 Submitted by: F.N. Olson, Manager EMA Environmental Analysis Division 1 city 01 1'4 102 INui L DtaaLh INFORMATION BULLETIN FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL EIR The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency will conduct two scoping meetings to help determine the topics to be addressed'in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for alternative grading plans for the Coyote Canyon sanitary landfill, one or more of which may involve expansion of the site. The EIR will evaluate the landfi'll study area which is generally located south of Bonita Canyon Road, east of MacArthur Boulevard and west of Culver Drive. The meetings are scheduled to afford an opportunity for the public to learn about the alternatives currently under study, to advise the County as to the feasibility of these alternatives, and the anticipated environmental impacts of such alternatives. The County has indicated that all written comments, as well as discussions at the scoping meetings, will be considered in deciding issues to be covered in the EIR. Interested parties are invited to attend one of two meetings being held in the area. The first hearing will be held at the Oasis Center, Marguerite at Fifth, Corona del Mar, California on Tuesday, July •19, 1983, 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. The second will be held at Turtle Rock Community Park, on Turtle Rock Drive, Irvine, California on Wednesday, July 20, 1983, 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. Any comments or questions on the landfill EIR should be sent to Mr. Robert Rusby, EMA Environmental Analysis Division, Post Office Box 4048, Santa Ana, California 92702-4048. Maps and a scale model of a proposed alternative will be available at.the meeting and presentations will be made jointly by County staff and their consultants. 103 I I i I I C t I City of Newport Beach I I I I I I i I 1 I L 1 I 1 1 1 1 I H H • y - Coyote landfill= expansion; hearings to begin tonight, J Public hearings to discuss pose_ ible expansion of the Coyote Canyon Landfill in Irvine will be held tonight and Wednesday night. The first hearing will run from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. today at the Oasis Center at Marguerite and Fifth streets in Corona del Mar. On Wednesday, the hearing will begin at 7 p.m. at Turtle Rock Conunu"i'y Park on Turtle Rock Drive in Irvine. The hearings are called scoping' sessions. They arerequired by the . state as the first step inproducing environmental impact reports. Orange County's Environmen-; tal Management Agency is under-' taking the environmental report; to cover alternative grading plans forte landfill. 2 The Irvine World News/July 14, 1983 Future of landfill rests with pdblic meetings The future of Coyote Ca- nyon sanitary landfill, just south of the Irvine city limits near the San Joaquin Reservoir, will be discussed in public meetings Tuesday and Wednesday, July 19 and 20. Sponsored by Orange County's Environmental Management Agency, the meetings will "he tp deter- mine topics co be addressed in an Environmental Im- pact Report" concerningg grading plans for the Ian d. fill, according to county spokesmen. Coyote Canyon, south of Bonita Canyon Road, east of MacArthur Boulevard, and west of Culver Drive, serves this area as a county dumpsite. The first hearing will be City of Newport atjdU held at the Oasis Center, Marguerite at Fifth, Cor- ona del Mar, Tueday even- ing at 7 p.m. The second will be held at Turtle Rock Community Park, 1 Sun- nyhill, Wedneday evening at 7. The meetings have been scheduled to allow the public to learn about the alternatives currently under study; to advise the county on the feasibility of these alternatives, and to ascertain anticipated en- vironmental impacts of such alternatives, county EMA spokesmen say. Written remarks as well as comments made at the meetings will be considered in deciding EIR issues, they add. UNTY OP D/39 FLANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT -AGENCY PLANNING July 7, 1983 Dear Association President: MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT O. FISHER DIRECTOR OFPLANNING LOCATION.� 817 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. SOX 40411 SANTA ANA, CA 92702,40411 ' TELEPHONE: (7141 834.4643 This letter is to notify you and your homeowners' association of a public meeting to be held by the County of Orange. The purpose of the meeting is to help determine the topics to be covered in an Environmental Impact Report for alternative grading plans for Orange County's Coyote Canyon sanitary land- fill. One or more of these grading plans may involve expansion of the site. The meetings are scheduled to afford an opportunity for the public to learn about the proposed alternatives currently under study and to advise the County as to the feasibility of these alternatives, as well as their anticipated environmental impacts. The County will consider all written comments received in response to this scoping notice and at the scoping meetings in deciding the issues to be addressed in the EIR. We encourage you to notify your members of the meeting dates shown below and invite your attendance.. Meetings will also be scheduled to present the findings of the Draft Environmental Impact Report prior to public hearings on this matter. These meetings will occur in the Fall of 1983. Any questions can be directed to Mr. Robert Rusby, Orange County EMA Environmental Analysis Division, Post Office Box 4048, Santa Ana, California 92702-4048, telephone number (714), 834-2070. Scoping Meetings: July 19, 1983, 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. at the Oasis Senior Center, Marguerite at Fifth, Corona del Mar, California July 20, 1983, 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. at Turtle Rock Community Park, Turtle Rock Drive, Irvine, California j I I '1 I City of Newport Beach I Mike Dunn, President Steve Diamond, President ' Liberty Baptist Church P Sierra Bonita Harbor Ridge Crest Comm. Ass 5108 Bonita Canyon Road Community Association #24 Coventry , Irvine, CA 92714 5851 Sierra Cieto Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine, CA 92715 Joan Allen, President South Coast Community Church Sierra Broadmoor 3020 Park Newport Community As ociation Newport Beach, CA 92660 19212 Sierra Isabella , Irvine, CA 92715 Paul Knopf, Community Planner Dennis Tyler, President Office of Physical Planning Sun Ridge Campbell Property Services,In University of Calif. -Irvine Community Association 1714 Clark Avenue Administration Bldg. - Rm. 426 #8 Sunburst Long Beach, CA 90815 Irvine, CA 92717 Irvine, CA 92715 Fred Talarico Jon Haddan, President Marvin Kapelus, President City of Newport Beach Sunset Ridge Maintenance Association Harbor Ridge Estate Maint. As Ridge Drive 3300 Newport Boulevard #86 Harbor Newport Beach, CA 92663 57 Rainbow Ridge Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine, CA 92713 Larry Hogle Howard Mulholland City of Irvine Turtle Rock Broadmoor 17200 Jamboree Road Community Association ' Irvine, CA 92713 5392 Canasha Irvine, CA 92714 E. James Wheless, President Virginia Campbell, President Newport Hills Community Assoc.) Turtle Rock Glen Harbor Ridge Master Assoc. c/o Villageway Management,Inc.j Community Association #19 Sherbourg Post Office Box 4708 26 Sycamore Creek Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine, CA 92716 Irvine, CA 92715 Spyglass Hill Community Assoc. William Kiper, President c/o Villageway Management,Inc. Turtle Rock Hills Post Office Box 4708 Community Association Irvine, CA 92716 18272 Via Palatino ' Irvine, CA 92715 Evertt (Terry) Stake, Pres. Harbor View Community Assoc. Spyglass Ridge Comm. Assoc. c/o Villageway Management, In 1618 Reef View Drive Post Office Box 4708 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine, CA 92716 ' Bill Wilson, President Mike Somogyi, President Turtle Rock Terrace c/o Irvine Pacific Developmen Community Association Post Office Box I 18981 Edington Terrace Irvine, CA 92715 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Jim White, President Sandy Bennett, President Harbor View Hills Homeowners Broadmoor Campus View Community Association Turtle Rock Vista Apartments #8 Rustling Wind c/o Management Services 1234 E. Normandy Place 5011 Paseo de Vega Irvine, CA 92715 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Irvine, CA 92715 1 Robert Ullman Harbor View Knoll Community A AAiComnun]'ty Association 5 Rocky Knoll c/o Villageway Management,Inc City of Irvi f [06 Post Office Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 l Patricia McGuigan H. G. Osborne I Spyglass Ridge Comm. Assn. 5642 Kellson Ave. 811 N. Broadway, Room 600 Evertt Stake Santa Ana, Ca. 92704 Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 1618 Reef View Drive Corona del Mar, Ca. 92625 ' J. Tilman Williams Patrick W. McNally Newport Hills Comm. Assn. 11241 Chapman Ave. 7151 Stanton Ave. c/o Villageway Mgmt. Garden Grove, Ca. 92640 Buena Park, Ca. 90621 P. 0. Box4708 Irvine, Ca. 92716 James E. Neal Honorable Barbara Wiener Harbor Hilb Comm. Assn. 9628 La Granada Ave. Councilwoman City of Irvine Mike Somogyi, President Fountain Valley, Ca. 92708 P. 0. Box 19575 c/o Irvine Pacific Dev. Irvine, Ca. 92713 P. 0. Box I Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Don McAllister City Councilman City of_Huntington Beach 2000 Main Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Joyce Ri'sner City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, Ca. 90740 Stan Tkaczyk Rainbow Disposal Huntington Beach, Ca. Richard Ackerman, Mayor City of Fullerton City Ha-1 303 W. Commonwealth Fullerton,'CA 92632 Kenneth,Combs 21402 Calle Sendero El Toro, Ca. 92630 Joseph L. Drey Josepph Drey Co., Ltd. 24302 Del Prado Dana Point, Ca. 92629 Albert Nelson 3461-C Bahia Blanca W. Laguna Hills, Ca. 912653 Harbor View Hills Homeowner c/o Management Services 1234 E. Normandy Pl. Santa Ana, Ca. 92705 Harbor View Knoll Comm. Assn. c/o Villageway Mgmt Inc. P. 0. Box 4708 Irvine, Ca. 92716 MeCalrf;oi�Cities t Harbor Ridge Crest Comm. Asl. Steve Diamond, President #24 Coventry Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Jim Jarrell, President O.C. Div., League of Cal Cit. c/o Bob Haskell 412 W. 4th St., Ste 203 Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 Ruth E. Finley, Councilwoman City of Huntington Beach City Hall P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Harbor Ridge Est. Maint. Ast Marvin Kapelus, President #86 Harbor Ridge Dr. Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Harbor Ridge Master Assn - Virginia Campbell, Presidenj #19 Sherbourg Newport.Beach, Ca. 92660 Norma Hicks, Mayor Lee Risner, City Manager Harbor View Comm. Assn. City of Brea City of La Habra c/o Villageway Mgmt. Inc. City Hall P. 0. Box 337 P. 0. Box 4708 One Civic Center Drive La Habra, Ca. 90631 Irvine, Ca. 92716 Brea, Ca. 92621' Iry Pickler Spyglass Hill Comm. 'Assn. Broadmoor Campus View 2377 Mall Ave. c/o Villageway Mgmt, Inc. Community Assn. Anaheim, Ca. 92804 P. 0. Box 4708 Jim White Irvine, Ca. 92716 5011 Paseo De Vega City OT IIrvine, Ca. 92715 Vew1107 t CSeat 1 Sierra Bonita Comm. Assn. Mike Dunn 5851 Sierra Cieto Irvine, Ca. 92715 Sierra Broadmoor Comm. Assn. Joan Allen 19212 Sierra Isabella Irvine, Ca. 92715 Sun Ridge Comm. Assn. Dennis Tyler $8 Sunburst Irvine, Ca. 92715 Sunset Ridge Maint. Assn. Jon Haddan 57 Rainbow Ridge Irvine, Ca. 92713 Turtle Rock Broadmoor Comm. Assn. Howard Mulholland 5392 Canasha Irvine, Ca. 92714 Turtle Rock Glen Comm. Assn. E. James Wheless 26 Sycamore Creek Irvine, Ca. 92715 Turtle Rock HIlls Comm. Assn. William Kiper 18272 Via Palatino Irvine, Ca. 92715 Turtle Rock Terrace Comm. Assn. Bill Wilson 18981 Edington Terrace Irvine, Ca. 92715 Turtl.e Rock Vista Apartments Sandy Bennett 8 Rustling Wind Irvine, Ca. 92715 Vista Comm. Assn. Robert Ullman 5 Rocky Knoll Irvine, Ca. 92715 I I City of Newport Beach T� A. F7t*%k SUN99M* 0 13 ilk CIARNE MIKE TILC�R' SOR Afar e��,e&y sU �� Tctlaf�ce L.s A)JC-K1I cMmVot) cca.- V 0cSp GSA I 1 -7sa -sM?b (Cqo-2A cSyo-�y/01 C-040E4)2oo qvg, C. a. 61 r C,q 83S G£fl1G I If- 11XI tea- e*kr.� ,o 29.�0 �orJ` LC�rlc..cilO.G, �l�d Ia A46 34 N.Tor��; Ct GS'o - 5'3S7 6�a-4l�.r7 rt2a -Z 32� b�9—�{55-75'a3 city or n4ewpun tseach 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I c M�srzak w,11\C,kwL P t�"7�� keep �'tl + �la�he '1.uKer �kcS L rn/gsr P% N f7/� -7--�-O-P3 beilrn10 Alf 11271ir ¢0 1eoOee1 1*W pR/4E d33 - 7 s/Q 5`3%G r 9 % � Al Ci b fi Trvine, Tok Ov"q srvfces (0&o-313Y etur. �tnr ds- zad �'Ylirltae( Br ►t ua &W - poi;, k-F& r F 17 trS6at Poe.Topwo tzveve- 673-sz.sz S4 Prates Q0.� �t CO►Yl KP. L.iND�om �t &3soC,1SAC4*M6A to crry CF .Jr�w��er-�1 tau e,6cs 7r2 90 8s i Comity of Newport Beach MEETING AGENDA I. INTRODUCTION (County Environmental Management Agency [EMA] - 5 minutes) , II. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE LANDFILL PLANS (County General Services Agency [GSA] Waste Management Program - 10 minutes) III. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE EIR (Phillips Brandt Reddick [PBR],- 5 minutes) ' 10 MINUTE BREAK ' , IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS V. CONCLUSION/FUTURE ACTIVITIES , City or ire*port Beach 1 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS COYOTE CANYON 7/19/83 SCOPING MEETING ' NEWPORT BEACH Dr. 26 Shapiro Morro Bay Drive Spyglass Hill 1. Unstable slopes exist near Spyglass. Will landfill cause more prob- lems for unstable slopes resulting from earthmoving vibrations or drainage alterations? 2. Rodent population - What will happen to natural habitat with the project? 1 3. Alteration of views (non -ocean) from upper Spyglass and Harbor Ridge (Drakes Bay Drive area) should be addressed in EIR. 4. EIR should analyze trade off between expansion of the landfill to cre- ate a better long term contour versus the impacts of longer operations including: fAir quality impacts from trucks; • Litter from trash falling off of trucks; and • Odors from landfill increase fumes). (noxious 5. Could drainage from landfill, possibly including heavy metals, reach the San Joaquin reservoir? 6. Heard about meeting through the newspaper; didn't think publicity was very good (advertisement was too small). Isaac Richman 1842 Port Manleigh Drive Harbor View Homes 1. EIR should consider noise and dust impacts from borrow area. 2. No notice from homeowners association. ' 3. Is heavy metal content in sludge a potential hazard should it escape from the site? iFred Talarico Environmental Coordinator ' City of Newport Beach 1. City of Newport Beach would like an opportunity to comment prior to ' first Orange County Planning Commission meeting. 112 1 #sty of ivewport rieach A Bill Jones Pt. Carlisle Harbor View Homes 1. Is the landfill currently expected to operate until 1986-1987? Why can't it be closed in 1984? EIR should address this. 2. Why is garbage being compacted if we are trying to fill in and close the landfill? 3. What is defined as "waste"?' 4. Is sewage sludge a health hazard? 113 City of Newport Beach SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS COYOTE CANYON 7/20/83 SCOPING MEETING ' IRVINE Ed Volk '5062 Marine Lane Turtle Rock, Irvine 1. EIR should address recycling or source separation. 2. Could odor be reduced by layering soil and refuse; would this extend the life of the landfill? 3. Odors have been noticeable but not to the extent that they were last ' year. Odors are most noticeable in August. Wally Rados 5672 Highgate Terrace Irvine, CA ' 1. When is methane recovery scheduled? 2. Will there be buyer notification as to the impact of the dump on buyers and will visual impacts to surrounding community be addressed? Will The Irvine Company be required to notify the buyer of potential view impacts to their property? 3. Will the EIR be a part of the buyer notification program for Irvine? 4. If the dump was closed, would it increase hauling by two or three times as many trucks? Where is the geographic/demographic center of ' waste generated that is being hauled to Coyote? 5. What is the projected additional capacity of Coyote Canyon if it is closed in 1986 or in 1989? ' Bill Knoff Office of Physical Planning University of Calif., Irvine 1. Regents of the University of California have approved development in the southwestern portion of the complex. Odors may jeopardize marketing efforts. 2. UCI is attempting to develop access from Bonita Canyon Road. Slow - moving vehicles could create problems for access along Bonita Canyon Road. 3. In 1963, UCI purchased storage capacity in San Joaquin Reservoir. Would not like to see pollution of this water. 114 i uity_ut ivewport r3each Elaine Zucker 54 Drakes Bay Drive Corona del Mar, CA 1. Odor from the dump is very bad. Why is the County not able to meet standards? .2. Why is sludge dumped at Coyote Canyon without taking the water out? 3. Genstar is planning to collect gases on the .landfill and generate electricity. If The Irvine Company was not to renew its lease, what t would happen to the contract? And, what will the plant Took like and what kinds of odor and wastes will be associated with it? 4. Now many years will methane gas recovery be a feasible operation after , the closure of the landfill? 5. EIR should assess the potential for creation of toxic waste as decompo- sition of wastes in landfill occurs. 6. Concerned that the borrow sites may undermine the San Joaquin Reser- voir. 7. Continued use of the landfill may encourage an increase in rodent popu- lation. 8. Conflict of responsibility between GSA and Sanitation District as to water content. ' 9. Does the City of Irvine have a financial objection to using Santiago Canyon because it would increase the costs to the city? Rick Masyczek City of Irvine ' 1. At this point in time, Coyote Canyon is accepting sludge, which is coming from industrial sites. The sludge contains oil, beryillium, cadmium. The U R should address the effect that sludge has on composi- tion of potential toxic wastes at Coyote Canyon landfill. I in City of Newport Beach i I �I ' C. GEOLOGY/HYDROLOGY REPORT 1 ' 116 City of Newport Beach Woodward•Clyde Consultants COYOTE CANYON EIR GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC BASELINE DATA Submitted to Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 91714 City of Newport Beach COYOTE CANYON EIR GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC BASELINE DATA 1.0 Landform/Topography 2.0 Geology and Soils 2.1 Geology 2.2 Faults and other Structural Features, 2.3 Regional Seismicity 2.4 Borrow Site Analysis 3.0 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.1 Ground Water Conditions 3.2 Surface Water Conditions 3.3 Flooding Hazards/Flood Controls 3.4 Codisposal Analysis City of Nelwport Beach I 1.0 LANDFORM/TOPOGRAPHY , The Coyote Canyon Landfill site is located in the north- western portion of the San Joaquin Hills, which forms the northwestern Peninsular Range geologic province of southern ' California. ' In the vicinity of the Coyote Canyon Landfill site, which occupies Coyote Canyon, the San Joaquin Hills are charac- terized by low to moderate relief with rounded ridges separated by intervening flat and narrow V-shaped canyons. , A dendritic drainage pattern is evident. The site is bounded on, the north and south by northwest -trending low , ridges and on the east and west by northerly trending low to moderate ridges. Elevations on the site range from a , minimum of about 250 feet at the north end of the site to aproximately 880 feet along the eastern boundary of the site. , Existing disturbances of the natural topography include ' landfilled areas, extensive borrowing activities and various fire breaks which enclose the site. Several roadways, some ' partially paved, have been constructed along with fencing, temporary buildings and other structures including water tanks, and temporary drainage. ' a• 2.0 GEOLOGY AND SOILS , 2.1 Geology The Coyote Canyon Landfill site is located on the Central block, one of four structural blocks comprising the Los , Angeles Basin (Yerkes, 1956). The site is situated in the northwestern portion of the San Joaquin Hills which strati- , graphically are composed of Tertiary marine and non -marine sedimentary rocks that are overlain by Quaternary sediments. ' Locally the Miocene rocks have been intruded by dikes and f' City of NEWport Beach 1 -z- sills of diabase. Structurally, the San Joaquin Hills are described as a complexly faulted northerly plunging anti- cline where the dominant regional structural fabric is due to faulting rather than folding (Tan and Edgington, 1976). The southern margin of the hills are bounded by the Pacific ' Ocean and the northern margin is separated from the Santa Ana Mountains by an alluvial valley. The bedrock material exposed within the site boundaries and which underlies the entire site area consists of the middle Miocene Topanga formation and the Miocene age intrusive diabase that forms dikes and sills in the Topanga formation (Tan and Edgington, 1976). Surficial deposits that overlie the bedrock material include Pleistocene terrace deposits, ' Holocene age slope wash, landslide material and alluvial deposits, surficial soils, and artificial fill. ' The following sections present a brief description of the units that occur at the site. The approximate limits ' of the units, except the surficial soil, are shown on the Site Geologic Map (Exhibit A). ' Artificial Fill (af) Three types of artificial fill are present in the site area, and are designated afl, aft, and afg. Afl, is the most ' extensive fill material present and consists of municipal solid waste and cover material. This fill material pri- marily occurs in the main portion of Coyote Canyon and ' its eastern tributaries. Aft is the second most extensive fill material present in the site area and is generally confined to the area along the top of two north trending ridges in the southwest corner of the site. Aft is not an engineered fill and consists primarily of small dump mounds and piles of uncompacted admixtures of sand, silt I 1 City of iN46Wport Beach -3- i clay, gravel to boulders and rock fragments, and varying ' quantities of man-made products such as PVC pipe, bricks, concrete, asphalt and wood. Af3 consists of engineered fill ' that was used for the repair of a slope area along the entrance road to the landfill and several erosion areas along the northern portion of the site, east of the main ' north facing fill slope across the mouth of the canyon. ' Surficial Soil A varying thickness of soil mantle& moat of the undisturbed ' areas within the site. These soils have generally developed in place due to weathering and decomposition and in general reflect the characteristics of the underlying or adjacent ' material. The soil overlying the terrace deposits and sandstone (Toponga formation) are commonly one to three , feet thick and range in composition from light to brown sandy silt and silty sand, to dark brown admixtures of ' clayey and sandy silt. Soils that overlie the fine-grained claystone siltstone, shale, and diabase bedrock material are •generally two to four feet thick and consi'at primarily of ' dark brown to black clayey silt and silty clay. In general, the soil material is loose, porous, and unconsolidated. ' In addition, the clayey soils exhibit desiccation cracks and appear to be slightly to moderately expansive. These soils are classified as Alo, Anaheim, Calleguas, ' Cieneba, Crupley, and Myford series (Department of Agricul- ture, 1978). Table 1 lists the various soils along with ' pertinent parameters. Slope Wash (Qsw) ' Slope wash deposits consist of thick accumulations of soil and weathered bedrock materials. These deposits have ' generally been transported short distances from their point City of Newport Beach 1 i i i i i i i i OWMAW i i i i i i i i i GENERAL SDIL TYPES/PROPEKPIESI Available Water Soil Shrink/ Percent Passing Sieve Number Soil Name and Permeability Capacity Reaction Swell Class Map Symc l bol an se . in pH Salinity Salinity Potential Unified 4 10 40 200 100, A10 Clay 2.5x10-3- .14-.17 6.1-8.4 <2 High CH, CL 100 100 95-100 85-100 9-15%, slopes 8x1O-3 101, Alo Clay 2.5x1O-3- .14-.17 6.1-8.4 <2 High CH, CL 100 100 95-100 85-100 15-30%, slopes Sx1O-3 102, Alo Clay 2.5x10-3 .14-1.7 6.1-8.4 <2 High CH, CL 100 100 95-100 85-100 30-50%, slopes Sx1O-3 107, Anaheim Loam 2.5x10-2 .15-.17 6.1-7.8 <2 Inw CL-ML 100 100 85-95 60-75 30-50% slopes 8x10-2 108, Anaheim Clay 8.5x1O-3- .17-.19 6.1-7.8 <2 Moderate CL 100 100 90-100 70-M Loam, 15-30% slopes 2.5x1O-3 n 134, Calleguas 2.5x1072- .15-.18 7.9-8.4 <2 Moderate CL 90-100 90-100 65-100 55-90 '" clay loam, 50-75% 8.5x10-2 Qom, sloped eroded 141, Cieneba sandy 8.5x1O 2 .13-.16 5.6-7.3 -02 Low SM, ML 90-100 75-95 60-90 35-60 loam, 15-30% slopes -6.0 145, Cieneba-rock 8.5x1O-2 .13-.16 5.6-7.3 <2 Low SM, ML 90-100 75-95 60-M 35-60 outcrop coaplex, 2.5x10-1 30-75% slopes 149, Crcpley clay 2.5x1073 .13-.17 6.6-8.4 <2 High CL, CH 100 95-100 80-100 70-95 2-9% slopes 8.5x1O-3 173, Myford sandy 2.5xl0-2 .02-.14 5.1-8.4 <2 Low SM, ML 100 100 60-85 30-55 loam, 2-9% slopes 2.5x10-1 175, Myford sandy 2.5x1O-2 .02-.14 5.1-8.4 <2 Low SM, ML 100 100 60-85 30-55 loam, 9-15% slopes 2.5x1O-1 192, Rock outcrop 8.5x1O-2 .13-.16 5.6-7.3 <2 Low SM, ML 90-100 75-95 60-90 35-60 Cienneba oaplex 2.5x10-1 30-75% slopes 1. Department of Agriculture, 1978, adcped from Tables 9 and 10. .�ILy u, imtowpu, Beach -4- of origin by the combined action of surface erosion and soil ' creep. They occur mostly in shales, canyon bottoms and along the lower portion of slopes where the slope gradients are low to moderately steep. Landslide Material (Qls) ' The landslides within the site area are relatively small in size with the exception of several large size landslides in , the northwestern corner of the site along the entrance road to the landfill (Leighton, 1980, 1981). In most cases, the , landslides occur in areas underlain by siltstone, shale, or interbedded siltstone, shale, and sandstone of the Los ' Trancos Member of the Topanga formation. Alluvium (Qal): , There is very little alluvium within the site boundaries. The principal occurrence of alluvium is along the stream , course of Coyote Canyon downstream from the toe of the fill slope for the landfill. The alluvial deposits generally consist of clayey to sandy material with varying amounts of ' gravels. Terrace Deposits (Qt) Two types of terrace deposits present within the site area , are the Upper Terrace Deposit (Qtl) and a Lower Terrace Deposit (Qt2). Qtl caps the ridges in the southwestern ' and wetern portions of the site and has a maximum thickness of 32 feet. These deposits, consisting of light reddish brown to brown massive silty sands with a sparse mixture•of , clay and/or ferruuginous cement, are medium dense to dense, and friable. The basal portion of the Qtl '(lower 10+ feet) is characterized by a medium to coarse -grained sand with thin layers or stringers of pebble and small gravel , size clasts of igneous and metamorphic rocks. In some City of N123 ewport Beach 1 1 ' •-5- ' areas, fragments of the underlying bedrock material are included. The basal portion of Qtl is also highly suscepti- ble to erosion as indicated by the extreme gullying and rilling of Qtl exposures observed during the field recon- naissance. ' Qt2 is present along the east bank of the main stream ' drainage for Coyote Canyon north of the toe of the landfill. This terrace deposit is alluvial in origin and generally ' consists of silty to sandy clays and silty sands with varying amounts of gravelly material. ' Bedrock Material Bedrock underlying the site consists of the Bommer and Los ' Trancos members of the middle Miocene age Topanga formation and diabase dikes and sills that are intrusive in the ' Topanga formation (Tan and Edgington, 1976). Bommer Member (Ttb) The Sommer Member, which occurs in the eastern one-third of the site, consists of massive to thickly bedded sandstone ' with locally interbedded siltstone. The sandstone is medium to coarse -grained, and moderately to well cemented, and buff, yellowish brown to light gray in color. In areas ' where the sandstone is well cemented, the outcrops often form wall-like features to 10 feet above the adjacent ' ground. The siltstone interbeds are softer than the sand- stone and brown to olive -gray in color. ' Los Trancos Member (Ttl) The Los Trancos Member, which is exposed or underlies the ' western two-thirds of the site, consists of interbedded siltstone, shale, and sandstone. The siltstone ranges from a sandy to clayey material and is generally massive to 124 City of Newport Beach A/ ■ r Alternative 3 Legend e SANITARY LANDFILL "< ::� oBORROW SITE � �!4f'a�. eo CLEAN FILL COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 �`��� Exhibit A I -6- 0 ' thinly bedded, poorly to moderated indurated, moderately to highly fractured, and varies in color from tan or brown to dark gray. The silty to clayey shale is hard to. well cemented, moderately well bedded, and dark gray to greenish gray, and grayish brown. The shales are moderately to ' highly fractured. The sandstone is fine- to coarse -grained, silty, moderately to well cemented, and buff to gray. ' Individual sandstone beds range in thickness from a few inches to 10+ feet and are slightly to moderately fractured. ' Diabase (Td) The diabase is an intrusive igneous rock that has been ' injected into the Topanga formation as sills, dikes, and irregularly shaped masses. The diabase is primarily present ' in the central, north -central, and northwestern portions of the site (Figure A). Exposures of the diabase observed ' within the site area are highly weathered and consists of fine- to medium -grained, and olive brown to yellowish brown ' and olive gray in color. The weathered diabase is highly fractured and resembles an uncemented coarse -grained friable sandstone. At depth, unweathered diabase is ' expected to be gray to dark gray, massive and hard to very hard resistant rock. 2.2 Faults and Other Structural Features ' Structural features within the site includes faults, local folds, and highly tilted and dipping beds. ' A number of faults have been mapped within or adjacent to the site. The major or principal faults have a north to ' northwest trend and occur within the Topanga formation. These faults and intrusive diabase rocks appear to be ' associated with the major structural fabric found throughout the San Joaquin Hills Region. Smaller or minor secondary 125 1 City of Newport Beach I -7- faults that may be branches or splays off the major faults , are also present within the site area. These faults exhibit a'wide variety of orientations and appear to involve only minor displacements of the bedrock. The major faults within or adjacent to the site, are divided ' for the purposes of this report into three principal systems: western, central, and eastern. The western system , is composed of a series of northwestern trending faults that pass near the southwestern corner of the site. These faults , are associated with Pelican Hills fault zone and extend from the Spy Glass Hill area to Laguna Beach. The maximum stratigraphic displacement on the fault system is reported ' to occur in Moro Canyon, south of the site, where the Los Trancos Member of the Topanga formation is in fault ' contact with the older Vaqueros formation. A 2500-foot section of the Bommer Member of the Topanga formation is , missing across this part of the fault. In the Spy Glass Hill area, three traces of the Pelican fault zone have displaced the capping QT1 terrace deposits (Tan and Edging - , ton, 1976). Displacement of the terrace deposits ranges from less than one inch to a maximum of about two feet ' (Slosson and Associates, 1971). The central series of'faults also have a northwest trend and ' cross the southwestern corner of the site. This series of ' faults appear to be a northern branch or splay of the Pelican Hill system. The maximum stratigraphic displacement along this fault series also occurs in the Moro Canyon ' area of Laguna Beach. Although one trace of this series of faults is mapped through an area covered by QT1 terrace ' deposits, no displacements of these deposits have been observed or reported (Tan and Edgington, 1976). ' City of NEWport Beach i I H The eastern series of northwest -trending faults cross the eastern one-third of the site and consists of several interconnected branching faults that have been intruded by diabase intrusives. The principal fault within this series of faults dips about 45 to 60 degrees to the northeast and has a stratigraphic displacement of about 400 feet with the east side displaced downward relative to the west side (Stone and Associates, 1982). ' No major fold structures have been mapped or observed within the site boundaries. Small scale and localized fold ' structures, however, occur throughout the site and appear to be associated with drag along or adjacent to faults. ' In general, the bedrock strata present within the site area has a north to northeast strike with a dip that ranges from ' 20 to 60 degrees to the west to northwest. Locally, how- ever, the strike and dip of the strata is highly variable, ' especially in the vicinity of the faults or where the strata has been intruded by the diabase. ' 2.3 Regional Seismicity Southern California is a seismically active region. Epi- centers of earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 and greater that have instrumentally recorded in the region from 1918 through ' 1982 are shown in Exhibit B. The earthquake data presented in this report are obtained from the National Oceanic and ' Atmospheric Administration Hypocenter Data File (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1983). Generally, the greatest concentrations of earthquake epicenters are ' associated with the mapped traces of known active faults. ' The largest recorded earthquake event in the vicinity site was the March 12, 1953 magnitude (Richter) 6.5 earthquake, City of Newport Beach 3-9 located approximately 7.5 miles west of the landfill , site. This event may be associated with the Newport - Inglewood fault and caused substantial damage in the southern coastal regions of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The next largest event recorded close to the site was the October 27, 1969 magnitude (Richter) 4.5 offshore event that ' had an estimated location of approximately 5 miles south of the site. The location of this event is along the projected ' trend of the Pelican Hill fault zone and could relate to that zone (Tan and Edgington, 1976). The closest recorded , earthquake in proximity to the site is the January 19, 1955 Richter magnitude 2.3 event, located approximately 0.5 miles north of the site (Miller and Tan, 1976). ' Although a number of faults have been mapped at or near the , site, none of the faults are considered active faults by the California Division of Mines and Geology nor is the, site ' within a designated Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (Jennings, 1975, Hart, 1979, 1978). However, the Pelican Hills fault zone, which is located adjacent to the southwest , corner of the site affects Quaternary Qtl terraces and is considered a potentially active fault (Morton, 1976). The closest known active faults to the site are the Newport - Inglewood, Whittier, and Elsinore faults, which are located ' approximately 2.5 miles south, and '20 and 22 miles north of the site, respectively. Other nearby significant faults ' include the Palos Verdes, Santa Monica -Malibu Coast, Raymond Hill and Sierra Madre faults. The San Andreas and San Jacinto faults are approximately 48 and 43 miles northeast ' of the site, respectively,, and should be considered poten- tial sources for a large magnitude distant earthquake. The , location of these and other major faullts in the southern California region in relation to the Coyote Canyon Landfill ' location are shown in Exhibit B. The general seismic characteristics of these faults are summarized in Table 2. , VILy of INUWPUR DeaWl 1 Fault System San Andreas San Jacinto Palos Verdes Newport -Inglewood Whittier N Elsinore Sierra Madre Santa Monica - Malibu Coast Raymond TABLE 2 SIGNIFICANT FAULTS AND POTENTIAL SEISMICITY COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL SITE Shortest Distance From Site to Surface Trace miles (km) 48 (77) 43 (69) 16 (25) 2.5 (4) 20 (32) 22 (35) 35 (56) 42 (67) 38 (60) Tvne of Fault Right -Lateral Strike Slip Right -Lateral Strike Slip Right -Reverse Oblique Slip Right -Lateral Strike Slip Right -Reverse Oblique Slip Right lateral Strike Slip Left -Reverse Oblique Slip Left -Reverse Oblique Slip Left -Reverse Oblique Slip Approximate Fault Length miles (km) 600+ (960+) 160 (256) 50+ (80+) 45 (72) 28 (45) 130 (208) 50+ (80+) 60 (96) 10 (16) Maximum Historical Earthquake and (Year)a (Richter M) 8+ (1857) Estimated Maximum Credible Earthquakec,d (Richter M) 8+ 7.0 (1899) 7-1/2 3.9b (1975) 6-3/4 to 7 6.3 (1933) 6-1/2 to 7 J 4.2 (1976) 6-1/2 to 7 6 (1910) 7 to 7-1/2 6.4 (1971) 7e 5.9 (1973) 6-3/4 to 7-1/4 11 None 6-3/4e a. Real and others, 1978. b. Based on data from Teng and Henyey, 1975. C. Comparison of relative degree of activity and estimated rupture length, Slemmons, 1977. d. Ranges of magnitude reflect uncertainties in length of rupture and methods of estimation. e. Crook and others, 1978. July 1983 City of Newport Beach -118.92 118.75 -118.50 -118.25 -118.00--117.75 •O ... F" `�N ........./ PIO4E .r'.�4 NEWHALL ° VR BRIEI MOUNTAINS \ � `,4Cr MiEG ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST 34-25 THOUSAND OAKS O (DVAN NUTS .gLmu MAST FART 34.00 -}- + (D O ° ° o ° o 33.75 + 33.50 + 33.25 + 0 O 33.00 + + +-118.92-118.75 -117.50-1177.25 + LlAN`` .Ti PASADENA Miy 1�`�YJ/'. . •• T`' /1`�1 @—�f� ��j ........ rt11 .....t•.. 20ME fW`'ARCAOIA •... ..............- •...... [��]—S'"A"N .•�• n[I[nARDINI p ((y.}(�ot'e... p ,�_u O V AMOFjES x4:i x`4•�A• _-Ci1....., V O (Di •. �f+ p +� (D + =o 9 O + (D O ® (T) -117.00-116.75 + +34.50 o o O ° O (D ° o 0 ° O A cw34.25 41, 134.00 (D ?q (JD0 '13—% \ r (D (D ° a (D-0;, ,f. ff\ ° NORWALK NLK gULT `'•.. QLONG N O BEACH (D [Q ((��ITA O(R7(A}1N��GE'��)I(A,+� Lif -11188.so-118.25 A ■ Er +(D (D 0 -118.00 ° O o c� ° 4.2ey Coyote Canyon Landfill Site p + O ° m O + + OCEANSIOE + ° 1- -117.75-117-50-1117-25 + -117.00 ° LEGEND REPORTED EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES O B.0 O 7.0 O 6.0 O 5.0 4.0 p 3.0 1.0 Magnitude symbol sizes are shown on a continuous nonlinear scale The epicenters cover the time period 1918 through 1979. Data source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Hypocenter Data File, 1980. ........? ......:?..I...... Fault: Dashed where approximately located, dotted where concealed and queried where conjectural. Fault locations are based on CDMG 1:250,000 Geologic Maps: Long Beach (1962), Santa Ana (1966), San Bernardino (1969), Los Angeles (1969), and Leighton, 1972. 0 5 10 20 30 Miles I 0 5 10 20 30 Kilometers I WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS I REGIONAL FAULT AND EPICENTER MAP Project No. 416831 Exhibit COYOTE CANYON I B I -10- 2.4 Borrow Site Analysis A limited field investigation was performed to determine the rippability of two borrow areas. This investigation included 10 auger borings to an average depth of 80 feet, 4 seismic refraction lines, and some limited geologic field reconnaissance and literature review. The ten boring logs are included as Figure 1. Seismic refraction line interpre- tations are shown as Figure 2. Boring -and line locations, along with mapped features found during the field recon- naissance and literature survey are indicated on Exhibit A. The proposed borrow sites, I and II, are located on the ' property adjacent to and west of the present landfill operation (Exhibit C). The sites are bounded on the north by Bonita Creek, on the south by Buck Gully Canyon, and on the west by the residential development of Spy Glass Hill, San Joaquin Reservoir, and a north trending unnamed canyon. Site I occupies the northern half of the borrow area and ' consists of two parallel, relatively narrow, north trending ridges. Site II occupies the southern half of the borrow ' area and also consists of two north trending ridges and a portion of an irregular shaped east -west trending ridge. The two sites are connected by a saddle located near the ' southeast end of the San Joaquin Reservoir. The proposed borrow plans for Site I indicate a maximum excavation of about 105 feet and 90 feet for the west and ' east ridges of Site I, respectively. The finish grade for both ridge areas will have a gentle grade to the north. The proposed borrow plans for Site II indicate a maximum cut of ' about 100 feet at the north end of the site and about 20 to 40 feet in the southern half of the site. The finished ' grade for Site II will also slope gently to the north except for the southern margin of the site in the vicinity of the 1 City of NdQvport Beach proposed extension of San Joaquin Hills Road where the finish grade will slope to the south. In addition, the proposed borrow site plans indicate that several cut and fill slopes will be constructed along the margins of Site II. ' Existing access to the borrow sites consists of a dirt road that enters the north end of Site I from the landfill ' entrance road and a dirt road that enters the southwest corner of Site II from E1 Capitan Drive. Existing develop- , ments on the sites include dirt roads, fences, and three sets of electrical and telephone utility lines on wooden poles. Also, a substantial amount of grading and modifica- ' tion has been done in the northern half of Site II that included: 1) the removal of most of the terrace material ' that originally capped the ridge; 2) the dumping of fill material (soil, rocks, and debris); and 3) development of several small desilting-type drainage or catchment basins. Topography ' The two borrow sites are situated on interconnected north ' trending ridges that in general slope gently to the north. At the very north end of the borrow, area, the ridges descend several hundred feet to the southern margin of Bonita ' Canyon. Elevations in the borrow areas range from about 200 feet at the edge of Bonita Creek to approximately 710 feet at the knoll in the southern part of the borrow area. Inclination of the natural slopes in the borrow areas ' ranges from 1.5:1 to 2.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) for the lower portion of the slope and 4:1 or flatter for the upper ' portions of the slopes. The major exceptions are the east -facing slope along the boundary with the landfill and ' the west -facing slope on the western ridge in Site I. The 1 City of Newport Beach 1 ' -12- ' east -facing slope that descends from the top of the ridge to the landfill has been extensively modified by the landfill ' operation and has slope inclinations of about 1.5:1 to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The west -facing slope of the western ridge in Site I has an overall slope inclination of 5:1 to 6:1 (horizontal to vertical). This is probably due to the weathering characteristics of the intrusive diabase ' that underlies the slope. ' Geology The geology of the two borrow sites is shown in Exhibit A ' and is discussed in Section 2.1. In general, the bedrock units that are exposed and which underlie the two sites consist of interbedded siltstone, claystone, shale, and sandstone of the middle Miocene age Los Trancos member of the Topanga formation (TTL) and the Miocene age intrusive diabase (Td). Surficial units that overlie the bedrock units include surficial soil, fill (af2), slope wash ' deposits (Qsw), and terrace deposit (QT1). ' In the borrow site areas, the Los Trancos member generally has a north to northeast strike and a moderate to steep dip to the west. However in the southwestern portion of Site ' II, the bedding has a northwest strike and a moderate dip to the northeast. The most probable cause for the change in bedding attitudes is the presence of several parallel northwest -southeast trending faults that cross the south- central portion of Site II. No faults are depicted on the borrow site map. In addition to these faults, a number of other faults have been mapped in the vicinity of the borrow sites, especially ' in the San Joaquin Reservoir area and along the east -facing slope that forms the boundary between the borrow sites and ' the landfill (Exhibit B). UILY P1 imewport Beach -13- Excavation Characteristics of Bedrock Units The interbedded siltstone, claystone, shale, and sandstone of the Los Trancos member is the principal bedrock unit within both borrow sites areas that will be encountered to ' the proposed borrow excavation depths. In general, the Los Trancos member should be rippable with moderate to heavy ' ripping except where the interbedded sandstone is well cemented and thicker than 3 to 5 feet. The rippability of ' the latter is anticipated to be very difficult and may require blasting depending on its depth of occurrence , and weathering. The major areas consisting of higher percentage's of sandstone than siltstone, claystone or shale or where the sandstone is massive are: 1) the northern ' portion of the west ridge and the central and the southern portions of the east ridge in borrow Site I, and 2) the ' southwestern portion of borrow Site II. The intrusive diabase is the other bedrock unit present in the borrow areas. Surface exposures of the diabase are ' highly weathered and fractured. It is anticipated the upper 10 to 20 feet of the weathered diabase, will be ' excavatable. However, below the zone of weathered material, the diabase will likely be very hard and very difficult to excavate or rip and therefore may require blasting. The ' largest area underlain by the diabase is along the middle to lower slope of the western ridge in borrow Site I. Other ' occurrences of the diabase in the borrow site areas are in Site II and include the lower portion of the east facing slope located south to southwest from the fee gate to the landfill and near the head of the north facing canyon in the central portion of Site II. 1 k City of Newport Beach 1 n CI II Lj I 1 -14- Excavation Characteristics of Surficial Soils The surficial units, soil, fill, slope wash, and terrace deposits that are present in the borrow site areas should be easily rippable. Within borrow Site I, the surficial units consists of soils, slope wash and terrace deposits. The surficial soils and slope wash deposits are 1 to 4 feet and 3 to 8 feet thick, respectively, and consist of silty to sandy clay, especially in the northern half of the site. The 'terrace deposits located in the southern portion the borrow site has a thickness of about 20 feet. In borrow Site II, the surficial units consist of soils, fill, and terrace deposits. The undisturbed surficial soils have a thickness of 1 to 3 feet and consist of silty to clayey sand. The dumped fill material, located in the central portion of Site II, has a thickness of 3 to 5 feet. The terrace deposits, which have been partially removed, varies in thickness from a few feet in the northern portion of the site to a maximum of about 32 feet at the knoll in the southern portion of the site. Seismic Refraction Survey Four seismic refraction lines were run along selected traverses within the proposed borrow site area (Figure — ic velocity intervals were identified to approximately 80 feet. The upper interval consists of low velocity near -surface soil and weathered bedrock material with a velocity that ranges from 2,000 fps (feet per second) to 3000 fps. The lower interval has a velocity that ranges from 4,300 to 10,600 fps; see Figure 2 for interpretations. In Site I, the upper weathered rock interval ranges in depth from about 75 feet at the south end of seismic line 1 to City or i%4ewport Beach about 40 feet at the north end. Below these depths the ' lower interval has a velocity of 6,700 to 7,000 fps. Along seismic line 2, also in Site I, the upper interval is at a depth of about 25 to 40 feet for the length of the survey ' line. The velocity of the lower interval ranges from 4,800 fps at the south end of the line to 9,800 fps at the north , end. In,Site II, the upper interval along line 3 is at a depth of ' 20 feet at the east ,end and increased in depth to approxi- mately 80 feet in the central and western portions of the line. The lower interval ranges in velocity from 4,200 fps ' for the eastern half of the line to approximately 10,600 fps for the western half of the line. For line 4, the upper interval ranges in depth from 25 to 60 feet along ' the southern half of the line to 60 to 80 feet along the northern half of the line. The velocity of the lower interval ranges from 4,400 to 8,400 fps and was variable along the line. ' Based on the results of the seismic survey and rippability performance data from the Caterpillar Tractor Company (1975) ' the interbedded sandstone, siltstone, claystone, and shale encountered to the depth of the upper interval should be , rippable with a D9G-No. 9 series ripper and D8H-No. 8 series riper or equivalent. The same material encountered in the ' lower interval will probably be rippable to marginally rippable with ripping using a D9 series ripper or equiva- lent. Velocities of 6,000 fps were measured at several localities in the existing dumpsite, where very difficult ripping had been encountered using a D8 tractor. It is ' anticipated that in some localities within the borrow area, especially the deeper excavations indicated for the northern , portion of Site I, all of Site II, and the areas underlain by unweathered diabase, blasting may be required. , ICILY Ut I -AU JU1 L DudGh I_ I -16- I Summary and Conclusions The bedrock material underlying the two proposed borrow sites consists of moderately to steeply dipping interbedded sandstone, siltstone, claystone, and shale, of the Los 1 Trancos member of the Topanga formation and intrusive diabase. The bedrock is overlain by soil, fill, slope wash deposits, and terrace deposits. These surficial deposits 1 are relatively thin with the exception of the terrace deposits which have a maximum thickness of 32 feet. 1 Based on the review of available data, site reconnaissance, 1 seismic refraction survey, and borings, the material present within the two proposed borrow sites will be suitable for use as daily cover material. Based on studies to date, the 1 material will be suitable for final cover. Additional testing and design will be needed prior to site closure 1 to determine specific performance characteristics. In addition; 1 1. the rippability of the bedrock Los Trancos member will vary from moderate to difficult for the thinly bedded interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and claystone material to very difficult (i.e., requiring heavy ripping) where 1 the interbedded sandstone is well cemented and greater than 3 to 5 feet thick; 1 2. blasting may be required to excavate the well cemented 1 and thicker sandstone beds;- 3. it is anticipated that only -the upper 10 to 20 feet of ' the intrusive diabase will be rippable and that below this depth, blasting will probably be required; and 1 1 1 City of Newport Beach I r� Geology a/ 0 r Legend at1 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE aft UNCONTROLLED FILL (MOUNDS, PILES) af3 ENGINEERED FILL i Qal ALLUVIUM Qaw SLOPE WASH ais LANDSLIDE MATERIAL I Qt TERRACE DEPOSIT Tti TOPANGA FORMATION, LOS TRANCOS MEMBER Ttb TOPANGA FORMATION, BOMMER MEMBER j Td DIABASE FAULT, DASHED WHERE APPRO ��• DOTTED WHERE INFERRED OR XlMATE, CONCEALED Woodward -Clyde Consultants COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 Goo 1200 1800 LL) �� Exhibit C L -17- ' 4. slope stability problems, due to exposed unfavorably oriented bedding, may be encountered for the west facing 1 slopes located along the proposed road in the northern part of Site II. I C LJ C C Quantities of in -situ material, calculated as the simple volume difference between existing and proposed final topography is 13.5 million cubic yards. This quantity may vary significantly from the actual due to swell, spoiling, bulking, etc. 3.0 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.1 Hydrogeology A study by Montgomery Engineers in 1983 describes features of the hydrogeology in Coyote Canyon. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers (1982) and Wahler (1966) describe some hydrogeologic properties of the Topanga Formation in the San Joaquin Reservoir area adjacent to Coyote Canyon. Alluvial Aquifers Ground water within the alluvium occurs at a depth of approximately 11 feet from the surface as reported by Montgomery Engineers (1983). Water velocity through the native alluvium in Coyote Canyon has been estimated to range from 10-6 to 10-4 cm/sec. From examining the geology in Coyote Canyon, but without use of a potentiometric gradient, Montgomery Engineers determined that the direction of ground water flow to be to the northwest in Coyote Canyon. There are two wells and 19 piezometers within one mile of the landfill site that can possibly be used to obtain hydrologic parameters of adjacent soils similar to those found in Coyote Canyon. These piezometers are located about the periphery of the San Joaquin Reservoir. The wells are those constructed just northwest of the landfill site boundary by Montgomery Engineers. 1 City ui iwwport Beach -18- 1 Topanga Formation ' In their report, based on review of the local geology, Mdntogmery Engineers (1983) indicate the presence of perched water resting on the bedrock, the Topanga Formation. The bedrock in Coyote Canyon passes relatively high primary and secondary permeability required for fluid flow and solute , transport (Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers, Inc., 1982). Within Coyote Canyon there are•no wells penetrating , the bedrock. The alluvial aquifer perched on the Topanga Formation is in direct contact with any water in the bedrock, as no other geologic formation intervenes between ' the two. Recharge Areas Ground water recharge areas are present adjacent to Coyote , Canyon -namely, East Canyon, South Canyon, and the San Joaquin Reservoir. Bonita Creek is also capable of being a recharge source, but only during periods of water flow in , the creek. Direct ponding of water on the surface. of the landfill site and near the landfilling boundary has been , reported (CRWQCB, 1983); this too can act as a recharge source. Current topography and drainage cause ephemeral water ' ponding in the tributary canyons which feed into Coyote Canyon. The San Joaquin Reservoir, whose water surface , elevation is approximately 453 feet, has a semi -permeable liner which may allow reservoir water to enter the local ground water system. Much of the leakage is recovered by a , liner drain system. All of these sources are capable of recharging both the alluvial sediments and the bedrock. City of Newport Beach 1 -19- Ground Water Quality Well number 65/9W-20Q1 is located just east of the intersec- tion of Bonita and Coyote Canyon Roads. A 1971 water quality data sheet for the well reported a conductivity of 1680 micromhos along with some limited cation and anion ' parameters. In 1977 this well was described as 6 meters deep and dry (DRW, 1977). This data available for this well ' are not interpreted for area -wide ground water quality evaluation. Ground water quality analysis has been restricted to semi - perched zone within the Coyote Canyon alluvium extending from the north face of the landfill area. On the assumption that ground water flow in Coyote Canyon is predominantly in ' the northwest direction, Montgomery Engineers placed their piezometer and sampling well just northwest of the site ' boundary (Exhibit A). Laboratory analysis on two water samples collected in these wells indicated high electrical conductivity, elevated levels of total organic carbon and total organic halogens, and the presence of volatile organic constituents. Table 3 lists the analytical results. These organic constituents included solvents and components of gasoline (Montgomery, 1983). Most of 'these compounds are ' exotic to the environment surrounding Coyote Canyon. ' The Montgomery observation well was resampled by Montomery Engineers on 29 August 1983 and subsequently analyzed for nominal water quality data; the results are shown in Table 3-1. No organic chemical analysis was performed. ' Several seeps are centrally located along the side of the northeastern ridge in Coyote Canyon (Exhibit A). One such seep was sampled on 25 April 1983 by the County of Orange. This particular seep was centrally located on the south side I� City of Newport Beach -20- of the northeastern ridge, and it eminated from an exposed sandstone layer. The results are shown in Table 3-2. The source of this seep cannot be evaluated with the available hydrogeologic information; however, we ,believe that water quality evaluation tests on this water may be considered a reasonable approximation to the background water quality in the area. It is even possible that subsurface background water quality may be worse than represented by analysis on the seep water. From the analytical results given, the seep water sample taken from the Coyote Canyon landfill site can be charac- terized as poor quality water (U.S. Public Health Service Public No. 956); however, total organic carbon analysis and bacterial contamination tests were not implemented. The water samples obtained from the Montgomery observation wells and .piezometer are all non -potable, as evidenced by high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) arid.the presence of organic solvents and other halogenated or non -halogenated hydrocarbons. For all these samples, where reported, the levels of potentially toxic inorganic metal ions were not beyond the limits of potable water standards. Data from the 17 February 1983 and 29 August 1983 monitoring well samples tested by Montgomery do not provide sufficient differen- tiating information to interpret water quality change over the time interval separating the tests. 3.2 Surface Water Conditions Drainage The drainage area of the Coyote Canyon Landfill site is classified as Facility Number F04 by Orange County Flood Control District. This drainage basin encompasses 3280 acres and is a tributary of San Diego Creek just upstream of upper Newport Bay (OCFCD, 1973). Elevations within the City, of imlowport Beach TABLE 3 GROUND WATER QUALITYI ALLUVIAL SEMI -PERCHED ZONE 17 FEBRUARY 1983 Coyote Monitoring Coyote Parameters We112 Piezometer pH (units) 7.0 8.2 Electrical Conductivity 6,150 3,250 (nmho/cm) Total Organic Carbon 7.2 5.0 (mg/1) Organic Halogen (Ng/L Cl-) 440 155 Chloride (mg/L) 1,200 465 Chloroform 1.3 ND3 C15-1,2-Dichloroethene 36 1.5 1,1-Dichloroethane 8.9 ND Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.3 ND 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 ND Benzene 1.8 ND 1,2-Dichloroethane 4.2 0.5 1,2-Dichloropropane 1.8 0.2 Trichloroethene 64 3.5 Toluene 0.3 0.6 Tetrachloroethene 60 1.0 Ethylbezene 0.1 0.3 M, p-xylene 0.1 0.2 O-xylene 0.1 0.1 Chlorobenzene 1.7 ND Naphthalene 0.1 ND City of Nev�port Beach TABLE 3 (CONTINUED), GROUND WATER QUALITYI ALLUVIAL WATER BEARING ZONE Coyote Monitoring Coyote Parameters We112 Piezometer 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.3 ND 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.7 ND 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2.1 ND 1,1'-Oxybisethane (0.9)4 ND Dichlorofluoromethane (0.3) ND 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene (0.2) (0.1) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (0.3) ND Decahyoronaphthalene (0.6) ND 1-Methyl-4--Propylbenzene (0.3) ND. 1-Methyl-3-(1-Methylethyl Benzene (0.3) ND 2-ethyl-1,4 Dimethyl Benzene (0.3) ND Acetone ND 25 (1-mthylethyl) Benzene (0.4) ND Ethyenyl Benzene 0.1 8.3 Notes Minimum quantification limit (Ng/L) for most of the purgeable organics by contractor's GC/MS is 0.1. 1. Adopted from James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, 1983. 2. See Exhibit A for locations of these wells. 3. NDs Not detected. 4. ( ): Parentheses indicate tentative number only. 5. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. City of N6Wport Beach TABLE 3-1 COYOTE CANYON MONITORING WELL 29 AUGUST 1983 Parameters mg/L Parameters mg/L Cations: Anions: Sodium 790 Bicarbonate 1218 Potassium 6.3 Carbonate 1 Calcium 529 Chloride 2250 Magnesium 444 Sulfate 750 Nitrate-N <1 Fluoride 3 Cation Sum='97.96 mg/L Anion Sum - 99.18 mg/L PH - 6.8 Conductance = 8000 ( mho/cm) TDS = 5790 mg/L Alkalinity = 1000 mg/L Hardness = 3173 mg/L Iron = .4 mg/L Manganese = .5 mg/L Copper = .007 mg/L Zinc - .013 mg/L Free CO2 (25'0 - 386 mg/L City of Newport Beach Parameters Cations: Sodium Potassium Calcium Magnesium TABLE 3-2 COYOTE CANYON SEEP SAMPLE 25 APRIL 1983* m L Parameters Anions: 160 Nitrate (NO3) 4.9 Chloride i50 Sulfate (SO4) 41 Bicarbonate (HCO3) Carbonate (CO3) Total Milliequivalents per liter 17.76 Iron <.09 Copper <.06 Zinc <.014 mg/L TDS 1040 mg/L Specific Conductance 1700 micromhos PH - 7.0 MBAS Test for Detergents None Detected** mcgL 2.3 280 160 370 0.0 17.38 * Brown R Caldwell Analytical Services Division ** Detection Limit .03 mg/L City. of Newport Beach -21- basin range from about 5 feet at San Diego Creek to 1160 feet at Signal Peak. Streams within the basin are classi- fied as intermittent. ' Surface run-off from the existing landfill and run-off intercepted prior to entering the landfill is collected and directed around -the area via a peripheral temporary drainage ' system. It is reported that this system meets or exceeds 100 year storm design criteria. This system is designed to ' accommodate a flow of approximately 1507 cubic feet/sec (OCGSA, 1983). ' Water from the drainage system enters Coyote Creek, and joins Bonita Canyon Creek near the southwest intersection of ' Bonita Canyon and Coyote Canyon Roads. This creek then flows to Bonita Reservoir, and from there joins San Diego ' Creek near MacArthur Boulevard Bridge. The combined waters enter upper Newport Bay. ' Surface Water Bodies There are three surface water bodies located within th off. e drainage basin F04 or which are either receive its run - San Joaquin Reservoir - This 3,000 acre foot capacity reservoir is located within the southwestern margin of the drainage basin. Water for the reservoir is piped from a filtration plant operated by the Metropolitan Water District. All run-off from the basin is directed away from this reservoir. This area does not directly contribute to run-off within the basin. The reservoir serves as a tempo- rary holding basin for domestically used water from the Colorado River and the state water project. This reservoir is fully lined with a compacted earth lining protected from Fi City of Newport Beach I -22- erosion by a three-inch thick porous asphalt concrete pavement. Liner drains intercept reservoir water perco- lating through the liner and ground water seeps (Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers, 1962). Bonita Reservoir - This small unlined reservoir intercepts the Bonita Creek and San Joaquin Reservoir liner drainage water. Agricultural operations downstream used this water. This use has been discontinued and it has been abandoned with its gates open. The agricultural operations are now supplied with city water (Irvine Company, 1983). Upper Newport Bay - This body of water receives the run-off from Bonita Creek. The upper Newport Bay and associated wetlands serve as an important wildlife habitat, and are utilized to a limited extent by non -contact water recreation such as boating. Surface Water Quality and Uses Currently the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency Environmental Studies Unit does limited surface water quality analysis of both drainage facility F04 and adjacent drainage facility F05, which can serve as a com- parison. Table 4 compares some limited surface water quality parameters between the basins. This table needs to be interpreted with caution as there are differences in stream flow quantities, length of time data has been gathered, and numbers of samples collected. In each case, sample means have been used to represent the data. Another possible landfill, which may be located between the sampling points, could be contributing to the differences in the two data pairs. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 J 1 1 1 1 City of Newport Beach i Item Stream flow cubic feet/second Conductivity micromho at 250C Total coliform Dissolved oxygen milligrans/liter pH Oil -grease milligrams/liter Chromium, total micrograms/liter Copper, total micrograms/liter Lead, total micrograms/liter Zinc, total micrograms/'liter TABLE 41 SURFACE WATER QUALITY COMPARISON Drainage Basin F042 18 610 583370 11 7.2 21 259 128 82 366 Drainage Basin F05 190 2287 313065 9 7.3 10 37 36 83 137 1. Adopted from Storet Retrieval BQF04 83/05/25 and Storet Retrieval SDMF05 83/05/25. Compared values are means of sample values. Numbers of samples and periods of time for means are different for each basin. Consult original references for further analysis. 2. Drainage Basin F04 = Sampling point just above San Diego Creek confluence, in Bonita Creek at MacArthur Bridge Drainge Basin F05 = Sampling point in San Diego Creek at Campus Drive Bridge 1 City of Newport Beach -23- I U This comparison indicates that, other than conductivity, , total lead, and dissolved oxygen, the drainage basin FO4 in which the Coyote Canyon Landfill is located has higher concentrations of total coliform, oil -grease, chromium, 1 copper, and zinc as compared to drainage basin FOS. 1 It was recommended by Orange County Environmental Management Agency in April of 1983 that the Solid Waste Enforcement 1 Agency and Orange County GSA/Solid Waste Management per- sonnel be informed of high trace element analysis of 1 samples collected from Bonita Canyon Wash. High levels of copper, zinc, and chromium were evident. It was indicated 1 that such high concentrations are indicative of possible runoff or leachate contamination from the landfill. The Metropolitan Water District performs limited influent ' and effluent water quality tests of the San Joaquin reser- voir water (MWD, 1983). Limited examination of comparative data over different periods of time indicates that there are , no readily discernable declines in quality which may be attributed to landfill operations. The hydrostatic head of the reservoir would probably restrict any possible leachate 1 from entering through the liner. ' As early as 1978, leachate has been observed within the landfill, collected and spread as dust control. In mid 1980 the Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region ' stated that leachate continues to be produced at the site. They indicated that the cover and drainage improvements were not effective and that landfill materials continue to be inundated (SWQCB, 1980). 1 It appears that Coyote Canyon Landfill operations may be 1 impacting the surface water quality, particularly in the City of Newport Beach i I -24- ' concentrations of total coliform, oil -grease, chromium, copper and zinc. Due to conflicting and sparse data, ' no conclusions with respect to short or long term effect of the landfill on surface water quality can be drawn. ' 3.3 Flooding Hazards/Flood Control The Coyote Canyon Landfill is currently certified that it ' has adequate drainage facilities to protect it from a 100-year storm (OCGSA, 1983). ' Interim lined and unlined drainage channels and culverts ' direct surface runoff around the fill mass. Bonita Reser- voir is apparently aiding in dampening peak flow prior to reaching the MacArthur Bridge Area. 3.4 Codisposal Analysis ' Orange County GSA is currently codisposing solid waste and digested dewatered sewage sludge (20 percent solid) in the landfill. Solid waste and sludge (20 percent solid) are mixed in a 10 to 1 ratio at the landfill site. This anal- ysis assumes that all previous disposal, including sewage sludge, was placed with moisture contents well below the water holding capacity of the material. A water balance calculation was made of the finished land- fill which contains this planned codisposal option to determine if leachate problems can be expected. There are a variety of methods used to calculate a water balance. The selected method will determine needed data and ' required calculations. Figure 3 describes most available methods for water balance calculations. Figure 3 also shows ' the particular method used to quantify the volume of gener- ated leachate for the Coyote Canyon Landfill water balance. 1 City of Newport Beach ALTERNATIVE DATA NEEDED METHODS WATER BALANCE CALCULATIONS Project: COYOTE CANYON FLOWCHART FOR I Fig. I Project No 416831 WATER BALANCE CALCULATIONS 3 . ... • ��! nnl111 T�IJTC 1. .PIL Ui IN �50 011. DUd. Gli -25- ' This particular method only concerns itself with changes in water content of the soil within the root zone. For this ' study the cover was assumed to be 6 feet thick, with an approximately 3 foot thick root zone. On a unit basis the cover soil was assumed to have a water holding capacity of 1.8 inches per foot. In addition to the possible water contribution by codis- posal, five other source factors were evaluated. These ' include precipitation, surface run-on, ground water intru- sion (including seeps), irrigation, and water generated by refuse contribution. Of these, only ground water was not quantifiable. These sources, their contribution to leachate formation, and assessment of the quantity of source contri- bution are listed in Table S. Leachate generated at the Coyote Canyon Landfill can be calculated by the following equations: (1) R = Wp • C ' Where Wp = input water from precipitation C = runoff coefficient R = surface runoff` ' (2) I = Wp + WSR + WIR -R Where I = infiltration WSR = input water from surrounding surface runoff WIR = input water from irrigation (3) PERC = I - E - Ss ' Where PERC = percolation through cover material ' E = evapotranspiration Ss = change in soil storage City u' n I,, ,tourt Beam TABLE 5 POSSIBLE WATER SOURCES FOR LEACHATE GENERATION AT THE COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL Possible Contribution Source to Leaehate Formation Assessment of Source Contribution Assessment Reference 1 Water Generation by This water, generated by anaerobic This quantity is assumed negligible Calscience Research, Refuse Decomposition degradation of the solid wastes my 19811 Salvato, 1971 contribute to the moisture already present within the refuse. 2 Irrigation This possible source, like items 1 and If applied in carefully controlled amounts --- 2 my percolate through cover. this source contribution is estimated ti. to be negligible. Cn N 3 Water Contributed Water remaining in the dewatered Various research projects and reviews EPA, 1974, 1960. by Nixing Sludge sludge (20 paicent solids) my add indicate that no water is generated with 1982 with Solid Wastes moisture to exceed the water holding mix ratios of sludge to solid waste of capacity of the mixed sludge and solid 1110 waste. 4 Direct Precipitation This water my percolate through the Due to amount of evapotranspiration in Sae text and table 6 on to landfill 6 foot earth cover of the landfill southern California and assumed water and contribute towards leachate holding capacity of the cover emterlal, generation contribution by rainfall is estimated to be negligible. 5 Surface Run-on This source of water my run on to The final facilities will have 100 year See text the landfill and percolate through flood frequency drainage design, contribu- the cover material and contribute tion by this source is estimated to be towards leachate generation. negligible. 6 Ground water Intrusion This water my infiltrate from the There remains a possibility that this See text sides and possible underneath the seepage my be contributing minor amounts landfill. of water for leachate formtion in localized areas within the landfill.* • This factor is independent of co -disposal. The current data base does not allow quantification of this term. �GJIY.OfNEylD4/C�?�GfL C I U n (4) PERR = CI - E - PERC -26- Ss] + WD - SR PERK = PERC + WD - SR Where PERK = percolation through refuse without codisposal WD = water contributed by solid waste decomposi- tion SR = change in moisture storage in refuse and finally, (5) L = PERR + WGW Where L = leachate generation WGW = input water from ground water Note: All calculations are on a unit basis. Surface runoff, (R) in equation (1), is estimated :by the Rational Method (on a unit basis). For the conditions at Coyote Canyon this constant is assumed to be .18 (Chow, 1964). Evapotranspiration (E) as indicated in equation (3) is calculated by the Thorthwaite method (Thorthwaite, et al., 1957). Results of this calculation are presented in Table 6. The landfill cover soil storage and amount of percolation ' available for refuse, (PERC), is calculated by the Thornth- waite method with minor modification (Thorthwaite, et al., 1957). Results are presented in Table 7. In equation (3) the PERC term has been calculated to be zero. C 1 City of Newport Beach TABLE 6 POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean Monthly Tempi 54..0 55.1 56.2 58.3 61.0 63.6 66.8 68.0 66.8 63.4 59.1 55.1 T 'F Monthly Heat Index 3.87 4.16 4.47 5.07 5.08 6.69 7.75 8.16 7.75 6.62 5.31 4.16 I .a Daily Unadjusted .05 .06 .06 .07 .08 .09 .11 .11 .11 .09 .07 .06 Potential Evapotrans Unadi PE (in) Correction Factor 26.1 25.5 30.9 32.7 36.3 36.3 36.9 34.8 30.4 29.1 25.8 25.5 for 35"N ADJ PE (in) 1.31 1_.53 1.85 2.29 2.90 3.27 4.06 3.82 3.40 2.62 1.81 1.53 1. National Climatic Center, 1977, Newport Beach Harbor Station, 30 year annual average 1941-70. =011y=P"w Qqnch_ M _ _ ,'ill M = = = M M TABLE 7 IEACFATE PERCOLATION CALCULATION Item Jan Feb Mar Air � Jun Jul AtM $ems Oct Nov Dec Sun Precipitationl (Wp) 2.09 2.16 1.61 1.29 0.15 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.26 1.53 1.75 11.08 Adjusted Potential 1.31 1.53 1.85 2.29 2.90 3.27 4.06 3.83 3.40 2.62 1.81 1.53 30.40 Evapotranspiration (AW PE) Runoff2, (R) 0.38 0.39 . 0.29 0.23 0.03 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.28 0.32 2.02 Available for 1.71 1.77 1.32 1.06 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.21 1.25 1.43 - Percolation Adjusted Infiltration 0.40 0.24 -0.53 -1.23 -2.78 -3.23 -4.05 -3.81 -3.28 -2.41 -0.56 -0.10 - Minus Potential Evapotranspiration (AW I -PE) Accumulated Potential (-0.39) -0.53 1.76 -4.54 -7.77 -11.82 -15.63 -18.91 -21.32 -21.88 -21.98 - ,"„ Water Loss3 (ACC POT WL) Soil moisture 0.79 1.03 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 -0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 - Storage (5) Change in Soil moisture +0.40 +0.24 -0.53 -0.14 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Storage (AS.) Actual 1.31 1.53 1.85 1.20 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.21 1.25 1.43 9.09 Evapotranspiration Percolation Through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cover (PERC) Percolation through 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Refuse4 (PERR) 1. National Climatic Center, 1977, Newport Beach Harbor Station, 30 year annual average, 1941-70. 2. Chow, 1964, Assume R = .18, Table 14.1. 3. Thornthwaite, 1957, Water holding capacity of soil assumed to be 6 inches within root zone. Potential evaporation values over 16.0 are assumed to have .39 inches of water retained in the soil. 4. Assumes no internal generation of leacbate and no contribution fran cover material. amity of Newport Beach -27- In equation (4), it is assumed water contribution by waste decomposition (WD) is zero. Consequently, the change in moisture storage of the refuse ( SR) terms is also zero. The water absorptive capacity of average municipal solid waste without sludge ranges from a minimum of 60 to a maximum of 178 percent by weight (EPA, 1974). The moisture content of typical municipal solid waste is approximately 20 percent. This data indicates that refuse delivered to landfills is well below its absorptive capacities (Salvato, 1971). Thus, it can be concluded that, considering the cover material and the solid waste without sludge, this system, in itself, should not cause leachate production (EPA, 1974). The codisposal option was then examined in respect to these water balance calculations. There exists a mix ratio of sludge to refuse which ensures that water released from the sludge can be intercepted by the refuse without seriously depleting the refuse adsorption capacity cited earlier. The mixture would, in this strategy, not attain its full capa- city to contain water, thus preventing the release of contaminated leachate. EPA has sponsored several research projects which indicated which mix ratio was optimal. Several major factors on codisposal leachate formation were examined. These include moisture content of the sludge, the average refuse composi- tion and depth of disposal. For landfill depths up to 330 feet, EPA has concluded that for sludges with a 20 percent solids content a mix ratio of 1 to 10 is adequate to prevent leachate formation (EPA 19740 1980, 1982). Ci ty C 156 I 1 1 As there is no assumed moisture input from water percolating down through the cover (PERC), and negligible (WD) to 1 additionally stress this absorptive capacity, it can be concluded that there should be negligible leachate formation 1 due to codisposal activities. Equation (5) considers ground water as the last input for ' the water balance calculation at the landfill. Due to 1) water quality deterioration down gradient, 2) observed 1 water seeps in unused areas of the landfill, and 3) similar seep conditions reported in the San Joaquin Reservoir, it is 1 possible that some ground water seepage is occurring under- neath the filled areas. Thus the ground water term (WGW) ' cannot be assumed to be zero yet. Insufficient data does not allow an estimate of ground water inflow. 1 In summary, codisposal itself should negligibly impact the formation of leachate at the Coyote Landfill. Sufficient data was not available to quantify the contribution ground 1 water (WGW) could make towards leachate generation (L). 1 n 1 1 u 1 1 1 City of Newport Beach American Society of Civil Engineers, 1960, Design and construction of sanitary and storm sewers: Manuals of Engineered Practice, No. 37 or Water Pollution Control Federation Manual of Practices, No. 9. California Department of Water Resources, George Takata, 13 July 1983. California Department of Water Resources, Richard E. Angelos, letter dated August 11, 1977. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, Bruce Pain, 21 July 1983. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, Permit File, Inspection Reports, 1983. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, J. W. Anderson, Executive Officer letter dated 11 July 1980. Calscience Research, August, 1981, Leachate investigation at the Hill AFB Landfill: Unpublished report. County of Orange, 1975, Orange County General Plan - Seismic Safety Element, 47 p. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey or Orange County and Western part of Riverside County, California, September, 1978. I FI 0 1 1 d u I J _J 1 H i City of NdWport Beach 1 FI I 1 r I n -2- Department of Water Resources, Letter dated 11 August 1977, File No. 282.82, R. E. Angelos. EPA, 1982, A critical review of wastewater treatment plant sludge disposal by landfilling, EPA-600/2-82-092. EPA, 1974, Disposal of sewage sludge into aIsanitary land- fill, EPA/SW-71d. EPA 1980, Co -disposal of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge - an analysis of constraints. Elliott, L. F., ed., 1977, Soils for management or organic wastes and waste waters, Madison: Soil Scient Society, 1977. Environmental Protection Agency, Codisposal of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge an analysis of con- straints", SW-184, 1980. Hart, E. W. 1980, Fault rupture hazards zones in California, Alquist-Priolo special studies zone act of 1972 with index to special studies zone maps: California Divi- sion of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 25 p. ' Hart, E. W. , Smith, D. P. , and Saul, R. B. , 1979, Summary report: fault evacuation program, 1978 area (Peninsular ' Ranges - Salton Trough Region): California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 79-10-SF, 10 p. ' Irvine Company, Fred Keller, Vice President of Agricultural Operations Telecon with M. H. Tiller, WCC, 14 July 1983. F 1 City of Ne*port Beach I -3- James M. Montgomery Consulting,Engineers, Inc.,, Job No. 437, February, 1983. James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc., Job No. 437, addendum dated June 2, 1983. Jennings, C. W., 1975, Fault map of California with loca- tions of volcanoes, thermal springs, and thermal wells: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 1, ,scale 1:750,000. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1980, Report of geotechnical investigation of landslide and erosion damage, Coyote Canyon Refuse Disposal Site, San Joaquin Hills, County of Orange: Unpublished Report for County of Orange, GSA/Solid Waste Management Division, 15 p. Leighton and Associates, Inc. 1981, Report of geologic inspections and field density test results, landslide and erosion repair areas, Coyote Canyon Refuse Disposal Site, San Joaquin Hills, Newport Beach, California: Unpublished Report for Orange County Solid Waste Management Division, 4 p. Lofy, R., Phung, H., Stearns, R., Walsh, J., 1978, investi- gation of ground water contamination from subsurface sewage sludge disposal: v. I, Project Description and Findings, EPA 68-01-41660 p. 357. Metropolitan Water District, 1983, Reports T20-04B, ID Codes 2007 of CM100 2228 of,SJR60000, various years. .1 11 r F I 1 9_ u J 11 u I City of Newport Beach I -4- �' Miller, R. V., and Tan, S. S., 1976, Geology and engineering geologic aspects of the south half Tustin quadrangle, Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 126, 28 p. Morton, P. K., Miller, R. V., and Evans, J. R., 1979, Environmental geology of Orange County, California: ' California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 79-8-LA, 474 p. National Climatic Center, Monthly Normals of Temperature, ' Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Days 1-941-70, Asheville, North Carolina, August 1973. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 19_, Hypocenter Data File: Environmental Data Service, ' Denver, Colorado. ' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Hypocenter Data File, 1983. Orange County Environmental Management Agency, Letter to F. G. McKellan, Manager Development Services, 27 April 1983. ' Orange County Flood Control District, August 1973, Hydrology ' Report Facility No. F04 Entire Drainage System". Orange County General Services Agency, Waste Management Program, Assistant Chief Engineer, 15 July 1983. Orange County Surveyor, Application letter for industrial permit: Proposed Coyote Canyon Disposal Site, February ' 1, 1963. City of Newport Beach Robert Stone and Associates, Inc., 1982, Borrow site "A" investigation Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Coyote Canyon road south of Bonita Canyon Road, Irvine, California: Unpublished Report for Solid Waste Manage- ment Division, General Services Agency, County of , Orange, 17 p. Salvato, J. A., 1971,• Sanitay landfill - leaching prevention ' and control: J. Water Pollution Control Federation, v. 43, no. 10. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers, Inc., 1962, San ' Joaquin Reservoir project soil and geological engineer- ing report: Unpublished Report for Irvine Ranch Water District, 73 p. Slosson and Associates, 1971, Geologic report for upper Harbor View Hills, Sector IV --Newport Beach, County of Orange, California: Unpublished Report John D. Lusk and Sons, 33 p. Tan, S. S., and Edgington, W. J., 1976, Geology and engi- neering geologic aspects of the Laguna Beach Quandran- gle, Orange County, California: California Division of ' Minesaand Geology Special Report 127, 32 p. Thornthwaite, C. W., and Mather, J. R., 1957, Instructions ' and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration ' and the water balance: Publications in Climatology, Lab. of Climatology, Drexel Institute of Technology, 10(3): 185-311. 1 I City of N&vport Beach t Vedder, J. G., Yerkes, R. F., and Schoellhamer, J. E., 1957, Geologic map of the San Joaquin Hills -San Juan Capis- trano Area, Orange County, California: U. S. Geologic Survey Oil and Gas Investigation Map OM 193, scale 1=24000. Wahler, W. A., Soil and geologic engineering investigation, design, and construction of San Joaquin Reservoir, Journal AWWA, May 1966. Woodward-Clyde-Sherard and Associates, 1967, Geologic and soil investigation Upper Harbor View Hills Area, Orange County, California: Unpublished Report for the Irvine Company, 27 p. Woodward -McNeill and Associates, 1974, Soil and foundation investigation The Irvine Company's Sector IV Area Irvine, California: Unpublished Report for the Irvine ' Company, 20 p. Yerkes, R. F., Geology of the Los Angeles Basin California - an introduction, Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A, Washington: USGPO, 1966. ' Aerial Photography Photography Flight Line and Number Date Scale Black and C23870-237,238,239 5/20/60 1"=1200'+ White C23870 272, 1968, 1969 6/28/60 1"=1200'+ Black and 1-7-8, 9, 14, 15• 2/25/77 1"=2000'+ White ' Black and 1-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 11/20/82 1"= 5001+ ' White City o, rmcwport Beach I 11 IJ IJ I I t I I I LJ I I D. BIOLOGICAL SPECIES LIST 164 City of Newport Beach Appendix D Site Plant List Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Plant Community G Grassland CSS Coastal Sage Scrub C Chaparral OW Oak Woodland R Riparian D Disturbed Status * Non Native Importance A Abundant C Common F Frequent 0 Occasiontal I Infrequent City of Nevffiort Beach ASPIDIACEAE - FERN FAMILY Dr o teris arguta 0o ern POLYPODIACEAE - FERN FAMILY PollOdiumm californicum California' olyp�oCy PTERIDACEAE - FERN FAMILY Adiantumus ca illus-veneris Ven-ha r ern Adiantum ordanii Cal Porn a Maidenhair Pit ro ramma tri�an ula�ris Go en ac Fern ANACARDIACEAE - SUMAC FAMILY Rhus inte�rifolia_ —M na—fie e Rhus laurina =aure(-Sumac Toxicvdendron diversilobum Poison -oak APIACEAE - CARROT FAMILY *Conium maculatum Poison -hemlock Daucus usillus Rattle e Weed COYOTE CANYON FILICAE DICOTYLEDONAE 166 G LCSS C OW R D 19 I I l 0 C 0 C F I m I City of Newport Beach APIACEAE - CARROT FAMILY (cont'd) Sanicula bi innata P9T N e Sanicula crassicaulis Ta7ic n—akeroot ASCLEPIADACEAE - MILKWEED FAMILY Asclepias eri�ocarpa Indian Mi--fkweea-• ASTERACEAE - SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia sil�osta�chyaa —"C+(estern ag' Artemisia californica Coastal Sage—brusf— Artemisia d�ouglas�iana Ca ii ornia Mugwort Baccharis tglutinosa ME a Baccharis pilul,aris oyote 77— C�al,ycad�enia tenella —Rosin Weed *Centaurea melitensis Tocalote *Cirsium vulgga��re Bull Thistle *Con, canadensis Horsewe— Corethrogyne filaginifolia Common Corethrogyne *Cy�na,,�ra cardunculus lard00n Encelia californica —6'usfi uun ofi wer Fila o californica Ca i orn a fl-utfweed Gnaphalium beneolens Fragrant Everlasting G CSS C OW R D I L; 0 0 C 0 1 F C F 0 E 167 City of Newport Beach F F C 0 F 0 F 0 ASTERACEAE - SUNFLOWER FAMILY (cont'd) Gna a! bicolor Bicolored- 7af Cudweed Gna halium californicum FaTi o ma "—E rlasting Gna halium mic�roce halum W ite Ever ast--i ing Gnaphalium luteo-album Weedy CudWeed Gna0aliu_m alu�stre —lowland u� dweeTc Grindelia robusta Gum -plant Gutierrezia bracteata San Joaquin Matchweed Ha to a us inll,lius ine o en ud—b ssh Ha to oasa ts us genetus GT d nbush Helianthus annuus Common Su- nfTower Hemizonia fasciculata F cle-7fiarweed" Hemizonia ramosissima Slender arwee Heterotheca ran�diflorraa Telegraph eked Hypoch oeris la�bra moot at— s Ear *Lactuca 'serriola Prickly Let7uce Senecio v�ulgar�is Common G— - �ouIcn sel Sol�idago_ californica California Goldenrod *Sonchus aaspe�r_ —'PriMy— ow Thistle *Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow Mstle Ste hanomeria virata a tep anom�er a *Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur %.ALy of G CSS C OW R 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 F C F 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 F F 0 Newport Beach BORAGINACEAE - BORAGE FAMILY Amsinckia intermedia Common Fid edl neck' Cryptantha intermedia White Forget-me-not Heliotropium curassavicum Salt Heliotrope Pla iobothr s nothofulvus Popcorn Flower BRASSICACEAE - MUSTARD FAMILY *Brassica geniculata Short -podded Mustard *Brassica nigra Black Mustard *Ra ha�nus sativus —WiTcl Ra�i-sf *Sisymbrium officinale Hedge Musta—rd CACTACEAE - CACTUS FAMILY *Opuntia "occidentalis" Hybrid Coasta9—Prickly Pear Opuntia littoralis Coastal Prickly Pear 0 untia rol��ifera Coast Cholla CAPRIFOLIACEAE - HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY Sambucus mexicana Mexican Elderberry ,Symphoricarpos mollis Spreading Snowberry CHENOPODIACEAE - GOOSEFOOT FAMILY *Atriplex semibaccata Austra ia1- n Saitbush *Chenopo_dium album Lamb's -quarters G CSS C OW R D 0 0 0 I F F F 0 0 0 0 I I 0 F 0 0 0 LIM( r 169 vewport Beach I G CSS C OW R D CHENOPODIACEAE - GOOSEFOOT FAMILY (cont'd) *Cheno odium ambrosioides 0 0 Mexican -tea Cheno odium californicum 0 —Ca llT7orni a ooMEToo�" *Salsola iberica 0 Russian -thistle CONVOLVULACEAE - MORNING-GLORY FAMILY Came�l steggiia�s macr�oste ids I l�estern Morning ry CRASSULACEAE - STONECROP FAMILY Dud' lanceolata I I Lance- eaved ve-forever Du�dle�a ulverul�enta I Chalk v—Ci- e=forever CUCURBITACEAE - GOURD FAMILY Marah macrocarpus I 0 Wild Cucumber EUPHORBIACEAE - SPURGE FAMILY Eremocarpus setigerus C Dove Weed Eu hlorbia alb�omar in�ata 0 Rat esna ak Weed — *Ricinus communis 0 0 Castor -bean FABACEAE - PEA FAMILY Am�or hh2 fruticosa I —False n 1go Lath, r�us ae ltiflorus 0 —San Ge r e ea Lotus sco arius F —beerRe 170 City of Newport Beach FABACEAE - PEA FAMILY (cont'd) LLu inus excubitus --Interior�usT—Lupine Lu inus succulentus uccu el n1-l�nnuaT Lupine *Medica o polymorpha Bur -clover *Melilotus albus White Sweet -clover FAGACEAE - BEECH FAMILY uercus a rifolia Coast Live a FRANKENIACEAE - FRANKENIA FAMILY Frankenia grandifolia Alkali Heath GERANIACEAE - GERANIUM FAMILY *Erodium bottr s Broad —Toted Filaree *Erodium cicutarium Red -stemmed *Erodium moschatum White -stemmed Filaree HYDROPHYLLACEAE - WATERLEAF FAMILY Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia Common Eucrypta Phacelia cicutaria Caterpi'ller P4acelia LAMIACEAE - MINT FAMILY *Marrubium vulare Hore OuR Salvia a Tana White Sage G CSS C OW R D 0 0 C 0 0 C I F C 0 I 0 ;7 IQ Gl City of Newport Beach G CSS C OW R D LAMIACEAE - MINT FAMILY (cont'd) , Sa14ia melli,fera F —Black Sage ' Trichostema lanceolatum 0 negar ee MALVACEAE - MALLOW FAMILY Malacothamnus fasciculatus 0 i Mesa Busfma oTi w NYCTAGINACEAE - FOUR-O'CLOCK FAMILY Mirabilis californica 0 Wishbone u-8`si—"— , ONAGRACEAE - EVENING -PRIMROSE FAMILY i Clarkia pureurea quadrivulnera 0 winecup ulama ' PLATANACEAE - SYCAMORE FAMILY Platanus racemosa 0 — California ycamore POLEMONIACEAE - PHLOX FAMILY Ed astrum sa hirinum —Sap 0 lire r as rum POLYGONACEAE - BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Erio onum elon alum ong-stemme m ogonum 0 ' Eriogonum fasciculatum C Caa l foorniaR uckwheat *Rumex crispus 0 Curly Dock Rumex salicifolius 0 , Wil ow Doc 172 City of Newport Beach 1 G CSS C OW R D PRIMULACEAE - PRIMROSE FAMILY *Ana allis arvensis I I Sc et i—is mpernel RANUNCULACEAE - CROWFOOT FAMILY Ranunculus californicus I California u'-8 ttercup RHAMNACEAE - BUCKTHORN FAMILY Rhamnus ilicifolia 0 0 Large-leave-ftedberry ROSACEAE - ROSE FAMILY Heteromeles arbutifolia 0 F 0 o— y� on Rubus ursinus 0 Call 7 rnia Blackberry RUBIACEAE - MADDER FAMILY Galium nuttallii 0 Nuttall's Bedstraw SALICACEAE - WILLOW FAMILY Sal ix gooddingii 0 Black Willow Salix lasiolepis F Arroyo Willow SAURURACEAE - LIZARD -TAIL FAMILY Anemopsis californica F Yerba Mansa SAXIFRAGACEAE - SAXIFRAGE FAMILY Ribes speciosum 0 Fuchsia -flowered Gooseberry 173 GILL of iiewport Beach G CSS C OW R D SCROPHULARIACEAE - FIGWORT FAMILY Keckiella cordifolia 0 Climbing e� nstemon Mimulus aurantiacus F F Orange Bush FronTey-flower Scrophularia californica 0 Coast Figwort SOLANACEAE - NIGHTSHADE FAMILY *Nicotiana lau�ca 0 F Tree To aE yo Solanum d�ougla�sii 0 Douglas'--MgFtshade URTICACEAE - NETTLE FAMILY Urtica holosericea F Creeg Nettle VERBENACEAE - VERVAIN FAMILY Verbena lasiostachys 0 Western Verbena MONOCOTYLEDONAE AMARYLLIDACEAE - AMARYLLIS FAMILY Dichelostemma ulchella 0 0 9i - -yan CYPERACEAE - SEDGE FAMILY Eleocharis montevidensis 0 Slender Creeping Sp —Tice -rush �Skims olneyi 0 y Bulrush Scirpus robustus 0 Pacific Coast Bulrush 174 City of Newport Beach IRIDACEAE - IRIS FAMILY Sis rinchium bellum ue-eye r� ass JUNCACEAE - RUSH FAMILY Juncus balticus �Wire Rush Juncus bufonius Toad Rush Juncus dubius Mariposa Rush Juncus patens Spreading Rush Juncus xi eavehioides —iris- ush LILIACEAE - LILY FAMILY Ch�lorogal�um pomeridianum S— oap Plant POACEAE - GRASS FAMILY A rg ostis semiverticillata Water Bent *Arundo donax =iantTe—ed *Avena barbata —BTen ec�7�Gfr i-1 d Oat *Avena fatua Common Wild Oat Brach odium distachyon Pu r�lsebrome *Bromus diandrus Ripgut Brome *Bromus mollis 7m—Cn'B'SS *Bromus rubens Red Brome *_Cyn_od�on ddac_tyl_o_n --Be�mu aga rass G CSS C OW R D I F F C C C F C C F 0 0 0 F I F C 0 C 0 city of Newport Beach G CSS C OW R D POACEAE - GRASS FAMILY (cont'd) Distichlis s ip cata F Saitgrass *Echinochloa crusgalli I Watergrass El m�us condensatus F Gi UCORnT.T�TIy Fes tuca me alura C F FREa escue *Hordeum le�orinu�m 0 —RMI T-8ar i ey *Lamarekia aurea 0 0 Gooldentop *Polypogoh monspeliensis f 0 Rabbit's -foot Grass Schismus barbatus F Mediterranean Grass Stipa lep�id�aa F Sma T_7 owered Needlegrass Stti a_ Sul-ch�ra 0 Tu—rp-le Needlegrass TYPHACEAE - CAT -TAIL FAMILY rrT ha latifolia 0 oad- eave Cat -tail City of Newport Beach i E. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT P h' I7 L� ' 177 City of Newport Beach ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT: COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL By: Marie G. Cottrell Of: Archaeological Resource Management Corp. 12942 A Magnolia Street, Suite 65 Garden Grove, California 92641 For: Phillips,•Brandt, Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 July 1983 City of NdWport Beach 7 INTRODUCTION ' The following report presents the findings of an archaeologi- cal resources assessment conducted for the Coyote Canyon Sanitary ' Landfill. The study was completed by Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC) for Phillips, Brandt, Reddick (PBR) to be included as the cultural resources section of an Environ- mental Impact Report being prepared for the County of Orange. The purpose of the cultural resources assessment was to locate and evaluate any archaeological sites within the existing landfill operation and the two potential borrow site areas which have the ' potential of being adversely impacted and to make recommendations which will serve to alleviate these impacts. The study was con- ducted by Marie G. Cottrell, a Society of Professional Archaeo- logists (SOPA) and County of Orange certified archaeologist. The project was carried out in two stages according •to the guidelines set forth in the County of Orange Policy regarding the identifi- cation and management of Cultural and Scientific Resources. The ; first phase consisted of a literature and records search, and the second phase of a field survey. The current Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill study area con- sists of two separate parcels: the existing landfill operation area and the two potential borrow areas located to the west. During a preliminary records check, it was noted that a portion of the potential borrow site area (I & II) had not previously been surveyed. The tasks completed by ARMC in this particular ' study, therefore, included: 1) a records and literature search for the entire project area; 2) a walk -over survey of the two potential borrow areas in.those sections indicated as not being previously surveyed; and 3) a field check of the previously re- corded sites in the study area to ascertain their present status. Based on the results of this investigation, a management plan ' 179 1 City of Newport Beach I could be proposed which if implemented would alleviate any ad- ' verse impacts the continued landfill operations might have on _ archaeological resources within the project area. ' PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONS The Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill is located in the western , reaches of the San Joaquin Hills, about 2 miles due north from the Pacific Ocean (to the southern perimeter of the landfill), and about 3 miles due east of Upper Newport Bay. The Sanitary Land- ' fill encompasses all of Coyote Canyon and the associated small canyons,'and ridges surrounding the canyon (Figure 1). The two potential borrow site areas are located directly to the west of ' the present landfill site and just east and south of San Joaquin Reservoir. I On the U..S.G.S. Laguna Beach 7.5' Quadrangle Map, the study area is located in Township 6 South, Range 9 West, and includes most of Section 128 and Section 98; the eastern corner of Section 97; and the northern corner of Section 129. -Elevations in the area range from 800 to less than 300 feet. Modification in the Canyon area has been extensive due to landfill operations, parti- cularly in the -canyon bottom and along many of the slopes. The potential borrow site areas have also been in part modified as , a result of the construction of San Joaquin Reservoir. Indica- tors of former ground surface, range from 10 to 20 feet above current ground surface levels in distrubed portions of the borrow areas. Additionally, piles of dirt have been dumped in the bor- row areas, as a result of reservoir construction. The very north- , ern and.southern portions of the borrow areas have not been pre- viously distrubed, i In undisturbed areas,of the study area, the Coastal Sage Scrub and the Riparian Plant Communities form the predominate vegetation cover. Both of these communites would have been use- , ful to the aboriginal inhabitants of the area as a source of food, 180 City of Newport Beacn 1 \ 1 No• Xv .. Y Vigure 1: Project Location Ma J P Taken from PBR Exhibit SCALE: 1" = 1200' City of Newport Beach medicine,.and raw material for manufacture and construction. It ' is also evident from the amount of shell fish remains found in the sites investigated to date, that the ocean and nearby bay ' environments were also exploited for food resources. Coyote Can- yon, with its reliable water supply and an abundance and variety , of food resources in close proximity, would have been an especi- ally attractive area for settlement. This fact is borne out 'in ' the number of sites recorded in and around the canyon. RECORDS SEARCH ' The records search indicated that a number of archaeological , surveys and excavations have been carried out in the study parcel, resulting in the recordation of sixteen archaeological sites (see ' Table I). Of the sixteen sites, all but six have been investi- gated in some fashion. In chronological order, the investigations , conducted within the bounds of the study area are:. 1) The original surveys in the Coyote Canyon study area were conducted by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society .(PCAS) in the 1960's as a volunteer effort. They discovered ten of the sixteen recorded sites and conducted addtional investigations at six of the sites. No complete reports on any of these investi- gations are as yet available, but at least two of the sites are currently being analyzed and reports are expected in the near future. The ten sites recorded by PCAS within the bounds of .the current study area are: CA -Ora 233, 232, 231, 272, 271, 234, 235, 235, 275, and 227. PCAS investigated CA -Ora 232 (with ' the field class in archaeology from California State University, Los Angeles), 271, 231, 236, 234, and 235. Laura Lee Mitchell ' is currently working on the report for CA -Ora 236 (Coyote Cave) and Nancy Smiley is working on the report for CA -Ora 231 (French , Cave). A large amount of the cultural material recovered from these two sites has been analyzed, and preliminary reports on , 182 City of Newport Beach TABLE I SITE NO. RECORDED BY YEAR DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS CURRENT STATUS 231 PCAS 1967 Cave, shell midden PCAS 1967 Partially destroyed 232 PCAS 1968 Open, shell midden PCAS/CSULA 1967 Distrubed/Intact 233 PCAS 1968 Small lithic scatt.. none Destroyed 234 PCAS 1968 Open, shell midden PCAS 1968? Destroyed 235 PCAS 1967 Open, shell midden. PCAS 1968? Destroyed 236 PCAS 1968 Cave, shell midden PCAS 1968 Distrubed 227 PCAS 1966 Open, shell midden AA 1977, APC 1977 Cleared for destruction 271 PCAS 1969 Cave, shell midden PCAS 1968 Distrubed 272 PCAS 1969 Cave, shell midden none Distrubed/Intact 275 PCAS 1969 Open, shell midden none Intact 689 AA 1977 Cave, shell midden AA 1979 Distrubed/Intact 616 ca ARI 1977 Open, shell scatt. none Distrubed/Intact W 673 ARI 1977 Open, shell midden none Intact 797 Tadlocks 1979 Open, shell midden none Unknown 619 ARI 1977 Open, shell scatt. AA 1979 Cleared for destruction 620 ARI 1977 Open, shell scatt. AA 1979 Cleared for destruction City of Newport Beach particular topic areas are available on request from the PCAS researchers. 2) The second study conducted within the bounds of the current , assessment area was completed by Archaeological Research Inc, (ARI) in 1977 for the County of Orange (Cottrell 1977)., The , scope of work for this investigation included a records search for the 592 acre disposal station, the 63 acre proposed addition, , and the associated borrow areas; a field survey of the 63 acre proposed addition; and a spot check of the previously recorded ' sites to determine their present status and condition as related to landfill operations. The 1977 study by ARI located two new sites within the present boundaries of the project area, noted the location and condition of the ten sites recorded by PCAS, and presented mitigation recommendations for the management of ' these resources. The sites located were CA -Ora 619 and 620. ' 3) Archaeological Research Inc. (ARI) conducted a survey for the Irvine Coastal Area .(Parcel 1) in 1977. The covered the area now located'in the southern portion of Potential Borrow Site I ' and the southern portion of the existing landfill boundary. Two new sites, CA -Ora 673 and 616, were recorded. ' 4) Archaeological Associates (AA) conducted test level investi- gations for four of the recorded sites in the study area and additionally recorded one new site. The four sites tested were , CA -Ora 227, 619, 620, and 689 (originally described as 275, but designation was later changed). They recommended further investi- gations for CA -Ora 227, salvaged and cleared sites CA -Ora 619 and 620, and recommended that CA -Ora 689 be preserved. 5) Archaeological Planning Collaborative conducted the recommen- ded salvage investigations at CA -Ora 227. ' 184 ' City of Newport Beach i ' 6) Louis and Jean Tadlock conducted a survey along the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor alignment for Leighton and Associates.. They located and recorded one archaeological site in the southern portion of the current study.area, CA -Ora 797. 7) Ed Weil of Larry Seeman and Associates undertook a survey of the proposed Pelican Hill Road alignment (Weil 1981). While he did not locate any new sites in this area, he did field check four of the sixteen sites, specifically, CA -Ora 231, 236, 271, and 272. ' 8) In 1982, Beth Padon of Larry Seeman and Associates conducted a review and field inspection of seven of the sites within the ' current study area. Following this evaluation, a series of miti- gation measures were proposed for the sites examined. ' FIELD SURVEY ' Part 1: Potential Borrow Sites ' An archaeological walk -over field survey was conducted for the two potential borrow site areas. The survey included a care- ful examination of the northernmost portion of both borrow sites, as these had not previously been surveyed and a spot check of the southern portion of Potential Borrow Site I which had previously been surveyed by ARI (Briuer 1977). The'survey was conducted by Marie Cottrell and Kathleen Del Chario on July 20, 1983. The ' initial field inspection indicated that large areas of both bor- row site areas had been graded, probably when San Joaquin Res- ervoir was constructed. Also piles of dirt and rubble had been deposited over most of the area. The only areas not impacted in the borrow areas were the northerly sector of Borrow Site II. The walk -over field survey was adjusted to by-pass the more dis- trubed portions of the borrow sites. 185 City of Newport Beach I_J The walk -over field survey of the borrow areas was conducted ' in north -south transects spaced approximately 10-15 meters apart. The groundsurface, which had relatively good visibility, was ob- served for signs of prehistoric habitation or use. Indicators of prehistoric habitation include the presence of scatters of ' shell, bone, or pieces of pottery, ground stone implementts, chipped stone tools and debitage, and soil discoloration due to refuse accumulation or fire hearths. No evidence of any pre- ' historic activity was noted in the northern (above.the Irvine Co. access road). No sites will, therefore, be negatively impacted ' if Potential Borrow Site II is graded. The spot check survey of site CA -Ora 673, located in the ' southern portion of Potential Borrow Site I, confirmed its pres- ence. CA -Ora 673 was described as a roughly oval scatter of , shell with occasional lithic tools and slightly darkened soil. The site, upon inspection, appears to be the same.as described , above. This site requires a test level investigation to ascer- tain its significance if it to be negatively impacted by borrow excavations.(see Figure 2 for site locations within the current , study area). ' Part II: Spot Check Survey of Other Sites in Study Area , Other sites in the study area were spot checked in the field to ascertain their current status and condition in order to make ' recommendations for their management, if continued landfill op- erations will negatively impact these sites. Six sites were not inspected during this study because they have already been des- , troyed or have been cleared archaeologically for destruction. The sites not inspected were: CA -Ora 227, 619, 620, 234, 235, and 233. Sites which were inspected in addition to CA -Ora 673, located in the borrow area (I) are: CA -Ora 797, 616, 232, 231, 236, 271, , 272, 689, and 275. The condition of the sites is described as follows: , 186 ' City of Newport Beach 1 i CA -Ora 797 was located and recorded by Louis and Jean Tadlock in 1979. The site is described as an open air shell midden site with lithic tools.noted consisting of a mano and flakes. 1 During the current assessment, this site could not be re -located. This was not unexpected since the site area was covered with a ' dense stand of matted grasses totally obscuring all ground visi- bility. u 1 n 1 C n l_J 1 C r , I 1 I _l I CA -Ora ,616 was located and recorded by ARI in 1977. It was des- cribed as a roughly circular shell scatter with darkened soil and a few lithic artifacts. Very little of the site could be seened during the current assessment, primarily due to dense grass cover. A few shell pieces were noted indicating the presence of this site. CA -Ora 232 was officially recorded- by PCAS in 1968 and is re - erred to as the French Flats site. It was excavated by Dr. Hal Eberhardt of California State University at Los Angeles and his field class with PCAS in 1967. No reports exist on the excava- tions of this site. The current inspection re -located the site as plotted. While there was dense grass cover, rodent holes and bare patches indicated the presence of a shell midden. A row had been recently disced on the Coyote Canyon side of the barbed wire fence which crosses the site area. Fire -cracked rock, shell fragments, and a mano were observed in this area. The site appears to be in good condition. CA -Ora 231 was officially recorded by PCAS in 1967 and is refer- red to as French Cave. This site, a large rockshelter with a shell midden located within the cave and on the talus slope in front, was excavated by PCAS in 1967. The site data are currently being analyzed by Nancy Smiley who is preparing a report on the site. This site was re -located during the current assessment. Since Cottrell was last at the site in 1977, a berm has been built up in front of the cave entrance. The cave is almost com- 187 1 City of Newport Beach pletely buried at this time. Since it was recommended in 1977 that the site be fenced and preserved, the continued impacting of this site on the .part of the landfill operation without further mitigation efforts is not acceptable. Efforts should be made at 1 this time to ensure no further negative impacts will occur to the site as a result of continued landfill operations. As a num- ber of alternatives are available, when future grading/fill plans are formulated, they should be reviewed by the County Solid Waste 1 Management Division and a consulting archaeologist to determine the best course of action. CA -Ora 236 was recorded by PCAS in 1968. This large rockshelter, containing a shell midden both within the cave and on the slopes 1 in front, was excavated by PCAS. Mrs. Mitchell is currently pre- paring a report on the site. A number of sections have already 1 been completed and are available to qualified archaeologists with research interests in the site. The site was visited during the course of this survey and appears to Cottrell to be in much the 1 same condition as it was in 1977. It should be noted that further investigations were recommended for this site to complete the 1 sample taken by PCAS, if the site were to be impacted by contin- ued landfill operations. 1 CA -Ora 271 was recorded by PCAS in 1969. A small excavation was 1 conducted in this small shelter located adjacent to Ora 236 by PCAS. The site was re -located during this assessment, and Cottrell 1 still feels that it is essentially part of the Coyote Cave complex and need not be given a separate designation. This site should also be investigated to Complete the original sample taken by 1 PCAS, if the site were going to be impacted by continued landfill operations. I I CA -Ora 272 was recorded in 1969 by PCAS and is described as a 1 small rockshelter with a fire blackened ceiling and very little midden. This site was visited during the current assessment and , 188 City of Newport Beach 1 C LJ u F, n H 1 C i� J L appears to be in much the same condition as observed by Cottrell in 1977. The site appears to be above any proposed grading/fill operations and can thus be preserved as is. CA -Ora 689 is a small rockshelter site which was investigated by Archaeological Associates in 1977. As the site was outsided of the proposed landfill operations, Van Horn recommended that it be fenced and preserved. The site appears to be in good condi- tion at this time and the original recommendation for preserva- tion should be followed. CA -Ora 275 is a small open site consisting of a sparse shell and artifact scatter located above site CA -Ora 689. This site is currently intact and appears to be above the direct impact zone of proposed expanded landfill operations. If, however, the site is to be impacted by future expansion plans for the landfill, it should be tested to ascertain its significance. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In,reviewing the proposed grading plans for the Coyote Can- yon Landfill expansion, Alternative I would appear to have the least amount of impact -on archaeological resources. Regardless of which alternative is chosen, however, the following mitigation program should be implemented. The mitigation program is broken down into three segments for ease of presentation. I. Four sites, CA -Ora 271, 236, 231, and 689, have been previous- ly investigated and have been found to be significant sites. The sites will be directly impacted if landfill operations are expand- ed in east and south canyons. The sites all require further investigations if alternatives 2 or 3 are chosen, but may not if alternative 1 is selected. The scope of the salvage investi- M I City of Newport Beach can be designed after a decision is made on which alternative will be implemented. Any future research project on any of the four sites in question will have to be coordinated to take care ' of the shortfalls of previous research. Cost estimates will vary according to the groups submitting a proposal, but a rough estimate of cost for additional work at sites CA -Ora 236, 231, and 271 would be in the range of $2000.00 to $3000.00 per site. Additional excavations at CA -Ora 689 would probably cost between ' $12000.00 and $15000.00. II. Four CA 232, 616, 275, sites -Ora and 272 appear to be above the impact zone on all three alternatives. If however this fact changes each site will require a test level investigation to , ascertain its significance prior to the formulation of final mitigation recommendations.. Costs for test level investigations tend to range from $1500.00 to $2000.00 per site. , III. Two sites will probably be impacted by the proposed landfill expansion regardless of which alternative is selected. The sites CA -Ora 673 and 797 will require a test level investigation to ' ascertain their significance prior to the formulation of final mitigation recommendations. Costs for test level investigations ' tend to range from $1500.00 to $2000.00 per site. ' If you have any questions, please feel free to consult with me. ' Marie Cottrell Principal Investigator, , 190 City of Newport Beach 1 REFERENCES Archaeological Associates Ltd, 1977 Test Excavations -biy, -bZU. Prepared for the Cc Environmental Management Agency. of Orange, EMA. Briuer, Frederick L. 1977 Report of the Intensive Archaeol rreparea ror me Irvine company file The Irvine Company. Cottrell, Marie G. Ora-227, -275, of Orange, on file County . ms on 1977 Archaeological Resources of the,��yUce UdLIYULL W.L5- osal Station. Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental Management -Agency. Ms on file County of Orange, EMA. Douglas, Ronald, and Theo Mabry 1979 Excavations at CA-Ora-227 A Late Prehistoric Site in the San Joaquin Hills Region o —Orange County, California. Prepared for the County of Orange, nvi� ronmental Management Agency. Ms on file County of Orange, EMA. Padon, Beth 1982 Coyote Canyon Fieldwork. Letter report to Mike Luke, Orange County Solid Waste Management Div. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society 1977- Personal Communications 1983 Tadlock, J. and W.L. Tadlock 1979 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Cultural SO. sources atua , rreparea ror Le . on ile County of Orange, EMA Weil, Edward 1981 Survey of the Proposed Pelican Hill Road Alignment. Ms. on file Larry Seeman and Associates. 191 City of Newport Beach REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF PALEONTOLOGIC RESOURCES OF THE COYOTE CANYON STUDY AREA, ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA By: John D. Cooper Paleontological Consultant Of: Archaeological Resource Management Corp. 112942 A Magnolia Street, Suite 65 Garden Grove, California 92641 For: Phillips, Brandt, Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 July 1983 192 City of Newport Beach F INTRODUCTION ' This report presents the results of literature and records search and one ' day of field examination of stratigraphic unit outcrops. The Coyote Canyon study area is underlain by sedimentary rocks of the Topanga Formation of Medial Miocene age, intrusive igneous rocks of Medial Miocene age, and weakly consolidated ' sediments of Quaternary age. Fragmental vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils have been reported previously from the area (Raschke, 1978) and several additional occurrences of invertebrate fossils and plant fragments were recog- nized during the present study. None of the presently identified surface occur- rences of fossils will require mitigation; however, future surface -cutting of paleontologically sensitive deposits and areas should be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. PALEONTOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY The oldest bedrock unit within the study area is the Bommer Member of the , Topanga Formation, a shallow marine, medium to coarse, occasionally pebbly sand- stone of Medial Miocene age (Vedder, 'et al., 1957). The thick -bedded to massive Bommer Member is exposed in the eastern, more rugged terrain of the study area (Ttb, fig. 1), and in the western part of the San Joaquin Hills, it carries a ' molluscan -dominated invertebrate fauna with fossils generally poorly preserved and concentrated in isolated pods, stringers, and lenses, probably the products of ancient storm deposition (Cooper, 1980a; Vedder, et al., 1957). There are ' no previous reports of fossils from the Sommer Member in the study area, but field examination produced some poorly preserved oyster and Pecten fragments in coarse sandstone (fig. 1). Regionally in Orange County, the Topanga Formation has pro- ' duced marine vertebrate fossils (e.g. Cooper, 1977, 1980b; Cooper and Sundberg, 1976) from several areas of concentration,, including the eastern San Joaquin Hills. These fossils represent archaic whales, sirenians, desmostylans, and pinnipeds, and constitute a scientifically important fauna. The invertebrate fossils are common and generally not well preserved, and have some educational value, but are not of critical scientific importance. The vertebrate fossils are more rare and are important for shedding light on Medial Miocene vertebrate evolution, biogeo- ' graphy, and biostratigraphic problems. Because of the potential for marine vertebrate fossils, the Topanga is considered to be of moderate to high paleon- tologic sensitivity. ttratigraphically overlying the Bommer Member is the Los Trancos Member of the Topanga Formation (-Vedder, et al., 1957), an inner to mid -marine shelf depo- sit of interbedded fine to coarse sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone, exposed in the western half of the study area and underlying most of the present land -fill site. Raschke (1978) reported invertebrate, plant, and vertebrate fossils from a hill proposed as a borrow area (fig. 1). The vertebrate material included cetacean (whale) and pinniped (seal, sea Pion) fragments embedded in tightly ' indurated sandstone as well as fish fragments in interbedded siltstone. A sub- sequent attempt was made to salvage the material, but with little success owing to the hardness of the sandstone (Raschke, R. R., personal communication, July, 1983). This was the first reported occurrence of vertebrate fossils from the ' Los Trancos Member of the Topanga Formation (Raschke, 1978). Field survey during the present study revealed locally abundant marine invertebrate burrow structures, some fragmental oyster debris and casts and molds of small bivalve molluscs, some well preserved foraminifera (microfossils), and highly oxidized, generally macer- ated plant fragments. The nonvertebrate occurrences, as identified, are of little scientific importance, but would have some potential for educational value, parti- , cularly as related to study of depositional environments and paleoecology of the k..,F+Ly o f Wn "' U1 L DUdU i 1 _?i .•. .:li 745 E. •250423 +4 rTL r• ,-' ' Reserve r � v Td y b �r / — _Ttit Td J _ "r `j•''CdY�y'.,,R • BroX,•ne' .QvaL m v v l" RtR Ttb. %7l5 t Ttla �P4 _4. Tt " Big sF ny6n w .\, 0, 4 �F� �• if c1Ir Can o �i ele elX =I , �,,-r - rtlt SA tie �Magn Ttb .3- t •-. ... .. \ 5OP4WAY \ :vQ.PiiV BEACH-------- x. b ,sen .� i � .��.•• i Fe„ Figure 1. Map showing surface geology (after Vedder, et al., 1957) and paleontologic localities. 'Key to stratigraphic units: Ttb = Bommer Member of Topanga Formation; Ttlt = Los Trancos Member of Topanga Formation; Td = DiabaSe instrusives cuttin Miocene rocks; Qtm = Quaternary marine terrace deposits. Key to paleontologic localities: 2R = Raschke localities (1978), ' includes RR346, RR347, RR348, RR349 (marine mammal remains);,b = invertebrate burrows; = invertbrate fossils; `m•= microfossils "(foraminifera);`p:= plant fragments. I H 0 0 t l_1 194 City of Newport Beach -3- 1 Topanga. The fragmental vertebrate fossils, on the other hand, as described by Raschke (1978), lend credence to the potential for scientifically important specimens being recovered from the Topanga Formation. This should serve to 1 underscore the paleontologic sensitivity of the Topanga Formation, and particu- larly the area in and around the Raschke sites (fig. 1). Unconformably overlying the Los Trancos Member of the Topanga in the western 1 part of the study area are weakly consolidated deposits of sand and gravel mapped as Quaternary marine terrace deposits (Vedder, et al., 1957; Qtm of fig. 1). These late Pleistocene (approximately 20,000 to several hundred thousand years 1 old) sediments, originally deposited on a wave -cut platform at sea level and sub- sequently tectonically elevated, produced no fossil remains upon field examination and no previous record of fossils. Similar deposits at Pelican Hill to the south produced scattered marine invertebrates (Cooper, 1980a), and additional similar 1 deposits along the Orange County coast have produced extensive invertebrate faunas (Kanakoff and Emerson ,1959) and some mixed marine-nonmarine vertebrate fossils (Miller, 1971). Fossils from these Pleistocene terrace deposits are important , for studies of Late Pleistocene biogeographic and stratigraphic studies. These deposits are judged to have moderate paleontologic sensitivity. Diabase intrusives cut the Los Trancos Member of the Topanga Formation in sev- eral places in the northern part of the study area (Td of fig. 1). Because of the intrusive igneous origin, these rocks do not., nor would they be expected to, contain any fossils. 1 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The presently recognized surface occurrences of fossils are not in danger 1 of adverse impact and will require no special mitigation. Attempts have been made to collect the fragmental but significant vertebrate specimens described by Raschke (1978) from the Los Trancos Member of the Topanga Formation. However, because of the potential for scientifically important specimens being recovered from this particular locality, it is imperative that future surface cutting in and near this area (fig. 1) he closely monitored by a qualified paleontologist. Grading or other surface cutting in other parts of the sedimentary Topanga For- 1 mation and the Quaternary terrace deposits should be monitored on at least a spot check basis.during any future development. The paleontologist should be notified if fossils are discovered during future development and should have the ' authority to divert or halt surface -cutting activities that pose a threat to potentially significant fossils. The paleontologist should also be at liberty to bring in assistants for the removal of important specimens. All specimens collected should be dontated to the most appropriate educational/research insti- , tution as dictated by the scientific importance/educational value of the speci- mens. All vertebrate fossils should be examined by professionals at the Verte- brate Paleontology Section, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, who should make judgements about scientific significance and disposition. ■ REFERENCES CITED H Cooper, J. D., 1977, Paleontologic assessment of the Glen Ranch, Orange County, California: Consultant Report prepared for PBR, Inc. Cooper, J. D., 1980a, Assessment of paleontologic resources of the Irvine Coast Planning area, Part II - field survey: Consultant report prepared for LSA, Inc. 1 Cooper, J. D., 1980b, Paleontologic assessment of the Trabuco Land Co.. and Plano study area, Rancho Mission Viejo, Orange County, California: Consultant Report UILY Ui IN 195 JUL DUac1'1 1 17 -4- prepared for ARM Corp. Cooper, J. D., and Sundberg, F. A., 1976, Paleontologic assessment of Aliso Creek Planning Corridor, Planning Units 2 and 3, Orange County, California: Consultant Report prepared for EMA, County of Orange. ' Kanakof£, G. P., and Emerson, W. K., 1959, Late Pleistocene invertebrates of the Newport Bay area, California: Los Angeles County Museum Contributions in Science, No. 31. ' Miller, Wade, 1971, Pleistocene vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and vicinity (exclusive of Rancho La Brea): Bull. of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Science: No. 10. H H C H n u L C' IJ J C Chi Raschke, R. R., 1978, in Leighton and Associates, Paleontologic resources of the Coyote Canyon Landfill area, Phase I, Initial assessment of the Project area, P. O. No. G00650, Req. No. 806SP04112: Consultant report prepared for GSA/Solid Waste Management, County of Orange. Vedder, J. G., Yerkes, R. F., and Schoellhamer, J. E., 1957, Geologic Map of the San Joaquin Hills -San Juan Capistrano area, Orange County, California: U. S. Geological Survey Oil and Gas Inverstigation Map OM-193, Scale 1;24,000. 1 City of N'dwport Beach I I I I I I I I I I i'I I I I I I I I F. TRAFFIC STUDY 197 I City of Newport Beach Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Traffic Study 1UR311VIA ",associates Transportation Planning •Traffic Engineering (b City of Newport Beach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1. Findings......................................0..........2 - Existing Traffic Conditions - Traffic Impacts - Mitigation Measures 2. Project Description......................................4 - Location - Project Alternatives - Existing Landfill Operations - Average Daily Site Access Demand - Site Access Demand by Hour of Day - Site Access by Travel Route - Vehicle Mix of Coyote Canyon Landfill Vehicles - Internal Circulation 3. Existing Traffic Conditions ......................0.......8 - Surrounding Street System - Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls - Daily Traffic Volumes - Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization - Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways 4. Future Traffic Conditions...............................12 - Future Daily Traffic Volumes - Future Intersection Capacity Utilization - Future Roadway Considerations 5. Other Traffic Considerations .............................15 - Traffic Signal Warrants - Site Access Left Turn Channelization - Left Turn Channelization from MacArthur Boulevard - Roadway Design Criteria Appendices Appendix A - Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B - Explanation and Calculations of Intersection Capacity Utilization City of NevJan port Beach I a LIST OF FIGURES 1 Following Figure No. Title Page No. 1 Average Daily Coyote Canyon Landfill ' Site Access Demand ...........................7 2 Coyote Canyon Landfill Traffic Volume ' byHour of Day ........... 0...................7 3 Coyote Canyon Landfill Vehicle Trip -Ends by Vehicle Type .... ........... ..:............7 4 Existing Number of Through Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls ....................10 5 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Intersection Capacity Utilization ........10 6 County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways.....................................10 7 City of Irvine Circulation Element ...........10 8 City of Newport Beach Circulation Element ....10 9 Future Arterial Alignments Presently Being studied ......................................10 ' 10 Future Alternative 1 Daily Traffic Volumes ...14 11 Future Alternative 2 Daily Traffic Volumes ...14 ' 12 Future Alternative 3 Daily Traffic Volumes ...14 �l I n City of Nd°wport Beach 1 LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page No. 1 Vehicle Mix of Coyote Canyon Landfill Traffic by Access Route ......................7 2 Overall Vehicle Mix of Traffic on Bonita Canyon Drive.................................11 3 Future Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service for Project Alternatives ....14 4 Traffic Signal Warrants ...................... 18 201 City of Newport Beach 17 C J 1 I P 1 1 11 1 L 1 1 7 LI Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Traffic Study This report contains the traffic impact analysis for the continued operations of the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. The Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill is located in the County of Orange and is bordered by the City of Irvine to the north, and the City of Newport Beach to the west. Coyote Canyon Road provides access to the existing landfill site from Bonita Canyon Road and is located approximately 1.6 miles to the east of MacArthur Boulevard. The traffic report contains documentation of existing traffic conditions, traffic generated by the project, distribution of the project traffic to roads outside the project, and an analysis of future traffic conditions for the project alternatives. Each of these topics is contained in a separate section of the report. The first section is "Findings", and subsequent sections expand upon the findings. In this way, information on any particular aspect of the study can be easily located by the reader. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A. 1 City of NdWport Beach I 1. FINDINGS I This section summarizes the existing traffic conditions, project , traffic impacts, and' the proposed mitigation measures. Existing Traffic Conditions a. The Coyote Canyon Landfill Site is an existing and operating landfill site and generates 2,300 vehicle trip -ends on an average dry weather operating day. b,. Existing access to the site is provided by Coyote -Canyon Road, Bonita Canyon Drive, and MacArthur Boulevard, although ' Bonita Canyon Drive is in poor condition. C. Approximately 61 percent of all vehicles entering the site are truck -type vehicles and they primarily reach the site , via Bonita Canyon Drive from the west and then MacArthur Boulevard from the north. d. The peak traffic generation of the site occurs between 10:00 ' AM and 12:00 Noon in the morning and 3:00 PM and 4:00 PM in the evening. ' e, The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive currently operates at a Level of Service D during its peak hours, although the landfill site generates a small proportion of the traffic occurring during these home to work peak hours. f. Significarnt future roadway projects are presently planned ' which will traverse the landfill site and include the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Pelican Hill Road, and San Joaquin Hills Road, , Traffic Impacts a. The traffic analysis examines three alternatives for the 1 con.tinuation of operations at the Coyote Canyon Landfill Site and these alternatives primarily reflect three alternative grading plans on or about the existing site. , b. The three project site alternatives modify the capacity and the anticipated closure dates of the site, although the site access disposal demand rate will remain similar to existing ' conditions for all project alternatives. 203 City of Newport Beach 1 1 ' C. Including the regional growth of traffic for future conditions, Bonita Canyon Drive is anticipated to continue to operate at a Level of Service A for all project ' alternatives. d. Due to the regional growth of traffic on MacArthur Boulevard, the existing MacArthur/Bonita Canyon Drive intersection is projected to operate at a Level of Service E for 1985 conditions and a Level of Service F for 1988 conditions. Construction of a third northbound and southbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard will result in a Level of Service C operation at this intersection for all project alternatives. e. Precise implementation dates of the San Joaquin Hills ' Transportation Corridor and Pelican Hill Road are unknown at this time although their early implementation would impact existing site access and internal operations on the site. Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to mitigate the impact of the project on traffic circulation: a. Based on the number and types of trucks on Bonita Canyon Drive through the completion of project alternatives, Bonita Canyon Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and Coyote Canyon Drive should be reconstructed with a Traffic Index of 9.0 ' across its full pavement width. b. The existing southbound left turn pocket on MacArthur Boulevard should be extended an additional 150 feet to ' prevent left turning vehicles from queueing into the through travel lanes. C. Consideration of the impacts of the implementation of future roadways on the operations of the landfill site should be anlayzed by the landfill site prior to the construction of ' these roadways, and alternative site access plans and operating procedures should be prepared. J C 204 City of Newport Beach LI 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' This section discusses the project's location, proposed ' project alternatives and the existing traffic characteristics of the project. Location , The Coyote Canyon Landfill is located in the County of Orange and ' is bordered by the City of Irvine to the north and the City of Newport Beach to the west. As a County of Orange operated Sanitary Landfill Site, the Landfill Site is one of four currently operating landfill sites in the County, and it is ' geographically designated as the Western Orange County Landfill Site. Coyote Canyon Road is the only access road to the site and it takes access from Bonita Canyon Drive, approximately 1.6 miles east of MacArthur Boulevard. ' Project Alternatives The traffic analysis examines three alternatives for the ' continuation of operations at the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Site. The project site alternatives primarily reflect three alternative grading plans on and about the project site which modify the remaining disposal capacity and anticipated closure dates of the landfill site. The alternative projected closure dates are as follows: ' Plan Anticipated Closure 1 January, 1987 , 2 June, 1986 ' 3 October, 1988 For the three alternative grading plans, the disposal demand rate is projected to remain relatively constant. The vehicle demand to the site for the three grading alternatives will therefore also remain constant, and thus the primary difference in the three grading plan alternatives from a traffic engineering ' perspective is the length of time which the landfill site remains in operation into the future. 205 , City of Newport Beach 1 C II Existing Landfill_ Operations The Coyote Canyon Landfill Site is operated by the County of Orange. The landfill site is open from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. The landfill site is closed on all Sundays and major holidays. ' Fees are charged at the landfill site. Landfill disposal fees range from $2.00 for cars to $46.00 for the largest vehicles. Fees have been implemented at the disposal site since October, ' 1982. No liquids, chemicals or hazardous waste materials are accepted at the landfill site, and thus none are transported to the site. I H u n u CAI Average Daily Site -Access Demand Since October, 1982, the weekly number of loads transported to the site has been recorded by the County of Orange. Based on the number of transactions data provided by the County of Orange, average daily vehicle demand has been calculated and is shown in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, the calculated average daily vehicle demand for the seven month period was actually 2,100 vehicle trips per day. It was-, however, observed that this average does vary significantly with prevailing weather conditions, and that the average for dry and clear weather conditions was 2,300 vehicle trips per day. This increased use during dry weather conditions is related to the use of the site by landscape maintenance crews which generally do not work during bad weather conditions. As the dry weather average of 2,300 vehicle trips daily was also observed in a count by Kunzman Associates in July, 1983, this average will be used for all further calculations although it may slightly over estimate the average amount of travel actually generated by the site. As identified above, traffic counts were performed by Kunzman Associates in the vicinity of the site in July, 1983. Traffic volumes were counted at the intersections of Coyote Canyon Road and Bonita Canyon Drive, and Bonita Canyon Drive and MacArthur Boulevard during the hours that the landfill site was open and in operation. Traffic volumes were tabulated by movement and vehicle type, such as autos, refuse trucks, etc. Based on the recorded data, the following information on the existing landfill site operations has been prepared. Site Access Demand by Hour of Day Coyote Canyon Landfill traffic volumes by hour of day are shown in Figure 2. As may be seen in Figure 2, the peak hour traffic generation of the site occurs between 10:00 AM and 12:00 Noon in the morning, and 3:00 PM and 4:00 PM in the evening. Heavy truck 206 City of Newport Beach traffic entering the site significantly decreases after 4:00 PM. ' After 4:00 PM the predominant type of site user becomes landscape maintenance crews which are disposing of landscape trimmings. Site Access by Travel Route , Landfill site access by travel route wa.s calculated based on a count of vehicles entering the site by Kunzman Associates in July, 1983, and is summarized in Table 1. As shown, in Table 1, 86.5 percent of all vehicles entering the site entered from Bonita Canyon Drive via MacArthur Boulevard. The majority of ' site users access Bonita Canyon Drive from MacArthur Boulevard to the north of Bonita Canyon Drive. Vehicle Mix of Coyote Canyon Landfill Vehicles , The vehicle mix of Coyote Canyon Landfill traffic by access route• is summarized in Figure 3 and Table 1. Table 1 and Figure• 3 are for Coyote Canyon Landfill site generated traffic only, and do ' not represent the overall vehicle mix for all vehicles traveling on all the roadways; that will be identified in the following section. Table 1 does illustrate that the larger and heavier vehicles which transport materials to the site; access the site from MacArthur Boulevard from the north and Bonita Canyon Drive from the west. Although 13.5 percent of all site access vehicles enter the site from Bonita Canyon Drive east of Coyote Canyon, these vehicles are predominately cars, vans, and pickups. Internal Circulation The existing Coyote Canyon Landfill Site was also examined to determine the circulation of traffic within the site. Fee collection booths are located at the end of the paved portion of ' Coyote Canyon Road. Up to five fee collection booths may be opened to collect fees and direct vehicles to the interior of the site. Within the site, flagmen are posted along the route to , direct traffic to the disposal location. Internal roads on a packed earth base of soil are used for landfill site operations. C 207 City of Newport Beach i Table 1 MacArthur Blvd. MacArthur Blvd. s/o Bonita n/o Bonita Canyon Canyon 23.8 62.7 by Location 47.8 31.1 6.7 9.7 7:0 6.7 9.9 8.5 5.3 2.5 11.1 8.0 0.0 18.7 0.0 2.1 12.2 12.7 100.0 100.0 Beach Figure 1 Average Daily Coyote Canyon Landfill Site Access Demand 2600 y 2400 'Dry Weather N------- -_ - -----.____ _ --_----- Average=2300 22M `pr ---- - ------ - -- ----- - - - --' -' --"Overall C 2000 Average = 2100 !0 J 1800 t ++ 0 1600 p 1400 w 1200 a 1000 G80o Cf 600 �a m aoo a 200 r •a � •O S G e ¢ S a 5 5 e e .£ ,E ° C 5¢ z K K e 5 ¢ cc cc c r ur r CD r i2r - W� K Month of Year �JCungi»a�1 c}�ssociafes ���y of Ndwport Beach W. X 1 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 a 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C. Figure 2 Coyote Canyon Landfill Traffic Volume by Hour of Day MEM ■■■■■■■0' ■■MM ■■■/M MM MEMI,■ ■O■■MICOMEN MERF�EMA .■■■EM■ MINE ■IVINFIENEV VOI"UMMEME ■R■■■■■■■ MoMM■■ ■RMISIM ■■■■UMMI ■■ .t Hour Beginning M 210 City of Newport Beach Figure 3 Coyote Canyon Landfill Vehicle Trip -Ends by Vehicle Type 38.9 0 c m aEi G 0 0 11.5 111 u 11.1 a 8.3 7.8 3.5 13 x C. Type of Vehicle 0 x N � x Q H x Q N i 0 x a4 Q Q N u t0 M H N N C9 C W V F� r C m ^ E E u c m w aungmaw (,Associates UILy of Newport Beach E L' 3. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The traffic conditions as they exist today are discussed below and illustrated in Figure 4. ' Surrounding Street System Roadways that are utilized by the site include Coyote Canyon Road, Bonita Canyon'Drive, and MacArthur Boulevard. In the vicinity of the project site, the following roadway conditions exist. Coyyote Canyon Road: Coyote Canyon Road is an existing two ' lane undivided road which is used exclusively to provide access to the Coyote Canyon Landfill Site. Coyote Canyon Road extends as a paved road from Bonita Canyon Drive to the landfill fee ' collection booths, a distance of approximately 0.75 miles. Access to Coyote Canyon Road is controlled by a gate located approximately 100 feet north of Bonita Canyon Drive, and the gate is closed when the landfill site is closed. Coyote Canyon is on ' an uphill grade from Bonita to the site, but no passing is permitted. Due to heavy truck use, the existing pavement on Coyote Canyon Road is rough. The existing portion of Coyote ' Canyon Road is not designated as an ultimate roadway on any local City or County Circulation Master Plans. ' Bonita Canyon Drive: Bonita Canyon Drive is an existing two lane un3ivided roadway and extends between MacArthur Boulevard and Culver Drive. The portion of Bonita Canyon Drive between ' Coyote Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard services the majority of trips to the landfill site. This portion of the road is on a curvilinear alignment and ,is posted with a 35 mile per hour speed limit, and an advisory rough road conditions sign is posted as portions of the structural roadway are failing. This ,portion of Bonita Canyon Drive also includes an approximate 0.4 mile length grade and is posted no stopping along its route. To the east of Coyote Canyon Road, Bonita Canyon Drive is a two lane undivided roadway with a 55 mile per hour speed limit. This portion is posted with a 7 ton vehicle weight restriction. Bonita Canyon ' Drive is designated as a future arterial roadway on all local City and County Circulation Master Plans although portions of it are being considered for elimination in the future. While Table 1 specifically shows the vehicle mix of Coyote Canyon Landfill ' Site traffic, the vehicle mix of all traffic on Bonita Canyon Drive east and west of Coyote Canyon Drive is shown in Table 2. MacArthur Boulevard: MacArthur Boulevard (State Route 73) is a four lane divided roadway and includes curbs and gutters and striped bike lanes. MacArthur Boulevard is posted with a 50 to 55 mile per hour speed limit in the vicinity of Bonita Canyon 212 1 City of Newport Beach I Drive. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive is controlled with a four phase traffic signal. A raised 300 foot southbound left turn pocket is provided for vehicles turning towards the landfill site. The peak hours of traffic on MacArthur occur between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM in the morning and 1 4:45 PM and 5:45 PM in the evening. Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls 1 Figure 4 identifies the existing roadway conditions for arterials near the site. The number of through lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. ' Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 5 depicts the average daily two-way traffic volumes. 1 Traffic volumes were obtained from the County of Orange, the City Of Newport Beach, the City of Irvine, and the 1982 Traffic Volumes on State Highways from CalTrans. , Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization The technique used to assess the operation of an intersection is , known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared to the capacity of the intersection. ICU is usually expressed as 1 a ,percent. The percent represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The ICU's for existing intersections in the vicinity of the project 1 are shown in Figure 5. Existing ICU's are based upon manual peak hour 'turning movement counts made by Kunzman Associates in July, 1983, An explanation of ICU and Level of Service is included in 1 Appendix B. All intersections in the vicinity of the site operate at a Level of Service D or better for existing peak hour conditions. The peak ICU of the surrounding intersections occurs during the peak hours of arterials and not during the peak 1 periods of traffic generation by the landfill site. Even assuming that large trucks operate at an equivalent of 2.5 passenger cars during the peak generation periods of the site, intersections in the vicinity of the site operate at a Level of Service B (62 percent ICU) or better during these periods. 1 Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways Figure 6 exhibits the current County of Orange Master Plan of , Arterial Highways for the existing and future roadway network. The relationship between existing roadway conditions and future roadway improvements are included in the Circulation Element of the Orange County General Plan, which is graphically depicted on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (Figure 6). Figure 6 shows the nature and extent of existing and proposed arterial highways 1 213 City of Newport Beach 1 i E �I I� n U 0 n n H CI El LI I u 1 which are needed to serve the ultimate development depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and serves to coordinate future arterials between local jurisdictions. In addition, the Circulation Element for the City of Irvine is shown in Figure 7 and the Circulation Element for the City of Newport Beach is shown in Figure 8. The County -of Orange is currently in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The preparation of this EIS has included more detailed planning of future roadways in the vicinity of the site. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor has an established alignment. Current study is examining potential future interchange locations for roadways designated on the MPAH. Future arterial alignments and interchange designs presently being studied in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 9. As may be seen in Figure 9, future alignments for Pelican Hill Road, San Joaquin Hills Road, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor are shown to traverse through the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Site Boundaries. In addition, access to existing Coyote Canyon Road will be eliminated with the construction of the future Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive. As currently being studied, the portion of Bonita Canyon Drive between Coyote Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard may ultimately be eliminated with the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. It is not presently anticipated that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will be operational prior to the completion date of any project alternative. 214 City of Newport Beach i 1 Table 2 1 OVERALL VEHICLE MIX OF TRAFFIC ON BONITA CANYON DRIVE 1 Bonita Canyon Bonita Canyon Drive e/o Drive w/o 1 Type of Vehicles Coyote Canyon Coyote Canyon Cars, Vans, 1/2 ton Pickups 92.1% 70.9% Flat Beds (2 axles) 4.5% 5.1% 1 Refuse Trucks (2 axles) 1.2% 3.1% Refuse Trucks (3 axles) 0.4% 3..9% 1 Dump Trucks (2 axles) 1.0% 1.7% Dump Trucks (3 axles) 0.5% 3.7% 1 Tractor and Tub or Trailer (5 axles) 0.0 5.6% 1 Transfer Trucks (2 axles) 0.0 .6% 1 Transfer Trucks (3 axles) 0.3% 5.4% 1 Totals 100.0% 100.0% 1 1 1 1 1 215 City of Newport Beach 1 Figure 4 Existing Number of Through Travel Lanes And Intersection Controls Universit Dnve 4D 4D Q� 211 dr' P so GJ� 21.1 Caa Drive 21.1 21.1 4D o aov a u � c 21.1 u o Legend v 21.1 - Number of Through Travel Lanes D-Divided U-Undivkkd 0 - Traffic Signal C�t Stop Sign G113mall c �iSSOCIQf( S �Ity of Newport Beach f Figure 5 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes And Intersection Capacity Utilization 36,OCo Universit � Oti`� 14,000 46,000 O 2200 JO 4 00 GJ\ Y ,re A 4800 caQ Drive 46000 32oo A 1400 8A a 2300 0 m e Legend 0 3Ik000-Ave rage DOMI Traffic Mohime 0 U D AM: ICU -Level of Service •D PM: ICU -Level of Service UG113111an ssoCiafes City of Newport Beach r CQ N Figure 6 County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Hii 51 _IV . 50. r a' C�pNY ` _ -'CghyO ` SAN JOAQUINrp _ - � Site %% 006 0.° A O Legend ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS ESTABLISHED CONCEPTUALLY ALIGNMENT PROPOSED „ MAJOR Q PRIMARY - - - - - - SECONDARY COMMUTER -----• •- k.ALy of Newport Beach V<un3111011 (Aggociateg Figure 7 City of Irvine Circulation Element ARTERIAL HIGHWAY DESIGNATIONS MAJOR HIGHWAY PRIMARY HIGHWAY SECONDARY HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ----CITY BOUNDARIES ---SPHERE OF INFLUENCE R UILy of NdWport Beau m m m m m m m m i m m m m m m i m m m Figure S NEWPORT BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER PLAN OF STREETS & HIGHWAYS F------1 Woutes 7lx* RegL" Flrther Com&mhon EEHI Seaxxkry Road (Four lane Un&ided� F../ Binary Road (Four Lane Divided). © Major Road (Six Lane Divided). .... Rwxwy Road Modified. B AdoVe�d, ftemay Routes. LL kiterdxnge. N Budge. t i • �' i ••1 4i.Y ` NX / Y � '•9 ^- Jt�;I. s. - -17 JI-•tT. - .•a.,: is r . :i'.r `� _ -e �•rin \�� •• •Y \, ! _ !f�31\1,•,'3 ?/= r' •..sue: +p aMJ�`L�' s. G ''! r," iI!, �/IiitM+�iY^rm •. • •...• ':•i ��... '{•. " `7`Y\.\.'e r.•w• � ir��f•iy7�•T, ��lr�i; iys � :' ��,� .• •.�� III "•�ti � ..I i:1']) ._...� '�� fit. tBli�x 4• t ,rit_. .. xa '- ti'• I�a.•0 �111t{: fl{(:III{. ,'+.G��!'J�•'-)Cv f:' Y-�•riy�,f•"•*'x_`f ('^ rµtl�.1 •�f�„a.,YkY9 1` � •.= i^' ✓` '.•, \ ^+ � Is .. f •(ri'ir+t.,pk,'+.�.; .—..~._ s- r i _ o g n •v ADORTED BY CITY COUNCIL scale w:_:,a--+� in feet MARCH 11, 1974 City of Newport each Figure 9 Future Arterial Alignments Presently Being Studied N N t i)JA __ill__ J dymp"VgPQ M M M E i 1 4. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 1 In this section, future traffic conditions for the project alternatives are discussed. Traffic volume projections have been forecast to the year 1989 for each project alternative for 1 comparison purposes. As previously identified, actual site closure will occur in January, 1987 for Alternative 1, in June, 1986 for Alternative 2, and in October, 1988 for Alternative 3. 1 Future Daily Traffic Volumes 1 Figure 10 shows the daily traffic volumes on roads in the vicinity of the site which can be expected annually to the year 1989 for Alternative 1. In a similar format, Figure 11 shows future daily traffic volumes for Alternative 2, and Figure 12 1 shows future daily traffic volumes for Alternative 3. As previously identified, the disposal demand rate is projected to remain relatively constant for the planning horizon of the three 1 project alternatives, and the primary difference is regional growth of traffic on roadways in the vicinity of the site. To account for regional growth on roadways, future traffic 1 volumes have been calculated based on a 4.4 percent annual growth rate of the non -landfill component of existing traffic volumes. This rate of growth is based on traffic volume counts on MacArthur Boulevard south of Bonita Canyon Drive from 1971 to the present. Regional growth has been added to the daily and peak hour non -landfill component of traffic volumes on both MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive. Determination of the landfill 1 and non -landfill components of existing traffic volumes is based on the data as presented in Section 2 of this report. Daily traffic volumes for the project alternatives are shown in Figures 1 10, 11, and 12 for the respective alternatives. Future Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 Future ICU's for the project alternatives are shown in Table 3. The ICU calculations are based on the existing intersection geometrics and the regional growth ratio of the non -landfill 1 component of existing peak hour traffic volumes. A discussion of ICU calculations and Level of Service is provided in Appendix B. From Table 3 it can be seen that for 1989 conditions all of the 1 intersections in the vicinity of the site will operate at a Level of Service A or better for all project alternatives, except the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Road. 1 As shown in Table 3, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive will operate at a Level of Service E in the morning peak hour for 1985 conditions and Will operate at a Level 1 222 1 Gity ®T IVewport Beach I�J 1 of Service F in the morning peak hour for 1988; for all project 1 alternatives. Future decreases in the Level of Service on MacArthur Boulevard is primarily related to the regional growth in the non -landfill component of traffic, and will occur irrespective of the operations of the landfill site. If 1 MacArthur Boulevard is widened to provide for three through travel lanes in each direction, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive will operate at a Level of 1 Service C or better for all project alternatives for all future analysis periods. Future Roadway Considerations 1 As identified in Section 3 of this report, additional future roadways are presently planned which will cross the landfill 1 site. These roadways are Pelican Hill Road, the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and San Joaquin Hills Road. Due to decomposure of the landfill site materials and the resultant ground slippage, it is highly undesirable to construct any 1 Portion of a roadway on a landfill site fill area. To reduce the potential future need to excavate landfill materials to provide for the construction of these roadways designated on the MPAH, no 1 fill material should be placed within the future right-of-ways of these roads, as best as they can be determined at this time. Reserved soil areas for future roadways exempt from the import of fill material, should include all necessary side slope , requirements. Precise schedules on the implementation of these future roadways are unknown at this time. Implementation of the presently considered interchanges of San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor prior to the completion dates of any of the project 1 alternatives will result in the need to modify the existing access from Coyote Canyon Road. Construction of Pelican Hill Road prior to the completion of landfill operations will potentially divide the landfill site and impact future landfill 1 operations. Consideration of the impacts of the implementation of these roadways on the operations of the landfill site should be anlayzed prior to the construction of these roadways. 1 1 1 0 223 City of Newport Beach 1 n n I 1 d F I U I I I U n n Table 3 FUTURE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Intersection/ Year ICU-LOS ICU-LOS ICU-LOS ICU-LOS ICU-LOS ICU-LOS MacArthur/Bonita Canyon 1984 87-D 84-D 87-D 84-D 87-D 84-D 1985 91-E 88-D 91-E 86-D 91-E 88-D 1986 94-E 91-E 94-E 91-E 94-E 91-E 1987 98-E 96-E 97-E 95-E 98-E 96-E 1988 101-F 99-E 101-F 99-E 102-F 100-E 1969 105-F 103-F 105-F 103-F 105-F 103-F Coyote Canyon/ Bonita Canyon 1984 22-A 24-A 22-A 24-A 22-A 24-A 1985 22-A 24-A 22-A 24-A 22-A 24-A 1986 22-A 25-A 22-A 25-A 22-A 25-A 1987 22-A 25-A 00-A 00-A 22-A 25-A 1988 00-A 00-A 00-A 00-A 23-A 26-A 1989 00-A 00-A 00-A 00-A 00-A 00-A Culver/Bonita Canyon 1984 22-A 29-A 22-A 29-A 22-A 29-A 1985 22-A 30-A 22-A 30-A 22-A 30-A 1986 23-A 30-A 23-A 30-A 23-A 30-A 1987 23-A 31-A 23-A 30-A 23-A 31-A 1986 23-A 31-A 23-A 31-A 24-A 32-A 1989 23-A 32-A 23-A 32-A 23-A 32-A N N Vl Figure 10 Future Alternative 1 Daily Traffic Volumes (1987 Closure) Universit O,Jye 1984-3200 1985-3400 1984 - 48,000 1986- 3500 1985- 50,000 19H7-3600 1985- 52,100 1 1988-3500 1987 - 54,400 1989-3600 1988- 55,300 1989- 57,700 19H4- 4900 f+ 1985-5000 ac 1986-5200 19117 - 5300 1988-3500 e0 `,ta J 1989- 3600 Y a cap 1984 -48.000 -Drive 1984-2300 1985-50.100 q 1985-2300 L 1986.52,300 ¢ 1986 - 2300 1987.54,500 19H7-2300 a 1988-56,400 1989-5%900 1988-0 f c 1989-0 u 0 0 U �iu►1�InQn c.}iSSOCtGfCS ' _ i_ m i_ .QiLY.P"vWWwLB. L _ _ _ _ Figure 11 i Future Alternative 2 Daily Traffic Volumes (1986 Closure) universit Drive 1984-3200 ' 1985-3400 1984-48,000 1986-3500 1965- 50,000 1987 -3300 1986- 52.100 1988-3500 1987 - 52,900 1989-3600 1988- 55,300 ro - ro 1989- 57,700 rn 1984-4900 1985- 5000 ac 1986.5200 19B7 - 3300 �a 1988-3500 eo4 r 1989.3600 'a -4 C a� 00 Dri 1984 - Drive 1984 - 2300 1985 - 50.1 50,100 1985- 2300 Lcc 1986. 52,300 1986-2300 r 1987 - 54,00 1987-0' a 7988- 5,400 m 1989. 58,900 988- 0 1 � � 969- 0 u 0 0 U �1�.uh�ittQit cJtSSOCIQfCS - �ity of Newport Beach N N V Figure 12 Future Alternative 3 Daily Traffic Volumes (1988 Closure) universit Drive ,19114.3200 1985-3400 1984-48,000 1906-3500 1985- 50,000 1987 - 3600 1986- 52,100 1988- 3800 1987 - 54,400 1989- 3600 1988- 56.700 1989- 57.700 1984.4900 1985-5000 - 1986-5200 1987,5300 m 1988.5500 8o�f G 1989.3600 Y z� d( d Cd O 1984 - 48,000 Drive 1985- 50.100 q 1984-2300 1985.2300 z -C 1986 - 52.300L ac 1986-2300 1987 - 54.500 1988. 56.900 1987 - 2300 m 1989- 58.900 c 198B-2300 1989.0 u 0 o v c 6opian (Ametates i_ i_ i_ m ."Ymp"V a acqL�hl _ I lM _ 1 5. OTHER TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS ' This section discusses signal warrants, left turn channelization and roadway design considerations. Traffic Signal Warrants Traffic signal warrants have been adopted by CalTrans and the Federal Highway Administration. These warrants are based on the volume in the eight highest hours of a day. It is generally assumed that the per hour volume in each of the eight highest hours is equal to 62.5 percent of the volume in the evening peak ' hour, and the evening peak hour is generally 10 percent of the daily traffic. Thus, the signal warrants can also be expressed in terms of daily traffic volumes. Table 4 shows signal volume warrants. When calculating signal volume warrants, the volumes of both the major and minor street must meet or exceed those listed in Table 4. The major street signal warrant volume involves calculating the number of vehicles approaching the intersection; usually this is 50 percent of the street's daily volume. The minor street signal warrant volume involves calculating the number of vehicles approaching the intersection on only the highest volume leg. As may be seen by reviewing future traffic volumes on Bonita Canyon ' Drive and Coyote Canyon Road, the installation of a traffic signal at the site access intersection will not be warranted for any of the project alternatives. ' Site Access Left Turn Channelization A vehicle stopping in the traffic stream to turn left creates an accident potential and impedes the flow of through traffic. The addition of left turn lanes provides for an improvement in the flow of traffic and a reduction of left turn related accidents; however, left turn lanes are not necessary or desirable at all intersection locations. To establish when left turn channelization is necessary, guidelines to aid in determining their need have been developed. Guidelines to install a separate left turn lane are based on accident experience, traffic volumes, or observed traffic conflicts. For a non -signalized two-lane highway intersection, the sum of left turn and opposing through volumes during the peak hour to warrant installation of a channelized left turn pocket should exceed 800 vehicles.l Based Warrants For Left Turn Lanes, Kenneth R. Agent, Transportation Quarterly, Volume 37, No. 1, January 1983, 99-114. I 228 City of Newport Beach F7 J on this warrant criteria, insufficient traffic volumes enter the site from Bonita Canyon Drive from the east to warrant the construction of a channelized left turn pocket at this location. The existing site access intersection has been operational for several years. Widening of the intersection to provide for left ' turn channelization would potentially encourage through traffic to maintain a higher level of speed through the intersection although slower moving trucks will still be traveling on the road. The City of Irvine and' the County of orange should continue to monitor the Coyote Canyon Road at Bonita Canyon Drive intersection to insure safe roadway operations. Left Turn Channelization from MacArthur Boulevard , The existing length of southbound left turn pocket storage from MacArthur Boulevard is 300 feet. For the peak site access demand ' hour, approximately 110 left turn vehicles from MacArthur Boulevard to Bonita Canyon occur. For a typical 120 second cycle length, the existing left turn pocket should result in an average arrival of 3.67 vehicles per cycle. Assuming a Poisson distribution for the random arrival of vehicles, at the 99 percent confidence level, the maximum number of vehicle arrivals would be 9 vehicles per cycle. For a standard 25 foot vehicle ' storage length, approximately 225 feet of left turn storage length would be required, and the existing 300 foot left turn lane storage pocket would be adequate. However, the primary types of vehicles turning left at this intersection includes refuse trucks, tractor and trailor trucks, and even passenger cars towing trailers. For these types of vehicles, an average vehicle length of 50 feet is recommended for pocket length design. This would result in the need for a 4'50 foot long left turn pocket to insure that large site access vehicles and cars with trailers do not queue onto the through travel lanes on , MacArthur Boulevard. It is therefore recommended that the existing southbound left turn pocket on MacArthur be lengthened an additional 150 feet to prevent site access vehicles from queueing on through travel lanes on MacArthur. Not including any potential signal modifications, the lengthening of the existing left turn pocket is estimated to cost approximately $12,500. Roadway Design Criteria As previously identified, existing Bonita Canyon Drive west of MacArthur Boulevard is in disrepair and in need of improvement. Roadway structural design is primarily based on soil conditions and the number of repetitions of equivalent 18,000 pound axle , loads (EAL) which will occur over the design life of the roadway. Based on the predicted number of truck trips by axle type, a traffic index is calculated. As presently being studied; however, this section on Bonita Canyon may be abandoned with the implementation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Based on the existing number and type of trucks on Bonita Canyon 229 City of Newport Beach 1 I I IL Drive, and a 7 year design life to the end of the sites life; Bonita Canyon Drive should be reconstructed to maintain a Traffic Index (TI) of 9.0 across the full pavement width between MacArthur Boulevard and Coyote Canyon Road. 230 City of Newport Beach Table 4 r TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic — See Note 2) URBAN........................RURAL......................... Minimum Requirements EADT EADT=Estimated Avg. Daily Traffic 1. Minimum Vehicular Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles per day on major Vehicles per day on higher — street (total of both opprooches) volume minor. stfeet approach (one direction only Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Urban Rural Urban Rural Major Street Minor Street 1............. 1................ 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 or more ........ 1 ................ 9,600 6,720 2,400 1,680 2 or more ........ 2 or more ........... 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 ............. 2 or more ........... 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per day on major Vehicles per day on higher_ Satisfied Not Satisfied street (total of both volume minor -sheet approach approaches) (one direction only) Numberof lanes fo r mo ving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1............. 1................ 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 or more ........ 1 ................ 14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 at more ........ 2 or more ........... 14,400 10.080 1,600 1,120 1 .............. 2 or more ............ 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 3. Combination Satisfied Not Satisfied 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfied but following warrants fulfilled 80% or more...... 1 2 NOTE: 1. Left turn movements from the major street may be included with minor street volumes if a separate signal phase is to be provided for the left -turn movement. 2. To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where actual traffic volumes cannot be counted. SOURCE: CalTranS Traffic Manual, page 9-6. City of Newport Beach APPENDICES Appendix A - Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B - Explanation and Calculations of Intersection Capacity Utilization City of Newport Beach APPENDIX A ' GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS I i I n [l I I I i I I City of Nbwport Beach I !_I I I 1 I I I I H I I I u I I Glossary of Transportation Terms COMMON ABREVIATIONS AC: Acres ADT: Average Daily Traffic CalTrans: California Department of Transportation DU: Dwelling Unit EMA: Environmental Management Agency FAU: Federal Aid Urban F11WA: Federal Highway Administration ICU: Intersection Capacity Untilization LOS: Level of Service TSF: Thousand Square Feet V/C: Volume/Capacity VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled TERMS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by the number of days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included. BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression. BOTTLENECK: A constriction along atraveled way which limits the amount of traffic which can proceed downstream from its location. CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles which can be reasonably expected to pass over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given time period. CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other suitable means to facilitate the safe and orderly movements of both vehicles and pedestrains. CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Same as yellow time. CORDON: An imaginary line around an area across which vehicles, persons, or other items are counted (in and out). CYCLE LENGTH: The time period in seconds required for one complete cycle. CUL-DE-SAC STREET: A local street open at one end only, and with special provisions for turning around. DAILY CAPACITY: The daily volume of traffic which will result in a volume during the peak hour equal to the capacity of the roadway. DAILY TRAFFIC: Same as average daily traffic. DELAY: The time consumed while traffic is impeded in its movement by some element over which it has no control, usually expressed in seconds per vehicle. �U{l�{HQh .1�SSOCtQfCS =IV I DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL: Same as traffic —actuated signal. • DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying a unit length of the through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile. DETECTOR: A device that responds to a physical stimulus and transmits a resulting impluse to the signal controller. DESIGN SPEED: A speed selected for purposes of design and correlation of those features of a highway, such as curvature, superelevation, and sight distance, upon which the safe operation of vehicles is dependent. DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The of traffic in the direction percent peak at any point in time. DIVERSION: The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion. FIXED TIME SIGNAL: Same as pretimed signal. FORCED FLOW: Opposite of free flow. FREE FLOW: Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can maneuver freely and travel unimpeded by other traffic. GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, rear bumper to front bumper. HEADWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, front bumper to front bumper. �. INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM: A number of intersections which are connected to affect progression. LEVEL OF SERVICE: A qualitative measure of a number of factors, which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. LOOP DETECTOR: A•vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire imbedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle. MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP: Smallest time headway between successive vehicles in a traffic stream into which another vehicle is willing and able to merge. MULTI —MODAL: More than one mode; such as automobile, bus transit, rail rapid transit, and bicycle transportation modes. OFFSET: The time interval in seconds between the beginning of green at one intersection and the beginning of green at an adjacent intersection. ORIGIN —DESTINATION SURVEY: A survey to determine the point of origin and the point of destination for a given vehicle trip. V<ugman L.Asgowiieg ' V'MP%� I I I 11 J I 11 .1 I t� I I I I 0 I I I PEAK HOUR: The 60 consecutive minutes with the highest number of vehicles. PLATOON: A closely grouped component of traffic that is composed of several vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, with cleai spaces ahead and behind. PRETIMED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal which directs traffic to stop and go on a predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic conditions. PROGRESSION: A term used to describe the progressive moveient of traffic through several intersections. SCREEN -LINE: An imaginary line or physical feature across which all trips are counted, normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic models. SIGNAL COORDINATION: Same as interconnected signal system. SIGNAL CYCLE: The time period in seconds required for one complete sequence of signal indications. SIGNAL PHASE: The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more traffic movements. . STARTING DELAY: The delay experienced in initiating the movement of queued traffic from a stop to an average running speed through a signalized intersection. TRAFFIC -ACTUATED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal which directs traffic to stop and go in accordance with the demands of traffic, as registered by the actuation of detectors. TRIP: The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (origiro to another (destination). For example,from home to store to home is two trips, not one. TRIP -END: One end of a trip at either the origin or destination; i.e. each trip has two trip -ends. A trip end occurs when a person, object, or message is transferred to or from a vehicle. TRIP GENERATION RATE: The quantity of trips produced and/or attracted by a specific land use stated in terms of standard units such as per dwelling, per acre, and per 1,000 square feet. TRUCK: A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having more than two axles. UNBALANCED FLOW: Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the other. VEHICLE MILES: A measure of the amount of usage of a section of highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by length im miles. associates 236 I 1 u 1 1 I 1 1, 1 1 1 11 I L T 1 H City of Newport Beach 1 ' EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ICU The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred to as capacity. The capacity is usually greater between intersections and less at intersections because traffic flows continuously between them and only during the green phase at them. Capacity at intersections is best defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of green. If cap- acity is 1600 vehicles per lane per hour of green, and if the green phase is 50 percent of the cycle and there are three lanes, then the capacity is 1600 times 50 percent times 3 lanes, or 2400 vehicles per hour. I The technique used to compare the volume and capacity of an intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utiliza- tion (ICU). ICU, usually expressed as a percent, is the proportion of an hour required to provide sufficient capa- city to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approa- ches operate at capacity. If an intersection is operating at 80 percent of capacity, then 20 percent of the signal cycle is not used. The signal could show red on all indi-. cations 20 percent of the time and the signal would just accommodate approaching traffic. ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement Of traffic, (b) summing the times for the movements, and (c) comparing the total time required to the total time available. For example, if for north -south traffic the northbound traffic is 1600 vehicles per hour, the south - bound traffic is 1200 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either direction is 3200 vehicles per hour, then the northbound traffic is critical and requires 1600/3200 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for the east -west traf- 1 fic 30 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 30, or 80 percent. When left turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the L analysis. The critical movements are usually the heavy left turn movements and the opposing through movements. Level of service is used to describe the quality of traf- fic flow. Levels of service A to C operate quite well. Level of service C is typically the standard to which rural roads are designed, and level of service D is the standard to which urban roadways are typically designed. Level of service D is characterized by fairly restricted traffic flow. Level of service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop -and -go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A description of the various levels of traffic service ap- pears on the following page, along with the relationship I City of mewport Beach I between ICU and level of traffic service. The ICU calculation assumes'that an intersection is sig- nalized and that the signal is ideally timed. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized intersection is in- valid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and the calculation shows whether the geometrics are ' capable of accommodating the expected volume., It is possible to have an ICU well below 100 percent, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur if one or ' more movements is not getting sufficient time to satis= fy its demand, and excess time exists on other movements. This is an operational problem which should be remedied. Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width; however, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 or 14 feet wide. Our data indicate-s a typical lane, whether a through lane or a left turn lane, has a capacity of approximately 1700 vehicles per hour, with nearly all locations showing a capacity greater than 1600 vehicles per hour per lane. This finding is published in the August, 1978 issue of ITE Journal in the article entitled, "Another Look at Signalized Intersection Capa- city" by William Kunzman. For this study, a capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour per lane will be assumed for both through and left turn lanes. The yellow time can either be assumed to be completely used and no penalty applied, or it can be assumed to be only partially usable. Total yellow time accounts for less than 10 percent of a cycle, and a penalty up to five percent is reasonable. On the other hand, during peak hour traffic operation the yellow times are nearly completely used. If there are no left turn phases, the left turn vehicles com- pletely use the yellow time. If there are left turn phases, the through traffic continues to enter the intersection on the yellow until just a split second before the red. In this study no penalty will be applied for the yellow because the capacities have been assumed to be only 1600 vehicles per hour per lane when in general they are 1700. The ICU technique is an ideal tool to quantify existing as well as future intersection operation. The impact of adding a lane can be quickly determined by examining the effect the lane has on the intersection rapacity utilization. I 11 I City of NOWport Beach 1 I P I I F C I I I I I I 11 I !J LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS Level of ICU Service Traffic Flow Quality Value A Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restrict- 0.00 - 0.60 ed by other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with,no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. B Operating speeds beginning to be affected by 0.61 - 0.70 other traffic; between one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or more ve- hicles which wait through more than one sig- nal cycle during peak traffic periods. C Operating speeds and maneuverability closely 0.71 - 0.80 controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. D Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent 0.81 - 0.90 of the signal cycle have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. E Capacity; the maximum traffic volume an in- 0.91 - 1.00 tersection can accommodate; restrcited speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. F Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stop- Not pages of long duration; traffic volume and Meaningful traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. (a) Although the Highway Ca alit_ recommends the above relationship between Level o Servicce and volume to capacity ratios, field observation shows that a more appropriate relationship would be as follows: A, 0.00 to 0.80; B, 0.81 to 0.85; C, 0.85 to 0.90; D, 0.91 to 0.95; and E, 0.96 to 1.00. Source: Highway Capacit Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report , Nationa Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C., 1965, page 320. t lmt4w urt Beach I I I I I I G. AIR RESOURCES ANALYSIS I u I r I I I I I M 1 241 i City of Newport Beach VnT �D: C iroux - Comultont 1 Ulty Ul 242 ,frjort CSeau I i jAIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL EIR ' METEOROLOGYICLIMATE Climatic conditions at the Coyote Canyon landfill site, as with all of Southern California, are controlled primarily by the semi- permanent high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and by the the oceanic heat proximity of the moderating effects of nearby California's position between the mid -latitude storm reservoir. tracks to the north and tropical storms to the south minimizes the potential for any weather extremes. Solid waste disposal, as with is rarely affected by weather condi- ' most other outdoor activities, tions. Weather does play a significant part in the dispersion of odors from these activities or in occasional blowing litter from landfills, but it rarely affects day-to-day operations.. Temperatures in Newport Beach and Irvine average 620F with only small seasonal and annual variation. Rainfall, by contrast, varies Southern Cali- markedly by day, season, and year. Because most of fornia's rainfall results from the fringes of middle -latitude storms, a shift in the storm track of a few hundred miles can mean the dif- ' ference between a very wet year and one with drought conditions. 13 inches in Newport Beach and Irvine The annual average rainfall of is thus not a good indicator of the runoff to which a landfill' may be subjected. A single storm dropped almost seven inches of rain Based statistical on the area in January of 1956 within 24 hours. on extrapolation of Newport Beach precipitation records, the following are the expected monthly and annual maxima for the return periods ' shown: Rainfall Inches Monthly Annual 1 Maximum Maximum 1 year in 10 6.1 21.5 7.4 25.0 ` 1 year in 20 1 in 50 9.5 29.6 year 1 year in 100 10.9 33.0 However, even in the wettest years, there is little or no rainfall like the Coyote Can- from April through October, which allows areas if there was nominal rainfall penetra- I yon landfill to dry out even tion during a wet winter. i City of Newport Beach Winds across Newport Beach and Irvine are primarily from the southwest perpendicular to the Orange County coastline. At night, they reverse as they drain off the Santa Ana Mountains across the Tustin Plain toward the ocean. At.night and in the morning, winds are light (averaging 2-4 mph,) and sometimes go completely calm. These light winds allow for the stagnation of pollutants .within the southeast Orange County coastal corridor whereas the stronger day- time onshore breezes blow any local air contaminants well inland. The air quality distribution resulting from this wind pattern is ' such that inland valleys of the Los Angeles Basin have high pollu- tion levels in summer when onshore flow is strongest, while coastal communities often have unhealthful air quality on winter nights when basinwide emissions drain seaward, The distinct daily and seasonal differences in the Wind distri- bution also cause a corresponding difference in the potential atmo- spheric -related impacts of landfill operations: The diffusion of landfill odors, the dispersal of litter on windy days, and fugitive dust impacts all depend largely on wind direction and speed. Table I shows the annual wind distribution in Irvine during the calm or offshore nocturnal period and during the daytime onshore component. The marked difference between the two time periods is readily seen in both the speeds and wind directions, Daytime winds have more , than two-thirds of all winds from the S-W between 4-9 mph while 80% of nocturnal winds are'either calm or have a weak component from the east between 1-3 mph. Odor complaints around the landfill, are read- ily understood in terms of these wind patterns. At night, air drains down Coyote Canyon, carrying any trash odors toward Upper Newport Bay with infrequent spillover toward Harbor View, the San Joaquin Reservoir, or Spyglass Hill. Landfill odor is thus detectable mainly along the southern edge of the UCI campus and especially along Bonita Canyon Road from the reservoir to the MacArthur intersection. During the morning, the previous night's drainage flow reverses and now impacts receptors east of Coyote Canyon toward Turtle Rock. Through- out the morning hours, the winds increase and sunshine warms the slopes around the landfill. The increased winds create mechanical , turbulence and the heating creates convective turbulence. Both phenomena soon mix any landfill odor emissions to where they become undetectable except within the landfill site itself. in the evening, as the sea breeze dies out and the ground cools, turbulence diminishes and the odor again becomes perceptible in Turtle Rock and is faintly detectable at times in University -Park and even Woodbridge. Once the land breeze becomes well established at night, the cycle is completed. ' Table 1 also contains data on another weather -related potential landfill impact; i.e., Titter dispersal, - Litter sometimes becomes noticeable during Santa Ana wind conditions when winds pick up paper and debris along the landfill access road or from the working face and blow it away from the landfill. Private haulers with small trailers or open trucks sometimes lose newspapers and other paper debris during these windy conditions on the way to Coyote Canyon. [I City of N&uport Beach 1 TABLE 1 IRVINE WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION 1979-80) 3 Percent of Observations Very Time of Direction from Light Moderate Strong Strong Day Which Wind Blows (0-3 mph) (4-9 mph) (10-19 mph) (_20 mph) Midnight N 4.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 - NE 11.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 6 a.m. E 14.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 SE 16.2 2.0 0.2 0.0 S 11.0 1.1 0.7 0.1 SW 5.1 1.1 0.3 0.0 W 2.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 NW 2.4 O.1 0.0 0.0 Calm 23.7 0_0 0_0 Total 90.6 8.0 1.5 0_1 Noon N 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 NE' 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 6 p.m. E 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 SE 1.9 1.3 0.4 0.1 S 3.9 18.0 1.8 0.1 SW 5.0 47.1 2j 0.0 W 2.9 8.8 1.1 0.0 NW 0.7 0_7 0_0 0_0 ' Calm I'D Total TF-0 � 5.9 �l 0.0 = less -than 0.05%. II II II I 9 1 City of Newport Beach 7 4 Table 1 shows that windy conditions of 20 mph or more almost always blow from the N-NE. As these winds enter Coyote Canyon, they are funneled from the toe of the Tandfill to the upper canyon and are prevented from carrying much wind-blown debris off the landfill by the ridges on either side of the canyon. Unless debris is dropped , along MacArthur or Bonita Canyon Road during these wind conditions, it usually does not create a litter problem because it remains trapped within the landfill boundaries. In contrast to the more pervasive odor problem, litter conditions thus tend to be highly ' localized and are also readily controlled by standard housekeeping and litter control measures. ' AIR QUALITY In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impact of any developments that contribute to the regional air pollutant burden, that impact, together with any baseline levels of air quality, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards ' (AAQS). These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most sensi- tive to further respiratory distress, such as'asthmatics, young children, the elderly, or persons already weakened by other illness. Healthy adults engaged in•non-strenuous activities can tolerate periodic exposure to levels well above these standards before adverse health effects are observed. National AAQS have been romulgated for seven pollutant species (called "criteria pollutants" with states retaining the option to , add other pollutants or to establish more stringent standards or to add standards for different exposure periods for criteria pollu- tant species. Because California already had standards in existence before national standards were adopted, and because of unique air quality problems caused by its restrictive dispersion meteorology, considerable diversity exists between state and national AAQS. Those standards currently applicable in California are shown in Table 2. ' The standard for total suspended particulates (TSP), important in considering fugitive dust generation from landfills, is under con- sideration for -revision by both the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection 'Agency (EPA). Both agencies recognize that large soil particles from heavy equipment or agricultural operations are readily filtered by human breathing passages and TSP therefore does not represent a good measure of dust - ' related health impacts. However, until a respirable particulate standard is developed and measurement devices are approved, t-he existing TSP standards will continue to remain applicable. ' I Air quality monitoring by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) shows that southeastern Orange County, as measured at the AQMD's Costa Mesa station, periodically exceeds AAQS by a ' significant margin. To be sure, air quality in the coastal areas of City of N2dwport Beach 1 I I r I I I 0 I I TABLE 2 5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS California Standards' National Standards' Pollutant Averaging Time _-- Concentration' Mathod4 Primsry's Secondary" Method' Oxidimilo 1 hour 0.10 ppm Ultraviolet — — 1200 ug/m') Photometry Ozone 1 hour — — 240 ug/m' Same as Primary Chemiluminescent (0.12 ppm) Standard Method Carbon Monoxide Non -Dispersive '— Some as Non-Dispersivo 8 hour 9 Ppm 10 mg/m' Infrared Primary infrared (10 mg/m') Spectroscopy 19 ppm)' Standards Spectroscopy 1 hour 20 ppm 40 nlg/m' (23mg/m3) (35 ppm) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average — 1'" 00 ug/m' 10.05 ppm) Gas Phase 'Saltzman Method Some as Primary Chemiluminescencn "" 1 hour 0.25 ppm — Standards (470 ug/m') Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average — 80 ug/m' (0.03 ppm) — 24 hour 0.05 ppm (131 ug/m')' Conductimetric 365 up/m' (0.14 ppm) — Paraosanillno Method Method 3 hour — — 1300 ug/m' Ali ppm) 1 hour 0.5 ppm — — (1310 ug/m') Suspended Annual Geometric 60'ug/m' 75 ug/m' 60 ug/m3 Particulate Mean High Volume High Volume 24 hour 100 ug/m' 260 ug/m 150 ug/m z Matter Sampling Sampling Sulfates 24 hour 25 ug/m' — — No. 61 Lead 30 day 1.5 ug/m' et d AIHL Method Average54 Calendar — — 1.5 u,l/m' 1.5 ug/m' Atomic Quarter Absorption Hydrogen 1 hour 0.03 ppm Cadmium — '— Sulfide 142 up/m') ydroxide Stracta Method Hydrocarbons 3 hour — — 160 ug/m' (0.24 ppm) some as Flame Ionization Detection Using (Corrected for (6.9 a.m.) SPrimata dards ahy Gas Chromatography Methane) Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.010 ppm Gas Chromatog- (Chlorcethene) (26 ug/m') raphy (ARB staff report 78.8.3) _ Ethylene 8 hour 0.1 ppm — — — 1 hour 0.5 ppm Visibility 1 observation in sufficient amount to (8) reduce the prevailing visibility Reducing Particles to less than 10 miles when the relative humidity is less than 70% — — — . r-r.�arv�r, raeza�.caaaeczaz�a�r�-�cnz Carbon Monoxide 8 hour 6 ppm NDIR — — — (7 mg/m') Visibility 1 observation In sufficient amount to (8) Reducing reduce the prevailing visibility — — — Particles to less than 30 miles when the relative humidity is less than 70% 1 Cily Ui 1'%Y1VWPU1 L Bedc;h the county is much better than in inland valleys of the South Coast Ai-r Basin, but no area of Southern California is completely immune to periodic intrusions of polluted air. Table 3 summarizes ambient air quality data from the last four been finalized and released). years of monitoring (1982 data have not yet They show that standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, sulfates, and lead have all been exceeded at times during the last few years. These vi.ol,ations of standards are gener- ally only a small increment above allowable levels. They show a slow ' but encouraging improvement trend toward eventual attainment. In the have also created rest of the air basin, pollution control measures , a significant improvement trend. Air quality in many areas is so degraded (primarily from photochemical ozone) to start with, however, that slow improvement means air quality will remain in excess of applicable standards for many years to come. Airsheds which exceed national AAQS are designated as non- attainment areas. The Clean Air Act requires that an air quality ' management plan (AQMP) be prepared for each non -attainment area as part of the state implementation plan (SIP) to achieve healthful air quality. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require that all air quality standards must be met by 1982 with a possible extension to (RFP) 1987 for some pollutant species if reasonable further progress is demonstrated by 1982. In the 1982 AQMP Revision, the AQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) have taken the position that 1987 is an unrealistic deadline for attainment for Southern California., If attainment is not predicted by the mandated deadline, then the EPA must impose a ban on the construction of major new sources of pollution. EPA also has discretionary authority to withhold funding for highway construction, sewage treatment facili- ties, and air programs. When California enacted legislation for a EPA released mandatory vehicle inspection and maintenance program, those restricted funds, but retains the authority to reimpose those funding sanctions, if necessary. There are no provisions of the AQMP or of the AQMD's Rules and The ' Regulations that specifically relate to landfill operations. AQMD had considered developing a landfill gas emissions control rule to prevent reactive organic gases (ROGs) escaping from Landfills from contributing to basinwide ozone levels. These ROGs mix with - nitrogen oxides (NOx) and react photochemically under abundant sun- light to form ozone and other irritants. Voluntary installation of , gas recovery systems at various landfills to economically recover (for sale or to generate electricity) or for subsurface these gases gas migration and odor control eliminated the need for this rule. Coyote Canyon is now the largest landfill in Southern California with- Although no rule was developed specific- out a gas recovery system. ally for landfills, the AQMD does have the ability to restrict the adverse impact landfill operations may have on the surrounding com- (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugi'tive Dust) ' munity through its Rule 402 authority. Rule 402 states: GILL U1 iNewport Beach 1 I U 7. TABLE 3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY COSTA MESA AQMD STATION Pollutant 1978 1979 1980 1981 Ozone 1 HE ? 0.10 ppm 52 26 20 28 1 HR > 0.12 ppm 25 16 5 6 1 HR ? 0.20 ppm 3 1 0 1 Max. 1-HR conc. (ppm) 0.22 0.21 0.16 0.20 Carbon 1 HR Z 20 ppm 0 2 0 0 monoxide 8 HR >_ 9 ppm 9 28 7 4 Max. 1-HR conc. (ppm) 18 21 17 15 Max. 8-HR conc. (ppm) 12.8 15.9 13.9 11.7 Nitrogen 1 HR 4 0.25 ppm 4 4 2 2 dioxide Max. 1-HR conc. (ppm) 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.29 Total 24-HR ? 100 pg/m3 10/61 26/61 6/20 - suspended 24-HR > 260 pg/m3 0/61 0/61 0/20 - particulates Max. 24-HR conc. (Ng/m3) 175 '252 125 - Sulfate 24-HR ? 25 pg/m3 2/61 0/61 0/20 - particulates Max. 24-HR conc. (fig/m3) 27/2 24.2 13.5 - Lead 1-MO ? 1.5 pg/m3 4/12 3/12 0/4 - particulates Max. 1-MO conc. (yg/m3) 3.11 1.90 0.82 - - Particulate monitoring discontinued mid-1980. 1 City of Newport Beach r r A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public... Rule 403(b) states: A person shall take every reasonable precaution to min- r imize fugitive dust emissions from wrecking, excavation, grading, clearing of land and solid waste disposal oper- ations. ' These rules, particularly the nuisance rule, have been invoked on several occasions to issue abatement orders to landfill operators whose operational practices created strong odor concentrations. , Encroachment of residential growth into former open space buffer zones around landfills has led to a number of land use conflicts that have resulted in requirements for the landfill operators to control odor- ous emissions. Air pollution control (APC) systems on landfills, whether gas cleaning and treatment, electrical generation, or simple combustion, r are regulated by the AQMD's permit.system under what is called "New Source Review" (NSR). •The -district NSR rule (Rule 1300 et seq.) requires that any significant new source of emissions must use best available control technology (BACT), it must not cause a violation , or make measurably worse an existing violation of clean air stan- dards, and the applicant must offset the new emissions by retiring an equivalent amount of emissions from other basin sources. APC systems at landfills, while reducing hydrocarbon emissions from the landfill, often create increased NOx and carbon monoxide emissions. To promote energy recovery from solid waste, resource recovery proj- ects that generate useful energy are exempt from the emission offset requirements of NSR. As long as such systems use BACT, they are con- sidered to create a positive air quality benefit whose application for landfill gas control is thus encouraged by the AQMD. AIR QUALITY IMPACT Landfill operations of themselves have only a nominal impact on air quality as measured by ambient air quality standards. Gaseous emissions from onsite refuse handling equipment, vehicular emissions from haul vehicles, fugitive dust from soil cover excavation and placement and dirt road travel, and gaseous decomposition emanations are all associated with landfill operations. the wide area over which these emissions are dispersed and the small, quantity of land- fill activity emissions compared to regional sources minimizes any measurable impacts from these operations. Since the three grading alternatives basically anticipate the same level of landfill activity, ' differing only in the ultimate closure date of the landfill, there are correspondingly few direct air quality differences among the three alternatives. r UILy of Newport Beach 1 u r ' While the health -related impacts of landfill operations are generally minimal (assuming no materials are placed in the fill that may have any significant health consequences), the indirect atmo- spheric pathways that create aesthetic impacts are of far greater concern. Aesthetic impacts include mainly landfill odors, airborne litter, and visible dust clouds and downwind soiling from cover soil ' handling. Although the health consequences of these impacts are not threatening, the psychological impacts from odor or litter nuisance and the economic impacts from soiling are prime factors in directing public opposition against landfill,.operations. Because of the some- what subjective nature of these impacts, they are difficult to quan- tify, but certainly they deserve careful consideration. Landfill Odors infinite number Landfill odors are about as complex as the almost of organic substances that can exist in the vapor state. When the possible variety of odorous constituents to the air around a landfill is combined with an equally complex sensor (the human nose) whose . response depends on a person's health, sensitivity, emotional state, and other subjective factors, it is difficult to develop a quantita- ' tive landfill odor characterization. Despite the complexity, one typically breaks down landfill odor components into three general categories that describe the type of ' odors generated by buried refuse. These three odor categories are referred to as "fresh trash," "residual decay," and "septic." They are characterized as follows: Fresh trash - As the name implies, this is the odor emanat- ing from the working face as the trash is dumped and spread prior to being covered by daily cover soil. Since much of rapidly decaying organic material is disposed in sink dis- posal systems in private residences, most fresh trash odor comes from the initial decay of small amounts of food items plus a large amount of wet newspaper, cardboard, and other paper items. This odor is often described as a "wet news- peper" type of odor with occasional whiffs of decayed fruit ' or other residential trash odor. It is the odor one com- monly finds in a residential trash can or the dumpster at a store or office. Residual decay - This odor results from the anaerobic decay of buried material generated when microscopic organisms digest organic matter. It varies greatly with the type of material buried, the age or state or decay, and the mois- ture content of the fill. This odor is the detectable component in landfill gas which is about one-half methane and one-half carbon monoxide. The detectable component is only a few percent of the total gas emissions, but it is easily perceptible because some of the constitutents in City of Newport Beach 10 this odor are detectable by humans in the parts per million or even a few parts per billion range. The odor includes some inorganic gases such as hydrogen sulfide (a rotten egg odor), sulfur dioxide, and ammonia. It is comprised mainly of organic compounds, including sulfur compounds such as pungent mercaptans, nitrogenous compounds such as amines, oxygenated compounds such as esters, alcohols, and organic acids, and substituted ethylenic or benzenoid compounds. Because a landfill odor "plume" is comprised of many com- pounds, each with a different threshold level of detecta- bility, the odor character of the plume changes with down- wind distance. Farthest from the source, only the com- pounds with the highest concentration and the lowest detection threshold will be noted. Closer to the source, new odorants become detectable and the character changes. Very close to the source, all odorants become detectable and the odor strength becomes overpowering. The general sequence of odor character is that the odor usually has a decay -like odor quality, but changes from a sour sensa- tion farthest from the landfill (mercaptans and organic acids) to a sickly -sweet at intermediate distances (esters and alcohols) to a pungent and nauseating odor combina- tion at concentrated 'odor sources on the landfill. At receptor sites off the landfill, the sour and sickly -sweet odor sensations are the only ones detected unless a major unearthing of buried trash allows a concentrated emission of odorants to escape the landfill. In spite of the com- plexity of the odor and its ever -changing character, a landfill residual decay odor can be immediately recognized by someone involved in odor assessment. The underlying, decay component smells about the same at almost every landfill in Southern California; some'are just stronger than others. Septic - These odors result from the breakdown of amino acids and are dominated by organic nitrogen compounds such as indole and skatole. Their•oharacter is fecal and putrescent. Coyote Canyon experienced some of these odors during the periods of sludge drying when the windrows of sludge became anaerobic because of accelerated decomposi- tion during hot weather or because of wet pockets in the sludge. Landfilled sludge itself contributes small amounts of septic odorant, but the rate of generation is usually small and the typical landfill odor does not usually smell septic. Septic odors can develop when canneries, packing houses, rendering plants, or food processors bury their wastes in landfills, especially fish cannery wastes. Coyote Canyon does not accept liquid waste from these sources and therefore does not experience the septic odors that may be noticeable at some other landfills. i City of Imowport Beach 1 Given the complexity of these odors and no precise data on ' Coyote Canyon odor generation, it is difficult to assess any odor impacts from the three grading plan alternatives. It should be noted that odor generation from the pervasive residual decay depends on the volume of trash landfilled. It will persist for 10-20 years after burial in the landfill. Differences in landfill odor generation from buried material will therefore be small among the three alter- natives. Odor generation under Alternative i will result from about 45 million cubic yards of material in place to about 55 million cubic yards under Alternative 3. The intensity of odorant generated under Alternative 3 will be•slightly higher and last slightly longer ' into the future, but none of the alternatives can change the fact that the bulk of the odor generation material is already in place. ' For a complex odor comprised of many odorants, the strength of the odor is described in terms of how many dilutions with fresh air are required to reduce the odor concentration to a point where one- half of a test panel of "sniffers" can no longer detect the odor. This measure is called the number of odor units in the odor sample. It can generally be measured only under controlled conditions. It has been found from empirical observations, however,, that each ' cubic foot of landfill gas that rises to the surface and percolates to the soil generates about 10,000 odor units. Landfill gas pumped directly from below ground contains about 100,000-500,000 odor units ' per cubic foot. The soil cover is thus an important source of odor reduction. The South Coast AQMD (1982) estimates that each million tons of buried refuse generates about 2,000 tons of landfill gas per year. Applying these empirical data to the 40 million cubic ' yards of material (trash and cover) currently i-n place in Coyote Canyon, about 42 million•odor units -are generated.each minute (4,200 CFM x 10,000 OU/cu. ft.). This estimate compares very well with ' detailed odor emissions measurements from the BKK Landfill in West Covina which generates about 3,400 CFM of gas from about 25 million cubic yards of material at an odor generation of 48 million odor units per minute. Since BKK is wetter and handles a lot of materials not allowed in Coyote Canyon, the fact that BKK generates a little more odor from a little less fill material is consistent with expec- tations. If those 42 million odor units per minute from Coyote Canyon drift down the canyon toward the Upper Bay, how far will they be detectable from the landfill? This .question can be answered by assuming a "river" of air drains slowly down the canyon carrying the odorant. Moving at 100 feet per minute across.a 1,000-foot front at 50 feet deep, the odor concentratioi at the edge of the landfill is expressed by ' odor cone. = 0 2,000,000 0 = 8.4 odor units City of Newport Beach 12 Assuming the eir dilutes with clean, outside air at a rate of one dilution horizontally and one vertically per mile of drift as the air moves away -from the landfill, the existing limit of detectability is 84X2.4 = 1 OU X2 = 2.1 miles2 X = 1.45 miles This limit of detectability extends to Harbor View Homes, to, the Bonita/MacArthur intersection, to the UCT campus, and covers the southern half of Turtle Rock. These areas are exactly where odor nuisance has been detected in the past. As previously noted, the increase in the volume of odor emissions attributable to extending the life of Coyote Canyon is minimal. Applying the above analysis to the limits of odor detectability from each of the three grading alternatives yields the following limits: Existing - 1.45 miles Alternative 1 - 1.53 miles Alternative 2 - 1.54 miles Alternative 3 - 1.69 miles The difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 or 3 is much less than the absolute accuracy of the odor impact assessment technique, such that odor differences among the alternatives are not statistically significant. While odor generation is substantial and odor detectability extends considerably into surrounding communities, the release of odorous gases can be significantly reduced by gas recovery systems. The Landfill Gas Emissions Task Force (AQMD, 1982).concluded: "Finding 4. Air pollution control systems at landfills in the South Coast Air Basin fall into three categories: a.. Landfill gas recovery, purification and offsite sale of methane. b. Energy recovery (combustion on -site and heat recovery). c. Flaring on -site. The first two of these systems are most desir- able and are strongly encouraged. The third is the least desirable, since it causes further pollution from nitrogen oxides, with lesser City of Nt;4,vport Beach 13 amounts of carbon monoxide and particulate matter, and no energy recovery involved. However, it does minimize reactive organic ' gases and eliminates objectionable odors." (P• 9) As soon as the landfill gas recovery system was installed at the BKK Landfill, there was a 70% reduction in the odor strength in all areas of the landfill gas recovery operations. The installation of a gas recovery system at Coyote Canyon is thus expected to create a similar benefit. This system, as currently proposed by Genstar, Inc., will extract landfill. gas for electricity generation. The system is designed to trap gas migrating through the.soil at the edge of the landfill and to tap into the most productive gas -producing strata within the fill. Although the system is not designed specif- ically to control odors, odor control is an important by-product of its installation. A gas control system, a.flare backup system when the generator is out, good cover and vegetation to filter gas emis- sions, and the prevention of water intrusion into the landfill (which appears to accelerate malodorous gas production) can all sub- stantially reduce the odor exposure of existing and future residents near the Coyote Canyon area. Given the superiority of Alternatives 2 and 3 in reducing water infiltration and the nominal differences in gas generation between the two plans, both plans are consistent with good future odor control programs at the landfill. Airborne Litter Airborne litter results from either high wind situations when debris may be lofted during dumping and spreading, or from litter lost by transport vehicles. The open -vehicle transport problem can occur at any time, but is worse during Santa Ana wind conditions. The wind orientation from the north or east during high wind episodes means that material will generally be carried southward toward the upper reaches of Coyote Canyon and westward toward the ridgeline ' between Coyote Canyon and Newport Beach residential areas. Litter is a direct function -of the duration of landfill opera- tions and the volume of trash hauled to the fill. The longer Coyote Canyon continues operating and the more trash handled, the more opportunity there will be for occasional litter nuisance. With almost identical closure dates for Alternatives 1 and 2, the potential for ' litter generation is similarly equal for both alternatives by virtue of their disposing of similar volumes of trash. Given the other ' limitations of Alternative 1, then Alternative 2 best reduces the potential for continued litter impact. The ridgeline separating Coyote Canyon from Newport Beach residences near the landfill also steers the airflow and reduces litter transport. Alternative 2, by virtue of requiring less excavation of ridgeline soil for cover ' material, is also the preferable alternative by retaining a more sub- stantial physical barrier between residences and the landfill. 1 City of Newport Beach 14 , Because litter generation is somewhat a function of care taken , in handling and burying refuse., extra measures on windy 'days taken normally as part of good landfill practice can reduce any potential litter impacts. These measures include a Careful selection of ' protected dumping areas during wind episodes, maintaining a small working face, cautioning drivers to exercise care in emptying their trucks, chain -link fencing around the landfill in windy areas, and ' extra clean-up patrols along MacArthur, Bonita Canyon Road, the landfill access road, and within the landfill itself during Santa Ana winds. Current controlmeasures at Coyote Canyon are effective in minimizing litter nuisance and should be Continued under any of ' the grading alternatives. Fugitive Dust , Each yard of soil excavated and spread on the landfill generates about 0.4 pound of dust lofted into the air. About 80% of this dust settles out again within the landfill, while the rest blows downwind ' (usually across Turtle Rock and Bommer and Shady Canyons). Assuming that turbulence mixes this dust uniformly within a plume about 300 feet deep and perhaps 6,000 feet across,�the dust concentration within Coyote Canyon from an annual earth movement of 500,000 cubic ' yards averages about 420 pg/m3 above background, or in excess of the federal standard of 260 ug/m3. Rapid dilution with clean air soon reduces the dust concentration to acceptable limits before it .reaches populated areas. By assuming a "box model" dilution process similar to odor dispersal, Table 4 shows the resulting downwind dust levels. Table 4 shows that dust concentrations in excess of allowable stan- dards extend about one-half mile from the landfill. Because of the inert nature of soil particles, no adverse health effects are gen- erally associated with these fugitive dust emissions, but they may increase soiling from dust deposition and they may also decrease , visibility. Table 4 shows that the excess dust loading may signifi- cantly increase local haze levels until the dust becomes sufficiently diluted. Beyond about one mile, the dust plume is well diluted, but ' dust transport may be evident near the landfill and from surrounding roadways. Fugitive dust generation is directly proportional to the amount , of soil disturbed. Alternative 21 because it requires less soil dis-•- turbance while still meeting the drainage and contouring objectives of landfill closure, is the most desirable alternative, When land= ' fill gas recovery operations reduce odor nuisance, dust lofting, especially from borrow sites near Harbor View and Spyglass Hill, may become the more sensitive aesthetic issue related to airborne trans- port. An earlier closure and less soil movement under Alternative 2 rather than Alternative 3 may minimize this potential conflict. Mobile Source Emissions r The one area where landfi•11 activities may impact criteria pol- lutant attainment planning is from the exhaust emissions from hauling , Uity ui NUWPU1 L Beac;t I 1 ' TABLE 4 COYOTE CANYON OPERATION FUGITIVE DUST IMPACTS , ' Distance from Particulate ' Coyote Canyon Concentration Visibility (Miles) (p/m3) (Miles) ' Upwind 80 10.0 0.00 500 5.4 0.25 349 6.4 0.50 267 7.2 ' 0.75 217 7.8 ' 1.00 205 8.2 2.00 107 9.5 City of Newport Beach I 16 vehicles. Because many of these vehicles are trucks with high emis- sion levels per mile, the generation of 1,150 haul trips to the land- fill (and 1,150 return trips to the point of origin) generates a con- siderable volume of emissions in proportion to the total mileage driven. By considering refuse to be generated at nine centroids in Orange County within the coastal corridor from Seal Beach to E1 Toro, the average one-way trip length for haul vehicles is 11.4 miles. If the landfill is closed and Bee Canyon replaces Coyote Canyon as the receiving point, the average trip length from the same sources increases to 14.4 miles. If Bee Canyon is not operational, trip lengths increase dramatically to Prima, but the whole distribution of vehicles, including a possible transfer station, may change if . Coyote Canyon is not replaced. Using the .vehicle fleet distribution from the project traffic study, the following emissions result from vehicles using Coyote Canyon: Carbon monoxide 1.43 1.72 1,376.1 Reactive hydrocarbons 0.13 0.15 270.2 Oxides of nitrogen 0.25 0.30 234.2 For comparison, the same traffic using Bee Canyon and the total county- wide emissions are also shown. The significant difference between Coyote Canyon emissions and its replacement suggests that Coyote Can- yon's location is important in reducing vehicular pollutant emissions on a regional, scale,. With Coyote Canyon and Bee Canyon operating simultaneously, Coyote Canyon diverts substantial volumes of truck traffic from the coastal service area with attendant emissions reduc- tions. On a regional scale, total countywide emissions are not appre- ciably affected whether Coyote Canyon remains open or not. Consider- ing, however, that air quality standards are widely exceeded in the South Coast Air Basin, any emissions reductions, even if small, are an important air quality benefit. In terms of criteria pollutants (non -aesthetic impacts), Alternative 3 represents a significantly preferable alternative over earlier landfill closure. MITIGATION The only way to reduce aesthetic impacts of landfill operations via atmospheric pathways is to prevent the escape of dust, odor, and litter to begin with. Dust and litter control are part of normal good housekeeping procedures that are effective when properly applied. The GSA Waste Management Division has traditionally been conscientious in its operational practices and is further prohibited from creating an adverse fugitive dust impact by the rules of the AQMD. If Alter- native 3 is selected and borrow sites are developed near existing housing, an aggressive dust control program during excavation must be implemented to minimize dust soiling nuisance. *See attached memo for revised emissions calculations for traffic and onsite equipment operations. VILY V1 258'Nvi L DUdLA i I I CI J L I 16 I� u C� I I 1 LJ vehicles. Because many of these vehicles are trucks with high emis- sion levels per mile, the generation of 1,150 haul trips to the land- fill (and 1,150 return trips to the point of origin) generates a con- siderable volume of.emissions in proportion to the total mileage driven. By considering refuse to be generated at nine centroids in Orange County within the coastal corridor from Seal Beach to E1 Toro, the average one-way trip length for haul vehicles is 11.9 miles. If the landfill is closed and Bee Canyon replaces Coyote Canyon as the receiving point, the average trip length from the same sources increases to 14.4 miles. If Bee Canyon is not operational, trip lengths increase dramatically to Prima, but the whole distribution of vehicles, including a possible transfer station, may change if Coyote Canyon is not replaced. Using the .vehicle fleet distribution from the project traffic study, the following emissions result from vehicles using Coyote Canyon: Carbon monoxide 1.43 1.72 1,376.1 Reactive hydrocarbons 0.13 0.15 270.2 Oxides of nitrogen 0.25 0.30 234.2 For comparison, the same traffic using Bee Canyon and the total county- wide emissions are also shown. The significant difference between Coyote Canyon emissions and its replacement suggests that Coyote Can- yon's location is important in reducing vehicular pollutant emissions on a regional scale. With Coyote Canyon and Bee Canyon operating simultaneously, Coyote Canyon diverts substantial volumes of truck traffic from the coastal service area with attendant emissions reduc- tions. On a regional scale, total countywide emissions are not appre- ciably affected whether Coyote Canyon remains open or not-. Consider- ing, however, that air quality standards are widely exceeded,in the South Coast Air Basin, any emissions reductions, even if small, are an important air quality benefit. In terms of criteria pollutants (non -aesthetic impacts), Alternative 3 represents a significantly preferable alternative over earlier landfill closure. MITIGATION The only way to reduce aesthetic impacts of landfill operations via atmospheric pathways is to prevent the escape of dust, odor, and litter to begin with. Dust and litter control are part of normal good housekeeping procedures that are effective when properly applied. The GSA Waste Management Division has traditionally been conscientious in its operational practices and is further prohibited from creating an adverse fugitive dust impact by the rules of the AQMD. If Alter- native 3 is selected and borrow sites are developed near existing housing, an aggressive dust control program during excavation must be implemented to minimize dust soiling nuisance. 1 amity or iwwpon reach 17 , , odor control has been demonstrated to be effective when gas wells are drilled and adequate negative pressure is maintained to withdraw ' substantial volumes of landfill gas. The Genstar program currently proposed will alleviate the existing odor problems if adequate pre- cautions are taken. Such precautions include: 1. Providing for flaring when generation systems are not operational. ' 2. Maintaining system redundancy if some pumps are not operational or if subsidence breaks wells or connec- tions between wells and the generating sites. 3. Maintaining adequate landscaping and cover soil integ- rity because soil and plants appear very effective in odor filtration. 4. Breaking landfill cover only under controlled condi- tions (for new Wells or system repair) during periods of good ventilation. As with dust, nuisance odor emissions are prohibited by AQMD rules , and regulations. The AQMD'•considers landfill odors a nuisance when enough people complain and has cited and even closed landfills under court order for nuisance odor violations. If the gas recovery pro- ' gram should not be developed as anticipated, the• public still has legal recourse against the landfill owners and operators to abate such emissions. The.proposed program should significantly alleviate any odor problems, but if it does not, an equally effective control ' program can be required if the public files enough complaints with the AQMD and the AQMD enforces the rules at its disposal. ' F I City of Newport Beach 1 ' �_i6in6 D. C iroux - Consultc+nt ■ McFe.:r ,�094 Air Q.,Aity M E M 0 Date: August 18, 1983 Subject: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill EIR To: Robert Kemble, PBR, Project Manager In response to your recent telephone call, I have calculated several additional air quality parameters related to the above project. These data constitute an addendum to the draft air quality impact analysis delivered to you earlier this week. Additional areas considered include: 1. so and particulate emissions from landfill haul vehicles, 2. Combustion emissions from on -site heavy equipment, and, 3. Microscale carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations adjacent to landfill access roadways. Results from these calculations are summarized below. 1. 502 and particulate emission levels from landfill vehicles for 1983 were calculated by combining vehicular emission characteristics from the ARB's EMFAC6C composite vehicular emissions model with truck mixes and vehicle counts derived from the project traffic study. Landfill access traffic was comprised of the following vehicles: Autos and pick-ups - 33% Medium duty trucks - 17% Heavy-duty gas trucks - 17% Diesel trucks - 33% Resulting emissions (1983 emission levels, an update of the 1982 levels calculated in the draft impact analysis) are tabulated as follows: 26 ;unriver ♦ Irvine. California g2714 (7!u) 552-0783 1 City of N. 261vpurt Beach Daily Emissions (tons/day) , Coyote Canyon Bee Canyon Orange County ' Pollutant: Traffic Traffic Traffic Carbon Monoxide 1.35 1.63 1,376.1 Reactive Hydrocarbons 0.12 0.15 270.2 Nitrogen Oxides 0.24 0.29 234.2 Sulfur Dioxide O.03 0.04 27.3 ' Total Particulates 0.03 0.04 88.2 2. On —site heavy—duty equipment emissions were calculated based on 6 , dozers, 2 scrapers and 4 compactor/rollers on site and 1 dozer and 3-4 scrapers retrieving cover material from the borrow sites. All equipment ' was assumed diesel —powered and was assumed to operate 8 hours per day in order to generate a conservative (over —predictive) estimate. Emission factors were taken from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook for , EIRs. Emission levels were as follows: Dailv Emissions (tons/day) Pollutant: On —site Borrow Site Total Carbon Monoxide 0.003 0.008 0.011 ' Reactive Hydrocarbons 0.001 0.003) 0.004 Nitrogen Oxides 0.020 0.034 0.054 Sulfur Dioxide 0.001 0.003 0.004 Total Particulates 0,001 0.002 0.003 ' These emissions are appreciably lower than landfill —related haul sources (see above) and any corresponding ambient air quality impacts are thus minimal. Alternative 2 will divert these emissions to another landfill sooner than Alternative 3, but the impacts from these sources are so small as to not constitute any significant difference among any of the ' alternatives. City of Newport Beach 1 3. Microscale CO concentrations with and without landfill traffic were calculated using the CALINE3 roadway dispersion model under maximum traffic and minimum dispersion conditions. Maximum hourly CO levels from landfill traffic alone total less than 1 ppm. at 20 feet from any impacted roadways compared to an hourly standard of 20 ppm. Elimination ' of landfill traffic will not significantly change local CO distributions which are generally well within allowable levels. Calculated hourly CO distributions (including a 5 ppm. hourly background from non -local sources) were as follows: Hourly CO Concentrations (ppm) Location: Project Only No Project Background Total Bonita Canyon Rd. W of Coyote Canyon 0.9 0.9 5.0 6.8 ' E of Coyote Canyon 0.1 0.6 5.0 5.7 MacArthur Blvd. ' N of Bonita Canyon 0.6 8.4 5.0 14.0 S of Bonita Canyon 0.2 8.4 5.0 13.6 I I n I 1 Microscale CO concentrations are dominated by non -landfill sources and by non -local background levels. Landfill traffic impacts are less than the 1 ppm limit of accuracy of CO measurements and are therefore not significant under any of the grading alternatives. 0 i City of Newport Beach I 1.. 5. A. c� uc : , 14 Fro : A-n4ttj S"n4-Aall � ►-i wow P.-L,6 , e979- Z-tl,t wuw - — C30tw , i/otlu X — tT Cn. ' �4,nki.Q .L - Zi�APA Cam. AtA &Lt� b4.� --7-7 &�- 1 1 T-�uCaY cS2�.}cCLco � 1 1 City of Newport Beach 1 1 1 U • S. F n vv- , n^�i�p�.eK�.�a�IY P, o. Je eze-�c. J j n CY , I 7 eo � 1 O t/t Pr,- �.C� Fl�'�B�il �o U P-/4o-u rongait 1 a_ 1 ea Q mOxca� etvsetQ� I has cQ, l q P/ : 1 �h0 cDeU cvauE. 0,�cQ t 1 Av.Ljj, F� , �� tie ✓r= Psi 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 265 City of Newport Beach 1] 1 1 1_1 1 1 1 H. NOISE ANALYSIS 266 1 City of Newport Beach NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 Prepared By Fred Greve, P.E. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 200 Newport Center Drive Suite 213 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 760-0891 July 28, 1983 City of Newport Beach I I I 1 F I I t NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 1.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT The noise environment in the vicinity of the Coyote Canyon Landfill is determined primarily by traffic on adjacent roadways, and by noise generated by landfill operations. Truck traffic and earth moving equipment (e.g.; dozers, scrapers, and compactors) are the most significant noise sources associated with the landfill operations. 1.1 Community Noise Scales Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A -weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Exhibit 1 provides examples of various noises and their typical A -weighted noise level. The "equivalent ,noise level," or Leq is the average noise level on an energy basis for any specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour, specifically, the average noise based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the sound. It can be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level. The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA, therefore, a sound measured for one hour may be expressed as a one hour Leq of 57 dBA. Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 hour average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m, to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. The day -night or Ldn scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA," "60 dBA CNEL," or simply 1160 CNEL." Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented in Exhibit 2. 1.2 Noise Standards The Noise Element of the General Plan of the County of Orange establishes outdoor and indoor noise limits for residential land uses. The outdoor noise standard for exterior living areas is 65 CNEL. The indoor noise standard is 45 CNEL. The Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach utilize the same t pity or mewp®rt beach Sound Levels and Loudness of Illustrative Noises in Indoor and Outdoor Environments (A -State Weighted Sound levers) LEVEL (Sound Pu»un 4r•1 COMMUNITY , HOME OR INDUSTRY LOUDNESS Appraa. 0.0007 MIcmD•I) (Ouldoaq (indoor) (Human Judgment of Orh•r•nl Sound L•r•b) Milll•ry Jet Alrcnll LF•-00 With Ah•r•aurnar From 720 UNCOMFORTABLY Aircntt Grti•h@ SO F4 (130) - pal0•n TorN (/21) 120 dB(A) 32 Times As Loud LOUD TurbO•Ffa Airwh @ T•k•-0d ' Power @ 200 FL ItD1 plwlinp Machine Itl% ( 710 — flock-H-flo11:e•nd (1O671Q 110 dB(A) 16 Times As Loud Jet Flyorn Ca11000 Ft. ho7) 90•In9 707, G 6060 ( @ FL Before L•ndMy (103) eau J-2A Helicopter rel 700 ft ( 700 VERY U00) 100 dB(A) 8 Times As Loud LOUD Powu Mow•r (%) awing 707, OGg @ SOSO FL H•wapap•r'Pnaa (97) saran Landing (97) ( � Motorcycle @ 25 FL (90)- 90 dB(A) i Times As Loud - Gf Wuh @ 20 H• (Sq)-- Prop. Platy Fyowr @ 1000 FL (en) � Food 81•nd•r (Sal Milling Machine (as) ( 01u•1 Truck, .o MPH @ SO Ft. (6/) tt0 plaa•I h•in, B MPH @ 700 FL (di) Garbage Olapoul (80) 80 d8[A) 2 Times AS Loud MODERATELY Pui.°^o:f Car. Ambient �l 23 F�17!) Llrinp poem Music R6) ] LOUD Fn•way @ SD FL Tram Par•mml • TV -Audio —Vacuum Cleaner [f0) ] � Etlq•, 10 A.M. RcS3) 70 ( dB A] Cash q•giabr @ to FL (1iS00) Electric 7yp•wrlt•r FL 1 Air Conditioning Unit 700 FL 60 "4 @ l ) @ 10 ``64) Oianw•aMr (fling) @ ID FL (So) Gnr•raatign (601 ) 60 dB(A) As 60 )4 Loud I 30: QUIET - Large Tnnalarman @too Ft (so) 50 dB(A) Y4 As -Loud Bird Gdla (H)Lower Limit. 40 Urban Ame(•nrsountl (40) 40 6 As loud dB(A) OVER-ALL N pF u7 JUST AUDIBLE ]db(A) Scale Interrupted] 70 - O w MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES EX ib' 1 - Typi al Noise Levels CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1 THRESHOLD OF HEARING - CNEL r 91 M r II II II Outdoor Location Apartment Next to Freeway 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport Downtown With Some Construction Activity Urban High Density Apartment Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue Old Urban Residential Area Wooded Residential Agricultural Crop Land Rural Residential Wilderness Ambient 1 ' MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 2 - Typical Community CONSULTING ENGINEERS Noise Levels ' ��r) f 270 I standards for indoor and outdoor noise impacting residential areas. The landfill operations are relatively insensitive to noise, and therefore, there are no standards regulating the noise impacting the landfill site itself. The Orange County Noise Ordinance establishes exterior and interior noise standards. The ordinance is designed to protect residential areas from non -transportation related noise sources (e.g.; motor vehicles, aircraft, and trains). Table 1 indi'cates the noise standard for the hours of 7:00 a.m, to 10:00 p.m. The noise standards are 5 dBA more stringent for the hours 10:00 p.m. to 7 a.m. The residential indoor noise standards are the same as those in Table 1 during daytime hours, and 10 dBA more stringent during nighttime hours. The City of Irvine Noise Ordinance is almost identical to the Orange County Noise Ordinance. The Irvine ordinance uses the same noise standards as does Orange County. The City of Newport Beach does not have a Noise Ordinance. TABLE 1 , ORANGE COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. ------ ------------------------ 1 NOISE LEVEL NOT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TO BE EXCEEDEDDURATION OF EXCEEDANCE ---------------------------- -------------------- 55 dBA 30 minutes/hour 60 dBA 15 minutes/hour 65 dBA 5 minutes/hour 70 dBA i minute/hour 75 dBA For any period of time ----------------- -------------------------------- The Orange County Noise Ordinance is important because it provides noise levels which are deemed to be acceptable in residential areas. By comparing the noise levels generated by the landfilling and borrow site activities to the Noise Ordinance, the acceptability of the noise levels can be determined. ' The Noise Ordinance is designed "to controlunnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds emanating from unincorporated, areas of the County," (emphasis, added),, However, the impactink g noise levels apply to the "entire territory of Orange County, including incorporated and unincorporated territory." The Noise Ordinance may or may not regulate the noise impact on adjacent residential areas. The application of the Noise Ordinance to landfill and borrow site operations is dependent on the interpretation of ' "grading" operations. Grading operations are exempt from the Noise Ordinance as long as they are conducted on weekdays and Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The ordinance defines grading as "any excavating or filling of •earth material, or any combination thereof, conducted at a site to prepare said site for construction or other improvements thereon." 1.3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels , Short term noise measurements of traffic were conducted at two sites on July 18, 1983. Site 1 was located on Culver Drive between Campus Drive and t %.Aty VI IV6W` U1 l DCdU 1 LJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I, I I H 1 11 Bonita Canyon Road. The microphone was 80 feet from the roadway centerline. Existing residences along this roadway are approximately 100 feet from the existing road centerline. Site 2 was on Bonita Canyon Road between MacArthur Boulevard and the entrance to the landfill. The microphone was located 40 feet from the road centerline. The measurements were made.with a Digital Acoustic 607P, Version 3, Portable Noise Monitor. The results of the measurement series are presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS ----------------------------------------------- SITE TIME OF MEASUREMENT NOISE LEVEL (DBA) 9:43 to 10:13 a.m. 158.1 3:56 to 4:11 p.m. 59.9 10:39 to 11:09 a.m. 72.8 The highway noise levels in terms of CNEL were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noi-se Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65; and 70 CNEL contours are found. For the roadway analysis, worst -case assumptions about future motor vehicle traffic and noise levels have been made and were incorporated in the modeling effort, specifically, no reductions in motor vehicle noise have been assumed in spite of legi-slation requiring quieter vehicles at the time of manufacture. Existing traffic volumes, estimated speeds, and truck percentages (Table 3) were used with the FHWA Model to estimate existing noise levels in terms of CNEL. Traffic volumes were determined from traffic data provided by Kunzman pnd Associates (July 1983). Culver Drive has a 7 ton gross vehicular weight limt, and therefore, no heavy duty trucks travel on Culver Drive. Speeds measured during the monitoring series were used for Bonita Canyon Road and Culver Drive. The posted speed limit was utilized for MacArthur Boulevard. 1 City of Newport Beach TABLE 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES, SPEEDS AND TRUCK PERCENTAGES ----------------------- ---------------------------- ------- % TRUCKS ROADWAY ADT SPEED MEDIUM HEAVY ---------------------------------------------------...---..r CULVER DRIVE Campus to Bonita Cyn. 20200 53 9.5 - BONITA CANYON ROAD East of Coyote Cyn. 3,200 41 6.6 1.2 , West of Coyote Cyn. 4,800 41 10.5 18.6 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD ' South of Bonita Cyn. 46,000 55 2.0 1.1 of Bonita Cyn. 46,000 55 2.4 2.2 ---North , The time distribution for the total non -landfill vehicular travel on the local roadways was assumed to be 78%, 12%, and 10% for the day, evening, and night time periods. These data were developed by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency and are considered typical, for roadways throughout Southern California. The distributions are based on traffic data obtained at 31 sample intersections located throughout the County. The 2300 trips associated with the landfill were assumed to occur during the day time period. The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the project site are given in Table 4. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 3 do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. Also presented in the table is the noise level at 100 feet from the road centerline. I E I II I City of Newport Beach 1 ' TABLE 4 ---------- ------------------------------------------------------ EXISTING NOISE LEVELS DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR FROM CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY (FEET) ROADWAY - ---------------------------- 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL CNEL AT 100' ---------- ------------------------------------------------------ CULVER DRIVE Campus to Bonita Cyn. RW 35 76 58.2 ' BONITA CANYON ROAD East of Coyote Cyn. RW 31 66 57.3 tWest of Coyote Cyn. 37 81 174 63.6 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD South of Bonita Cyn. 120 259 558 71.2 I North of Bopita Cyn. 130 280 603 71.7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: 1. RW - Contour ----------- ------- falls ------ on roadway. ----------------------------------------- ' The only residential area adjacent to the roadways in the project vicinity is the Turtle Rock community along Culver Drive. The residential lots are approximately 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Some units have rear yard' walls which provide some noise shielding of traffic on Culver Drive. Other units have low walls or grape stake fences which provide little or no noise protection. The noise level at 100 feet from Culver Drive is estimated to be 58 CNEL, and is currently well below the County and City of Irvine standards for residential areas. 1.4 Noise Levels -Generated by Landfill Operations ' Noise is generated by borrow and landfilling operations. The borrow operations usually employ 3 to 4 scrapers and 1 dozer. The landfill operations may utilize up to 6 dozers, 2 compactors, and 4 scrapers. Additionally, haul trucks pass to and from the fill area. Noise measurements were made to determine the noise levels generated by borrow and landfilling operations. ' The measurements were made with a Digital Acoustic Model 607P Portable Noise Monitor, and calibrated before and after each measurement series. Measurements were made approximately 540 feet the center of the borrow operations. One dozer and three scrapers were employed at the borrow site. Measurements of the landfill operations were conducted at a distance of approximately 450 feet. Three scrapers, two dozers, and one compactor were in operation at the landfill site. Measurements were made for a 30 minute period at each site. The results are presented in Table 5. The results are presented in percentile levels. For example, L10 represents the noise level which is exceeded 10 percent of the time. The last line is the equivalent noise level lilty OT NiewpOft CSeam , for the 30 minute measurement period. It represents the energy average noise level, and is slighty higher than the L50 level. TABLE 5 NOISE LEVELS FOR LANDFILL AND BORROW. OPERATIONS (DBA) -------------------------------- --------BORROW LANDFILL ----- ------------------ LO.1 70 73 L1 68 70 L5 66 66 L10 65 65 L33 63 63 L50 61 62 ' Leq 63 64' ----- ------------- -------------- 1.5 in Ambient Noise Levels Residential Areas Noise measurements were made at two locations in the residential areas to the west of the landfill in the City of Newport Beach. The locations are shown on Exhibit 3. The measurements were made during the late morning hours. Landfill operations were .not audible at either site. The most significant noise sources during the measurement periods were automobiles and occassional overflights of general aviation or helicopters. The monitoring equipment utilized was a Digital Acoustic Model 607P Portable Noise Monitor. The calibration was checked before and after each measurement period. The noise levels were monitored for 30 minutes at each site and are reported in Table 6. The existing noise levels are typical of quiet residential areas. I I .t I CI City of Newport Beach 1 I 1•��\\�,�I /+�,��� •.�/''/may,/ _ 5T�• `47,y� pr FI POAO%6 1 aY' � aV� .1T r A♦_.ol� \; i , . � �l:`��+��y.'(c ,, /�k '1 c;•w1♦.•��'�'%Y 1.�4 .,. �` rytG Ii r� y:Y� �1 `1.. �• < II II MESTRE OREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 3 - Residential Monitoring CONSULTING ENGINEERS 276 Sites I i TABLE 6 NOISE .LEVELS IN NEARBY RESIDENTIAL AREAS (DBA) RESIDENTIAL SITES ----------------- 1 2 ------------------------- LO.1 ------- 66 66 L1 64 63 L5 58 57 L10 54 54 L33 45 49 L50 43 47 L90 40 '43 Leq 54 53 ------------------- ------------- 0 City of Newport Beach J ' 2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS Potential noise impacts may arise from noise generated from borrow site activities, landfill activities, and noise generated by trucks on local roadways. Each of these activities are addressed below-. 2.1 Truck Traffic Noise ' The proposed extension of the Coyote Canyon Landfill will continue to generate traffic, particularly truck traffic, which will alter noise levels in surrounding areas. Traffic volumes reported in the traffic study were used with the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Model to project future unmitigated noise levels in the project vicinity. The traffic volumes used are presented in Table 7 for the three alternatives under consideration. The last year the landfill site will be in operation was modeled for each alternative since this would result in the loudest noise levels during the life of the project. Ultimate traffic projections (after the landfil-1 is closed) were also modeled. Ultimate traffic volumes for Bonita Canyon Road and Culver Drive ' were obtained from the City of Irvine TAP forecasts. For MacArthur Boulevard, 1990 traffic volumps presented in the traffic report for the project were utilized. The standard vehicle mix for Orange County was used for all ultimate traffic projections. TABLE 7 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES, SPEEDS AND TRUCK PERCENTAGES ' ---------------------------------------------------------- -%-TRUCKS -- ROADWAY ADT SPEED MEDIUM HEAVY I ---------------------------------------------------------- ALTERNATIVE 1 (1987) ' CULVER DRIVE Campus to Bonita Cyn. 2,560 53 8.9 - BONITA CANYON ROAD East of Coyote Cyn. 3,600 4,1 6.3 1.1 West of Coyote Cyn. 5,300 41 9.8 16.9 ' MACARTHUR BOULEVARD South of Bonita Cyn. 54,500 55 2.0 1.1 North of Bonita Cyn. 54,400 55 2.4 2.0 ' ---------------------------------------------------------- I I I City of Newport Beach TABLE 7 (CONTINUED) A EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES, SPEEDS AND TRUCK PERCENTAGES ----------- -------- =---------- ---------------------------- % TRUCKS ROADWAY ADT SPEED --------------- MEDIUM HEAVY -------------------------------- ALTERNATIVE ---- - ---- 2 (1986) --------- CULVER DRIVE Campus to Bonita Cyn. 2,460 53 9.1 - BONITA CANYON ROAD East of Coyote Cyn. 3,500 41 6.3 1.1 West of Coyote Cyn. 51200 41 9.9 17.2 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD South of Bonita Cyn. 52,300 55 2.0, 1.1 North pf Bonita Cyn. 52,100 55 2.4 2.0 ALTERNATIVE 3 (1988) CULVER DRIVE Campus to Bonita Cyn. 2,760 53 8.8 - BONITA CANYON ROAD• East of Coyote Cyn. 3,800 41 6.1 1.1 West of Coyote Cyn. 5,500 41 9.6 16.3 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD South of Bonita Cyn. 56,900 55 2.0 1.1 North of Bonita Cyn. 56,700 55 2.3 1.9 FUTURE TRAFFIC CULVER DRIVE (Ultimate) Campus to Unnamed 5,000 53 1.84 0.74 Unnamed to Bonita Cyn. T,000 53 1.84 0.74 BONITA CANYON ROAD (Ultimate) MacArthur to Culver 15,000 41 1.84 0.74 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (1990) South of Bonita Cyn. 61,400 55 1.84 0.74 North of Bonita Cyn. ---------------------------------------------------------- 60,200 55 1.84 0.74 The modeling results are reported in Table 8 in the form of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These projections do not take into account any barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels. City oT imuwport Beach TABLE 8 PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR FROM CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY (FEET) - ------------------------------ ROADWAY 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL CNEL AT 100' ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 (1987) CULVER DRIVE Campus to Bonita Cyn. RW 39 84 • 58.9 BONITA CANYON ROAD East of Coyote Cyn. RW 33 71 57.8 West of Coyote Cyn. 38 82 176 63.7 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD South of Qonita Cyn. 134 288 621 71.9 North of Bonita Cyn. 142 307 661 72.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 (1986) CULVER DRIVE Campus to Bonita Cyn. RW 38 82 58.7 II�PIi7:�diP�I�I73�1d�. East of Coyote Cyn. RW 33 70 57.7 West of Coyote Cyn. 38 82 176 63.7 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD South of Bonita Cyn. 130 280 603 71.7 North of Bonita Cyn. 138 297 641 72.1 ALTERNATIVE 3 (1988) CULVER DRIVE Campus to Bonita Cyn. RW 40 87 59.1 BONITA CANYON ROAD East of Coyote Cyn. RW 34 72 57.9 West of Coyote Cyn. 41 88 191 64.2 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD South of Bonita Cyn. 138 297 641 72.1 North of Bonita Cyn. 145 311 671 72.4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: 1. RW - Contour falls ----------------------------------------------------------------- on roadway. City of Newport Beach I TABLE 8 (CONTINUED) PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS ----------------------------------------------------------------- DISTANCETOCNELCONTOURFROM CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY (FEET) - --- - ROADWAY 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL CNEL AT 100' ------------------------------- ---------------------------------- FUTURE ' TRAFFIC CULVER DRIVE (Ultimate) Campus to Unnamed 25 53 115 60.9 Unnamed to Bonita Cyn. 31 67 145 62.4 BONITA CANYON ROAD (Ultimate) MacArthur to Culver 34 72 156 62.9 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (1990) South of Ponita Cyn. 140 302 651 72.2 North of Bonita Cyn. 140 302 651 72.2 ----=----------------------- ------------------------- ------------ NOTE: 1. RW - Contour falls on roadway. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In community noise assessment changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA, are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernable to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dBA residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. No scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations humans ,are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a community noise , situation the noise exposure is over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community ' noise levels become discernable is likely to be some value greater than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people. THe data presented in Table 8 indicate that the CNEL noise levels along t Culver Drive will not differ significantly between alternatives. The traffic noise levels along Culver Drive in the proposed final years of landfill operations will not be substantially higher than existing levels, and will be ' lower than will occur with ultimate traffic conditions. The residences along Culver Drive are projected to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL. The noise levels along MacArthur Boulevard are not projected to change significantly over the next six years. In summary, the traffic associated with the landfill will not increase noise levels significantly, and will not result in noise levels significantly higher than anticipated with ultimate traffic conditions. , I City of Newport Beach 1 I 1 EJ I lu J 1 i 1 i 2.2 Borrow Site Operations The borrow site locations proposed extend west from the landfill to within 200 feet of the existing residences within the City of Newport Beach. All alternatives will -use the same borrow sites. Comparison of the borrow site monitoring data with 'the Orange County Noise Ordinance indicates that the most critical parameter in complying with the ordinance will be the L50 percentile level. (The_ level of noise exceeded 50% of the time.) Therefore, this parameter was used to assess the impact of the proposed borrow site operations. The Orange County Noise Ordinance standard for the L50 level is 55 dBA. The City 'of Newport does not have a noise ordinance, however, the Orange County requirements will be used as a guideline in assessing noise impacts. The distance from the borrow site for various L50 levels was determined, and is presented in Table 9. The analysis assumes that there is no intervening topography or sound walls that would reduce the noise levels. When the borrow site is close to the residential areas this situation will be true. TABLE 9 L50 NOISE LEVELS FOR BORROW SITE OPERATIONS The data at its nearest This noise leve noise level ca Ordinance. The criteria level. location close depicts one of proposed borrow areas proposed would need to maintain a L50 mitigation. (See L50 (DBA) DISTANCE FROM SITE (FT.) --71---------------------200 70 215 65 382 60 680 55 1209 in Table 9 indicate that the L50 level when the borrow site is point to the residential area will be approximately 71 dBA. 1 is significant. An indication of the unacceptability of this n be obtained by comparison with the Orange County Noise projected noise level will be 16 dBA higher than the ordinance L50 noise contours for the borrow site operations at a to the residences is presented in Exhibit 4. The exhibit the closer borrow areas to the existing residences. Other areas are as close existing residences, specifically, the north of the San Joaquin Resevoir. The borrow site operations be confined to more than 1200 feet from existing residences to level at the residences of 55 dBA without additional Mitigation Measures.) 2.3 Landfill Operations The nearest residential areas from the proposed landfill area will be approximately 2400 feet for all three alternatives, and will be residential areas within the City of Newport Beach. Extrapolating the measurement data for landfill operations to this distance results in a projected L50 level of i amity or r4ewpart rseach 11 W U. 1®t 11 F LII 11 11 11 I J 1I I 7I u I MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 4 - Example of ,Borrow Site , CONSULTING ENGINEERS 283 L50 Levels CdBA). ' 47 dBA at 2400 feet. This is well below the Orange County Noise Ordinance, and should result in acceptable levels in the nearby residential areas. L50 noise contours are presented for the landfill operations at a location close to existing residences in Exhibit 5. Intervening topography between the residential areas and the landfill site may further reduce the noise reaching ' the residences. I E 1 [1 City of Newport Beach MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS Exhibit 5 -.Example of Landfill Site 285 L50 Levels (dBA) I 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Intrusive noise levels will be generated by borrow site operations when located close to adjacent residential areas. For activities qualifying as "grading" operations, the Orange County Noise Ordinance only requires that ' the operations be confined to weekdays and Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. This is consistent with the normal operation hours of the landfill and should be continued. Additional mitigation measures to be considered include; measures to quiet to the earth moving equipment, reduction in number and size of equipment, temporary noise barriers, and performance conditions. I Noise generated by earth moving equipment comes from a variety of sources including exhaust noise, mechanical or engine noise, and contact with the ground. The most significant of these sources is usually the exhaust system. Several grades of mufflers are available for earth moving equipment. The mufflers are commonly ranked as stock, residential, or hospital; with hospital mufflers resulting in the most quieting. Manufacturers representatives were contacted (e.g., Mr. Don Halvorson, Donal-dson Industrial Air Products, 805-492-5552) to determine the amount of quieting that could be expected by upgrading the muffler systems on the earth moving equipment. Estimates of performance improvement were in the range of 5 to 10 dBA. Tuning the engines may also lower the noise levels generated. Reducing the number and size of the equipment can result in lower noise levels. Generally, the smaller the equipment the less noise generated. A smaller dozer, for example, may be employed to reduce noise. Instead of using 3 or 4 scrappers, as is now done, perhaps the number can be reduced to 1 or 2. Since the dirt would be moved at a slower rate the time the operations would be near the residences would be longer. However, this type of change would result in lower noise levels. Temporary noise barriers have been employed around construction sites. The barriers are usually made out of plywood sheets, and have been constructed up to a 16 foot height. When properly constructed the plywood barriers can act as an effective noise shield. However, the local topography may reduce substantially the effectiveness of noise barriers for this situation. The local residences are located at the top of a slope overlooking the borrow site area. Even with the barriers most of the residents would have an unobstructed line of sight with the borrow operations, making the barriers ineffectual. A performance condition performance condition would as specified noise levels operations to proceed, and area as long as equipment would result acceptable noise may be imposed on the borrow site operations. A allow borrow site operations to proceed as long are not exceeded. This would allow borrow site extend through the entire proposed borrow site could be modified or operated in such a way that levels in the adjacent residential area. 1 Gity of Newport Beach I 71 F 1 LJ ' I: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES CORRESPONDENCE II II 1J 287 1 City of Newport Beach RECEIVED ! u L 2 2 10 ' �4 \ U NTY O F �j- J ,•J s 3/ RANGE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 180 SOUTH WATER STREET P.O. BOX 86, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92666-0086 (714) 538.3561 ' July 19, 1983 LARRY J. HOLMS DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF ORANGE COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: CYPRESS IRVINE LA PALMA LOS ALAMITOS PLACENTIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SEAL BEACH TUSTIN VILLA PARK YORSA LINDA Carolyn Kellis, Asst. Project Manager — Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Dear Ms. Kellis: ' SUBJECT: COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL EIR Fire protection and medical care will be provided by the Orange County Fire ' Department. The station presently serving the project area is: Station 4 1 Engine Company #2 California 1 Truck Company UCl/Irvine, CA 1 Paramedic Unit 1 Rescue Unit ' 11 Paid Personnel Approximate Response Distance - 22 miles Approximate Response Time - 5 minutes This area currently receives an adequate level of service and this project will not require additional facilities or manpower. Other pertinent infor- mation and comments are: 1. A gas monitoring program, proper venting or extraction of landfill gases can prevent the potential accumulation of methane to explosive levels. 2. The Orange County General Safety Element classifies the area and surrounding environment as a high fire hazard based on fuel loading, ' weather and topography. 3. A fuel modification plan will be required and shall be approved by the County Fire Chief. ' 4. Where possible, a fire road around the perimeter of the site shall be created for emergency use. City of NP1288 nrt Beach SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES Carolyn Kellis July 19, 1983 Page 2 5. On -site water trucks should be available for firefighting with adequate on -site reserve if hydrants are not readily available. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 538-3551. Sincerely, Michael Cate Fire Marshal Gene Hutain Fire Protection Planner MC:GH:dm City of Newport Beach tKt July 19, 1983 Pacific Telephone 3160 Redhill Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 ATTENTION: Carolyn Kellis Subject; Coyote Canyon.Landfill EIR In response to your letter, Pacific Telephone at this time has no existing facilities located at the Coyote Canyon Landfill. There are also no current plans to place any facilities at this location in the near future. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, W.R. Lowing Engineer WRL:cs c City of Newport Beach vc Southern California Edison Company 22041 LAKE FORE3T DRIVE EL TORO. CALIFORNIA 92630 JULY 21, 1983 '1 PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE IRVINE, CA 92714 ATTENTION: CAROLYN KELLIS GENTLEMEN: COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL EIR THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR , USE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 13, 1983. NO ELECTRICAL SERVICE IS CURRENTLY PROVIDED TO ' THE LANDFILL AREA AND NONE IS ANTICIPATED DURING THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. EDISON FACILITIES'ARE EXISTING ON BONITA CANYON ROAD APPROXIMATELY , 1 MILE FROM THE SITE. IF SERVICE IS REQUESTED, THE FACILITIES WOULD BE EXTENDED UNDER OUR LINE EXTENSION RULES THEN IN EFFECT. S I-NCE�REL�Y, BRUCE A. �EORG SERVICE PLANNE BAG: CS I I I City of Newport Beach 1 I C REC�. -JED s w 1L. ? 5 9�53 SHERIFF -CORONER DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE CALIFORNIA BRAD GATES SHERIFF -CORONER Ms. Carolyn Kellis Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Subject: Coyote Canyon Landfill EIR Dear Ms. Kellis: July 22, 1983 The proposed project will not significantly affect this agency's ability to continue service. One unit presently services the area on a 24-hour basis. Respectfully, BRAD ATES', ERIFF-CORONER Dennis W. LaDucer, Captain North Operations Division DWL:mer 292 550 N. FLOWER STR ET ��P.0. BOX 449, S"WPrA ALtFORNIA 92702 • (714) 834-3000 July 26, 1983 Ms. Carolyn Kellis PBR 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 SUBJECT: COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL EIR I 0138y40377/83 ' PL 26.2 Dear Ms. Kellis: ' The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has reviewed your request for comments regarding the Coyote Canyon Landfill grading project. The , following information is provided for your use. IRWD provides water service to the landfill site through a 12—inch diameter ' pipe at the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and Coyote Canyon Road. This water serves a small portable elevated water tank near the entrance to the landfill. IRWD records indicate an average useage of about 5000 gallons per day of domestic water over the past year. Sewer service is not , provided to the site. IRWD 1s planning a future sewer trunk along Bonita Canyon Road. As sewage ' collected within the IRWD service area is reclaimed for irrigation, any lechate from the landfill that infiltrates the proposed Bonita Canyon trunk sewer could ultimately be distributed and cause an impact throughout the , City of Irvine. For this reason it may be appropriate if a monitoring system is installed around the periphery of the landfill to detect any such underground migrations. IRWD formerly participated with the County Sanitation Districts of Orange ' County (CSOOC) in composting at Coyote Canyon Landfill solids produced during wastewater treatment as an ultimate solids disposal method. ' Although another means of solids disposal is currently being utilized, IRWD would like the option of participating in landfill disposal methods with the CSDOC if the need should arise. Therefore, IRWD would like the EIR to include a discussion of CSDOC's Coyote Canyon Landfill composting or other ' disposal operations. 1 1 City of Newport Beach '1 II Lj Ms Carolyn Kellis July 26, 1983 PL 0 Page 2 of 2 If the landfill, or a portion thereof, should be converted to a golf course as currently indicated in the City of Irvine's General Plan, then IRWD will be responsible for providing irrigation water. This water could be either domestic water or reclaimed water if an irrigation quality water distribution main is installed along Bonita Canyon Road. IRWD uses a duty factor of 4 acre-feet of water per acre per year to estimate golf course irrigation demands. Thank you for this opportunity to offer comments on the EIR, and we look forward to receiving a copy of the Draft EIR when it becomes available. REY/SLM:jf City a Sincerely, IRVIN RANCH WATER DISTRICT Rn al F_ Yn1 Environmental ManagemenAgency EIBo:t onter Plaza Sata Ana, C(A 92702-4048 b \ _ W ® F860-123.1 DATE: 6/13/84 TO F Site PiAnning Section DEPT/DIST: SUBJECT: UP 84-63P - The Irvine Company - Coyote Cyn. Sanitary Landfill - Coyote Cyn. Response Date: PC Hearing Date: Planner Assigned: Project Charge No: 6/27/84 Gina Langford - 834-2070 C52507350 PROPOSAL: To permit up to one million cubic yards of additional cover material for landfill for existing county dump site. Said borrow site is adjacent to the disposal site as shown on site plan. LOCATION: Coyote Canyon. Please review the attached pioposal and return any comments or recommendations which you might care to offer. Returned commentsl including a "no comment" are requested as an indication that you have received the proposal. Comments must be returned by the date indicated or it must be Dresumed that the Droiect meets with your approval. If you indicate no comment we will not send revised plans for your review unless significant changes are incorporated in such plans or you ask that revised plans be provided. Please direct your comments to the planner assigned as noted abovel or myself. Thank you for your cooperation. Initial Plans XXX No Comment: GL:sgPC01-24 10/14/82 Revised Plans Joan M. Sunderlandl Section Chief Date Filed: 6/13/84 Comments as follows: See Attached: ,8 RECEIVED Planning Department t ail 191984 ow t \� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, BY: Date: PLEASE INDICATE TOTAL HOURS SPENT IN REVIEW City or i%4ewport Beach 84-0(o- 27 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING APPLICATION MANAGEMENT terms FLING INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING. <iF �ti AGENCY FORM MUST BE TYPED) Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill: PROJECT NAME: Interim Use Permit LOCATION: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill ACREAGE/SQ.FT.Approx. 27 acres OWNER: The Irvine Company ADDRESS:___ 550 Newport Center Newport Beach, Ca PHONE: 71 720-2323 on ac am couch APPLICANT/AGENT: Ray Rhoads (IFNOT OWNER) GSA/Waste Management Program FIRM: ADDRESS: 1300 South Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA PHONE: d14) 834-3595 1 B (LS) LUE 4 (LS) ZONE A-1 P.C./S.P. N/A SUPV. DIST: 5 CSTL. ZONE El ON SITE AFFORD. HOUSING O PREFILING MEETING: O PROJECT PROPOSAL: RECEIVED JUNA 31,984 1 -180016114 Ak r APPLK)ATION FOR CABEt• wPPL7,.111S'T CHEINITIAL DATE PERMIT 114, 16. 1STUDY'�/I OLEST TO 13,1S,T0,SG4DLLE OPA GENERAL ►LAN 1, !.AMENDMENT COMM. PROFILE 1=4, AMFl DMENT ZONE CHANGE 3.5,16. 15.,T. 10,20.21. FEATURE PLANAREA 6. 16, It 1V. 20, 21. 23.TRACT PLAN MAP 4,10. PARCEL MAP 6.16. USE PERMIT /� 6.1,6.SITE DEV. PERMIT10,20s1,23, VARIANCE 6.10.20. COASTAL DEV PERMIT DETAL PLAN 6.20. OPI 8.20.23. lam Use Permit for up to one million cubic yards of additional cover material for landfill. Additional cover material is necessary for ongoing compliance with State standards.Fo�¢ Tusn/0Ssr6cg"vToS/rt; PI-14N, qr � C s25-07 / EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Operating Sanitary Landfill. Additional information contained in Final EIR 507. PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT APPROVALS:LU 84-1 and CPA'83-21 approving Coyote Canyon expansion. it -® F0250.670 (3/83) MO. 1 of 4) Is mYrY o 10 ® F860-123.1 County of Orange DATE: June 12, 1984 TO, R. G. Fisher, Director EPT/DisT: EMA/Planning FROM: Ray Rhoads, Manager GSA/Waste Management Program SUBJECT: COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL INTERIM USE PERMIT Attached hereto is an application from the Waste Management Program for an Interim Use Permit for cover soil borrow site activities at the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Although the area covered by this Interim Use Permit will ultimately be covered by a Use Permit for the entire landfill and borrow areas, there is a need to obtain cover material prior to completion of additional studies required for issuance of the overall Use Permit. EIR 507 documents the need for these additional studies and also the need for the Interim Use Permit. We estimate that during the interim period, up to one million cubic yards of soil may be excavated from the 27.2 acre site. This soil will be used for the landfill operation which is north and east of the borrow site. Operating procedures for the borrow site will include the use of water for dust control, periodic site inspections by a County -approved paleontologist and archaeologist, use of erosion control techniques, reestablishing vege- tative cover, stockpiling and selective use of topsoil, and phasing of the excavation to minimize visual access of the activities from developed areas. We will also work closely with the Metropolitan Water District to alleviate any adverse impacts on the San Joaquin Reservoir, and we will be developing silt control basins to protect downstream properties from siltation. The zoning of the borrow site and adjacent properties is A-1 "General Agricultural." The closest development to the borrow site is the Spyglass Hill and Harbor Ridge Crest communities; both approximately 1800 feet from the borrow site boundary. ML:ner City of Newport Beach 0 qr _ A ,fly 0 M ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING APPLICATION MANAGEMENT (SEE FILING INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING. AGENCY FORM MUST BE TYPED) Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill: PROJECT NAME Interim Use Permit LOCATION: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill ACREAGE/SO.FT. Approx. 27 acres OWNER: The Irvine Company ADDRESS: 550 Newport Center Newport Beach, Ca Z PHONE: (J14) 720-2323 on ac . am Couch APPLICANT/AGENT: Ray Rhoads (IF NOT OWNER) GSA/Waste Management Program FIRM: ADDRESS. 1300 South Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA PHONE: (714) 834-3595 1 B (LS) LUE 4 (LS) ZONE: A-1 P.C./S.P. N/A SUPV. DIST: 5 CSTL. ZONE ❑ ON SITE AFFORD. HOUSING ❑ PREFILING MEETING: ❑ PROJECT PROPOSAL: APPLICATION FOR CABER SUPPLEMENTAL CHECK LIST GATE INITIAL ✓ PERMIT INITIAL 2.1 A, 16, 1T, 22, STUDY MOLEST TO 1.2.19,20. ECNEWIE SPA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COMLL PROFILE 1$0R4. AMENDMENT 3. E,16.16, 17.10,20.21. ZONE CHANGE T,1 en en 2.ao.x 1, sa, FEATURE PLAN 10, za, 21. 22, AREA PLAN 4.10. TRACT MAP PARCEL MAP 5.18. ✓ PERMIT 6,10.1 t,12,10.16. V, USE 19.20.21.23, PITE 4EV. PERMIT a. s.12 12.16,10,17. VARIANCE 4.16.20. COASTAL DEV ' PERMIT OCTAL PLAN 0.20. OPI 8.20.23, Interim Use Permit for up to one million cubic yards of additional cover material for landfill. Additional cover material is necessary for ongoing compliance with State standards. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Operating Sanitary Landfill. Additional information contained in Final EIR 507. T APPROVALS: IPREVIOUS LU 84--1 and C A 83 211N pp ovU icoyote Canyon exact -Beach I •1® F0260.670 (3183) (PU, 1 o1 41 N ti rT CERTIFICATION (a) There are no assurances at any time, implicitly or otherwise, regarding final staff recommendations to the decidion making bpdy about this application. (b) Major changes of the proposed project may require a new application and payment of new fees. (c) Board of Supervisors policy contained in Resolution 79-1242 states that except for cases in which an important County policy or other extraordinary interest is deter- mined to be present, the County will not provide an active legal defense to cases involving the issuance of permits or other entitlements for use or development of real property or zoning or General Plan Amendments. (d) I,hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the information I have presented in this form and the accompanying materials is true and correct. I also understand that additional data and information may be required prior to final action on this application. I have read and understand the content contained in statements (a) thru(d). AP•: LOT CAA: MMTS: C.T. SAM: DATE TRACT ATTACH METESAN ., PUBLIC LEAD SECTION:- REFERRAL LIST REFERRED TO: ZONING ADMIN. GRADING ELEMENT PLANNING SITE PLANNING SURVEYOR LAND PL.-COASTAL SUBDIVISIONS O.S./REC. LAND PL.-FOOTHILL ENGINEERING IHDO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS TRANSP. PLANNING HEALTH ACOUSTICS STREET 8 DRAINAGE FIRE PROJECT PLANNING OCTD rl GAO ri *LEGEND: (SEE FRONT PAGE) 1, PROPOSED LUE MAP (20) 9. SDM (20) 17. PHOTOS (2 SETS) 2. EXISTING LUE MAP (20) 10. FLOOR PLAN (20) 1S. CERTIFICATION LETTERS(2 SETS) 3. PROPOSED ZONING MAP (20) 11. LANDSCAPE PLAN (20) 19. AUTHORIZATION LETTER 4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (30) 12. ELEVATIONS (20) 20. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (22) 13. GRADING PLAN (2) 21. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FORM 6. AREA PLAN MAP (20) 14. TOPOGRAPHY MAP 22. USGs OUAD SHEET 7. FEATURE PLAN MAP (20) IS. ENVELOPES (2) 23. COLORED EXHIBITS S. PLOT PLAN (20) IS. PROPERTY OWNERS LIST, 24. Ppivri APFn' ♦un ♦D MADA 25. i IF NUMBER OF COPIES 18 DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE, 80 INDICATE 6N OEMENTAL (FORM MUST BE TYPED) AGENCY Project Name: The name used here will became the official project name. Address/Location: Describe the location of the project as explicitly as possible. List the street addcess, the nearest major Intersection, the name of the community in which the project is located, and any other Information which will allow identification of the exact location of the project. AP It The assessor's parcel number can be obtained from Assessor's Office or Planning Information Station if you provide them with the legal description or site location. Lot and Tract Val Reform to final recorded tract and lot numbers or attach matte and bounds description. Acreage/Square Feet: Indicate total number of acres or gross square footage of the project site. Owner: Name of owner of record for the project site. Address: Fill in complete address including zip code. Phone: Daytime number. Please include area code. Applicant/Agent: Name of the project applicant or agent to contact regarding this project. Firm: Name of firm the applicant or agent represente. Address: Fill in complete address Lucluding zip code. Phonet Daytime number. Please include area code. Project Define the nature of the proposed project. Include the Proposal: number of unite or type of improvements proposed, acreage of the site, grading required, any public improvements required, access to the site, anticipated schedule for project completion, and any other features of the proposed project. Existing Describe existing environmental conditions on and Environmental surrounding project site. The following categories Conditions: must be discussed. Physical Features: Describe existing topography, including mart -made cute and fills, presence of geologic hazards, general sells types, etc. Drainage: Describe existing drainage patterns, stream locations, flood haznrds, groundwater, etc. Biological Resources: Describe the type of vegetation on the site, wildlife known to frequent the site, the approximate number, size and type of trees on the site, etc. Land Use: Describe the existing use of property and surrounding land, including the type of development, the number of units, 1f residential, etc. Services and List all utility and service districts, Utilities: including water and sewer agencies serving the project site. Previous Govern- List any previous actions by the County relative to the mental Approvals: property in question (e.g. general plan amendments, zone changes, subdivisions, use permits, variances, etc., Including previous negative declarations and environmental impact reports). Certification: Supplemental Information Checklist: Please read the statements carefully, provide your signature and date. If YOU have any questions regarding the certifica- tion, please contact staff before signing. Itms required to be submitted with application. Incomplete submltcals will not be accepted. See "Legend" on revurua page for complete definitions of required information. -A F0250.070 (3/03) (Pg. 3 of 4) 0 1. Proposed LUE Map 2. Existing LUE Map 3. Proposed Zoning ` Map 4. Tentative Tract Map 5. Tentative Parcel Map 6. Area Plan Map 7. Feature Plan Map t B. Plot Plan 9. SUM ) 10. Floor Plan t 11. Landscape Plan 12. Elevations 13. Grading Plan 14. Topography Map 15. Envelopes 16. Property Owners List and Envelopes 17. Photos 18. Certification Letters 19. Authorization Letter 1 20. Legal Description 21. Affordable Housing Form 22. U.S.G.S. Quad Sheet 23. Colored Exhibits 24. Existing CPMAP GL:dth343(3) 8/4/82 ®F0260.670 (3/83) (Pg. 4 of 4) LEGEND Map of proposed Land Use Element designations with project boundaries outlined. Include number of acres in each category and vicinity map identifying project location. Current map of existing Land Use element designations with project boundaries outlined. Include number of acres in each category. Available at Advance Planning Station. / Map of proposed zoning land use categories including number of acres in each category plotted on Sectional District Map (8 1/2 x 11) or Assessor's Parcel Map. See "Filing Instructions for Tentative Tract Maps" available at Subdivision Station. See "Filing Instructions for Tentative Parcel Maps" available at Subdivision Station. Extra copies of Parcel Maps are required only if the 8 1/2" x 11" TPM form provided in the filing instructions package is not utilized. See Advance Planning for applicable Planned Community regulations or Section 7-9-150 of the Zoning Code. Information available at Advance Planning Station. See Advance Planning for applicable Planned Community regulations or Section 7-9-150 of the Zoning Code. Information available at Advance Planning Station. Plot plan of proposed structure. See "Site Plan Checklist" available at Site Planning Station. Sectional District Map (8 1/2 x 11) with project boundaries out- lined. Available at Planning and Zoning Information Station. Floor plans of proposed structure. See "Site Plan Checklist" available at Site Planning Station. Landscape plan for proposed project. See "Site Plan Checklist" available at Site Planning Station. Structural elevations of proposed buildings indicating colors and exterior materials. Proposed grading plan map. Information available at Grading Station. Topography map of property outlining project boundaries. Contact Environmental Analysis Station for countour interval and scale. Self-addressed, stamped, legal -size envelopes. Typed list and stamped envelopes of all property owners located within 300' of the subject property on the latest assessor's roll available at the Assessor's Office. Include names, addresses, zip, Assessor Parcel numbers. Provide Assessor Parcel Maps de- lineating the 300' radius. A minimum of 1 set of envelopes is required; 2 sets required if project goes before Board of Super- visors. Photographs mounted on one 8 1/2" x 11" cardboard stock and a key map showing the direction and location from which the photographs were taken. Water and sewer agency certification letters included in filing instructions package available at Subdivision Station. Required if property owner does not sign the application form. Available at Site Planning Station. Copy of metes and bounds description available on subject property's title policy or deed. Affordable Housing Information supplement is to be submitted for residential project of five or more units. See "Affordable Housing Form Filing Instructions" available at Planning and Zoning Information Station. U.S.G.S. Quad Sheet showing existing contours, 1" - 2000', with project boundaries outlined by applicant. Colored wall -size exhibits of plan maps for use in public hearings. Current Community Profile (CP) Land Use Maps with project boundaries outlined. Include all proposed changes with a fact sheet identi- fying acres in each LU category. Available at Advance Planning Station. '\..c METES AND BOUNDS FOR PROPOSED INTERIM BORROW SITE A tract of land lying in Orange County, State of California described as follows: Beginning at point A at the South of the Southeast Quarter (SE4) of Block 98, said point A being South seventy-six degrees forty-four minutes, sixteen seconds East (S 76*44' 16" E) one hundred fifty-five (155) feet from the control point J at the North line of Northeast Quarter (NE4) of Block 97 (N 531,034, E 1,517,232); thence with a line, between the Southeast Quarter (SE4) of Block 98 and the Northeast Quarter (NE4) of Block 97, South thirty-eight degrees fifty-three minutes fifty seconds West (S 38'53150" W) five hundred sixty (560) feet to a point B; thence with a line, within the Northeast of Quarter (NE4) of Block 97, South seventeen degrees twenty-eight minutes eleven seconds East (S 17028'11" E) eleven hundred eighty (1180) feet to a point C; thence with the line, between the Northeast Quarter (NE4) of Block 97 and the Northwest Quarter (NW4) of Block 129, South sixty-six degrees twenty-one minutes East (S 66'21' E) six hundred thirty (630) feet to the point D; thence with the line, within the Northwest Quarter (NW4) of Block 129, North fifty degrees thirty-three minutes twenty-two seconds East (N 50033122" E) three hundred sixty-five (365) feet to the Point E; thence with a line, within the Northwest Quarter (NW4) of Block 129, North nine degrees forty-nine minutes thirty-seven seconds West (N 9'49'37" W) five hundred sixty (560) feet to the Point F; thence with a line, between the Northwest Quarter (NW4) of Block 129 and Northeast Quarter (NE-1-4) of Block 97, North thirty-four degrees forty-five minutes forty-nine seconds West (N 34045'49" W) three hundred seventy-five (375) feet to the Point G; thence with a line, within the Northeast Quarter (NE4) of Block 97, North fifty-six degrees eighteen minutes thirty-six seconds West (N 56'18'36" W) four hundred forty-five (445) feet to the Point H, thence with a line, within the Northeast Quarter (NE4) of Block 97, North six City of Newport Beach I degrees fourteen minutes thirty-one seconds West (N 6.14131" W) three hundred twenty-five (325) feet to the Point I; thence with a line, within the Southeast Quarter (SE4) of Block 98, North forty-three degrees nine minutes nine seconds West (N 43*919" W) two hundred twenty (220) feet to the Point A of beginning. The above described land contains twenty-seven and two -tenths (27.2) acres more or less. The above described land located inside The Irvine Company property. The coordinate referred to in the above description is for the California Coordinate System as established by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. The block numbers referred to in the above description are from Orange County Assessor's Map (Book 120, pages 6 and 14). City of Newport Beach CONTROL POINT ,j 764.4, /6E ,13 n. I N SCALE : l# 200� i oc�� 0 % BOUNDARY_ _ESCRIPTION. .At�y-ol IN on beacn LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS PARCEL NUMBER BLOCK NUMBER ASSESSOR'S MAP•BOOK/PAGE 17 97 461/06 15 98 120/13 17 98 120/13 72 129 120/14 85 129 120/14 2 97 461/06 Property Owner Address The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California P. 0. Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 OWNER The Irvine Company The Irvine Company The Irvine Company The Irvine Company The Irvine Company Metropolitan Water District of Southern California City of Newport Beach �� ^fir`" � . � � ,�' _ � � �- ram-, _ - _ _ — _ - •- / �J � �� 1 '•1�_` � '�'= -, -_ _� �r ti_ _ - _ter-- �i, ..__ �� �' lil�a+v.^�--�. __ F `}+ "N'V �- ; r.l� .-F .[p"1_ _ i � 4 � 7 � .1 . ..r � � �(�' r_���= - -1 ''• h.,•. � t - ^4` \ .ice' i}YT ?fib z. •�� S 'C3T_��- ! - -"� � � � ``-��� } :3 "-_�,. ]�� ]. -'� �-- k :�. is ! _-�. �•- - _M, i-''�`.`"�,=.'r C. _• �--� L'3 _ - l-Yl. _ ..j`�J �_r�Y �s•+.Ci- v` �• � �/i^�� t` `-~�_ .1 ;�-, - _ - `^� __ � - ._ XI �/-r. q � V. _ _ i• �';!" /j` __ "-,. 1��):;: r�,i J% f / / f: ! � _ j -�. r'._ - ^ ; V - 4- -{� I p � ..;. _ _ -- .- i " '� _r. 'k. �..• p art •' ,.Y_ fi �''• •! :.. . _- � �'.i '• f `ice _ y_•F _ : / / f'; r f - .. _ _ y� � � g. y_ "1.',i V t�� '•\ ' _l.� � _ f�/ ���✓/' i ✓ ,��/I'" � // 4 r//'/V., i/ /J//?'���/� �/r —_- _ - '- 1 �j��\\ •` 3� V `� .,•_, J �,� �� {. __- N j;.���J /f/�J �!"/}���� r ��• i jii �Jli;f/� /j• /J�J1 �/Jr _1V_ryT . �71�_ ,. '1��f;�;,,,,, l' _'_ % i % ' f••�///:�'�!,'/ ,• f f' .ram//��- ;> ! _ , I. i}j ^ ' . �`• _ ,� � ,f i' _ "'/ �,� I - �' '/ •/ ///J/[( !% 'l'T % / •� �;!,'-'`'. r,{..Ly/��•_.t ) y J, f __�._-.�_`--'"� 11 •" .� �.�' � � �'7 J+. 'I. �1�',.`� r .` / _ - � 1 '• �� :'v i� � j'% �- ly�Y r" .'r ! 'J�"/J ri=iT �s ✓/ 3.s.� / _ \i I ! I' ���•,i-� .. ��" t�-. �t'y_ cl,. .�-•' - _TT-`-+.V _-:=_ >'�// '�"J-Jt f� !.%/�%1N� /-�/ p�'iY J'��" %y/� -' -.- _ ,�r r - ' 2_pcc•T- •iy" - `' _ l , /f �.y %i �J%i� �f Key..} � :%: - rI '``3- _ i '-`"-�B t' \- `- •;cfi�.////.:'; ""/ iy "'1%', y i ,��}j7/r h _PROPOSED INTERIhJ f- ^!r'i �' /�,/�r -s General Plan se Element IA RURAL RESIDERML COMMUNFiES 4025-Z DWAC) 1B SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES 48-18 DWAC) 1C URBAN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITES � —] 684 DWAC) PUBLIC FACILIMS OPEN SPACE LANDFILL SME OVERLAY �i d;;• ', ' P. �''�. BORROW SITE _ •_ - - 1 Y rr„Jj� tk f j� a —.' •-,'i/%J/ , . + �..f! � \� rJ ✓/��� `� , 1V 1 \,�-\;1.,�' ��' � j - - �/' _--. - �- � / � } r , , 'j'rfY _•, i !: - ,1� -M �_. COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL -, COUNTY OF ORANGE = - - -- l j ✓ �.` - :.__ ` : max' o eoo �20o ssoo # F L -� __ !' ti ff l .♦ ' mo uc A s �' r ti v � t ; -'i•c n �.. - � �,. � _—`l�r--y '' _ .,+'—_f._�-�-_" � �������` a _ rst•- \\ .i 3 \t `�rLt�f..' o � 1 � — a.' ( !. \ �: �: � `� j "�.�r ,.r: � s.-� �i^-'_i �`—� '�`�'--"`—•` ff in irk, 7 15-k-x. `ram � +/ �. •`�._ r �! ' ..\.,`v ; a'' r j/ % ; /�:Y ' ^ Y.l—+ t i — ,-, �i / ! ,I '�l" s`i ., � /—��cy •� _.- .-fy ��r ��` � ; � � sir• ��(• �Jj ti _- �y_ - �_` .`�' la`\ � ;`t ; •/ �, �.-�--� � -•c,�� `\'':\ .�//q lam\ \. r• J _ - r :if 7 1 9` v YC,`<` �' �`i\ \a ♦ t�` `• ! ` eY ,'_1 \! , \\♦♦\\ �r j� J d V i !3 \�`♦ .. q�..� V f %/�/ � ` :'may^ \ ` !'y `1�n s '..' •\ .-/'•`�. �Jta 7� ., .4. i y '-h` , `t` ♦♦ . � �—r t \ /\ r iii _��� r ,mom —_"tip- �" \ \� � \�� �T �...,='\ �� �, ' �f '�' / �`,14 /L �.!�/ • � -�• �Z�6 IV\ -�, � ; k lit N .- COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE -Soo .1m sm �1 rM \.4� 0 J� eo . / " _ /00 • DETAIL i 044�,co /4 zs • sT�T ss.'S 4t . 15 / // 13 O a SEC DEUX 3 BO 4C c' 2.78 AC 17 � FRwY \J 5 48AC-� y f .�•17 16 r, ' / 15 F , 2400 / o0 14 / s'� 12 041p I � \ /.84 C. / �" �s��„ u '0 o dy FRwr p�h cs``Qns ro. 453 470 4 s`�J 455 - 01 on ql /R V/NE l)" R S. 64-/7 14.994C, 114 l a4 AC `= 13 R S. 64 � / P3 AC ' 442-06 ' J`� Olt •; - 1T 12 AC. FRwY. �>a Rs., R5 67-22 ( 0 � 62B 2d AC. 135 -20 ,Il 672 92AC. R S. r4-2/ Y 1 m-T-W.61 MARCH !95/ ■ / VINE i 55 /A115-42 519G: AC / �f 56 B `. / C RS . �1- �- 4 I5986AC. 413 40AC 15 -5 481 zane IS 94.9BAC. _ �7/.57A . \ 63s2AC. 461-13 1411 SUB. RM61-06 of-NeWo0 r20-13 A 481-02 I l _ - 4BSi49t 86 63 (�V �Mlo-1126, 548.18 AC. I N d ix 5' o l61 •,� IC ' 112.16AC. -50 ED/SON t PM LOT �L°3 q -_ _ L17367AC'_-, j ram` `_-�EASMTJ�t e 1 � C ti 83.10 AC 38, '. `L\ =� 4/�• ' /35 t� 80 4C C 1 1590AC �-4. " 52190AC i r•s. >w� 260 AC. 0 22fa \ c 37 38�,-30dC. 6615AC. / �.� 107.:24C _ -1� _ate �, 099AL .1 ``' 68 38AC. S U8 3 / 128 13 42 AC .'551AC ?-ce-kc M?+!" a i n 45 374. ISAC. 3/ Z3 AC. _� ic 1 6�.rI BJ. 44AZ VJ 79 ,0 21 ; 4?- 8AC 1.33AC." " 1.1 ,C. Z 16975 AC .+oe. , 5.7/AC. PROPOSED INTERIM ® ASSESSOR'S MAP 9 SITE ,p41AC. BOOK120 PAGE 13 each 14 COUNTY OF ORANGE O MARCH 1976 IRVIN£ SUB. �_ 0I 120- f 3 461-06 TE - ASSESSOR'S BLOC ch Newpor ` iPARCEL NUMBERS � SHOWN IN -CIRCL ED INTERIM SITF 129 ASSESSOR'S MAP BOOK461 PAGE 06 COUNTY OF ORANGE 120 - 14 1 = Z000" 13 D4 94 A r PROPOSED INTERIM BORROW SITE ' 300.0 B5 /29 Al /. V ID. CZ AC. 141 97 458-40 �� t3 i 24 5RO AC 458- 01 '"'AC 130 1 1 0 23 379 184C Ys / 30 to PMARCH 1951 1RV/NE SUB M. R JYf 1- $B City Newpo NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 8 PARCEL Ny CIE' Lr' 133 Ef5 7E AC 8 29 ti ASSESSOR'S MAP BOOK 120PAGE 14 (D COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 I r � .� ..�—� r,J/ \tt�ssr// - � 1° \ _ � •� .q.,''j :%i' `1 � ' •1te � � / /, .• _�-`}', �>' �i '�-' � ; "' ^ `_=�n -�� ';/ �• _ _ `'� r '1, 'k� �;' •if f •\ \� ry ' t� r�'t /r+ r � 4r �.... �j-//•. r'i .� . j j(s' k INN \ 1 �\ ^ � f i f ; � f r � ''`�m=-� �' _. - �S�" '.:. \\� Jam: •f ' % �'1 �'\ �. \��\\ �" I° . _ //• / -. // � je�i by \ \'r t•`� �''i\ � r' 1 ♦\` � \\�•`�_ i,l i f ��..__.� -�.� of :r'' •� Y �/���� l `, '. K :�.� ���- ♦a � ` I 1 ''y l 1 r �• �� � ��� � -s •2/' _ -� _ _ /1 �-�/ :?� �'�`� x� ��`JIr 1. 'ir i f� � ,/ � , / J� ••`\�/`%jy% � 1 . � '.l 1 ' :.\� %( .-.� i 'LpO���✓� jam' ' - \_ sr �' F� � ` ._, • �� :,`y �'./] F� i i � . � � J �� �� � /i ✓// .( � �_- _ � C __off+- __: A��G•� ./f'- t�,• r� ��..��- �� 9 t a .. ♦r T' � (\\/ :V/ ^pp���'(({{n� / � 1 /{yet/ �_1��/ .( � �,!•� %/.'/, ��� 6�/�_ j _ 14 NJ y � .� �•' n Y , � sr° � \ 3 _•, �. ♦� -r--. • !'••_ ,.. � � � ! / \ ;'." o -tom 15 .� _ s• y� / 'r —.� � . �?;.i. - ems` �_-' _ _ f = "I,',�; //'�LI' � �,' , ,,` •— - `� .:'' , � J 1 �' '; - s� \ J 1. _\=__2� _J-� /'/!l��f 1 y�' \ \ '-\ �' a �,- a •`_ ti��_J `_ _�; �� i��--c�\\rn' - "M1�11 r i 1 t.'1! i `I`:�\\\. Anr �-/ IY�`\i <j �i i ''{_ ' \\ � s "•' ,/\^J '- •. .�� Iv-t��=1-._- ��i—�—^'ST,���`� �•} J+i j� � r !' ' }' �� r / a _ .- i •?p ' \ ��'/� . dr°'� _� J�� "-�-�--',.: ` '�C; A ��� � �'-� •• f` p •\y �;� ,• I i i r , i 1 � ,, i\ 1 r� 'l (� ♦ \z \ \ a � � L.` —'�%�- i �� -�. , '.. .. ? ._.. yam. \` �',.�=� '\' �•� , , �S � \•, \ � r�� \\�` ''' .\ �:..-//b.t _ ..�\�'�—'r/ ^� _ .\'ry a�a\J �y� .` �• \.,'`, "`./-� r• �'- �;. = \\ .\ , \\,\ \\�, \ •\�� S.e '. / � //�i�� ��,d •, <°.•s - - \ � __sa�--�"\ \ -- 1 r \ '�,\ •\ 'k' -r , � i. \ l \ �_`i :.ii1� i • �'• \•\ �\ '\,/.,1" ; � l !% v / � � � �1 � /\/\' � ��r—__.,s •�L-�.� � �_' � `�—_--\\_i ^ �,' ^\�u—n 7 '� a" - ;,1'��\_'v �.� ` � i •t 1�'.•°7 1 ` \ , � \ `\ . o\ Li �' $ ���yoc� � = �.�%-` �i"� `e�\: . �c . y �=.'.1 . �':���� "r - /�•p/ . t'p / \ ' i f ' t r if- alr / / ,� y o �^i• `OVf . "rr-7' rye+✓•/^ /a \ : /ice. �' J '� ! S' 0 1 15,c>I0. 44 535 ).0 g 6S G rSe �J r � • j, _ +S rY_ � OJ ti f O• ti�' E •����n is �F '\Y *5'— r. >o t. � ' S L }� ra COYOTE //CANYON DISPOSAL ` "74-3, 17,14.9 6� .533. 2G3 SCRES � 530 ems. F0 6.6 RDK'p ! E i s �o `5• f `\re of v,—.,Y-_ Sa •a br _ j _ ea__c $Cn1E 1'•000• A 5J: c59. ti E 'E .6E t . ]G- -=. c b .j Tom' / 1_ 52F e 1 5_ .vL t E' 5:; 4e.67 N SEA 822._2 _i, 5'2 053_ce Commu* ity ProfHe Land Use Designations _. Legend .— `l �- , -� �"5 ��l -, - V 1 III VNE �- LOW DENSITY I ! i_�• , ; _ MEDIUM LOW DENSITY _ (2.0-3.5 DU/AC) \ _ ` L__ _ + 1.4 MEDIUM DENSITY }-_ .• `� (3.5-6.5 DU/AC) '�=F r`--': ^� _ `- - - _ -•J �._ _ 1 fi HIGH DENSITY (6.5-18.0 DU/AC) �- _-= _ - == r,-r •z _ -_- -- S % �,!``_ --_ 1.6 HEAVY DENSITY HEAVY DENSITY __= ��: r; `� z= > i! ^a'• - `u ' - "�. = �:_- 1.61 18.0-28.0 DU/AC) 4.1 PUBLIC FACILITIES 5.12 CONSERVATION 'F .�•trS'' 'ais. ^� _ _ '1 '�'—i-} _ � _ _ -/ \? e �.� �• _ _. _ I TION A 1, •sJ art �i __ _ __ _—Y c]: :\. _ '� ,i; = 1_ tom' 'f_' j -_ — —_ :�-•:.._.r ', J,. RECREATION NATURAL RESOURCES �A�''�.. / p T„E3Cft 5j.� 4-- _ _ \if -- _ _ `_ `_•� _ `y? _ N (ts LANDFILL SITE OVERLAY r� .+�i1' l�• .S r .. ._ . - •� _' ..-- ` - - - _ _ —_ - - `-_=r_ �r�' � ..-_ —1 - � — v • -•;� a/i _ --;'� ��I ti __ ' - `� - - __ I (S) SITE PLAN REVIEW 1_✓ • .� ,_ _--�_ ;---- ' -• _„-- ` 5.1 OTHER OPEN SPACE PROPOSED INTERIM `BORROW SITE COYOTE CANYON :^ =` 5.12 = _.s'* -:3.`- _S? = =.K�' - SANITARY LANDFILL ` �' , - _ u �71 - - _. - -- =1:f 1_- � - .-__ .� 3 GS) '- "- _ - _ ��- =-___ _ - COUNTY OF ORANGE •`--tt..' -T� - = -` _ - __ f .� ,-: T_ —_— ---_ ' O - '-.� .- --. - �� 0 60D 1200 1800__ -77 VPO ' I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U / r� (714) 640-2151 0 December 28, 1983 � DEC 1983D- krve.�,r;�••cw. Mr. Richard G. Sim, Vice President Community Developmen g The Irvine Company /v P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Sim: - Yesterday I had the opportunity of reviewing The Irvine Company's landfill proposal, dated December 19th, to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The Coyote Canyon landfill site is the site that receives all refuse from the City's operation. This City -is, there- fore, very interested in any operation that would have a potential impact upon the Coyote Canyon landfill. The following comments are made concerning your proposal. 1. The City of Newport Beach would find acceptable either a public or a private operator of the Coyote Canyon landfill, provided high standards of operation are followed at all times. As you know, this facility borders fairly close to residential communities within the City of Newport Beach. 2. It would be this City's desire that the earth berm between the residential communities of Spyglass Hill and the land- fill operation not be removed until after trash disposal at Coyote ceases. This earth berm provides a noise buffer between the residential communities and the landfill, and it also prevents visual siting from the residential com- munities of the landfill operation. It is most important, therefore, that the berm remain as long as possible, and certainly until the disposal of refuse terminates. Possibly, this berm could then be used to close and properly cover the landfill preparatory to landscaping, golf course installation, or similar aesthetic treatments on the site. 3. It is estimated that the City will be faced with an addition- al annual cost of approximately $764,104 to transport refuse to the proposed Bee Canyon landfill. Each year the Coyote site is continued, therefore, substantial savings to this City are realized. However, for this City to support alterna- tive 3 of the SIR, the earth berm between the Spyglass residential City Hall � 3(�0_NewatMuleev`Ad�NeOwp�rt a�ch�C �Ornia92663 • 0 Page -2- communities and the landfill operation would have to remain until hauling of refuse ceases at the landfill operation. The City looks forward to cooperating with the County, the City of Irvine and The Irvine Company in effecting the proper closure of the Coyote Canyon landfill. If you need further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, zjtwt � GU � OBERT L. WYNN City Manager CC: Mayor Evelyn Hart Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Mr. Wade Beyeler, General Services Director City of Newport Beach v , TIC LANDFILL PROPOSAL TO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS • TIC owns and operates Bee, Coyote and Santiago landfills. • TIC to accept 7% royalty on Bee and Coyote. Santiago to continue on existing 25% royalty terms. -i TIC to pay County 17% of gate fee ($1.3MM/yr.) at Coyote and 22.5% of gate fee ($2.16MM/yr.) at Bee. • Supervisors approve gate fee structure and increases at all three sites. • Supervisors approve TIC selection of private operator at all three sites. • TIC assumes closure costs at all three sites, subject to extension of the life of Coyote Canyon in accordance with Grading Plan 3. This amounts to $13.8MM at Coyote and $2.OMM at Santiago. • TIC assumes post -closure maintenance responsibility at all three sites, subject to extension of the life of Coyote Canyon in accordance with Grading Plan 3. • TIC will negotiate with County on post -closure liability aspects for all three sites. • TIC will provide post -closure site development and landscape plans for all three sites for golf course and/or other use for approval by County. • TIC works with County to develop waste -to -energy policies, and plans. County will designate a per- centage of landfill fees toward waste -to -energy 'projects and improvement of solid waste handling procedures on a County -wide basis. • If desired and approved by County and cities, Sunday dumping for private citizens to be made available through establishment of mini -transfer stations at site entrances. • TIC will install off -site improvements on Bonita Canyon and MacArthur Boulevard. • TIC will provide access road to Bee Canyon (estimated construction cost $5.5MM). • TIC will work with County to coordinate land use plans for Gypsum Canyon. City of Newport Beach 12/19/83 12/19/83 ;ti>?age Two TIC Landfill Proposal • TIC proposal contingent upon the following: • TIC owns and operates Bee, Coyote and Santiago landfills.- 9 City/County MOU on Bee Canyon resolved and approved by Board of Supervisors and Irvine City Council. • Coyote Canyon EIR certified by Board of Supervisors, including adoption of Grading Plan 3 which allows operations to 1989. • Bee Canyon condemnation trial date delayed 90 to 180 days to allow County time for above actions on MOU and EIR,. and to allow TIC time to enter into agreement with private operator acceptable to County. • TIC will extend Coyote Canyon lease bn present terms and conditions until March 31, 1984. On April 1, 1984, Coyote Canyon rent will be 7% of gross revenues. Santiago will remain at the existing 25%. • TIC proposal features: • Gate fee ($/Ton): Operating cost (# includes cover). Gate fee collection Enforcement TIC royalty County surcharge TOTAL Revenue to County (in 1983 Dollars): BEE CANYON TIC Proposal (1983 $) $4.004(67%) .20 ( 3%) .03 (.5%) .42 ( 7%) 1.35 (22.5%) $6.00/Ton $2.16MM/yr. COYOTE CANYON County TIC Proposal County Structure Structure (1983 $) (11/9/83) $3.70 (61.5%) , $4.350(72.5%) $3.69 (61.5%) .20 ( 3%) .20 ( 3%) .20 ( 3%) .03 (.5%) , .03 (.5%) .03 (.5%) .83*(14%) ' .42 ( 7%) 1.08 (18-4) ** 1.24 ,(21%) , 1_00 (17%) 1.00 (17%) $6.00/Ton $6.00/Ton $6.00/Tan $2.OMM/yr. $1.3MM/yr. $1.3PM/yr. * Estimate of County debt service based on $11.7MM price, 911%, 25-year bond. ** Current TIC rental at Coyote Canyon equates to $.15/ton (3%); $1.08 is amount allocated by County staff for TIC rent in proposal dated 11/9/83. amity uf Newport Beach. • ., MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY December 13, 1983 To: Fred Talarico z From: Robert Burnham - City Attorney Re: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Project EIR 507 I would like to meet with you Friday, Dec. 16th to discuss the above -referenced EIR. I have reviewed the document and your Nov. 28th staff report and attachments. The purpose of our meeting would be to discuss the basis for your opinion that the scope of the EIR is inadequate and to formulate a plan for action in the event that the Council determines that litigation is necessary. RHB/pr ,Robert Burnham City ttorney ' eD R gePar n'ent o�c oga3� G CN NAP CAS f- City of Newport Beam COUNTY. -1 *r+�'TRANSMITTAL TO: 7 t:u� DATE 1Z i��Z DEPT: APPROVAL ❑ ACTION COMPLETE & RETURN CONFER FILE FOLLOW-U P FOR YOUR INFO. INITIAL & RETURN NOTE & FILE NOTIFY PER CONVERSATION PER YOUR REQUEST ❑ PHONE ME ❑ PREPARE REPLY ❑ POST RECOMMENDATION ❑ REPLY RETURN W/YOUR COMMENTS SEE ME SIGNATURE ❑ SIGN & RETURN ❑ TYPE COPIES REMARKS 7 ® [02701 F860.146.1 (7/76) PHONE: DATE: December 13, 1983 TO: Orange County Planning Commission FROM: EMA - Environmental Analysis Division SUBJECT: Proposed Final EIR 507 for the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Land Use Element Amendment 84-1 CONTACT PERSON: Robert Rusby, 834-2070 I. BACKGROUND Proposed Final EIR 507 has been prepared to address the impacts upon the environment of the expansion of the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Landfill expansion would require the selection of one of three different grading plans which would be used through the closure of this landfill. More detailed descriptions of the project's location and characteristics were found in the Advance Planning Staff Report of November 15, 1983. II. ANALYSIS Since your meeting of November 15, 1983, on this matter, the public review period for EIR 507 has ended. Comments were received from 14 agencies. Responses to these comments are being prepared and will be presented to your Commission at your meeting of December 20, 1983. At today's meeting, 1) the draft EIR content will be summarized; and the nature of the approvals sought; 2) the applicant, GSA (Waste Management Program) will comment on the project; and 3) public testimony on EIR 507 and the project can be received. III. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Receive staff report and public testimony 2. Continue public hearing to December 20, 1983 RPR:am Respectfully submitted, F. W. Olson, Manager EMA/Environmental Analysis Division b pf` eum�0 DEC°` ment £ NFW19 PpRr OF19g3� gZgc City of Newport Beach Z ��`'F w N ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: December 13, 1983 TO: Orange County Planning Commission FROM: EMA/Planning (Advance Planning Division) SUBJECT: Land Use Element Amendment 84-1; Item 2, Coyote Canyon Landfill SYNOPSIS: County initiated proposal to designate the Coyote Canyon Landfill expansion on the Land Use Element (LUE) and Community Profiles. A staff report for the Co ote Canyon Landfill Environmental Impact Report (EIR 507� is transmitted under separate cover. BACKGROUND The Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill was established as an operating solid waste disposal facility in 1963. The site encompasses 653 acres of land which is owned by the Irvine Company and leased for landfill use to the County of Orange. Since 1963, the lease agreement has been amended twice in response to the changing needs and plans for extending the use and life expectancy of the Coyote Canyon operations. At the present time, a month to month hold over of the lease agreement is in effect pending a decision on one of the three grading plan alternatives (described in detail below) as the ultimate plan for continued use and. final closure of the landfill. The Coyote Canyon Landfill operation functions as a key component of Orange County's existing solid waste management system. It serves the waste disposal needs of the highly urbanized central and south-central county areas and approximately one-half the total county -wide population. Included within the areas served by Coyote Canyon are a large number of cities and communities which generate a solid waste stream from a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational and some agricultural uses. Total solid waste generation for Orange County is expected to increase 86% between 1982 and 2002 (see EIR 507). The rate of increase is expected to be substantial for all areas of the county, but particularly those within the western and southern portions. The northern part of the county will exhibit moderate growth in solid waste generation during this period. Coyote Canyon will continue to provide service to this area until it is closed. The County of Orange is involved in negotiations with The Irvine Company and the City of Irvine regarding acquisition and start-up of the proposed Bee Canyon Sanitary Landfill located in the foothills easterly of the City of Irvine. The outcome of these negotiations may have some influence on the continued operation and eventual closure of Coyote Canyon. city or iNewpon beacn Orange County Planning Commission Page Two PROJECT LOCATION The Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill is located at the northwestern edge of the San Joaquin Hills in central coastal Orange County (see Exhibit 1). Bounded on the north and east by the City of Irivne and on the west by the City of Newport Beach, the 653-acre landfill lease area sits largely in unincorporated territory. Approximately 60 acres along the northeastern edge of the lease are within the incorporated limits of the City of Irvine. The entire site is leased by the County from the Irvine Company. Immediately surrounding the landfill is undeveloped land owned by the Irvine Company. The San Joaquin Reservoir and Harbor View Hills/Spyglass residential areas are located to the west of the site. The Turtle Rock residential area is located approximtately one mile east of the site and the University of California, Irvine campus core (existing academic complex) is located approximately 1.5 miles to the north. UCI is developing long-term plans for its inclusion area which lies between the campus core and the site. The remainder of the vacant land around the site will ultimately be utilized for residential development or open space/recreational purposes. PROJECT DESCRIPTION As noted in the previous description, Coyote Canyon plays an important role in the existing county solid waste management system. It accepts municipal solid wastes generated by nearly one-half of Orange County. If Coyote Canyon or a nearby alternate disposal location were not available, municipal wastes generated within its tributary area would have to be hauled to other landfill sites at significant economic and -environmental costs. In its current condition the site could not be closed in an environmentally sound manner. Insufficient suitable cover material exists within the present landfill lease boundary and proper drainage could not be assured forany extended period of time. Further, the contour of the site would render it unfit for alternative long-term uses. In response to the deficiencies associated with the existing grading plan for Coyote Canyon Landfill, the County GSA/Waste Management Program is evaluating two alternative grading plans. These two proposed grading plans and the existing grading plan are described below. Taken as a whole the three alternatives and their associated permit approval requests constitute the proposed project for the purposes of land use and CEQA review. The County GSA/Waste Management Program has defined two main objectives for the proposed project: 1) To continue to operate and possibly expand the landfill leading to an acceptable closure plan in a manner which minimizes impacts on adjacent communities; and kalLy ivewport t5eacn / Orange County Planning Commission Page Three 2) To close the landfill in an environmentally sound, maintainable manner which is compatible with surrounding landforms. No definite plans for ultimate plans for ultimate use of the site have been submitted to or approved by the County. The County Land Use Element identifies the area for open space, residential, and public uses. Portions of the Landfill lease and proposed borrow areas are located within the City of Irvine. The southwestern edge of the proposed borrow area is located within the City of Newport. The Sphere of Influence boundaries for both cities include the remainder of the project area. The General Plan uses for the project area are described in greater detail in the Coyote Canyon EIR (Pages 68 and 69; Exhibit 16). Alternative One Alternative One (see Exhbit 2) is the grading plan which is currently approved by the County and the State. As of November 1982, the remaining disposal capacity for Alternative One was approximately 7.1 million cubic yards. At present, refuse fill is being placed in previously completed areas to correct depressions created by differential settlement of the landfill. This remedial filling is to insure proper drainage for the winter of 1983-84. The amount of corrective filling (approximately 3 million cubic yards) is in addition to the 7.1 million cubic yards originally estimated in 1982. The lifespan of the landfill under this current plan with the corrective grading is 4.2 years with an anticipated closure to solid waste disposal in January 1987. When the Alternative One plan was prepared, it was assumed that the requried cover materials would be retrieved form borrow sites located within the existing landfill lease boundaries. However, it was subsequently realized that sufficient suitable cover material would not be available within the site due to the presence of near surface bedrock and improper soil types. Plan completion would therefore require importation of cover soil from offsite sources. Cover soil for this grading plan, like the other alternatives, is planned to be derived from the proposed borrow site along the western side of the landfill lease boundaries. Alternative Two The Alternative Two (see Exhibit 3) grading plan was prepared in 1981 by EMCON Associates. Under this alternative, the remaining disposal capacity as of November 1982 was 8.4 million cubic yards. The lifespan of this alternative is approximately 3.5 years (closure to solid waste disposal in June of 1986). When this grading plan was prepared, it was assumed that the required cover materials would be imported from sources outside the landfill boundaries. No borrow sites were identified at that itme. The cover soil for this grading plan, like the other alternatives, is planned to be obtained form the two proposed borrow sites along the western edge of the landfill lease boundary. The Alternative Two grading plan design recognizes the potential for ultimate uses of the Coyote Canyon site upon completion of disposal operations, including planned circulation improvements for the area., continued access for landfill vehicles, and the need..taprovide for Lu adequate long-term drainage control. Orange County Planning Commission Page Four Alternative Three The Alternative Three grading plan (see Exhibit 4) prepared by RBF in 1981, increases the landfill disposal capacity at Coyote Canyon by approximately 7.7 million cubic yards over the Alternative One plan. With a total 14.8 million cubic yards of remaining capacity as of November 1982, Coyote Canyon could continue to receive solid waste through October, 1988. The grading plan proposed to remove cover material from the proposed borrow sites along the western side of the landfill. The additional capacity provided by this plan is accomplished primarily by raising the fill elevations through the main canyon area and extending the area of fill laterally. The Alternative Three grading plan design envisions the creation of a final topographic form which is compatible with ultimate recreational use of the landfill and residential use of the adjacent ridge areas. PLANNING APPROVALS In response to the alternatives described above, EMA proposes to designate any area outside of the existing landfill boundaries that are included in the revised grading plan for Coyote Canyon Landfill with a (LS) Landfill Site overlay designation on the LUE and Community Profiles. These areas are borrow sites that provide additional cover material for the landfill operation. The technical refinement of the LUE and Communiiy Profile Amendment is basically the same under all three alternatives since it only covers the area not previously designated as part of the LU 83-1, which covered all of the area within the existing landfill boundaries (see Exhibits 5 and 6). Additional planning approvals, including a use permit for the landfill operation, will also be required from appropriate State and County agencies. A complete description of all required permit approvals for Coyote Canyon Landfill expansion is provided in Section 2.6 of the EIR for•the project. The present proposal before your Commission is the application of the (LS) Landfill Site Overlay to the LUE/Community Profile for additinal borrow area and the recommendation of a grading plan alternative to the Board of Supervisors. PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS Staff has identified four planning issues for discussion. The four issue categories are: a) Surrounding Land Uses b) Resources, c) 'Environmental Quality, and d) Infrastructure/Public Services. These issues are summarized below along with the preliminary conclusions A. Surrounding Land Uses Grading for cover material for all alternatives may create compatibility problems with residential uses located immediately adjacent to the ,,proposed borrow site in the City of Newport Beach. Views from Spyglass Hill and other communities in Newport Beach adjacent to. the proposed borrow site will be altered by grading activities. During landfill operation and closure, these views may bE considered undesilable. Orange County Planning Commission Page Five B. Environmental Quality Increased dust gneeration will be exprienced by nearby residential areas in Newport Beach. In additon, the noise projections for borrow operations at the extreme western edge of the borrow site may exceed county and city standards. Other concerns include hydrologic impacts, particulary under Alternative 1 which allows drainage to collect on site. C. Resources Alternative 1 creates final contours which are not compatible with surrounding landforms, productive ultimate land use, or planned transportation system improvements. The borrow sites for all three alternatives significantly alters the existing natural and man-made landforms within the proposed grading area. The grading impacts associated with Alternative 3 are the most significant since it involves the greatest amount of earthwork. D. Infrastructure/Public Service Alternative 3 adds the greatest amount of time to the operating life of Coyote Canyon Landfill. In light of the increasing needs for solid waste facilities projected, any additional capacity provided at Coyote Canyon can serve to mitigate the impacts associated with closure of the Coyote Canyon Landfill (e.g. the need to use other more distant landfills or transfer stations). EIR 507 for the Coyote Canyon Landfill addresses the above planning issues, and other issues, and provides mitigation measures for each issue. The subsequent use permit for Coyote Canyon Landfill will also provide operating requirements which address identified land use and environmental issues. Although Alternative 3 involves significant grading and associated impacts, it provides the most capacity and longest operating life for Coyote Canyon landfill. Further, it results in an improvement over the existing grading plan (Alternative 1) for Coyote Canyon with respect to hydrology and the suitability of the site for an ultimate alternative land use which would be more compatible with the surrounding area. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA Draft EIR 507 has been prepared for the Coyote Canyon expansion plan and concurrent Land Use Element Amendment. The EIR will be presented separately at today's hearing. Contact Person/Phone: Michael Ruane/x5380 (2)026 City of Newport Beach CITY OF IRVINE A/ UCI ' • TI `d -• G • � 1.. �. .JY F • r 1i I U�der Ford r. �.• Agrospace , ,,.>• Big Canyon tQT NEWPOPT BEACkt , uQF Site Vicinity Loynd Turtle Rock WM BOUNDARIES {LEASE AREA) CITY/COUNTY BOUNDARES San B'11i . Harbor View Hills/ 4.0 Spyglass • •: f Newport Center • t 1 SITE ` {• ,1. Signal Peak COUNTY OF ORANGE COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE City of Newport Beach o nm rno wo ion • m x to ;,•r'v_yim _ y •\. - .N,euurz ritrsO wrdwm , r•' 1 s `�/�'q1:��//:j -;`jam. . 1 ,1 \,Ili•_Al • 1. Altemative 1 L"mW �— -1 SAWAHY LV4FLL NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHOWN FOR FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF LANDFILL ONLY. COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 a ttwo City of Newport Beach •I L m X N SL I '.1 ,•J �,i ')�. a mod..-" 1.-1 •, \`'y_��, Ir_ ^, tt � ,�Y'' ��l"�.�„r•-+•r:'.• � 1� _ I .1 l � i 1, ;,� �•c.'h,! it AIH�• Il W���1 bo.y;�b-dt,.;avb,l. s�' - 3 t Ir , M • � �;. �v.�c ,t' I i I,.y.k. �yT�,; ,yl'l,�•r��'ym _ ± �� ;+ i't. .3_ 'C �...numa�oroesn ..�:! yt r A• 'e T fit' .6F'� � L"r\e` =�, •.•i. _'_..!. 1^� - .. �, � .. , .- � - �k _ ' _ " �- ''t " _ G� `• \ �\�-f''.S' .�• _-r-iM ' .i:,lr 'M Ifi��i,; � ' -'.( _ � �,`.t'' i..,,ir Y,}J .,V�J'QL �-' \A. •W �•-` J_'j O.-L�F. I �'� L^ :I• :r'.LU:_ Alternative 2�; L*"r,d m&q#TAFIY LANDFILL T , BOFWOW an NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHOWN FOR FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF LANDFILL ONLY. COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 ew 12 low © VE{ FYI m City of Newport Beach •1 • m x w ��y Alternative 3 c el fI'll ram' ' 8A►.FARY LANDFILL il + 1\ 'C'�X ' 11., Itkl. ; (.1 ' ; f , ' - '' y. .'.q . prJ I �.,: Y • -• CLEAN FILL _f-'`*�_,+; NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHORN FOR \ I '•� �• ,. ; �• - t •--, yI� ` FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF -+• - _ �t� �A_j iNl t _ �� LANDFILL ONLY. J •.wbvnrzuiliQrnp.i.� �':�� _�' -NOTE: COYOTE CANYON ROAD EXTENSION t <' "'-=�� -;�' Ii.y •� .-r,\• .� THROUGH BORROW AREA SHOWN FOR CONCEP- TUAL GRADING PURPOSES ONLY. THIS ROAD IS NOT PROPOSED BY ANY ADOPTED • o ,f �- I � ,- �k �. I•(! `' � '' CITY OR COUNTY CIRCULATION PLANS. t., �•1 .. Jrl F O �xl wl �yC COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE City of Newport Beach it 91 m x LOYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL 1LU 84-1 COUNTY OF ORANGE / EMA / ADVANCE PLANNING EX. 5 ,r N� ORANGE COUNTY LOCATION MAP NORTH NO SCALE Proposed County General Plan Land Use Element Lo"na 1A WMAL RESCENTML COVAMM& SS( &.a SWAG La 7I eLAN MMJENTML COYaMMS 1C ►o,,,?oEMUIL CO(MMTES ♦ FlIOLI FAOIl .& aN3N( rAeE � ft0LAM*U MM OW AY DFILL SiTE MEA a`:7f" City of Newport Beach 'p,Y0TE CANYO# JANITARY LANDFILL 'FLU 84-1 COUNTY OF ORANGE / EMA / ADVANCE PLANNING COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 6W 12W 1800 EX. 6 ,r ORANGE COUNTY LOCATION MAP NO SCALE Proposed Community Profile Land Use Designations Legend 2 LOW DENSITY (0.6-2.0 OU/AC) • 1.7 DE MEDIUM LOW DENSITY (2.0-3.6 DU/AC) r17.4 MEDIUM DENSITY (3.6-6.6 DU/AC) HIGH DENSITY 0.6-76.0 DU/AC) IE ei HEAVY DENSITY (le.o.2b.0 DU/AC) - j`` -• - LEI PUBLIC FACILITIES Y�v 5. 22 CONSERVATION c RECREATION E.7 NATURAL RESOURCES ". LANDFILL SITE OVERLAY ;j n '•l- I�}_i_ 817E PLAN REVIEW 6.11OTHER OPEN SPACE 4_: eAt'� 4 !•" _: .: ;;may' •' `:F:•,• - ''.. •; , r • 1 2 0 4 }=CQUNTY OF 5 CC D3D'RAN G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING December 1, 1983 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Fred, MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 TELEPHONE: (714) 834-4643 FILE Coyote Canyon EIR 507 This is to acknowledge receipt of Mayor Hart's letter of November 28, 1983 commenting on the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report. Item No. 4 of the above letter asks that the City's comments on the Screen - check EIR for Coyote Canyon be responded to. Since those comments were sent to us on the margins of the Screencheck EIR, it is requested that these comments be put on paper and formally transmitted to this office by Monday, December 5, 1983. I realize this is a short deadline, but we need these comments so we can prepare responses to them for the Orange County Planning Commission's meeting of December 20, 1983 on Lhe Coyote Canyon EIR. If you have questions on the format you should use in.transmitting these comments to us, please contact Robert Rusby of the Division staff at 834-2070. RPR:am cc: Mitch Brown, PBR Very truly yours, ry F. W. Olson, Manager UUU Environmental Analysis Division RECEIVED P�L�"1����:o}L,•ujG DL DEC I 1933z, Q"IR9t QF It E"." -T IsA1CIM( A L City of Newport Beaci • C� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663.3884 PLANNING DEPARTMENT - (714) 640-2137 November 30, 1983 Mrs. Doreen Marshall, Executive Assistant to Thomas F. Riley, Supervisor, Fifth District, Orange County Hall of Administration 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Mrs. Marshall: Enclosed is a copy of Mayor Hart's letter of November 28, 1983 to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill and the Draft Environmental Impact Report thereon. Very truly yours, JDH/kk cc: Mayor Hart City M r (with enclosure) e Talarico OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR November 28, 1983 Orange County Board of Supervisors County of Orange 10 Civic•Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92704 Subject: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report Honorable Chairman and Members: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment on the above subject project and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City wishes to express its thanks to you for the cooperation we have received from the staff of the Environmental Management Agency and its consultants in &ansmitting to the City Council information related to this project. It is the opinion of the City that the Draft EIR is inadequate and that a substantial revision to the document should occur prior to -its certification. The following summarizes the City's major areas of concern: 1. The closure of Coyote Canyon Landfill will occur through a series of actions which include but are not limited to the proposed grading plan, gas recovery proposal and final landscaping. These actions should all be evaluated within the context of the Environmental Impact Report. 2. The project does not incorporate adequate measures to mitigate the significant adverse environmental effects of the project on the City of Newport Beach, such as the concept of temporary plywood barriers suggested to reduce noise impacts. It would seem with this one mitigation alone that an adequate analysis of potential materials and methods has not been considered. Additionally, the City is concerned with potential impacts on water quality in the San Joaquin Hills Reservoir and that adequate mitigation measures have not been provided. 3. The closure of the landfill will have a major fiscal impact on the community. The City will be faced with additional annual costs estimated at $764,104.00 to go to the proposed City Hall • 33 Ne t u w t 6, al'f rnia 92663 Ley I�Wport �e �� , M Orange County Board of Supervisors Page 2. November 28, 1983 Bee Canyon Landfill, and even greater sums if this facility is not opened. A transfer station should be in operation within the expanded lease area upon closure of the landfill. A careful consideration of this as an alternative should have been accomplished. 4. The comments of the City on the Screencheck EIR that have been previously transmitted to the County staff should be responded to and a new Draft EIR prepared and circulated prior to certification. The closure of the Coyote Canyon Landfill represents a significant opportunity for the County and the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. It is hoped that we can look comprehensively at this area together. Very truly yours, City Council City of Newport Beach e Evelyn Hart, Mayor EH/kk cc: City of Irvine Orange County Planning Commission City of Newport !1W.+.MN..u.n.�..Yw,Il4Lnv'.alLLL:s:w..al�..•�.�..�r ���.+Y'��'1LL+i�.Mls�.a.N .YGW.�+.. ni6a .a ' Beach • • � 1� Cl,* OF NEWPORT BEAH COUNCIL MEMBERS �'A November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Motion All Ayes x G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. A report from the Public Works Department containing recommendations on the proposed 15-YEAR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM, was presented. Responses to Points No.. 3 and 4 were discussed and following consideration, motion_ was made to drove the action, -on -the -agenda authorizing the Mayor to transmit a letter to the Orange County Transportation Commission, outlining the City's position on the program, with revised language regarding the construction sequence for San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, as recommended by the Public Works Director. O/C TrnspCms 15-yr Invstm Prg (54) 2. Proposed ordinance AMENDING SECTION 12.52.060 Traffic/BBy OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE Dr & SJHls DESIGNATING THE PORTION OF BACKBAY DRIVE Rd/Estblf BETWEEN SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD AND EASTBLUFF (85) DRIVE AS A ONE-WAY STREET IN A SOUTHERLY DIRETON, and proposed resolution stabCliIshing a one-way bicycle trail, in a n rtherly direction, on the west side of Ba bay Drive, between San Joaquin Hills Road and astbluff Drive, were presented with a repo from Public Works -Traffic Engineering. Motion x Motion as made to refer these items back to the Tra is Affairs Committee for additional informati n with respect to accident rates, etc. Council Memb Agee indicated he foresees problems with he proposal for a one-way road with respect t safety, and stated he thought it could cause m re problems than it would solve. Robert Caminiti, 11 -36th Street, addressed the Council and conc rred in the remarks of Council Member Agee. All Ayes The motion on the floor as voted on and carried. 1 3. Report from Parks, Beaches nd Recreation Oasis Psv regarding OASIS PASSIVE PARK LANDSCAPING Prk (CONTRACT NO. 2412), was pres nted. C-2412 (38) Volume 37 - Page 374 City of Newport Beach COY OF NEWPORT BERCH COUNCIL 'MEMBERS 9c 0 November 28, 1983' MINUTES INDEX 14. BUFFALO HILLS PARK AND WEST NEWPORT PARK Bflo Hls Prk BASKETBALL COURTS (CONTRACT NO. 2417) - WNpt Prk Approve the plans and specifications; and C-2417 authorize the City Clerk to advertise for (38) bids to be opened December 20, 1983 at 11:00 a.m. (Report from Public Works) 15. CCEPTANCE OF WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Wtr Mn Rp1m CONTRACT NO. 2364) - Accept the work; and Prg a thorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of C-2364 Co pletion and release the bonds 35 days (38) of r filing. (Report from Public Works) 16. PROF SSIONAL & TECHNICAL BUILDING (CONTRACT Prfsnl Teb NO. 2 24) - Accept Negative Declaration; Bldg approv plans and specifications; and C-2424 author i a the City Clerk to advertise for (38) bids to a opened January 5, 1984, at 9:00 a.m. (R ort from Building Director) 17. HARBOR PE IT TRANSFER NO. 225-528 FOR Harbor Perm SEYMOUR BE Approve a new harbor permit, Apl 225-528 as recommend@@@@@@d in the report from the (51) Tidelands AndCommittee. 18. HARBOR PERMIT AtPPLICATION TO STEP THE MAST Harbor Perm FOR DENNIS HOLD'S PILGRIM OF NEWPORT - Apl/Holland Approve the appl cation to use the Rhine (51) Wharf Park subjec to the conditions listed in the staff repo t. (Report from Marine Department) 19. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - or approval: (25) BA-040, $50,000 - Inc ase in Budget �nue Appropriations and Rev Estimates for reimbursement by Federa Emergency Management Agency for repair of sto m damage; General Fund. BA-041, $3,120 - Transfer Budget Appropriations to provide f6r additional funds for purchase of word p easing unit; Fire Department Fund. BA-042, $41,000 - Increase in Rfvenue Estimates for Contribution by Kb 1 Company toward City's FAU project for th widening of Coast Highway and reserve of fund ; Contribution Fund. Volume 37 - Page 373 City of Newport Beach November 28, 1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-9 b • TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: 15-YEAR TRANSPORTATION.-IN.VESTMENT_PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to transmit a letter to the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) outlining the City's position on the proposed 15-year transportation investment program. BACKGROUND SB 693 (Campbell) authorizes the Orange County Transportation Com- mission (OCTC) to seek a vote of the people on the enactment of an additional one cent sales tax, with the revenues to be used for transportation purposes. Pursuant to the provisions of the legislation, a 15-year transportation in- vestment program is to be developed to govern expenditures. A letter dated October 14, 1983 (copy attached) from Supervisor Riley, Chairman of OCTC, invites the cities to provide input in formulating the 15-year program. At the study sessions of October 28 and November 14, 1983, the Council reviewed informational staff reports on the proposed 15-year program. The November 14 report (copy attached) included recommendations from the Citizens Traffic Advisory Committee (CTAC). This attachment should be re- ferred to for the detailed CTAC recommendations. BASIC PROGRAM OCTC has proposed a preliminary basic program allocating funds, in- cluding both the new sales tax revenues and existing transportation revenues, to a local share of 20%, a share for existing freeways and state highways and for new freeways and expressways of 55%, and a share for transit (mostly 'rail) of 25%. A copy of pages 23-28 of the preliminary plan is attached showing the specific allocations to existing freeways and state highways, to new free- ways and expressways, to fixed guideway transit (the Santa Ana Transportation • Corridor light rail starter system), to commuter rail (Amtrak commuter ser- vice improvements), and to bus system expansion capital expenditures. RAIL TRANSIT Probably the most controversial issue to arise is the question of the extent to which revenues should be allocated to rail transit. The prelimi- nary program proposes $920,000,000 for the Santa Ana Corridor light rail City of Newport Beach 0 10 November 28, 1983 Subject: 15-Year Transportation Investment Program Page 2 starter system, and $70,000,000 to Amtrak commuter rail. Supervisor Nestande and others have questioned the very large allocation of $990,000,000 to light rail. These questions relate to the cost effectiveness of the expenditure for light rail as compared to other alternatives, and to the "state of readi- ness" of the project. Supervisor Nestande's most recent discussion of the subject is contained in a letter to Mayor Hart dated November 8, 1983. A copy of this letter is attached for reference. The staff shares the concerns regarding rail transit. Regardless of all other arguments, the fact remains that the rail transit proposal re- quires a large proportion of the funding to carry a comparatively small pro- portion of the trips; and is a very inflexible system. In addition, eligi- bility for federal funding of portions of the costs is not yet ascertained. Nonetheless, it is felt that•transit is an important element of the overall program; and that provision should be included for alternatives to light rail such as express bus systems, bus/HOV lanes and guideways, commuter sub- scripptibn and employer -sponsored buses, and Transportation System Management (TSM). Most important, however, is the need to achieve consensus in the County on an overall program. The 15-year program should include language • allowing flexibility for alternatives to the light rail system if the com- pletion of studies shows that such alternatives are preferable. This flexi- bility in turn may enable the necessary consensus to be reached. LOCAL SHARE An allocation of 20% to local agencies is proposed in the preliminary program. Subsequently, a proposal has been advanced to allocate 5% to a dis- cretionary program, similar to the Arterial Highway Financing Program (AHFP), for use on arterial highway projects of countywide significance. OCTC Chair - main Riley has requested comments on local allocation options in a letter dated November 17, 1983 (copy attached). The City staff supports Option 1, with 20% (or more) returned to local agencies based on population and any transportation project, including maintenance, eligible. Priorities and decisions on expenditures in this portion of the program would be the City's responsibility. In addition, a ndw 5% arterial discretionary program would be started. All cities and the county would participate as projects are developed, and OCTC would make the final decision on projects to be included in this portion of the -program. CONCLUSIONS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS • The staff recommendations are similar to the CTAC recommendations outlined in the November 14 memo. There are some refinements based on pro- posals and discussions subsequent to CTAC consideration. City of Newport Beach November 21, 1983 Subject: 15-Year Transportation Investment Program Page 3 • Listed below are the five points raised in Chairman Riley's October 14 letter, together with the staff's suggested responses: POINT NO. 1 "How should a guaranteed return to cities and -the County be struc- tured? What transportation purposes should these funds be avail- able for - local streets and roads, arterial improvements, state highway improvements that might not be competitive for state funding, other transportation needs identified in the Investment Program?" Response The proposed 20% local allocation should be distributed on a proportional population basis. Eligibility for funding should include all purposes eligible for gas tax funding including arterial highways, local expenditures on state highways, local streets, and maintenance. An additional 5% should be allocated to an arterial discretionary program. Option 1 of the OCTC November 17 letter is preferred, with modifications as indicated. POINT NO. 2 • "Which of the proposed freeway widening projects - particularly those affecting your city - do you support? Which are you neutral toward? Which do you oppose?" Res onse The City supports the widening and improvement of Route 5 Santa Ana Freeway), Route 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway), Route 73 (Corona del Mar Freeway), and Route 405 (San Diego Freeway); and is neutral on the other freeway projects. POINT NO. 3 "Which of the proposed new freeways and expressways - again, particu- larly those affecting your city - do you support? Oppose? Neutral?" Response The City supports the Route 55 Freeway extension and asso- ciated projects. The City supports, as a high priority project, the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. POINT NO. 4 • "A rail transit investment is proposed as a means of retaining future mobility in the central, more densely populated, area of the County. Do you support an investment in rail transit? Oppose it? Are you neutral? Do you have views on the timing of a rail transit invest- ment, on the length of a system, or its cost? Do you prefer another approach that relies om buses using reserved freeway lanes or spe- cially constructed guideways along freeways?" City of Newport Beach 0 0 November 28, 1983 Subject: 15-Year Transportation Investment Program Page 4 Response The City shares the concerns which have been raised re- garding the cost effectiveness, flexibility, and implementability of the proposed Santa Ana Corridor light rail project. Nonetheless it is recognized that a transit component must be a significant part of the 15-year program, and that achieving consensus on the transit component is important to the overall success of the program. It is recommended that expenditures for the light rail component be reduced to the minimum practicable amount; that alternatives be seriously analyzed and considered; and that the 15-year program in- clude language which would allow the proposed light rail allocation to be utilized for alternatives such as express bus systems, and HOV lanes and guideways should further studies disclose that alterna- tives are preferable. POINT NO. 5 "What are your feelings about an investment in commuter rail (Amtrak) improvements?" Response The City is neutral on this proposal. OVERALL ALLOCATIONS (not listed in October 14 letter) The City recommends the following overall distribution of allocations: Local return: 20-25% ,Existing freeways and state highways, and new freeways and expressways: 55% Discretionary Arterial Program: 5-10% Transit, including light rail: 15% LIST Of ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter dated October 14, 1983 from OCTC Chairman,Riley request- ing comments on five specific points regarding the proposed program. 2. Report to City Council from Public Works Department dated November 14, 1983 containing CTAC recommendations. 3. Tabulation of proposed freeway and state highway projects (pages 23-28 of original OCTC plan). 4. Letter dated November 8, 1983 from Supervisor Nestande to Mayor Hart regarding proposed light rail project and other matters. L -A C� City of Newport Beach November 28, 1983 Subject: 15-Year-Transportation Investment Program Page 5 is 5. Letter dated November 17, 1983 from OCTC Chairman Riley to Mayor Hart regarding options for locally allocated funds. 6. Legislative bill summary, and schedule of activities. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director BBN:jd Att. • Newport Beach IC D y Q9T4rroN Cdi Qommissioners James Beam Raioh B. Clark Daniel E. Griset Thomas F. Riley James Roosevelt Heinz, Heckeroth CID • ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1055 North Main, Suite 516 October 14, 1983 .• The Honorable Evelyn Hart Mayor, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663 Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 834.7581 Dear Mpelart. ��� I am very pleased to report the enactment of SB 693 (Campbell), legislation authorizing the Commission, with the approval of local governments, to ask Orange County voters to approve a sales tax earmarked for specific transportation improvements. This bill gives us the opportunity to present to the voters a package of transportation investments that will sustain the economic health and exceptional lifestyle that we currently enjoy. We need your help to identify the transportation investments that should be presented to the voters. By working together in earnest, I believe we can develop a program that is realistic and achievable: -one that can be supported by a broad spectrum of governmental, civic, community, and business interests. As a first step, we are formally asking you to submit proposals for inclusion in a plan that would be presented to the voters. In March of this year we circulated to you a very preliminary proposal (titled Proposed 15-Year Transportation Investment Program) that included projects envisioned to solve some of our mast pressing current and future transportation problems through the year 2000. Many cities responded by providing us with suggested additions, deletions and revisions. We are now asking that you review your initial response, and the initial proposal sent to you, and notify us of any changes you believe are warranted. We intend to issue a revised 15-Year Transportation Investment Program in early December and need your current views by November 30, 1983 so that they can be reflected in the December revision. A copy ,of the March 1983 proposals and any response we have received to date are enclosed for your convenience. There will be a significant change to the March proposal of critical importance to city and County governments. In June, the Commission committed to allocating at least 20% of any net sales tax revenues to local governments on a per capita basis. We estimate that at least 20% of our transportation needs over the next fifteen years will be in upgrading, maintaining, and operating our arterial and local street and road system. This formula allocation could be made available for these purposes, or for other transportation needs within your city. 5—A uty OT IVQE'a3 rt�41�[ beacn Page 2 We will also be conducting in-depth community workshops throughout the county during November, asking community leaders for their views and opinions on the transportation investments that should be made. We will provide you with the views of the group from your community as well as the consensus of all the groups. The Commission recognizes that most cities are not prepared to take firm positions at this time. Please inform us how we can assist you In arriving at decisions regarding the following questions o How should a guaranteed return to cities and the County be structured? What transportation purposes should these funds be available for local streets and roads, arterial improvements, state highway improvements that might not be competitive for -state funding, other transportation needs identified in the Investment Program? o Which of the proposed freeway widening projects — particularly those affecting your city — do you support? Which are you neutral toward? Which do you oppose? o Which of the proposed new freeways and expressways — again, • particularly, those affecting your city — do you support? Oppose? Neutral? o A rail transit investment is proposed as a means of retaining future mobility in the central, more densely populated area of the County. Do you support an investment in rail transit? Oppose it? Are you neutral? Do you have views on the timing of a rail transit investment, on the length of a system, or its cost? Do you prefer another approach that relies on buses using 'reserved freeway lanes or specially constructed guideways along freeways? o What are your feelings about an investment in commuter rail (Amtrak) improvements?. An excellent opportunity to learn more about the current proposals and exchange ideas on refinements will be provided on Thursdby, November 10, 1933, at 5:30 p.m., immediately before the regularly scheduled meetin; of the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities. You will he able to preview a film and written materials prepared for community workshops, receive answers to your • questions, and begin to form your own views in an informal setting. I hope you will take advantage of this opportunity. Our staff is also available to meet with: city councils and/or staff to work on the plan at your convenience. 0 City of Newport Beach Page 3 C' •As I mentioned, our schedule calls for releasing a Revised 15-Year Transportation _ Investment Program that reflects agreement among community interests on a package of transportation projects by mid -December. The Commission will then circulate the revision, conduct public hearings, and make any adjustments necessary. The Commission will recommend this plan to city councils and the Board of Supervisors for approval early in 1984. The Board of Supervisors and at least fourteen cities representing more than half the incorporated area population must approve a plan before it can be presented to the voters. My colleagues on the Commission and I look forward to working with you on this ambitious and exciting undertaking. I hope you will provide a copy of this letter to your fellow city councilmembers so that discussion begins immediately. Please feel free to call upon us or our fine staff for any assistance you may require. iiRiley • Chairman ' TFR:NCF:jj Enclosures cc: Members of the Commission Robert L. Wynn, City Manager, City of Newport Beach Donald L. Webb, OCTC Technical Advisory Committee representative 7 City of Newport Beach • • % 0 ,November 14, 1983 STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM NO. 10 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (OCTC) PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR A 15-YEAR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM At the October 28th study session, the Council reviewed a brief staff report and referred the 15-year program to the Citizens Traffic Advisory Committee (CTAC) for comment. The program originally presented to the Council on the 28th included an extensive list of arterial projects throughout the County. At an OCTC sponsored meeting on November 4, the staff was informed that it would no longer be necessary to review and approve a specific list of local arterial projects. The local agencies would instead be allocated 20% of the additional sales tax revenues to be used for local transportation projects, including maintenance and operations. The staff was also advised that the input desired by OCTC concerned the proposed freeway, expressway and transit programs shown in their preliminary 15-year plan. They also wanted to receive the Council's com- ments on the five items in Supervisor Riley's October 14, 1983 letter (copy attached). This information was passed on to the Citizens Traffic Advisory Committee at its special meeting held November 9. CTAC makes the following recommendations concerning the items in Supervisor R-iley's-letter: Question l.a How should a guaranteed return to cities and the County be structured? Response: The local funds should be distributed based on population within the cities and County. The cities and the County should be required to maintain at least the same level of expenditures for transportation purposes (same percentage of budget) and use the additional revenue to supplement their programs. CTAC had a lengthy discussion on the overall distribution of the 1% sales tax revenue among the various components. OCTC CTAC Prelim. Prog. Rec. Local Share 20% 25% Existing and New Freeways 55% 55% Discretionary Fund for Major Arterials Countywide 0% 5% Transit 15% k.ALy cif Newport25% �eaci i • • CI 11 November 14, 1983 Subject: Review of the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) Preliminary Proposal for a 15-Year Transportation Investment Program Page 2 • The Committee felt too much was being set aside for transit, and that local agencies should be able to have a larger share for arterial construction. Question l.b What transportation purposes should these funds be available for --local streets and roads, arterial improvements, State highway improvements that might not be competitive for state funding, other transportation needs identified in the Invest- ment Program? Response: The funds.should be made available to complete the local a- gencies' Circulation Element of the General Plan. This would allow use of the funds on State projects within the community. Question 2. Which of the proposed freeway widening projects, particularly those affecting your city, do you support? Which are you neutral toward? Which do you oppose? • Response: It is recommended that the City support the widening of Routes 55 & 5 and the 405 Freeway, and be neutral on the remaining freeway widenings. Question 3. Which of the proposed new freeways and expressways --again, particularly those affecting your city --do you support? Oppose? Neutral? Response: It is recommended that the City support the extension of the Route 55 Freeway as discussed in the Route 55 EIS. It is also recommended that the City support the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to connect with the Corona del Mar Freeway. This should be a high priority. Question 4. A rail transit investment is proposed as a means of retaining future mobility in the central, more densely populated area of the County. Do you support an investment in rail transit? Oppose it? Are you neutral? Do you have views on the timing of a rail transit investment, on the length of a system, or its cost? Do you prefer another approach that relies on buses using reserved freeway lanes or specially constructed guideways along freeways? • Response: It is recommended that a neutral stand be taken on rail and bus transit as long as it doesn't impact the County's ability to complete the necessary roadway facilities. A reduction in the overall allocation to transit, however, is recommended under 1. above. q City of Newport Beach 0 November 14, 1983 Subject: Review of the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) Preliminary Proposal for a 15-Year Transportation Investment Program Page 3 Question 5. What are your feelings about an investment in commuter rail (AMTRAK) improvements? Response: It is recommended that a neutral stand be taken, except for the overall reduction in transit allocations listed under l.a. For Council information, pages 23-28 of the OCTC preliminary 15-year plan are attached for review. These pages list the proposed freeway and transit projects. OCTC has asked that the cities make their comments on the program by November 30, 1983. On December 12, the Commission will evaluate the com- ments and adopt a 15-year program to be submitted to the County and cities for approval. OCTC hopes to obtain the unanimous approval of the County and the cities, but must at least obtain the approval of the County and 14 cities representing at least 50% of the population of the incorporated areas. These approvals must be received by February 13. The Board of Supervisors must then call for a June election on or before March 7, 1984. This material is being transmitted for Council information and com- ment only at this time. An item will be placed on the regular evening agenda of November 28 for formal review and action. Attachments for reference and background include Supervisor Riley's October 14 letter, a preliminary list of the proposed freeway and transit projects, a fact sheet brochure prepared by OCTC, a summary of the legislative authorization bill, and a proposed calendar of actions. aU91 Don Webb City Engineer DW:jd Att. 0. • I() City of Newport Beach I-5 Improvements 0 EXISTING FREEWAYS AND STATE HIGHWAYS Project Description I-5 Widen to 8 lanes and reconstruct from interchanges and ovehrossings: 5/55Interchange Valley View Ave. Beach Blvd. Orangethorpe Ave. Magnolia Ave. La Palma Ave. Brookhurst St. Euclid Ave. Lincoln Ave. Santa Ana St. State College Blvd. Chapman Ave. Main St. Seventeenth St. Grand Ave. First St. Fourth St. ° Newport Ave. Red Hill Ave. Myford Rd. Culver Dr. Jeffrey Rd. Sand Canyon Ave. 133/5Interchange I-605 to I-405, including I-5 Construct new overcrossings and interchanges: Marblehead Ridge Route Bake Barranca Jamboree City, of Newport Beach U Estimated 1982 Costs ($000's) $ 395,000 100,000 i E I 1-5 Improvements EXISTING FREEWAYS AND STATE HIGHWAYS Project Description I-5 Construct new overcrossings and interchanges (continued): Browning Orangewood r Beach Blvd. West Crescent I-5 Compatibility improvements: Landscaping and soundwalls Subtotal I-5 Improvements Other Freeways and Highways 1 (PCH) From MacArthur Blvd. to Golden West St., widen from 4 to 6 lanes 22 From Route 405 to Route 55, widen from 6 to 8 lanesandreconstruct overcrossings and interchanges 55 From Route 73 to Route 91, widen from 6 to 8 lanes, including recon- struction, modification and widening of overcrossings and interchanges: MacArthur Warner Fairhaven La Veta Chapman Collins Meats Lincoln 57 From Route 5 to Los Angeles County Line, widen from 8 to 10 lanes 4- • City of Nev�,-2Port Beach Estimated 1982 Costs ($000's) • 5,000 $ 500,000 18,000 85,000 90,000 0 95,000 r W Other Freeways and Highways EXISTING FREEWAYS AND STATE HIGHWAYS Project Description Estimated 1982 Costs ($000's) 73 On MacArthur Blvd., from Jamboree to Bonita Canyon, construct 6 lane $ 15,000 freeway extension (connection to San Joaquin hills Corridor) 73 On MacArthur Blvd. construct interchanges: 32,000- Ford Rd. ; San Joaquin Hills Rd. 90 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes, Berry St. to Pine Ave. do State College to Yorba 65,000 Linda; add two lanes Yorba Linda to Orangethorpe 91 From Imperial Hwy. to Los Angeles County Line, widen from 6 to 8 lanes; 50,000 construct interchange at Fairmont 133 From Canyon Acres Dr. to Route 405, widen from 2 to 4 lanes 8, 000 133 On Laguna Freeway from Route 405 to Route 5, construct overcrossings: 17,000 Alton Barranca 405 From Route 5 to Route 22, widen from 8 to 10 lanes; from Route 22 to 55,000 Route 605, widen from 12 to 14 lanes 405 Widen, reconstruct, modify interchanges and overcrossings: + 40,000 405/133/5Interchange Jamboree Blvd. Sand Canyon Ave. Culver Dr. MacArthur Bear St. Fairview Rd. Ward St. Talbert Ave. Warner Ave. City of Newport Beach EXISTING FREEWAYS AND STATE HIGHWAYS Other Freeways and Highways Project Description 405 Widen, reconstruct, modify interchanges and overcrossings (continued): Magnolia St. Newland Ave. McFadden Ave. Edwards St. Seal Beach Blvd. 22/55/57/91/405 Compatibility improvements: Soundwalls and landscaping / Subtotal Other Freeways and Highways A 40 City of Newibrt Beach Estimated 1982 Costs ($000's) 30,000 ¢ 600,000 0 NEW FREEWAYS AND EXPRESSWAYS Project Description Estimated 1982 Costs ($0001s) 39 (Beach Blvd.) North County Line to Route 1- construct corridor improvements $ 35,000 55 Extension From Route 1 to Route 73 - construct extension through Costa Mesa 70,000 57 Extension Route 22 to Route 405 - construct extension 100, 000* • Eastern Corridor Route 01 to Route 5 - construct 4 lane primary arterial 80,000 Foothill Corridor Crown Valley Pafkwtiy to Eastern Corridor - construct 4 lane primary 100,000 arterial San Joaquin Hills Corridor From Bonita Canyon Rd. to Avery Parkway- construct 6 to 10 lane 300,000 freeway with transit median Subtotal New Freeways and Expressways $ 685,000 * Cost shown assumes construction of high flow arterial on Fairview or Harbor. This project subject to change pending outcome of North/South-Central Corridor Study. If project selected is a freeway, the cost would be $350 million. ♦ Is City of Newport Beach Ea FIXED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT Project Description Estimated 1982 Costs ($000's) Construct medium capacity light rail transit, 35.5 mile starter system in $ 920,000 Santa Ana Transportation Corridor COMMUTER RAIL Project Description Estimated 1982 Costs ($000's) Construct trackage improvements and increase Amtrak commuter service 70,000 (13 trains per day; 15 minute headways in peak direction) and construct station improvements: Buena Park Fullerton Santa Ana Irvine Mission Viejo BUS CAPITAL Project Description Estimated 1982 Costs ($0001s) Expand Bus System to 600 large coaches including facilities, equipment and 185,000 service vehicles 0 City of Newi9ort Beach 0 0 ,. _J • 0 BRUCE NESTANDE SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA,SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701-4061 PHONE: 834-3330 (AREA CODE 714) November 8, 1983 Hon. Evelyn Hart Mayor, City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Evelyn: Mayor ct,y o` Newport X" anch nr The purpose of this 116tter is to convey to you my concern over the lack of a systematic approach to the development of a transportation plan by the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) with respect to the ballot proposition now scheduled for June 5, 1984. Regardless of your views about the proposed 35.5 mile light -rail transit system the ultimate plan proposed for our consideration by the OCTC must be based upon credible data. The entire process is void of integrity if timely consideration of essential data by public officials and the general public is absent. I find it distressing that City Councils as well as the Orange County Board of Supervisors will be asked to approve a plan, including most likely the rail system, before OCTC and Orange County Transit District (OCTD) complete the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study (SATCS) which is being prepared to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rail, HOV/busway and other alternatives. As can be seen from OCTC's timetable for a June election (Attachment A), the City Councils will be given until February 13, 1984, to approve the ballot measure. But according to the stepped u timetable for the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study (Attachment 2�, OCTC still will be refining its alternatives for the corridor in February when we must make a final decision. The OCTC will not release the results of the study Alternatives Analysis and Draft EIR to the public until March, nor certify the EIR, until June. • As I'm sure you're aware, the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study is a joint effort by the OCTC, OCTD, Caltrans and SCAG. The study of the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor includes an alternative analysis to determine what configuration of improvements would best serve Orange County needs. The study includes examination of rapid rail transit, commuter rail, an exclusive busway (HOV) and freeway widening. In total more than $4 million worth of studies relating to projects in the Santa Ana Transporta- tion Corridor are presently pending. In addition, completion of studies regarding the Foothill/Eastern Corridor/I-5 bottleneck, Katell'a Avenue, Uity or ivewport beacn and many others are pending completion. OCTD is following the same • schedule with its rail system Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). It is clear that the City Council actions needed in February cannot be based on an objective analysis of the alternatives or a completed Alterna- tives Analysis and EIR. The decisions regarding the ballot measure will have been made before the studies are completed and before the public has had an opportunity to review and comment on the studies. It is proper that we make a decision only after essential data is available, evaluated, and presented to the public for comment. This backwards approach is indicative of a larger pattern of disorga- nization at OCTC and OCTD because of a "mind set" with regard to a specif- ic plan regardless of facts, merit, cost/efficiency or procedures to be followed. This attitude can only damage the opportunity to present a reasonable well thought out transportation plan to the.,citizens of Orange County which will allow us to responsibly resolve existing transportation deficiencies. Either the plan should be developed in a systematic manner based upon those studies, or the studies should. be scrapped to save the taxpayers' ,money. You are being asked for a commitment to these major projects • without you or your staff's professional analysis of the support data provided by OCTC. I know you would not give a similar commitment to a private developer before the developer has completed city -required studies and EIRs for a given project. In addition to being asked to vote on a plan prior to proper evaluation of support data, the decisions that are written into the draft 15-year Investment Program are premature for two reasons. One, the decisions will occur prior to completion of ongoing planning studies; and two., the planning studies themselves even if complete are insufficient to make the projects eligible for federal assistance. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) has officially no- tified OCTC and OCTD by letter dated July 15, 1983, that a number of additional steps are required before UMTA would consider providing capital funding for any portion of the rail system. These steps are: 1. Define one or more "starter segment" rail alternatives which are reasonable initial rail projects for the corridor. The "starter segment" alternatives need not be straight lines, but they should not include two crossing lines. • 2. Define a set of transit alternatives, which would be analyzed in comparison to the rail alternatives. These alternatives should 16? City of Newport Beach • C • include an all -bus alternative, bus/HOV guideways, and Transportation System Management (TSM). 3. Define the study area for the analysis. 4. Submit to UMTA a description of the alternatives for concurrence. 5. If an analysis is desired for a second rail line which crosses the "starter segment" alternatives, it should be done as a part of a separate study. 6. Federal funding of a rail project would, require that the rail alternative proved to be cost effective. Thus, the proposed rail system as presently presented will not have met Federal and State standards even if the ballot measure is approved. Obviously the time taBle is terribly flawed. This is no way to run government. The entire procedure would be laughable were it not that' these transportation projects are so important to the mobility and economic viability of Orange County. I urge ypu to join me in demanding that projects for which analysis is incomplete be removed from the 15-year Transportation Investment Program, and the Ballot Measure which will be before the citizens of Orange County on June 5, 1984. To proceed'With the present timetable and projected projects is just plain irresponsible and wrong. 4UE ly, ESTANDE Supervisor, Third District BN:tes cc: Members Orange County Board of Supervisors O.C. State Legislative Delegation Members OCTC and OCTD /9 City of Newport Beach • 0 Schedule of Activities for Implementin SB693 Leading to Local Election Activity OCTC issues Proposed 15-Year Transportation Investment Program OCTC solicits proposals for 15-Year Investment Program Presentation to League of Cities Target Dates Nov. 1984 03/83 10/17/83 11/10/83 Attac_ h_ melt_ A' June 1984 03/83 10/17/83 11/10/83 Presentation to Board of Supervisors To be Determined To be Determined OCTC adopts procedures for evaluating 11/28/83 11/28/83 proposals OCTC conducts Community Dialogue Groups 10/25/83- 10/25/83- to receive input on program as part of 11/30/83 11/30/83 Communications Program Proposals due to OCTC from cities, county, Caltrans, OCTD, CTSA Revised 15-Year Investment Program incor- porating proposals and community input released by OCTC for 'review and approval by cities and Board of Supervisors Cities and Board of Supervisor§ approve. 15-Year Investment Program; OCTC holds - public hearing(s) OCTC approves Program, presents draft ordinance and calls for election Board of Supervisors places measure on Ballot Election Day 11/30/83 04/09/84 04/09/84- 07/O1/84 07/23/84 08/08/84~ 1-1/06/84 11/30/.83 12'/12/83 12/12/83- 02/13/84 02/26/84 03/07/84 06/05/84 • C • �2o City of Newport Beach ATTACHMENT B TO: Members of the Commission FROM: Staff Page 2- SUBJECT: Quarterly Progress Report bn the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Stage II) 2. Revisions to Schedule Table 1 indicates the revised SATC project schedule. The dates for completion of the key project milestones remain unchanged, with preliminary multimodal findings expected in January, 1984; public release of the DEIR in March, 1984 (one month earlier than originally scheduled); and Commission action and certification of the FEIR in June, 1984. The revised schedule now reflects milestones and review periods associated .( with EIR preparation; all changes result from the fact that'an EIR, and not \ an EIS, will be prepared. It is important to note that the schedule for the Commission's Multimodal AA%EIR in the Santa Ana Corridor is fully consistent with OCTD's schedule for the SATC Transit Element EIR. Both DEIR documents will be released in March, 1984, with Commission action expected in June, 1984. 3. OCTC Project Management and Consolidated (Multimodal) Studies a) Federal Involvement Update As reported in previous progress reports, the involvement of both the Federal Highway Administration and UMTA as'joint lead agencies in the SATC Consolidated AA/DEIS program has required a lengthy project schedule with numerous review cycles' in order to meet the extensive, and often conflicting policy and procedural requirements of the two federal agencies. These policy conflicts resulted in an impasse, whereby UMTA and FHWA with the local study participants differed in their view as to the nature of the alternatives to be 'evaluated. UMTA, on one hand, considers the SATC comprehensive multimodal alternatives presently under study to be "systems -level planning." FHWA and the local agencies, on the other hand, regard UMTA as mixing phasing and implementation questions with project selection. • Since the study began two years ago, there have been significant changes in state and federal policy and financial capability which merited a re-evaluation of the current study structure, particularly in light of the policy impasse. Of key importance are the following: 1. Due to increases in both state and federal gas taxes there are now funds available to proceed with the widening of the Santa Ana Freeway. Such funds were not available previously. 11 ,..�, City of Newport Beach Commissioners James Beam Ralph B. Clark Daniel E. Griset Thomas F. Riley James Roosevelt Hein2i1-leckeroth The Honorable Evelyn Hart Mayor, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663 14 Dear M� art: e.� of yi ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1055 North Maui, Suite 516 November 17, 1983 Santa Ana, California 9270 F171.4) 834.758 The OCTC has several important policy decisions to make with reference to the development of the 15-Year Transportation Investment Program which will be used in the transportation sales tax election of June 1984. The OCTC is very interested in receiving input from the cities with reference to these policy decisions. The OCTC has committed itself to the return of 20% of the sales tax to the cities and county for local streets.and arterials. There are two major methods by which this can be accomplished. First, money could be allocated on a project by project basis or second, the funds could be distributed to the cities and the county on a population basis. The second method would allow decisions to be made at the local level and it would insure an equitable distribution of the funding raised by the population itself. If sufficient funds are available, the OCTC would also like to Include a countywide discretionary funding program. This program would be made available for improvements to the arterial highway system that were of countywide significance; for example, multi -city signalization projects, superstreets, railroad grade separations. The enactment of such a program would require planning participation and operational agreements by the affected cities and county. We would appreciate your comments on the following options: Option 1 20% return to local jurisdictions based on population. Any transportation project eligible. Local government would be the decision maker on projects. Start new 5% arterial discretionary program. All cities and county would participate as projects are developed. OCTC would be the decision maker on projects. • • City Of N@pwp;ort Beach Option 2 10% return to local jurisdictions based on population. Any transportation project would be eligible. Local government would be the decision maker on projects. 10% return to local jurisdictions based on population. Restricted for use on the arterial highway system within city jurisdiction. Local government would be the decision maker on projects. 5% reserved for arterial improvements of countywide significance such as multi -city signalization and superstreets. Cities, the county and Caltrans would share in planning process, OCTC would be the decision maker on projects. Option 3 At this time OCTC has not determined what money will be available. If other than 25% is available other combinations (e.g. 10, 10, 4; 9, 9, 8) of the percentages in Option 2 could be considered. Option 4 Cities and counties would identify projects to be included in the Fifteen - Year Transportation Investment Program and the OCTC would be decision maker on an annual basis. 20% of the total sales tax would be guaranteed. We would appreciate hearing from you as early as possible. If there is a strong preference for options other than Option 4 we will not need a project by project listing by cities for inclusion in the Fifteen -Year Transportation Investment Program. We will need your input no later than November 30, 1983. Sincerely, Thomas F. Riley Chairman TFR:AH:jj cc: Robert L. Wynn, City Manager • Donald L. Webb, TAC Representative City of Newport Beach ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SALES TAX AUTHORIZATION BILL SUMMARY S13 693 (Campbell), enacted on September 30, 1983, authorizes the Orange County Transportation Commission to place a countywide sales tax of up to 1 percent for transportation purposes on the ballot for voter consideration. The bill becomes effective on January 1, 1984. The major provisions of the bill are summarized below: o Allows the Orange County Transportation Commission from January 1, 1984 to January 1, 1986 to call an election and, with majority voter approval, enact a sales tax of 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, or 1 percent for a specified length of time with the proceeds to be allocated by the Commission for transportation purposes. o The sales tax proceeds could be allocated to all types of transportation purposes, exclusive of transit operations, including the construction and maintenance of street/road, highway, transit and passenger rail improvements. o Before an election is held, the Commission with the approval of the county and at least a majority of the cities must adopt a fifteen year expenditure plan of transportation improvements to be funded by the sales tax proceeds and state, federal and local revenues. o The expenditure plan is to be developed by the Commission with the assistance of the county, the cities, public transit operators, Caltrans, and the public. Public hearings must be held prior to its adoption. o The expenditure plan must include annual allocations of a portion of the sales tax to the cities and the county for local transportation projects to be used in addition to funds -currently dedicated to transportation needs. o Provision is made for updating the expenditure plan if additional state, federal or local revenues become available or , other unforseen circumstances occur. n If a sales tax is adopted, the Commission must prepare an annual report on progress made in implementing the expenditure plan. n The Commission may issue "limited tax bonds" payable solely from the sales tax proceeds. - over - • • �- City of Newport Beach SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES r� 0 ,o 0 0 0 FOit IMPLEMENTING 513 693 LEADING TO A JUNE 5, 1984 ELECTION Activity OCTC issues Proposed 15-Year Transportation Investment Program OCTC solicits proposals for 15-Year Invest- ment Program from cities, county, Caltrans, OCTD and CTSA Workshop with City Managers Workshop with technical staffs (OCTC Technical and Policy Advisory Committees) Presentation to League of Cities Target Date 03/83 10/17/83 11/03/83 11/04/83 11/10/83 o Presentation to Board of Supervisors To be Determined o OCTC adopts procedures for evaluating 11/14/83 proposals o OCTC conducts meetings with community 10/25/83- leaders to receive input on program 11/30/83 o Proposals due to OCTC from cities, county, 11/30/83 Caltrans, OCTD, CTSA o Revised 15-Year Investment Program incor- 12/12/83 porating proposals and community input released by OCTC for review and approval by cities and Board of Supervisors io Cities and Board of Supervisors approve 12/12/83- 15-Year Investment Program; OCTC holds 02/13/83 public hearing(s) o OCTC approves Program, presents tax 02/26/84 ordinance and calls for election • o Board of Supervisors places measure on 03/07/83 Ballot o Election Day 06/05/84 For additional information. contact Nancy Coss -Fitzwater or Monte Ward, OCTC staff, (714) 834-7581. Prepared by the Orange County Transportation Commission Updated October, 1983 25-- uny of r4ewport reach C10Y OF NEWPORT BE*H COUNCIL MEMBERS �o November 28, 1983 any i rei i 9 � s' MINUTES . INDEX . cil Member Plummer stated that she was oppose the motion, as she did not feel that afforda nits off -site were good for the City. Ayes. x x x x The motion was voted on and carr d Noes x x 2. Report from the Planning^Department r-egarding the COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL project, O/C P1ngCmsn Coyote Cnyn was presented. - SLnd F1 (54) The City Manager reviewed the proposed letter to the Orange County Board of Supervisors and discussed the four areas of concern, as set forth in -the letter. Motion x Following discussion, motion was made to All Ayes approve _the _ rat letter, su ect to revision of _Item 2i's�e_hyconcrns respect to water quality. Motion x K. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: I Motion was made to schedule public hearing U/P 3033/• Ayes x x x for December 12, 1983, on Resubdivision No. Resub 745 Noes x x x 745, Use Permit No. 3033, regarding height imitations at 311 Carnation Avenue, which m tion FAILED. The meet g adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Volume 37 - Page 379 L City Council Meeting November 28,.1983 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Background Agenda Item No. J-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Planning Department Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Project The County of Orange staff and its consultants made a presentation on the above subject to the City Council at its November 14th Study Session. The County of orange has prepared a Draft EIR on the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill (copies distributed at the November 14th Council Study Session), The Draft EIR evaluates the impacts of expansion and completion of the landfill. In addition to the actual placement and final contouring of solid wastes within the landfill, the report addresses the impacts of retrieving borrow fill for daily, intermediate and final landfill. The City of Newport Beach is a "Responsible Agency" as defined by the California environmental Quality Act (CEQA) related to this Draft EIR. Prior to the final implementation of the project, the County of Orange will need to seek amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan and other discretionary approvals. The C&nty is evaluating three alternative grading plans for the landfill. The general characteristics are described below: Remaining Daily and Capacity Anticipated Final Cover Soil (million Closure to Requirement (mil - Alternative cubic yards Solid Waste lion cubic yards) One 7.12 January 1987 3.9 - 5.0 Two 8.4 June 1986 3.6 - 4.6 Three 14.8 October 1988 5.3 - 7.1 T 1 As of November 1982 Area Covered By Landfill (acres) 2 Not including remedial filling of previously completed areas 313 287 304 City of Newport Beach TO: P City Council - 2. 0 A summary of the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures is provided on Pages 4-8 of the Draft EIR. Alternatives No. 1 through No. 3 are attached. The existing operation of the landfill impacts several areas of the community. Any of the three alternatives will have additional impacts on the City. The County has established the following schedule for processing the Draft EIR and the project: November 1, 1983 Orange County Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1983 Council Study Session - City of Newport Beach No"vetnber 15, 1983 1:30 p.m. - Orange County Planning Commission November 15, 1983* 6:30 p.m. - City of Irvine November 24, 1983 End Draft EIR Review November 28, 1983 City of Newport Beach Action December 20, 1983 Orange County Planning Commission Action January 25, 1984 Orange County Board of Supervisors Action * County staff has indicated that it will respond to the City's comments on the Draft EIR if they are received by November 29, 1983. It is the intention of City staff to have an action item related to this subject on the City Council evening agenda for November 28, 1983. Environmental Impact Report The proposed project will have several significant adverse environmental effects on the City of Newport Beach. The adverse effects on the City include noise, traffic, air pollution and aesthetics. These effects have not been mitigated to acceptable levels. During the preparation of the Draft EIR, staff responded to the County's Notice of Preparation (NOP) and reviewed the Screencheck Draft EIR. The County has not responded to the concerns of the City as were expressed in these instances. The Draft EIR also fails to address adequately the several decisions that are being made relating to the landfill. The report suggests as mitigation measure (gas recovery) and final closure plan which will have significant environmental consequences. These areas should be addressed at one time, along with the ultimate utilization of the properties. Finally, the Draft EIR is incorrect in its financial impact assumptions and does not adequately address each potential alternative. Additional Refuse Disposal Costa Attached for the City Council's consideration is an estimate of additional refuse disposal costs which will be incurred by the City when Coyote Canyon landfill is finally closed. The report indicates that the City will be faced with annual costs as follows: City of Newport Beach 0 TO: City Council - 3. Bee Canyon (proposed) _ $764,104.00 Huntington Beach Transfer Station = 334,240.00 Newport/Irvine Transfer Station = 278,638.00 Additionally, the City will be faced with an initial capital outlay of $440,100 to acquire six refuse packers. These cost estimates are all based on the current 83/84 City Budget. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director ' • by FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator FT/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1. Draft Letter 2. Site Vicinity Map 3. Alternative No. 1 4. " No. 2 5. ° No. 3 6. Memo from General Services Director City of Newport Beach • • DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR - (714) 640-2110 November 28, 1983 Orange County Board of Supervisors County of Orange 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92704 Subject: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report Honorable Chairman and Members: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment on the above subject project and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City wishes to express its thanks to you for the cooperation we have received from the staff of the Environmental Management Agency and its consultants in transmitting to the City Council information related to this project. It is the opinion of the City that the Draft EIR is inadequate and that a substantial revision to the document should occur prior to its certification. The following summarizes the City's major areas of concern: 1. The closure of Coyote Canyon Landfill will occur through a series of actions which include but are not limited to the proposed grading plan, gas recovery proposal and final landscaping. These actions should all be evaluated within the context of the Environmental Impact Report. 2. The project does not incorporate adequate measures to mitigate the significant adverse environmental effects of the project on the City of Newport Beach, such as the concept of temporary plywood barriers suggested to reduce noise impacts. It would seem with this one mitigation alone that an adequate analysis of potential materials and methods has not been considered. 3. The closure of the landfill will have a major fiscal impact on the community. The City will be faced with additional annual costs estimated at $764,104.00 to go to the proposed Bee Canyon Landfill, and even greater sums if this facility is not opened. A transfer station should be in operation within the expanded lease area upon closure of the landfill. A careful consideration of this as an alternative should have been accomplished. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 City of Newport Beach Orange County Board of Supervisors Page 2. November 28, 1983 4. The comments of the City on the Screencheck EIR that have been previously transmitted to the County staff should be responded to and a new Draft EIR prepared and circulated prior to certification. The closure of the Coyote Canyon Landfill represents a significant opportunity for the County and the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. It is hoped that we can look comprehensively at this area together. Very truly yours, City Council City of Newport Beach Evelyn Hart, Mayor EH/kk cc: City of Irvine Orange County Planning Commission A : IMF - I �xA V4 -It F - VCM��tl A Alternative 1 Legww m&WTMY LANDFILL KIsomow sm NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHOWN FOR FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF LANDFILL ONLY. 11 • COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 ati .. FYHIRIT d 0 Alternative 2 L"ena SANITARY LANDFILL BORROW SITE NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHOWN FOR FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF LANDFILL ONLY. COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1600 �� .. �vnr1�T c r1 L.J T;s is- L. i Ly Alternative 3 Legend u"YI SANITARY LANDFILL ws BORROW SITE s.•L CLEAN FILL NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHOWN FOR FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF LANDFILL ONLY. NOTE: COYOTE CANYON ROAD EXTENSION THROUGH BORROW AREA SHOWN FOR CONCEP— TUAL GRADING PURPOSES ONLY. THIS ROAD IS NOT PROPOSED BY ANY ADOPTED CITY OR COUNTY CIRCULATION PLANS. COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 ' w - w• oir E • ATTACHMENT 6 November 17, 1983 TO: FRED TALARICO, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL REFUSE DISPOSAL COSTS AFTER CLOSURE OF COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL The current 1983-84 City Budget appropriates $1,330,900 for operation of the Refuse Division of the General Services Department. Added to that is the sum of $292,900 of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for the replacement of five (5) refuse packers. In response to your request, the following additional costs would be in- curred by the City when Coyote Canyon Landfill is finally closed, and we utilize the alternative disposal sites as listed below. I. BEE CANYON LANDFILL - (Proposed) A. Initial Capital Outlay 6'Refuse Packers (6 year life expectancy) B. Annual Salaries & Fringe Benefits 6 Refuse Leadman, 4 Refuse Crewman C. Annual Maintenance & Operation Costs for Additional travel distance to Bee Canyon 1. Present fleet (16 packers Cost per mile includes depreciation) 2. Additional packers (6 packers Cost per mile includes depreciation) D. Additional Dumping Fees TOTAL II. HUNTINGTON BEACH TRANSFER STATION (RAINBOW DISPOSAL) A. No additional Capital Outlay B. No additional Personnel C. Annual Maintenance & Operation Costs for additional travel distance to Rainbow Disposal $ 440,100 271,768 225,957 193,029 -0- $1,130,854 -0- In 90,959 /v City of Newport Beach page 2 D. Additional Transfer Station Tipping Fees TOTAL III. NEWPORT/IRVINE/AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL AREA TRANSFER STATION . (SUNSET-ENVTRDNRE9 $ 243,281 $ 334,240 A. No additional Capital Outlay -0- B. No additional Personnel -0- C. Annual Maintenance & Operation Costs for additional travel distance to Sunset Environmental 60,524 D. Additional Transfer Station Tipping Fees 218,114 TOTAL $ 278,638 WADE S. BEYELER, DIRECTOR General Services Department WSB/ib City of Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR - (714) 640-2110 November 28, 1983 Orange County Board of Supervisors County of Orange 10 Civic,Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92704 Subject: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report Honorable Chairman and Members: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment on the above subject project and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City wishes to express its thanks to you for the cooperation we have received from the staff of thq Environmental Management Agency and its consultants in ;transmitting to the City Council information related to this project. It is the opinion of the City that the Draft EIR is inadequate and that a substantial revision to the document should occur prior to -its certification. The following summarizes the City's major areas of concern: 1. The closure of Coyote Canyon_ Landfill will occur through a series of actions which include but are not limited to the proposed grading plan, gas recovery proposal and final landscaping. These actions should all be evaluated within the context of the Environmental Impact Report. 2. The project does not incorporate adequate measures to mitigate the significant adverse environmental effects of the project on the City of Newport Beach, such as the concept of temporary plywood barriers suggested to reduce noise impacts. It would seem with this one mitigation alone that an adequate analysis of potential materials and methods has not been considered. Additionally, the City is concerned with potential impacts on water quality in the San Joaquin Hills Reservoir and that adequate mitigation measures have not been provided. 3. The closure of the landfill will have a major fiscal impact on the community. The City will be faced with additional annual costs estimated at $764,104.00 to go to the proposed City Hall • iVe t u evard iv rt ch Cat rnia 92663 V r I 0 Orange County Board of Supervisors Page 2. November 28, 1983 Bee Canyon Landfill, and even greater sums if this facility is not opened. A transfer station should be in operation within the expanded lease area upon closure of the landfill. A careful consideration of this as an alternative should have been accomplished. 4. The comments of the City on the Screencheck EIR that have been previously transmitted to the County staff should be responded to and a new Draft EIR prepared and circulated prior to certification. The closure of the Coyote Canyon Landfill represents a significant opportunity for the County and the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. It is hoped that we can look comprehensively at this area together. Very truly yours, + i i t City Council Ciitty/y of Newport Beach Evely�t, Mayor d:•p•r:' .z EH/kk cc: City of Irvine Orange County Planning Commission :of N rt-:. t�.,-f Ill'..^ ':y�T��•n � : :f�i%v,�nY' .,,?::FTf �'.�:i•l4^;���J;Fw. :.r'��':+ii4:45?'(•'.; .a•: ei: ;Y�C,th�i.trJ cX!�&l::v'�a: City Council Meeting November 14, 1983 Study Session Agenda Item No. 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) The County of Orange staff and their consultants will be making a presentation on the above subject to the City Council at its November 14th Study Session. The County of Orange has prepared a Draft EIR on the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill (copy attached). The Draft EIR evaluates the impacts of expansion and completion of the landfill. In addition to the actual placement and final contouring of solid wastes within the landfill, the report addresses the impacts of retrieving borrow fill for daily, intermediate and final landfill. The City of Newport Beach is a "Responsible Agency" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) related to this Draft EIR. Prior to the final implementation of the project, the County of Orange will need to seek amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan and other discretionary approvals. The County is evaluating three alternative grading plans for the landfill. The general characteristics are described below: Remaining Daily and Capacity Anticipated Final Cover Soil (million Closure to Requirement (mil - Alternative cubic yards)l Solid Waste lion cubic yards) One 7.12 January 1987 3.9 - 5.0 Two 8.4 June 1986 3.6 - 4.6 Three 14.8 October 1988 5.3 - 7.1 1 As of November 1982 Area Covered By Landfill (acres) 2 Not including remedial filling of previously completed areas 313 287 304 City of Newport Beach TO: City Council - 2. A summary of the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures is provided on Pages 4-8 of the Draft EIR. Alternatives No. 1 through No. 3 are attached. The existing operation of the landfill impacts several areas of the community. Any of the three alternatives will have additional impacts on the City. The County has established the following schedule for processing the Draft EIR and the project: November 1, 1983 Orange County Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 1983 Council Study Session - City of Newport Beach November 15, 1983 1:30 p.m. - Orange County Planning Commission November 15, 1983* 6:30 p.m. - City of Irvine November 24, 1983 End Draft EIR Review November 28, 1983 City of Newport Beach Action December 20, 1983 Orange County Planning Commission Action January 25, 1984 Orange County Board of Supervisors Action * County staff has indicated that it will respond to the City's comments on the Draft EIR if they are received by November 29, 1983. It is the intention of City staff to have an action item related to this subject on the City Council evening agenda for November 28, 1983. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator FT/kk Attachments: 1. Site Vicinity Map 2. Alternative No. 1 3. " No. 2 4. No. 3 5. Draft EIR (for City Council only) City of Newport Beach • ri LJ Alternative 1 Legend ,o SAWMY LAND".L DOMOw 89E: NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHOWN FOR FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF LANDFILL ONLY. COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1600 I ! .. FXNlPlT 4 • L 3 Alternative 2 Legend IfK^�+I SANRARY LANDFILL BORROW SITE NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHOWN FOR FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF LANDFILL ONLY. ' COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 600 1200 1800 ® i^mmp"mJ = • • f kmaoILy "ter Alternative 3 Legend SANITARY LANDFILL BORROW SITE CLEAN F81 NOTE: CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS SHOWN FOR FUTURE ROADS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF LANDFILL ONLY. NOTE: COYOTE CANYON ROAD EXTENSION THROUGH BORROW AREA SHOWN FOR CONCEP- TUAL GRADING PURPOSES ONLY. THIS ROAD IS NOT PROPOSED BY ANY ADOPTED CITY OR COUNTY CIRCULATION PLANS. COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL COUNTY OF ORANGE J � soo isooa, _ .. P`/1-0P�T 7 - i • NOV 111983 AGENDA Or ITEM NO:22 City of Newport Beach • • f November 2, 1983 TO: FROM: FOR: CITY COUNCIL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1983 SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter, which responds to the -draft environmental impact report prepared for the Coyote Canyon landfill expansion (Attachment 1.). W 2. Direct staff to_.prepare a letter to the Orange County Planning Commission requesting a continuance of the December 20, 1983, public hearing. ISSUE: Is the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the Coyote Canyon landfill expansion adequate? ANALYSIS: The County of Orange General Services Agency (GSA) is proposing to expand the useful life of the existing Coyote Canyon landfill to the end of 1988. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a DEIR was prepared by the County and circulated for public review and comment on October 12, 1983. Community Development staff has reviewed the DEIR and has serious concerns with the adequacy of the report. Specifically'staff's concerns can be summarized as follows: It 1. There is insufficient data concerning water quality, methane generation, sedimentation, and toxic materials. 2. There is insufficient data concerning feasibility of the proposed mitigation measures. Based on these concerns, staff has prepared a letter for the Mayor's signature responding to the DEIR. This letter must be received by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) prior to November 24, 1983, as this is the closing date for the 45 day review period. In addition to the letter for the Mayor's signature, staff is requesting direction from the Council concerning an Orange County Planning Commission of December 20.- The purpose of this meeting is to have a recommendation from the County Planning Commission on the City ui NewpUlL auau City Council Coyote Canyon adequacy of the insufficient ti the DEIR prior t city position on discussed in the recommendation t a one month time CONCLUSION: November 2, 1983 Page 2 m final EIR. Staff feels that there will be e for city review of the County's responses to o the meeting of December 20. Therefore, a the proposal, or on the three alternatives DEIR, cannot be formulated in time for a city o the County Planning Commission. Staff feels extension, at a minimum, is necessary. Based on a review of the DEIR staff is of the opinion that the DEIR is inadequate and recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter to EMA responding to the DEIR. Furthermore, there will be insufficient time to review the County's responses to the MaydfIs letter and determine adequacy of the final EIR. Staff requests direction from the Council to prepare a letter requesting a continuation of the County Planning Commission's meeting date of December 20. Report prepared by Richard Masyczekp Submrd by: Larry K: Hogle -Director of Community Approved by: t 'William Woollett, City Manager RM:bd Development 6 a? -� . City of Newport Beach November 1, 1983 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency Mr. Robert Rusby 811 N. Broadway - Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Rusby: REVIEW.OF DRAFT EIR 507, COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL EXPANSION At their meeting of November 15e 1983, the City of Irvine City Council reviewed the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the proposed Coyote Canyon landfill expansion. It is impor- tant to note that the Council's review was for the DEIR only and should not be construed to constitute approval for a land- fill expansion or any specific alternative. The City Council is very concerned with the proposed expansion, as potential adverse impacts could affect existing and future land uses within the City of Irvine, as well as residents of Orange County. Specific responses to the DEIR are contained in the remainder of this letter. The responses are based on the project description as found in DEIR 507, which includes the landfill expansion, three grading alternatives, and proposed operations and final closure. Items not covered in EIR:, 1. There is no quantitative analysis of methane generation. Page 102 of the EIR mentions that methane may accumulate and cause potential problems but the two -paragraph discussion limits effects to existing conditions. Request A. Quantify potential methane generation using CWMB generation factors or other acceptable factors. B. Provide detailed discussion of effects methane may have on adjacent existing and planned land uses, especially effects methane has on vegetation and explosion potential. ATTACHMENT 1 City of Newport Beach Mr. Rusby -2 November 1, 1983 2. 3. 4. C C. Provide analysis of effects a 6" interim cover and 6' final cover will have on lateral methane migration. There is no quantitative analysis of sewage sludge disposal. The EIR mentions that sludge is being disposed of.at the landfill but does not quantify amount or constituents. Request A. Quantify amount of sludge to be disposed on a ton -per - day basis and ultimate. B. Provide analysis of sludge constituents, especially on constituents that may have possible adverse health effects, i.e., cadmium, lead, copper, zinc, organics, volatile com- pounds, chlorides, etc. Mention should be made that sewage sludge does contain industrial wastes that are considered hazardous, quantify amounts of hazardous wastes contained in sludge and compare to standards governing those wastes. C. Provide analysis of potential adverse health impacts of sludge not only in short term but in mid and long terms. Do not confuse absorption qualities of 10:1•mix of sludge with waste to the incremental accumulation of constituents which may be leached out or concentrated due to organic decomposition. D. Provide analysis of impacts sludge may have during wet weather operations. Illegal dumping of toxic wastes, either -by a homeowner or by a large industrial firm, can have detrimental effects on water and/or air quality. Request A. Please identify, to the extent possible: _ -probability of illegal dumping -types of materials being dumped -cummulative effect when considered with other materials. B. Provide discussion of 'illegal dumping in terms of potential impact. C. Provide specific mitigation measures which would,control illegal dumping. Newport Ba The EIR does not quantify sedimentation of Upper P y due to erosion. Specifically, the EIR states that erosion is an impact, but it does not indicate the extent. Further- more, the proposed mitigation measures do not indicate to what extent they would control erosion and eventual sedimen- tation of Upper Newport Bay. The City of Irvine feels that the impact of erosion and subsequent sedimentation potential is great enough to warrant a more detailed'discussion of the landfill's effects on sedimentation. The City does not feel that saying the project will meet standards is adequate. How will standards be met? What studies, i.e., hydrology study, have been done to show that erosion and sedimentation are not a problem? The EIR does not identify any studies Q_ City of Newport BParh . ..man Mr. Rusby -3- November 1, 1983 showing the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. Request A. Provide a detailed hydrology study of erosion potential, quantify potential sedimentation, hydrologv__study of mitiga- tion measures. B. Provide a detailed analysis of potential impacts of sedimentation on Upper Newport Bay. Sneci£ic responses to items discussed in EIR: p. 49 Water Quality - surface water The discussion of leachate is confusing.. You substantiate that leachate was detected as early as 1978,and as late as 1983, but that the data is inadequate to draw a conclusion. Since the purpose of an EIR is to define probable impacts, and since the EIR states that there is insufficient data, additional testing of water should be done to either confirm or refute existence of leachate. This is especially impor- tant when defining mitigation measures. I•ri order to assess the adequacy:aE-a mitigation measure, data on what is being mitigated is mandatory to show feasability and effectiveness of that measure. Request - 1. Provide add tionaf analysis of surface water to determine if leachate is present. This analysis•should include organic analysis,•as well as, metal analysis. 2. Provide sufficient data which permits analysis of short to long term effects on surface water from the landfill. p. 50 Water Quality - groundwater As with the surface water situation, stating that there is ,insufficient data precludes a knowledgeable decision on the environmental impacts of the landfill. Request • Provide sufficient data which permits analysis of short to long term effects on groundwater- from the landfill. p. 90 Landfill Gas Control/Recover Planning A gas recovery system, as proposed by Genstar, should not be confused with a gas control system. While it is acknow- ledged that a recovery system does help mitigate methane and odorous gases, it does not provide marginal control as does a gas control system, especially at landfill edges where methane may be in too low a concentration for economical recovery, but high enough to present clear health dangers. Request 1. Provide this distinction within the text. 2. Provide comparison of % methane reduced with a recovery system vs. control system. p. 102 Odors/Gaseous Emissions Section 3.9 AIR RESOURCES, does not quantify amount on CO or methane generation; please see discussion on "Items not covered in EIR." City oT ivewport Bead °°-s Mr. Rusby -4- November 1, 1983 p- p- p- p- 103 Leachate This section should describe what leachate is, how it is formed, and possible impacts. Also, the second statement, "if leachate is present or develops a collection system will be implemented ... " seems contradictory to current practices. In this year leachate was detected, but since the data was "insufficient," no conclusion was drawn. Current RWQCB rule no. 82-299.requires a leachate system to be installed in case of leachate detection. No system has been installed. How can we be assured that the County will install a leachate monitoring system when no system is in place now? Request 1. Please describe criteria to be used to determine if leachate is present and a collection system is required. 2. Please expand discussion to describe leachate, its formation and impacts. .• 110 Mitigation Measures #3 slopes in excess of 10% are extremely susceptable to erosion. A hydrology study should be performed to see if mitigation #3 (hydroseeding slopes) is a viable mitigation measure. 112,Borrow Grading Geotechnical Feasibility It is stated that the quality of soil material is suitable for cover material. Request 1. Please define "quality" in terms of permeability, porousity, size, ability to sustain plant material. 2. Please analyze the effectiveness of blasted material in preventing water from percolating through to the landfill. It seems that blasted material would be too coarse -to prevent water infiltration. 118 Groundwater The water balance analysis conducted by Woodward -Clyde was for final closure, with a six foot cover. The analysis is not valid for the period when the landfill' is in operation with only a six inch, or at the most,-12 inch cover. To state that leachate will not be formed, then cannot be substantiated for the short term and interim time periods. Also, to state that insufficient data pertaining to ground- water precludes analysis in not acceptable. Again, the purpose of the EIR is to provide information which allows one to know of all impacts of a project. Saying that since data is not available and no conclusion can be made, does not meet the intent of the EIR. Request 1. Provide a water balance analysis which assumes: -only a 6" daily cover for up to 180 days -only a 12" cover for areas not covered with refuse for 180 days -a "worst case" estimate of groundwater effects. a�-le City of Newport Beach Mr. Rusby -5- November 1, 1983 C 2. Provide••an­analysis of leachate constituents, as identified by Woodward -Clyde; and their-.potentia1,11ealth impacts. Identify toxic material present in leachate. p. 119 Groundwater (cont'd) The EIR states that landfill gases will not impact water quality (groundwater). In order to come to this conclusion, two variables need to be identified: 1. Amount of gas 2. Amount of groundwater " The EIR states that the groundwater amount is not known due to insufficient data, so the conclusion has no basis in fact. Also, there was no quantitative analysis of gas, so another variable is unknown. Request :1. In order to conclude an impact, please analyze both probable gas content and amounts, as well as amount of ground- water contacting gas. 2. Provide analysis of conclusion. p. 119 Groundwater4,gcont'd) The EIR states that possible incremental seepage from the San Joaquin Reservoir will be minor. But since the ground- water amount is not known, it cannot be assumed that the incremental seepage will not affect leachate formation. Request 1. Quantify seepage rates and compare to existing groundwater amount and flows. 2. Incremental impact on leachate formation would be analyzed. p. 119 Mitigation Measures #2,6,10 and 11 2. A desilting basin should be required immediately, due to `slopes in excess of 10% which have no vegetation cause serious erosion problems. Alternative 2 and 3 both show slopes in excess of 20%. Even if hydroseeded immediately, it will take time for plants to reach retentive capabilities. 6. During storm season, serious consideration should be given to phasing fill so that slopes are not over 10%,with 2-5% being preferable. 10. Please identify parameters to be used for identifying leachate. For example, the EIR states leachate has been detected but data is insufficient. At what point is data sufficient to start action? Also, a semi-annual monitoring is insufficient because of seasonal weather variations. Would recommend that bi-wekkly monitoring be implemented until a solid data base is reached, then switch to•bi-monthly, except during storm season, where monthly monitoring should be pro- vided. 11. This mitigation measure does not permit review of its effectiveness in preventing leachate migration. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether or not it actually will solve a leachate problem. C a.2-7 City aT ivewport Beach Mr. Rusby • -6- • November 1, 1983 Request 1. Identify a contingency plan now, so that it can be analyzed. p. 129 City of Irvine This section does not discuss the proposal's impact on existing or planned land uses in Irvine, but rather a. procedural discussion of what is required through a permit- ting process. Request Provide detailed discussion on proposal's impact on land uses in Irvine. p. 143 Mitigation Measures # 1 and 3. 1. This mitigation measure should include periphery monitoring wells for detecting lateral methane migration; add, if methane concentrations exceeding applicable stand are detected at these wells, then control will_be impleme Road and Bonita Canyon, but also along MacArthur and Culver Boulevards. p. 173 Mass Burning -Heat -Recovery Incineration Plant The statement, "The residue from the incineration process must be buried at a C1ass*I landfill," is misleading. The CWMB decides on a case -by -case basis, what type of category ash is (Class I or Class I11. Request Please note CWMB criteria. p. 175 Table 24 The costs per ton quoted for different types of alternatives seem extremely high. The 1982, Engineering Science report entitled "Solid Waste Management System for the County of -orange" does indeed show high initial costs, but with the costs decreasing to revenues over time. The Engineering Science report also states that over a 20 year life span, a waste -to -energy facility is actually more cost effective than landfilling. City of Irvine research into State literature and other studies also shows a theoretical cost effective difference between waste -to -energy and landfilling. The City of Irvine believes that the costs shown on page 175 are not truly indicative of long term costs of landfill vs. waste -to -energy. Also, if transportation costs were added, the difference between the alternatives would decrease. Request 1. Show Engineering Science study results on long term waste -to -energy costs and revenues. 2. The City of Irvine does not agree with costs shown; please provide additional data and explain difference between initial costs and long term costs. 3. Note that landfill costs will escalate over time, while waste -to -energy costs decrease. C4 City of Newport Beach C Mr. Rusby -7- November 1, 1983 Items requested in response to NOP, but not addressed in EIR 1. The City requested an analysis of the interim impacts caused by possible dual operation of Coyote Canyon land- fill and the proposed Bee.Canyon landfill. This.is not addressed in the EIR. Request A. Please provide analysis, especially the ability of the County to provide sufficient guarantees that funds will be available to mitigate all possible impacts from both facilities. B. Identify time frames for closure of Coyote and opening of Bee Canyon. This is necessary to determine cumulative impacts on the City of Irvine, especially if both facilities operate concurrently for a mid -to -long period of time. 2. The City requested analysis of final closure, especially in consideration,of a future possible transfer station, impacts - of a methane recovery system on future use, and a discussion of immediate after use. This was not donee Request A. Provide analysis as requested in response to NOP. Conclusion As can be seen from the preceding responses, the City Council does not feel that the DEIR adequately addresses potential impacts or mitigation measure feasibility. As a responsible agency which will have to consider the landfill expansion as part of a GPA, CUP, and grading permit process, the City consi- ders it paramount that all possible impacts are identified in sufficient detail to permit a knowledgeable decision by the Council during the City's permitting process. We would appreciate a thorough response to our concerns to be included in the final EIR. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEIR and I hope the final EIR will be satisfactory to all parties involved. Sincerely, THE CITY OF IRVINE LARRY AGRAN Mayor RM/pi City of Newport Beach X�2,-7 MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING A 7 OUNTv oP MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4D48 SANTA ANA, CA 92702 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA FILE (714) R34-4643 NOTICE OF MEETING ON COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL EIR Dear Interested Party: The purpose of this letter is to notify you of upcoming meetings on the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill EIR. As part of the on -going public participation program for this project, the County of Orange and its consultants will make presentations on the findings of the EIR as follows: Monday, November 14, 1983 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 15, 1983 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, November 15, 1983 6:30 p.m.* Newport Beach City Hall City Council Study Session 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Orange County Planning Commission Planning Commission Hearing Room Hall of Administration 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Irvine City Council 17200 Jamboree Road Irvine, CA 92713 Public testimony will be accepted at all of the above meetings and'where appropri- ate, responses will be included in the Final EIR. You are encouraged to express your views on this matter at any of the above meetings. It is expected that action will be taken by the Orange County Planning Commission on December 20, 1983 at 1:30 p.m. and by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on January 25, 1984 at 9:30 a.m. Please direct any questions you have to Mr. Bob Rusby, Orange County EMA%EAD, Post Office Box 4048, Santa Ana, California 92702-4048, (714) 834-2020: * Timing of the Irvine City Council meeting may be adjusted. Please cont� W Mr. Richard Masyczek, (714) 660-3934 for confirmation of meeting time o other details of the Irvine meeting. iOCR 311983e City of Newport Beach F C E ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING r OCT 121983 TO: Distribution List MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFO PIN IA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 FILE EIR 507 SUBJECT: Draft EIR 507, Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion Dear Recipient: TELEPHONE: (714)834.4643 In accordance with State and County Environmental Impact Report regulations, a copy of the Subject Draft EIR is attached for your review and comment concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR as it relates to your area of jurisdiction or ex- pertise. Copies of the Technical Appendices of the Draft EIR are available for review at the public libraries listed on the attached distribution list. Your comments will be incorporated into the EIR as appropriate prior to finalization. While a specific date for Planning Commission consideration of the Final EIR 'has not yet been determined, to insure that all comments received during the review process are given due consideration in the Final EIR, we request that your com- ments be returned to the Environmental Management Agency, ATTENTION: Robert Rusby, Environmental Analysis Division, P. 0. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 no later than November 25, 1983. If you have any questions concerning this EIR or the probable date of its consi- deration by the Orange County Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, you may expect prompt and courteous responses by contacting Robert Rusby at (714) 834-2070. questions on Coyote Canyon landfill operation should be directed to Mr. Ray Rhoads, Program Manager, GSA/Solid Waste Management Program at (714) 834-3595. Because of the expense of reproducing the Coyote Canyon EIR and its appendix, additional copies of these documents are available in the Reference Section of the libraries listed on the distribution list. If an additional copy of these documents.is needed for review, a limited number are available in the offices of the Environmental Analysis Division, Development Processing Center (DPC), 12 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA. Copies of the documents will also be available for sale from the cashier in the UPC at the following prices: Landfill EIR - $30.00; EIR Appendices - $20.00. Postage costs will be added if these documents are mailed. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. RPR:cs Attachment Very truly yours, F. W. Olson, /Manager Environmental Analysis Division City of Newport t3eacn Coyote Canyon Expansion dtary Landfill- SIR 507 • U. S. Fish and Wildlife 1000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Service Pate Vonturini, Regional Programs Calif. State Air Resources P. 0. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 Clearinghouse Southern CA Assn of Gone 600 South Cewisoniealtb Los Angles, CA 90005 Mr. Don Lollock 'CA State Fish 6 Game Dept 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 CA Dept. of Fish 6 Game Region 5 - ATTN: Jack Spurill 245 West Broadway Long Beach. CA 90802 Scott Morgan 0. C. Board of Supervisors District No. 1 Steve Malone 0. C. Board of Supervisors District No. 4 Bob Graves South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District Headquarters 9150 Flair Drive E1 Monte, CA 91731 Judy Curreri, Land Use Director Me. Terry Roberts League of Women Voters of O.C. State Clearinghouse 33081 Acapulco Office of Planning 6 Research Dana Point, CA 92629 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 J. Smith Gordon Anderson State Solid Waste Mgmt. Board California Water Quality Cntrl. P. 0. Box 1743 Board - Santa Ana Region 1020 Tenth Street. Suite 30 6809 Indiana Ave., Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92506 Kenneth Steel, Chief Brad Gates Environmental Planning Branch Orange County Sheriff -Coroner CA Dept. of Transportation 550 North Flower Street District 07 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Box 2304, Terminal Annex Attn: Captain La Ducer Los Angeles, CA Jan Goss Gaddi Vasquez 0. C. Board of Supervisors 0. C. Board of Supervisors District No. 2 District No. 3 Doreen Marshall Earl Wooden 0. C. Board of Supervisors 0. C. Planning Commission District No. 5 District No. 1 in M. Coen Charlotte Mousel C. Douglas Leavenworth C. Planning Commission 0. C. Planning Commission 0. C. Planning Commission tract No. 2 District No. 3 1 District No. 4 1 MacDougal 0. C. Historical Commission Gene Butain nge County Ping. Commission Rob Selway/Co. Fire Protection Planner trict No. 5 EMA/Open Space/Recreation/ 0. C. Fire Department Special Districts Program 180 Water Street Office. Orange, CA 92666-0086 Ty Bogle, Director t. of Comm. Development y of Irvine 0. Box 19575 ine, CA 92713 k Getzinger ✓ id Waste Enforcement Agency Civic Center Drive, West to Ana, CA 92701 James D. Bew$cker, Director Community Development 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attn: Fred Talarico Paul H. Knoph Assistant Director Env. Planner Office of Physical Plug. UCI Mr. Fred Estrada Juaneno Indian Board 325 North Broadway Santa Ana. CA 92702 Ronald C. Young Dir. of Engineering/Planning Irvine Ranch Water District P. 0. Box D1 Irvine. CA 91716-6025 acn. V I +� Irvine. d o r L tie DISTRIBUflo—N t8T FOR Coyote C*nypn Sanitary Landfil • Expsasion SIR 507 James Reichert, Ex. Director Paul Wright Fern Cohen 0. C. T. D. Sierra Club, Orange County Sea 6 Sage Audubon P. 0. box 3005 2821 Monterey Avenue P. 0. Box 1779 Garden Grove, CA 92642 Costa Mesa, CA 92620 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Fred Rice Sam Couch League of California Cities The Irvine Company The Irvine Company Orange County Division 550 Newport Canter Dr., 550 Newport Center Drive 118 West 5th St., Suite 5 P. 0. Box 1 P. 0. Box 1 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mitch Brown, PBR Blake P. Anderson, Dir. of Opne. U. C. Irvine General Library 18012 Sky Park Circle County Sanitation Dist. of O.C. Government Publications Irvine, CA 92714 P. 0. Box 8127 P. 0. Box 19557 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Irvine, CA 92713 Attn: Reference Librarian University Park Public Library Newport Beach Public Library Mr. Bricksen, HCA 4512 Sandburg Way Corona Del Mar Branch Environmental Health Irvine, CA 92664 420 Marig6ld Avenue 1725 West 17th Street Attn: Reference Librarian Corona Del Mar, CA Santa Ana, CA 92706 Attn: Reference Librarian 'Bob Rende, Manager Bryan G. Speegle, Manager Timothy S. Neely, Manager EMA/Project Planning EMA/Advance Planning EMA/CPDA Floyd G. McLellan, Manager ERA/Development Services W. L. 2aun, Program Manager EMA/Transportation/Flood Control Program Office Mike Luke, Assistant Engineer GSA/Waste Mgmt. Program Patricia McGuigan 5642 Kellson Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92704 Stan Tkacsyk Rainbow Disposal Huntington Beach D. R. Collacott, Chief EMA/Environeental Resources Ray Rhoads, Program Manager GSA/Waste Mgmt. Program J. Tilman Williams 11241 Chapman Avenue Garden Grove, CA 92640 Don McAllister City Councilperson Huntington beach /I R. F. Wingard, Program Manager ERA/open Space/Recreation/ Special Districts Program Offic,', Frank Bowerman, Chief Engineer GSA/Waste Mgmt. Program Janes E. Neal 9628 La Granada Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Joyce Risner City Councilparson Seal Beach Richard Ackerman, Mayor Kenneth Combs, Attorney City of Fullerton, City Hall 21402 Call* Sandero 303 West Commonr*altb E1 Toro, CA 92630 art City FulluCvvj. ?Url beacri I! 'l orma Hicks, Mayor City of Brea City Hall One Civic Center Drive Brea, CA 92621 Liberty Baptist Church 5108 Bonita Canyon Road Irvine, CA 92714 Iry Pickler 2377 Nall Avenue Anaheim, CA 92804 H. G. Osborne 811 N. Broadway, Rm. 600 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Patrick W. NcNelly 7151 Stanton Avenue Buena Park, CA 90621 Honorable Barbara Wiener Councilwoman, City or Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92713 Joseph L. Drey Joseph Dreg+ Co., 24302 Del Prado Ltd. Dana Point, CA 92629 Albert Nelson 3461-C Bahia Blanca W. Laguna Bills, CA 92653 Jim Jarrel, President O.C. Div., League of California Citites c/o Bob Haskell 412 West 4th St., Suite 203 Santa Ana, CA 92701, Ruth B. Finley, Councilwoman City of Huntington Beach City Hall P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Lee ginner, City Manager City of La Habra P.O. Box 337 La Habra, CA 90631 South Coast Community Church 3020 Park Newport Newport Beach, CA 92660 City of Newport Beach Je �w.-m -OUNTY OF e KZ 3 iZ,RAkP4 G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA (714) 834.4643 :October 11, 1983 TO: Notification of Availability List SUBJECT: Draft EIR 507, Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill EIR Dear Recipient: FILE MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 404E SANTA ANA, CA 92702 This is to advise you that Draft EIR 507 and its appendix on the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion has been completed and is available for review. Copies of these documents are available by contacting: Mr. Ed Moore, Senior Planner City of Irvine 2801 McGraw Irvine, CA 92713 (714) 660-3784 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2197 Copies of the EIR and technical appendix are also available at: U.C. Irvine General Library Government Publications P.O. Box 19557 Irvine, CA 92713 University Park Public Library 4512 Sandburg Way Irvine, CA 92664 Newport Beach Public Library Corona Del Mar Branch 420 Marigold Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA If you have questions or need additional information on the EIR, please contact Robert Rusby of the EMA-Environmental Analysis staff at (714). 834-2070. 0) Very truly yours, F. W. Olson, Manager 9 `p�. EMA-Environmental Analysis Division RPR: amG Notification , 19t -1 r r city of Newport Beach -r N*ICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF EI107 On the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill �wport Hills Community Assoc. to Villageway Management, Inc, )st Office Box 4708 -vine, CA 92716 )yglass Hill Community Assoc. to Villageway Management, Inc. )st Office Box 4708 'vine, CA 92716 ,ertt (Terry) Stake, Pres. yglass Ridge Comm. Assoc. 18 Reef View Drive rona Del Mar, CA 92625 m White, President oadmoor Campus View ,mmunity Association 11 Paseo de Vega vine, CA 92715 ke Dunn, President erra Bonita mmunity Association 51 Sierra Cieto vine, CA 92715 an Allen, President erra Broadmoor i mmunity Association 212 Sierra Isabella ,vine, CA 92715 Innis Tyler, President :n Ridge )mmunity Association 1 Sunburst :vine,. CA 92715 " )n Haddan, President inset Ridge iintenance Association Rainbow Ridge ,vine, CA 92713 )ward Mulholland lrtle Rock Broadmoor immunity Association 02 Canasha vine, CA 92714 James Wheless, President irtle Rock Glen mmunity Association Sycamore Creek vine, CA 92715 City William Kiper, President Turtle Rock Hills Community Association 18272 Via Palatino Irvine, CA 92715 Bill Wilson, President .Turtle Rock Terrace ,Community Association' 18981 Edington Terrace Irvine, CA 92715 Sandy Bennett, President Turtle Rock Vista Apartments #8 Rustling Wind Irvine, CA 92715 Robert Ullman Vista Community Association #5 Rocky Knoll Irvine, CA 92715 Steve Diamond, President Harbor Ridge Crest Comm. Assoc #24 Coventry Newport Beach, CA 92660 Campbell Property Services, Inc. 1714 Clark Avenue Long Beach, CA 90815 Marvin Kapelus, President Harbor Ridge Estate Maint. Ass #86 Harbor Ridge Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Virginia Campbell, President Harbor Ridge Master Assoc. #19 Sherbourg • Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Community Assoc. c/o Villageway Management, Inc. Post Office Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Mike Somogyi, President c/o Irvine Pacific Development Post Office Box 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Hills Homeowners c/o Management Services 1234 E. Normandy Place Santa Ana, CA 92705 Harbor View Knoll Comm. Assoc. c/o Villageway Management, Inc, Post Office Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Spyglass Hill Comm. Assoc. c/o Villageway Management, Inc. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Spyglass Ridge Comm. Assoc. Evertt Stake 1618 Reef View Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 u Newport Hills Comm. Assoc. c/o Villageway Management P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Harbor Hill Comm. Assoc. Mike Somogyi, President c/o Irvine Pacific Dev. P.O. Box I Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Knoll Comm. Assoc. cfo Villageway•Management, Inc. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Harbor View Hills Homeowners c/o Management Services 1234 E. Normandy Place Santa Ana, CA 92705 Harbor Ridge Crest Comm. Assoc. Steve Diamond, President #24 Coventry .Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Ridge Est. Maint. Assoc. Marvin Kapelus, President #86 Harbor Ridge Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Y Harbor Ridge Master Assoc. Virginia Campbell, President #19 Sherbourg Newport Beach, CA 92660 Turtle Rock Terrace Comm. Assoc. Bill Wilson ' 18981 Edington Terrace Irvine, CA 92715 Harbor View Comm. Assoc. Turtle Rock Vista Apartments c/o Villageway Management, Inc. ,Sandy Bennett P.O. Box 4708 18•Rustling Wind Irvine, CA 92716 Irvine, CA 92715 3roadmoor Campus View ,ommunity Association Jim White 5011 Paseo de Vega Crvine, CA 92715 Tierra Bonita Comm. Assoc. ,Like Dunn i851 Sierra Cieto :rvine, CA 92715 Tierra Broadmoor Comm. Assoc. roan Allen 9212 Sierra Isabella rvine, CA 92715 un Ridge Comm. Assoc. ennis Tyler 8 Sunburst rvine, CA 92715 unset Ridge Maint. Assoc. 'on Haddan i7 Rainbow Ridge .rvine, CA 92713- 'urtle Rock Broadmoor :omm. Assoc. toward Mulholland i392 Canasha , :rvine, CA 92714 j 'urtle Rock Hills Comm. Assoc. lilliam Kiper 8272 Via Palatino rvine, CA 92715 Vista Comm. Assoc. Robert Ullman 5 Rocky Knoll Irvine, CA 92715 I urtle Rock Glen Comm. Assoc. James Wheless + _ :rvine, CA Creek 92715 'sty of Newport Beach fioffma n$usiness Consultants Inc ((V0 0October 6, 1983 pp BEN NON 011�. Mr. Robert Wynn City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Wynn: As you know, the County of Orange is in the process of completing a draft EIR for potential expansion of the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. As part of the public participation program for this EIR, public scoping meetings were held in Irvine and Newport Beach in July to help determine topics to be covered in the EIR. At this time, we have scheduled public meetings in Irvine and Newport Beach to present the findings of the EIR as it goes out for public review to assist interested parties in reviewing and commenting on the document. These meetings are scheduled as follows: Tuesday: October 18, 1983, 7:00 p.m. Turtle Rock Community Park Turtle Rock Drive, Irvine Wednesday: October 19, 1983, 7:00 p.m. Oasis Senior Center Marguerite at 5th, Corona del Mar Notices of this meeting are being sent to the mailing list devel- oped for the first meetings and includes homeowners' associations in the vicinity, as well as other adjoining property owners, the Waste Management Advisory Commission, etc. The public participation program also calls for one public meeting before the Planning Commission and/or City Council of each city prior to the end of the EIR review period in late November. We would recommend a meeting date in your city during the first of second week of November if such seems necessary as a result of the 2300 Michelson, Suite 300, IIMi 'f, Q4-92714 . P.O. Box 17822, Irvine, CA 92713 . 714/752.5880 Mr. Robert Wynn October 6, 1983 Page 2 meetings in October. The input received at these meetings could then be incorporated into your comments on the EIR. Please advise me as to the direction your city wishes to take on this meeting, and I will work with you to coordinate the dates, the presenta- tion, etc. We could arrange a study session for the Council if this would be preferable. We appreciate your assistance in this matter, and will look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, HOFFMAN BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, INC. � C & LGL.A.I, Carol A. Hoffman CAH/yd cc: YFred Talarieo Bob Rusby, Orange County EMA/EAD Mitch Brown, PBR City of Newport Beach UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOOIA, IRVINE • V FF O r. DEnEELEY DAViS IRVINE • LOS ANCELLS RIVERSIDE • SAN DlECO SAN FEANCISCO SANTA •JAIiDAEA •SANTA CRUZ ,� „� o' OFFICE OF PHYSICAL PLANNING County of Orange Environmental Management Agency 811 North Broadway Santa Ana, California 92702 Attention: Robert P. Rusby Re: Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Dear Sir: IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92717 August 4, 1983 �� •.yy,\h Lt.� ,;�.. 1993a► { I�WPOtiRJ�1d�`� Thank you for your letter bf July 6, 1983, informing the University of the proposed expansion of the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. The University is affected by the landfill operation and is concerned about its expansion. The University's concerns center around odors, traffic, and the possible.pollution of the San Joaquin Reservoir. Odors The University is developing its landholdings in the southern portion of the campus for housing, research and community related uses. Recent construction in the area includes 100 apartments for faculty and 300 apartments for students.. An 80 unit recreational vehicle park housing approximately 150 students will be expanded in the near future. A University/Community Conference Center was recently completed in the area. Research facilities for the Physical Sciences, Engineering and the Computer Sciences are either under construction, or in the design stage. The Regents recently approved the construction of 260 units of for —sale housing for faculty and staff as the first increment of a larger housing program. Plans are being developed for additional housing for fraternities, sororities and other organizations. Upon the completion of these projects, the resident population on campus will be approximately 6000 persons. All of the facilities in the southern portion of the campus are, or will be, affected by odors from the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Numerous complaints of nausea caused by odors from the landfill operation have been expressed by residents of the current Faculty Apartment complex and the Recreational Vehicle Park. It can be anticipated similar complaints will be received from the new City of Newport .Beach 300 units student apartment complex when the units are occupied this fall. The odors could also have a negative effect on the marketing of the for -sale housing units. As this program is intended to provide affordable housing for faculty and staff to encourage the recruitment and retention of qualified faculty and professional staff, the lack of marketability of the housing due to off -site environmental conditions could have a serious impact on the quality of teaching and research programs. I was particularly concerned to hear, at the scoping meeting held in Turtle Rock, that although the sanitary landfill has been in operation since 1963, it has only been during the past 4 months that special action has been undertaken to reduce odors. Traffic At the present time, a major approach to the campus from the beach cities is the MacArthur Boulevard -University Drive -California Avenue route. With the continued development of research facilities within the Campus's Health Sciences Complex, the construction of other academic facilities, and the expansion of the on -campus resident population, it is imperative that additional access roads be constructed from the peripheral roads to the central portion of the campus. The University intends to extend the Health Sciences Road in the southwest portion of the campus to Bonita Canyon Road as a first step in the improvement of access to the campus from the coastal communities. Eventually this road would connect to Bison Road and the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. The effectiveness of the Health Sciences Road to Bonita Canyon Road will be seriously reduced and traffic hazards increased by all manner of disposal trucks now using the landfill. It is the plan of the University to develop the Bonita Canyon Road access to the campus within the next two years. San Joaquin Reservoir The University is -also concerned over any possible contamination of the San Joaquin Reservoir from the sanitary landfill. Under an agreement between the University and the Irvine Ranch Water District, the University purchased a share in the storage capacity of the reservoir. The University would lose a valuable source of water if the reservior were closed. In consideration of the above factors, the Universtiy urges that the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill be closed at the earliest possible date. Under no circumstances should the operation be extended past the present lease terms, and all fill operations should cease by 1986/87 per -Plan B. XIA 0 2_t�� Paul H. Knopf Assistant Director Environmental Planning PHK/nh/R-4 cc: Ed Morre - City of Irvine Fred Talarico - City of Newport Beach Doreen Marshall - Board of Supervisors - Fifth District City of Newport t3each July 19 and 20, 1983 COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL EIR SCOPING MEETING FACT SHEET MEETING PARTICIPANTS: ° County of Orange Environmental Management Agency (EMA), Environmental Ta ysis Division F.W. (Bill) Olson, Manager Robert P. Rusby, Senior Planner ° County of Orange General Services Agency (GSA), Waste Management rogram Ray Rhoads, Manager Frank Bowerman, Chief Engineer Mike Luke, Office Engineer ° Phillips Brandt Reddick (PBR), Environmental Consultant Carol Hoffman, Government Relations Consultant Mitchell Brown, Director of Environmental Planning LANDFILL OPERATIONS: ° County of Orange currently operates four sanitary landfills: - Coyote Canyon - Olinda- - Santiago - Prima Deschecha ° Coyote Canyon opened in 1963 ° Site is owned by the Irvine Company and leased to the County of Orange ° Sanitary landfill is operated by Orange County GSA Waste Management Program ° Coyote Canyon is classified as a "II-2 Landfill" which indicates that it does not receive liquid or hazardous waste materials ° Coyote Canyon has received approximately 40 million cubic yards of solid waste since opening. ° It currently receives approximately 4,500 tons of waste per day or 50% of the county's total daily waste generated ° Coyote Canyon Services a population of approximately 1.0 million persons EIR INFORMATION: ° The County of Orange intends to close the landfill and has developed alternative grading plans for final landfill contour and cover soil borrow sites ° The EIR will comparatively analyze the impacts of these alternatives and recommend potential mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce these impacts ° Comments regarding issues to be addressed in this EIR should be for- warded by August 8, 1983 to Robert Rusby, EMA Environmental Division, Post Office Box 4048, Santa Ana, California 92702-4048, telephone (714) 834-2070 ° The Draft EIR will be distributed for public review on or about October 1, 1983. Copies will be available at Irvine and Newport Beach city halls, local libraries, and from the County of Orange at the above address ° Additional meetings will include- - Informational public workshops in Irvine and Newport Beach during the first two weeks of October 1983 - Hearings before the City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach Planning Commissions and/or City Councils will be held during the last two weeks of October 1983 - Hearings before the Orange County Planning Commission are tentatively set for October 27 and November 17, 1983 - An Orange County Board of Supervisors hearing is tentatively set for December 14, 1983 City of Newport Beach ®f Orange 0 MUD D ® F880-123.1 DATE: June 30, 1983 s .,- Distribution List DEPT/DIST: .'RQM: F.W. Olson, Manager EAD UBJECT: Coyote Canyon Expansion EIR Prepreparation Meeting 6/16/83 At the subject meeting we announced that participants would be sent a summary of the issues raised in discussion of the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill expansion EIR. Attached is that summary of issues. If you have any questions or concerns on the summary, please contact Robert Rusby of the Division at 834-2070. Zft( <7 F. W. Olson TV RPR: j kj Attachment Distribution List: Bob Collocott, EMA/Env. Resources Kathleen Brady.-Rebella, EMA/Trans. Planning Gene White, Gene White Assoc. Ed Moore, City of Irvine Fred Talarico, City of Newport Beach M. Luke/P. Wang, GSA/Waste Mgmt. Program Doreen Marshall, 5th District Bd. of Supervisors Dayne Styles, The Irvine Co. Fred Rice, The Irvine Co. Mary Gass, EMA/Historical Commission Herb Nakosone, EMA/Project Planning Mike Ruane, EMA/Advanced Planning Bob Peterson, EMA/Env. Analysis Div. s City of Newport Beach M e 1i SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED - 6/16/83 PROJECT START-UP MEETING COYOTE CANYON LAND FILL EIR GSA Waste Management Program - County is currently leasing the site from The Irvine Company. Because the existing grading plan is inadequate, new borrow sites for cover and landfill expansion and eventual closure requirements must be addressed by EIR. - EIR should address the impacts of 3 different grading plans and the borrow sites. - Preliminary geotechnical studies were conducted as part of the RBF grading plans (surface investigations only). Subsurface investigations need to be carried out to determine if the quality of soil needed for daily cover and final cover is acceptable. - The RBF plan may be seen from Harbor View Hills and Spy Glass Hill. - Sufficient cover material is not available on site and must be imported. EMA/EAD - Currently dumping wet sludge at Coyote Canyon; need to contact R.W.Q.C.D. to determine concerns regarding impact on groundwater quality (a report has already been prepared on this issue). - EIR should explore potential for using cover materials graded as part of major transportation projects in area (i.e., San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor). EIR must carefully evaluate alternatives including proposed grading plans (A, B, and C), cover fill from transportation projects, other potential cover sources in vicinity. - EIR should address noise impacts from truck traffic and grading operations, litter on Bonita Canyon Road and air quality impacts from methane gas and vehicular traffic. The Irvine Compan - Pelican Hills Road is currently on hold; an EIR will be required eventually but the extension of Pelican Hills Road is not part of this EIR; primary concern is that landfill plans do not preclude extension of this road. - The borrow sites are considered part of the landfill area; an overlay designation was included in the County's General Plan to note the existing borrow area as support for the landfill designation (Public Facilities); the overlay reverts back to underlying use when borrow is complete; Coyote Canyon designated as Public Facility (4) in LUE by GPA 83-1; GPA may be required for expansion. City of Newport Beach Page Two - Previous grading plan was prepared without consideration of final topographic relationship to ultimate use; revised plans would facilitate future recreational development. City of Newport Beach - No major complaints from Spyglass/Harbor View Hills area residents previously. - Plans to take down Spyglass Mesa will create problems with residents. - EIR should address compatibility of final grading plans with surrounding residential uses. City of Irvine _ - Concerned about proper operation and management of landfill including problems such as odors, truck traffic, litter, dust and long term aesthetics (cites example of leachate at Rancho San Joaquin). - Asked for clarification regarding intent to expand landfill into City of Irvine incorporated area and relationship to City plans, policies and permits. - Described potential leachate problems and emphasized need for run-off control, protection of San Joaquin Reservoir, and performance standards for odor control and groundwater protection. - EIR should address relationship of Bee Canyon to Coyote Canyon regarding phasing. - Owners of San Joaquin Reservoir should be contacted (joint powers ownership between City of Newport -Beach, MWD and several others). - Methane migration and recovery should be carefully addressed. Supervisor Riley's'Office - EIR should address sludge burial and traffic analysis carefully. r - Some residents in the area have expressed complaints in the past, particularly Turtle Rock residents in the Irvine area. EMA - Transportation Planning - EIR should address projected volumes on arterial roadways, percent of trash trucks, ICU's for key intersections, acceleration lanes for trucks; impact of truck traffic on pavement life and identification of haul routes. EMA'-'Public Works - Construction of SJHTC is not anticipated to begi'n.for at least 5 years. - Pelican Hills Road should be considered in the landfill plans and no fill should be put in the planned alignment. UILY Ui iN4UWPUF L Deacr 1 Page Three • ., W EMA/EAD - Cultural Resources , , - Several archaeological sites are known to exist in the area (previous study prepared by LSA). EIR should address impacts on known or potential sites -for each grading- - plan. - No major paleontological resources have been identified at the site: City of Newport Beach 1 Y A Task D*Berlptlon t PROTECT m IIAi ION AM OEFINITION 4 DATA CONSOLIDATIm, RE1£ARO1 AM IVNLYSIB 3 BCOPINB NEETINBS 4 PRELINSNARY I EIR SCREENCHECK 6 REVEW/REVISIONS-DEIR 8 P IC PARTICIPATION AND IEETINBS 7 REEPWSE TO DRAFT EIR Ca19ENTB AM FINAL EIR 0 BENEI C06N11NATION AND 1 TINBS 17P ARATION OF EIR FINDINGS AND BOOM RESDI.Di10148 Revised Project Schedule ti COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL EXPANSION EIR am JW7. Aug B6Dt Oct Nor 2 19 23 SO 7 14 21 26 6 11 13 25 t B TE 22 29 S 16 20 27 0 10 17 24 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46-O6y �0611a H6YIM1 __%. r---_____ ____? LEGEND jF SCOPNG MEETINGS PUBLIC WORKSHOPS • NEW►ORT BEACHNRVNE PLANNING COMMISSN)N AND1OR CITY COUNCIL O ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS ® BOARD OF SU►ERVISORS EIR CERTIFICATN)M City of Newport Beach Doc T S 14 25 26 W 0 • MURRAY STORM DIRECTOR, EMA 4 > OUNTY OF e �D3)'RAN G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING June 9, 1983 Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Mr. Talarico: ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 TELEPHONE: (714) 834-4643 FILE Coyote Canyon Expansion EIR The EIR preparation meeting for expansion of the Coyote Canyon Sanitary land- fill will be held on Thursday, June 16, 1983 at 2:00 p.m. in the Current Planning conference room. The conference room is located in Room G21 in the Engineering/Finance annex. The address of the building is 12 Civic Center Plaza. Look for the number on the building. Pay parking is available adjacent to the Hall of Administration. Please be prepared to discuss any issues that concern you about the project. PBR, the consultant on the EIR will be in attendance along with all their subconsultants to note your concerns. If you have any questions on the project or this meeting, please call Robert Rusby of the Division staff at 834-2070. RPR: j kj Very truly yours, F. W. Olson, Manager Environmental Analysis Division p � w. I J, City of Newport Beau - 'fFl!FD STSEET -_ � - - `—p _• — — f L----j L 7wms W r U N Z_ 11\\ I � F �— U I IiC _ FREEWAYS MUT lSANTA ANA _ TAEET CIVIC CENTER - City of Newport Beach W My_ 2uf Newport Beach 2e 114eew evL ri2 ( % _Kev1L-Imichvi;n�iah socl_' , c ��4-9g46 f2s-n 7Z r cg Cn --- 72-0 3