V v
." « • ' • rw / IULA^^ *^ *
- ^ v^> 1 Jf^ ^ ' ' I
n"Bernardino^ jCalifornia
v
^^^. IK^ if^&^^t
Aktt,
/ •>
•
r^<»
.
-------
successful sanitary landfill siting:
county of san bernardino, California
This publication (SW—617) was written
by NANCY G. DUNNE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1977
-------
Acknowledgements. The author extends special thanks to
Robert Colonna, former Director, Systems Management
Division, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency; to Kenneth K. Hekimian and Michael Wagner,
Lockman and Associates, Monterey Park, California, for use
of their Environmental Impact Report for an East Valley
Sanitary Site and technical data on the County of San
Bernardino; and to Dennis Hansberger, Chairman, County
Board of Supervisors, and B. C. Escobar, Director, Solid
Waste Management Division of the County of San Bernardi-
no, California, for the time and effort they contributed to this
study.
-------
successful sanitary landfill siting:
county of san bernardino, California
"Sanitary landfills are designed to control leachate. Careful
attention is paid to underlying soil and hydrogeological
conditions, cover permeability, and types of solid waste to be
placed in the fill."1 Sanitary landfill is the least costly, most
environmentally sound disposal method for most communi-
ties. Yet finding sites for sanitary landfills is a critical problem.
This has been true for several reasons, mainly because of the
lingering image of the open dump and the unappealing
prospect of living near one. "Not in my backyard" has become
the standard public reaction to sites proposals.
In addition the term "sanitary landfill" is often misused to
describe facilities which are not in fact sanitary landfills. Such
facilities have created leachate and gas migration problems,
along with a local reluctance to accept future so-labeled sites.
The result is that communities maintain inadequate disposal
for all types of waste at risk to public health and the
environment.
Alternatives to landfilling, such as resource recovery, do not
solve the problem. Resource recovery and recycling are not
economically feasible for all areas, and when they are,
significant residues inevitably remain to be landfilled. Thus,
while these practices are important goals and are often to a
community's advantage, they do not eliminate the continuing
need for disposal sites.
At present, the need for new sites is greater than ever before.
In October 1976, the Federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (P.L. 94-580) was passed. The Act provides for
closure or upgrading of all open dumps and operation of
least costly, most environmentally
sound disposal method
the term is often misused
'Weddle, B. R..
and G. A. Garland.
Dumps: A Potential Threat to Our
Groundwater Supplies, Nation's
Cities,
12(10): 21-22, 24-25, 42, Oct. 1974.
-------
the process used in San Bernardino
may be useful to other communities
State requirements
environmentally acceptable sites. It mandates specific guid-
ance for solid waste officials and assurance to the public that
future sites will be sanitary landfills.
As the new guidelines are implemented and disposal sites
improve, the public may become better able to accept sanitary
landfills. This means, however, that improvements must begin
and that solid waste managers and local officials must find
solutions to the siting crisis.
In an effort to be of assistance, the Office of Solid Waste
surveyed communities over the past year and selected
examples of successful attempts to locate sites and obtain
approval. The County of San Bernardino is one such example.
While soil and other conditions in the county differ from those
in some areas of the country, it is hoped that the process used
in San Bernardino may be useful to other communities in the
selection and approval of sanitary landfills.
the county of san bernardino
The County of San Bernardino is located 60 miles east of
Los Angeles, California. It is the largest county in the
continental United States (20,160 square miles) and has a
population of 703,000. It has one major urban area, a valley
containing 75 percent of the population. The valley is divided
into two main sections, East Valley, which has four major
cities, and West Valley, with five cities. The rest of the county
contains rural and unincorporated mountain areas and the
Mojave Desert. In planning and growth it is a progressive
county with a landuse plan established in 1966, and the first
countywide solid waste plan in California developed in 1975.
The solid waste plan was carried out under the California
State Solid Waste Management Board guidelines. The State
requirements include conformance with air quality and
ground water protection standards and disposal of wastes
according to three classes of landfills. Class I sites are for toxic
wastes, Class II sites for municipal wastes, and Class III for
nontoxic construction and demolition wastes.
The county Public Works Agency's Refuse Disposal
Division had the task of examining present county operations
and selecting a consultant to prepare the plan. In addition the
-------
disposal officials planned to extend collection services
wherever feasible, maximize efficiency in disposal, identify
deficiencies in landfill capacity, locate new sites, and prepare
for resource recovery.
In 1974 during examination of the East Valley operations it
became apparent that there were serious problems with the
Redlands municipal landfill. The landfill was located in the
city, adjacent to the Santa Ana River wash. It had been
operating since 1963, and 95 tons of municipal solid waste
were being filled each day. At this rate it was estimated that the
site would reach capacity in 2 years. At this same time the
Regional Water Quality Board determined that the site was
polluting the river, a source of drinking water for Redlands,
and the Board wanted the site closed immediately.
The Redlands officials were aware of the problem, and they
had already attempted to locate a new site. They failed because
of the political roadblocks in choosing one district over
another. The mayor and council were now requesting county
assistance.
At the county and city staff level, arrangements were made
for the county to locate and operate a new Redlands site with
an estimated 20 year capacity. The county arranged for a
technical site selection analysis and an Environmental Impact
Report so that a recommendation could be made for a Class II
site for inclusion in the solid waste plan and also in an
amendment to the general county plan. They estimated the
project would take about 10 months with site construction
shortly afterwards.
organizing for success
The seven keys to success learned from San Bernardino
are:(1) establish the need for a new site; (2) obtain the support
of the elected officials; (3) stress economics and technical
considerations and a broadbased approach, i.e. resource
recovery, solid waste plan; (4) evaluate all reasonable options
in an objective and thorough manner; (5) provide a positive
management track record with examples of well-run landfills;
(6) open the process to the public as early as possible; (7)
maintain site candidate options until the final hearings and
decisions.
serious problems with the present
landfill
new Redlands site
Keys to Success:
• establish need
• obtain support
• stress economic and technical
considerations
• evaluate all options
• provide a positi\e track record
• open the process to the public as
early as possible
• maintain site candidate options
-------
economic, environmental, and social
factors
request for proposal approved
First and most important, the county Board of Supervisors
made a commitment to find a replacement for the present site.
The Chairman of the Board, who was also Supervisor of the
district needing a replacement site, encouraged study funds for
the project and the solid waste and planning departments, and
stressed the project's importance at public meetings. He also
promoted a low-keyed reasonability toward the siting that the
county staff maintained and that helped stabilize public
emotion during the process. The approach was that a
replacement site was necessary, the county planned to proceed
and wanted to make the most economically acceptable choice.
To fully evaluate the choices the county examined all the
options in terms of economics, environmental and social
impacts and potential modifications. For thoroughness as well
as for objectivity they decided to hire a consultant to take the
technical lead. The county also relied on a well-established
track record in solid waste management with many well-
operated landfills in the county where citizens lived nearby
without objection.
Finally it was a "sunshine" process. By law no closed
meetings of the Planning Commission or staff were allowed so
that information and decisions were open to those who wished
to participate.
starting up
The County. The county Board of Supervisors approved a
Request for Proposal for a 6-week site analysis contract and
Environmental Impact Report. The county Environmental
Improvement Agency's Planning Department was assigned to
be the contracting agency. The Planning Department
coordinated with the Public Works Agency's Disposal
Division, which was responsible for the overall solid waste
plan, and hired the same firm that was under contract with
Refuse Disposal Division to do the solid waste plan. This
meant the consultant to be used already had particular
expertise and information on the county.
The Technical Work. The economic and technical investiga-
tions were central to the siting process and to the eventual site
approval. They were the basis for the county's presentations at
hearings and the keys to the public relations. The philosophy
-------
was to be totally prepared: every reasonable option would be
investigated and evaluated, including the "no project"
alternative, i.e., no new replacement site.
The economic evaluations included both the cost of owning
and operating each site as well as the cost of transportation to
each site. For each combination of sites the total cost of haul
plus disposal was computed explicitly on a consistent basis.
The consultant used a computer model that he developed,
which was able to identify to the county the total costs of each
alternative, evaluate the subjective factors involved, and
produce the lowest cost solution and best overall sites
(Figure 1).
The disadvantage to the computer-based approach was the
expense. For the 6-week study the cost of San Bernardino's
consultant was $22,500. This cost did not include that of the
previous work done by the consultant for the state-mandated
solid waste plan. This work was completed for an additional
every reasonable option would be
investigated and evaluated
Figure 1. Evaluation of Existing Alternative Sites
Decisions
Factors
Available landfill
tons per per day
Years remaining
Proximity to
Redlands
Hauling expense
Vehicle
maintenance
Access
Energy
Traffic
Air pollution
Present Redlands
Site
95
2
inside city
minimal
minimal
available;
no difficulty
minimal
not a
problem
Colton
Site
260
11
11.3
miles
significant
20(t to 3(k
per mile
per ton
significant
available;
no difficulty
increased use
increased
emissions
increased
up to 20%
Yucaipa
Site
114
16
9.5
miles
significant
20c to 30c
per mile
per ton
significant
located op a
steep incline
from Redlands
increased use
increased
emissions
increased
up to 20%
Conclusions
The Colton site life would be significantly
shortened by the addition of Redland's waste
The Yucaipa site would not be significantly
affected
The Colton site would be the most unfavorable
distance
The Yucaipa site would be an unfavorable
distance; more favorable than Colton
The Colton site would be most expensive
The Yucaipa site would be expensive because
of a steep grade (up to 8 percent)
The Colton site would result in expensive
vehicle maintenance because of the distance
The Yucaipa site would result in more vehicle
maintenance because of distance and access
difficulty
The Yucaipa site would involve great
difficulty; most unfavorable
There would be increases in energy usage
with the Colton or Yucaipa site
There would be more traffic on the highways
and routes to the Colton and Yucaipa sites
There would be emissions of up to 20% increase
by using the Colton or Yucaipa site; air
emissions are crucial to control in the county
because of the poor air quality
-------
Figure 2. Methodology for HADOPT Model
D^posal
Colt
Per Ton
FOR A SINGLE
DISPOSAL SITE
Tons Per Day
Cost
Per Ton
Transportation
Con Par Ton
FORA
SINGLE TRUCK
Sum of Transportation
Colt and Disposal Cost
Disposal Cost
For Several Sites
Transportation Cost
For Several Trucks
Number of Duposal Si
Figure 2 graphs the factors which determine the most economical disposal solutions, using the consultant's HADOPT
computer model. Certain factors are combined in the first two graphs. In the third graph an optimum range of site solutions is
selected from a final combination of factors.
*For other large counties or
groups of communities who may be
interested, a similar model entitled
WRAP
(Waste Resource Allocation
Program)
is available free from EPA.
For information contact the
Office of Solid Waste, 401 M Street,
S.W
Washington, D.C. 20460 (AW-464)!
$44,000. Localities without the size or resources for such an
effort may prefer to use in-house staff and manual evaluation.
The important idea is to employ the resources and technical
effort necessary for thorough results.
In the 6 weeks that followed, the consultant set up a three-
stage technical work plan. First he established the economic
basis for a new site by examining several alternatives. Second,
he considered the site candidates, rating and narrowing them
on a technical and economic basis. Third, he presented the
results to a technical advisory panel and then to the Planning
Commission for input and recommendations.
Existing site alternatives consisted of the Colton and
Yucaipa sites. The conclusion was that these did not represent
least-cost alternatives, and that it would be more cost-effective
and more consistent with environmental goals for the county
to purchase a new site. The results were determined by the
consultant's computer model, the HADOPT, which analyzed
a combination of size and location of landfills, landfill costs,
and haul costs (Figure 2).
-------
Resource recovery was also considered, with the conclusion
that at present it was not feasible because of the air quality
risks, expenses, marketing problems, and lengthy construction
periods. However, future landfill mining was considered
feasible, using the organic wastes for potential refuse-derived
fuel (RDF) or pyrolysis or marketing the methane gas
produced by the landfill. Transfer stations were considered in
view of the possible distance of a new landfill, as were baling
and shredding to reduce volume and lengthen the life of the fill.
Final evaluations were to be part of the design specifications at
the time of site acceptance.
The consultant then looked for suitable areas for a new site.
His minimum requirements were: 15-year capacity; nonpor-
ous cover material, base for natural liner; 100 foot depth for
landfilling; proper drainage control; available access; onsite
roads; compatible surrounding land use; reasonable distance
from residential areas; reasonable distance from historical
sites; reasonable distance from endangered species habitats.
The consultant discarded the areas with "fatal flaws,"
characteristics precluding consideration. Those areas were
prime agricultural lands, watersheds and urban areas. Left
were a number of canyons close to the city. He examined these
for fatal flaws such as washouts, slides, texture, and rockiness.
He finally identified 13 sites (see location maps, Figures 3 and
4), and conducted a preliminary Environmental Impact
Report that included potential mitigations for each site. The
sites were presented to a technical siting panel. Then three
information and feedback meetings were held to present the
findings to the citizens. Afterwards eight of the 13 sites were
eliminated, chiefly because of economics (one site needed an
expensive drainage system) and aesthetics (several sites would
be visible to many residents or travelers). The remaining four
sites were presented to and weighted by the Planning
Commission in terms of overall social impacts (see Tables 1 to
10). The consultant examined the results and came up with the
final two site recommendations: Sites A and B.
The Panel and the Planning Commission: Links to the
Citizens. The technical advisory panel was composed of five
professionals: a public works engineer, city planner, county
planner, biologist, and geologist. The consultant's results went
minimum requirements for a new site
final two site recommendations
-------
Figure 3. Sites Considered and Sites Selected
„,
v* — — **r ,x
j P--£ ..........
" -
-. ,..,,, .
• ' ir.-,-••-'.:• -^T^Tl/rr.^ T-:1- .- ' » :
—s'v^^-AJ^ '^'s"1 . » '- '4T
7V^^^-^^:-^H.- ,,,^1.
.JL. _'_ J^_^
"•-._«"*»>* .^
^r^-' ..,*. {*" SCALE 1.62,
LEGEND
. .
I I CONSIDERED SITE
:HXji:;j:;ip;;.
'-Z^^^ I'liiin^Up^'AtresJl; • U»"i«P
•^j^: ---*.^,T^/**,C - J "
-^%^;^';4~ y u^c
-------
Figure 4. Site Location—Sites A and B
g&^grf-.-,:-' ,^^^S>>%g
: --: -, L>«. -v -"
,^^?^\i3^;.^RmN(rc5ii_ '_[ i - SA\ BF
CO — ~
•- -s^.
^e<
I > • ~X ,T
R4W R3W
-------
multi-level review process
maintaining several alternatives
allowed citizens to provide more
input
to these panelists, and their recommendations were presented
to the Planning Commission and to the citizens.
The multi-level review process was a key element.
Professionals judging the technical merits and elected officials
representing the citizens' interests invited more balanced
recommendations. A further benefit of the Commissioners'
participation in the process was that they were well-informed
by the time the Planning Commission hearings were held and
therefore better prepared to make decisions.
A further note on the technical advisory panel is that the
limited number of panel members made a workable and
efficient committee so the process could move on schedule.
Often in communities when an advisory panel approach is
used, larger diverse groups are involved. While this improves
the link to the community, it sacrifices efficiency, and after
much time and effort by the committee, the citizens at the
hearings usually still resist the sites; so little has been gained
and much time lost. The San Bernardino approach addressed
these limitations. The one recommendation for improvement
would be to have a real estate broker in order to add another
dimension to the advisory panel.
The Sites Selected: Maintaining A Choice. The selection
process came up with several sites for the county decision-
makers and citizens. There were no further reductions in
candidates until the decision was made at the final hearings.
Maintaining several alternatives throughout the public
hearings was considered essential. It allowed the citizens to
provide more input into the final decision, and the decision-
makers to weigh the impacts at the hearings to best serve their
constituents. Also, from a strategic viewpoint it was a way to
avoid having people concentrate their opposition on a single
site. This took some of the pressure from the decision-makers,
and gave the citizens a chance to work out some of the issues.
In making the final recommendations, five sites were rated
by the technical staff in terms of environmental impact factors;
these were then weighted by the Commissioners in terms of
social impacts. The consultant assigned rating and weighting
numbers according to several levels and priorities of itmesand
then combined them, using a mathematical formula to provide
a composite index. This was considered a means to quantify
subjective factors and arrive at the best overall sites. The
10
-------
results were presented to the Planning Commission, and two
sites emerged as prime candidates: Sites A and B in San
Timoteo Canyon. A summary of the five candidates and their
weighted ratings follows in the charts done by the consultant.
Site B was the site eventually accepted. According to B.C.
Escobar, Director of the Refuse Disposal Division, in a letter
to the author, "It is the understanding . . . that the main
objection to Site A was that the location was not as accessible
as Site B since the roads leading to the site would have
traversed through more residential areas than those of Site B.
Therefore, the impact on the community, which is to the north
of the site, was going to be greater than that of Site B. Site A
would have moved the site more to the west, making the haul
of refuse from the City of Redlands that much farther. Site B,
at this time, is in a secluded, less-conspicuous area than Site A
would have been."
public relations
The Keys. No matter how real the need for a site or how solid
the technical basis, the ultimate public acceptance of a site is
dependent upon its presentation. A successful presentation
rests upon familiarity with the specific reasons for selection of
a particular site, appreciation for the potential environmental
impacts of the sites, and the ability to respond with positive
solutions that the citizens can understand.
The proper framework as stated above must be set as soon
as the need for a site is recognized and should be followed
through the technical findings and into the public hearings. If
the county or municipality feels there is insufficient evidence to
judge citizen perspectives, then a citizen attitude survey may be
necessary in order to increase management awareness and
confidence. If the local solid waste decisions have been
ineffectual so that citizens would not have confidence in
solutions proposed by the local management, then a public
information program is in order, with an open discussion of
past difficulties, and the rationale for the present site selection.
This will raise public confidence and foster greater responsive-
ness to the local officials.
acceptance of a site is dependent
upon its presentation
a public information program will
raise public confidence
-------
supplementary program to
familiarize the citizens is often
necessary
door-to-door approach
information programs in schools
citizen-oriented films
In San Bernardino the public information program
embodied this approach: strong leadership, coordination,
input from citizens and representatives, anticipation of
objections, and thorough technical preparation for the
hearings and public meetings.
Information for Citizens. The citizen education program
can be one effective way to improve citizen awareness and
lessen resistance to at least the concept of the sanitary landfill.
In most cases there is little awareness of what a sanitary landfill
actually is. The supplementary program to familiarize the
citizens is often necessary when approaching them with a site
recommendation for one of their neighborhoods. Depending
on the degree of anticipated resistance, there are various
programs that can be offered.
The most effective program is the door-to-door approach, in
which a staff person goes out, explains the concept of the
sanitary landfill, and answers questions and objections. This is
the most expensive kind of program, but it is the most
effective. The next most effective programs are serial
newspaper articles or newsletters explaining proper practices
and updating the progress of the project. These may also
include resource lists of local citizens and officials who play an
active role in solid waste management. This approach is also
expensive, and communities with long term plans for these
projects often end them because of funding problems.
Other educational efforts may include information pro-
grams in schools, with films, slides, and visits to landfills.
These can be very useful as the students share the information
with their families and may become enthusiastic supporters.
For summary reminders, newspapers and television and
radio spots can be useful. The best of these vehicles, however,
are the citizen-oriented films on the sanitary landfill. These can
be rented or borrowed from state and federal environmental
agencies. These or comparable slide presentations should be
included in every siting process during the public hearings.
In summary, the length and degree of program and
attention to education depends on the level of awareness of the
local management and the citizens, the lack of understanding
anticipated, particularly regarding the proximity of a site to
the residential community, and the resources of the locality.
Finally, the community planning an education program
12
-------
should keep in mind that balance in concentration is necessary
when approaching the citizens. A program too promotional
for the particular audience will alienate the citizens so that
groups band together against the pressure to accept a site.
In San Bernardino the citizen education program involved a
selected portion of EPA's "Sanitary Landfill" slide show at the
beginning of several information meetings. The citizens,
especially those who would be affected, could then ask
questions and raise objections. It was a limited approach, but
it sufficed because of several factors. The canyons proposed
were not next to any homes, and so they were less of a threat.
Second, because of the planning and management in the
county, there was less of a need to campaign for confidence or
citizen awareness about sanitary landfills.
Media. The media, including television, radio, and especial-
ly newspapers can be key instruments in the siting process. It is
important to keep the media informed, and it is equally
important to gain editorials that may influence the local
audience. Certainly opposition from the press can defeat siting
processes. It is advisable to invite media participation from the
start, to encourage understanding of the overall need for a
facility, and to encourage participation at critical stages of
decision-making, hearings and meetings.
In San Bernardino about 5 months before the hearings on
the site recommendations, the newspapers carried advance
notice of the sites. They listed the 13 sites that the consultant
and panel came up with. They showed aerial photos and
identified the areas. In this case and in subsequent notices, the
newspaper also editorialized in favor of a new replacement
site. A selected few of these articles are included in the
following pages.
Support Groups. In San Bernardino significant assistance
was given by the three municipalities that would be sending
refuse to the site. According to Dr. Kenneth Hekimian, Chief
Engineering Consultant, "The City of San Bernardino stated
that either site would be acceptable. The City of Loma Linda
stated that Site A was too close to their hospital complex and
that they preferred site B. The City of Redlands stated that
either site would be acceptable but that Site B was closer to
their operations."
the media can be key instrument in
the siting process
assistance given by support groups
13
-------
By BILL ROGERS
S'm-Telpcjrsm SLjII Wnlcr
SAN-' BERNARDINO —
TV.O alternative proposals
(or a new dumpsite in San
T i m o t P o Canyon
encount°red stiff public
opposi'um Tuesday as the
coi'pty board '•( supervi-
sors left a decision
complexly up in the air.
The board scheduled a
second hearing on the
issue for 2:30 p.m. May 20
after listening '. > initial
objections by eight spokes-
men for Red lands and
Reche Canyon residents
It !"•-•;ported a decision
on three a It i r n a t i v e
landfil1 sites in Hie Chino
Hills jtiiil the same dale.
"""ut Supervisor Robert 0.
owusend indicah.'d he was
rea i v to settle the
controversy in t! at area b,
selecti'ig the silt just south
of Lir- Serranns that i«
favored by thr county's
refuse- . li.'.posal division.
Bo,.id Chairman Dennis
I,. Hansberger, whose
district includes San
TinioH;o Canyon said a site
sfli'Otinn in thai area may
requi:- several hearings.
He OH! not nil'' nut the
possii'hty of a furthei
sean i for" an appropriate
location.
Yesterday s hearings
were on the question of
amending count y and
community geneial plans
to provide for new sanitary
landfills at opprMio ends of
the San Bernardino Valley
Opposition in both cases
was based largely on the
visual impact of cut-ancl-
cover operations at the
alternative sites.
Three residents and an
attorney for others with
"Monies and lots in the
>mile\ Heights section
soul h of R e d 1 a n d s
14
air
complained that the site
between San Timoteo
Canyon Road and the
Riverside County line
could be seen plainly from
tli"ir rnli"- '" ll ' north.
A ri e n v i r o n m e n t a 1
report, confirming this,
indicated the site could be
seen from a 1 Vz -mile
stretch of prime, developa-
ble land in the Sunset
Drive area as well as from
lledlands Community
Hospital.
Advance planning chief
Patricia McCabe reported
the disposal division says it
would keep operations 200
feet lower in elevation
than originally proposed to
mitipate the visual impact.
She noted the planning
commission endorsed the
site ;.n the belief that
immediate restoration of
landscaping in a phased
operation would overcome
much of the impact.
The alternative San
Timoteo Canyon site, in
Scott Canyon a mile south
of Barton Road and south-
west of the Mt. View-
Beaumont Avenue intersec-
tion, received less serious
consideration.
The city of Loma Linda
has expressed strong
opposition to the site, and
an environmental report
said it would have "a
significant visual impact
upon much of the East
Valley's population," espe-
cially in the Redlands-
Highiand area.
Robert Crane, represent-
ing Reche Canyon Mutual
Water Co, said he fears a
landfill in Scott Canyon
would pollute a well serv-
ing Reche Canyon and in-
crease fire hazards. Bill
Lembright, submitting an
opposition petition with W2
signatures of Reche
Canyon residents,
expressed similar concerns
Planning Director
Kenneth C. Topping said
any visual or water pollu-
tion problem for reche
Canyon could be avoided
by keeping landfill opera-
tions well away from the
ridge overlooking that
area.
Timothy Burrell, attor-
ney for a group of Smiley
Heights residents, claimed
the county had not ade-
quately explored resource
recovery and recycling
methods a.s r.;i alternative
to developing additional
landfills.
"If we had that alterna-
tive available to us, that's
the alternative we would
use," Hansherber replied,
adding that studies by the
county have shown so far
that such methods would
be much more costly.
T owns e n d said a
"fallacy" rog.irrli.ng eost.s of
alternative methods has
developed out of reports
such as one to the effect
that Baltimore has cut its
disposal costs in half by a
recovery process. What is
not reported, he said, is
that Baltimore cut its costs
from $10 to $7) per ton,
w h i 1 e San Bernardino
County is operating its
valley landfills at $2 per
ton.
Supervisor Kane y E.
Smith objected that opposi-
tion comments regarding
odors and unsightliness
"are totally irrevelant to
the landfill operations we
have today." Some witness-
es disputed her statements.
The board was informed
that the Redlands City
Council has taken action
favoring the site farther up
in San Timoteo Canyon.
The city is planning to rely
on a new county landfill in
the area after it closes its
dump next year.
In accordance with a
board request last
December, the disposal
division submitted an ana-
lysis of the throe alterna-
tive sites in the Chino Hills
The report favored the
division's original choice of
a site a mile south of Los
Serranos on the basis of a
comparison of costs,
accessibility, drainage
problems, visual impacts
and restoration potential.
The other sites offered are
on the Phillips Ranch just
south of the Pomona
Freeway and on land near
Prado Dam several miles
south of Los Serranos.
An environmental report
said the preferred site
could be seen from a
"major portion" of the
Chino area.
p..i riiuiiosal division offi-
cials insisted no better site
can be found.
They reported that
operational costs at the site
would be $1.8;> per ton.
compared with $2.18 on the
Phillips Ranch and $2.10 at
the southern site. They said
transportation and disposal
costs for rubbish haulers
would be $1.37 per ton at
the Los Serranos site,
compared with $1.84 on the
Phillips Ranch and $2.19 at
the third site.
— The Sun-Telegram
May 8, 1975
-------
ste
resi
in the dumps
; By BILL ROGERS
* _ Sun TCI eg r^n-iS Id M Writer
•ISAN BERNARDINO - Counl'
-supervisors narrowed their focus lo
,'a-sitc within view of south Kcdlands
•ponies this week ;n their 'oi;trnver-
.sial search for a new saniter\ landfill
lIccMion in San 'Imioteo Canyon
•_' The count) board, after listening
.to more than iwu hours of protests
;l>\ s'fected residents, scheduled a
•tjnr 1 iiearmg on the issue for 3 p.m
I.Hine 9
•- HIM in the meantime. Board Chair-
-iTian Uenms L Hansberger saicr he
;Mieves an alternative siip m hills
|si)ulh of Loina Linda "has been
•ctfoctivealv ruled out" from further
consideration because of its possible
impai ti on Reche Canyon
This left the other alternative, a
site across San Timotco Cam on fioin
the Sunset Drive-Smiley Heights sec-
tion of Redlands, at the center of
attention.
And Hansbcrger, in whose district
the canyon is situated, indicated that
location might not meet with his
favor, either, despite his tendency to
discount the fears of more lhan a
score of homeowners who would
overlook it from a ridge.
Timothy Burrell, attorney for the
newlv-formt'd Friends of San
Timoteo Canyon, contended the
county should look just as e.irnestlv
to resource recovery disposasl
methods as an alternative to a new
landfill site
Riverside County Supervisor Nor-
ton Vounplove, speaking for resi-
dent m his county's portion of
Reche Canyon, said the landfill
proposal is "extremely inopportune"
in view of current attempts by the
two counties to get the stale to
establish a materials recovery
demonstration plant at the south
Colton disposal site.
Younglove said either site at issue
would pose litter, fire hazard and
possible water pollution problems for
Riverside County residents, and he
argued that the "regional approach"
proposed with the state would make
a new landfill "quite unnecessaiy "
However. Hansberger said the
economic feasibility ' of various
resource recovery processes is still
unprovcn for this area
He reminded Youngln'.e there is
no guarantee that a recovery plant
will be established at the Colton site
or that it could become operational
within a reasonable time.
And he added that the hauling
distance to that site from the Red-
lands area would be considered
impractical even if such a plant did
come into being.
"My preference is lo do nothing
and leave Redlands with it.s problem,
but i like to think I have a little
more mercy in my soul than that,"
the board chairman said with refe-
rence to the impending closure of
that city's landfill and the need for a
replacement sites by next year
(County landfills now serve all cities
in the county except Redlands and
Upland i
Younglove suggested at one point
that rubbish transfer stations could
be set up in the Redlands area so
that fewer trips lo the Collon site
could be made wilh larger Irucks.
whelher or not a recovery plant is
built.
Men.. •,' I" i le, four;' planners
disclosed that the environmental
impact report on the issue must be
revised to meet objections by the
Fish and fiamr Department that it
fails to deal with potential impacts
on the r.ire Mepen's kangaroo r.it
and southern rubber boa and an
endangered shrub know as Nevin's
barberry
A department memo said the
impact report is "inadequate "
Contending alternatives to a new
landfill exist, the memo added that
resource recovery methods "should
receive special consideration because
recent dramatic increases in the cost
of energy and raw materials is set-
ting the stage for resource recovery
to become increasingly environmen-
tally popular as well as an attractive
economic alternative to past solid
waste disposal practices."
Challenging the memo on at least
one point. Hansberger held up a
copy of the county's -••-,.-."'•
completed conservation .uivi open
space sf dy which he said shows
"there isn't and never hac been a
southern rubber boa withiii J1) miles
of that area."
When a canyon resident ;aid there
are many types of snakes in that
area that would he affeced,
Hansberger responded -i>i firm
conviction and amid laughter.
"Yes there are rattlesnake - There
are king snakes. There are j \ariety
of snakes m tha' area. But there are
no soul hern rubber boa-.!"
Smiley Heights residents objected
to Ihe potential \isual impac!. iruck
traffic and noises associated »:,.h the
proposed disposal operation al the
south Redlands sile, vh'ii Reche
Canyon spokesmen expres 'i fears
over fire hazards and possible water
pollution
Hansberger said he found .( hard
to belieu1 opponent and the count)
were talking about the sanu type of
operation, because modern unitary
landfills are far from the "dumps"
thai useu to bt- uperalcii
— The Sun- Telegram
Mav 23. 1975
15
-------
Supervisors
to consider
disposal site
Tomorrow at 2 p.m. the
Board of Supervisors will
consider the question of where
a new county disposal site
should be located to serve
Redlands, Mentone, Lorna
Linua and the north valley.
The hearing will be held in
the Chambers of the Board at
175 West Fifth street in San
Bernardino.
The Planning Commission
has i wommended a site in San
Timoteo Canyon south of
Redlands in preference to an
alternately propcsed site at the
head of Mountain View avenue
in Loma Linda
Technically, the issue before
the Supervisors will be an
amendment to the Valley
FUt-.on of the County General
Plan to permit a sanitary
landfill to be placed in one of
these two areas. Specific site
plans will be the subject of later
hearings by tlie Planning
Cor'.mission and the Super-
visors.
— Redlands Daily Facts
Mav5, 1975
Favored over 11 listed
Redlands supports site
in canyon for disposal
City (rf Redlands last night gave its support
to Sile 13 — a composite of hills and gulches
soi'thunst of San Tnnoteo Canyon road — as
the l.ivored location for San Bernardino
Co.mly's new ruhlusli disposal center.
Tin1- action by the City Council appeared to
put S;to B at least two strides ahead of one
alternate site, which had met opposition from
thr ''ih of Loma Linda and its neighhors. A
third Ic-.-ation, north of Reservoir ..'anyon, had
alr<" '•!> been eliminated.
VMnouph Councilman Charles G DeMirjyn
ah.-'.'i'icd from \ oting after advocating a
rrc'.!"i ition project in place of continued
diii' i i'ii. Council members gave otherwise
full . ''.orscment to the canyon properties
own^'d by A .1 Martins and others.
Fd'.ored over 11 sites originally listed by the
COD.i'y as prospect AV areas that Redlands and
Lonri Linda would share, the canyon
prfip.T'-'s are parcels of the vast H. L. Hub-
hard nnch of earlici days.
The County would take approximately 230
acr(^ of land from the south section of the
piv vnt Martins r.'.n'h, and additional space
from several absentee owners of adjoining
lanu
\V,t,i more than JM acres involved, the
project would lend it.'.elf to recreational uses
both dui ing and after the 25 years that the site
may serve as a iul-and-fill refuse disposal
center, the Council acknowledged. A golf
course and other facilities were mentioned.
Although it is southwest of the Southern
Pacific railroad, and in the same direction
from high power lines of the Southern
California Edison company, the site is midway
between two roads that connect Redlands with
the canyon. Fern avenue and Alessandro rwd
would provide access routes for City of
Hedlands vehicles.
This site and the Scott Canyon locality
weathered an environmental hearing in the
San Bernardino County [Manning Department
yesterday, but the City of Loma Linda
registered its protest against Scott Canyon
It was complained that traffic to Scott
Canyon by way of Mountain View avenue and
other streets would heighten Loma Linda's
serious congestion.
Next, the County Planning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on the question April
3. The matter of a site approval is the last item
on an agenda starting at 1:30 p.m.
County officials earlier had dropped all
consideration of their Site C. wiiich overlooks
the Redlands Freeway on the north side of
Reservoir Canyon.
A high-pressure gas line cuts through this
land near Wabash avenue, it had been
discovered bj the County planners and their
consultants, VTN Engineers.
— Redlands Dailv Facts
March 19, 1975
Sunset, Smiley Heights residents
oppose canyon disposal location
Whether San Timoteo
<"anyon. south of Red.lui'ds, is
an appropriate area in the
county general plan for the
location of a county disposal
site will he further considered
by the Board of Supervisors on
May 20 iit 2:30 p.m.
Although the supervisors
icceived the County Planning
Commission recommendation
rf the site yesterday afternoon,
they conducted a limited
hearing (cr lack of time. Also,
by tabling the issue they
allowed lime for further
written comments from the
put>l;c and from governmental
agencies
Attorney Tim Burreil of
Claremon' made the principal
presentation pn behalf of his
client Robert Morris, and other
residents on the Smiley
Heights-Sunset drive ridge
This included a Hl-name
petition
liurrell argued that a San
Tunotco site would pollute the
ground water, create a brush
fire ha/ard; load Alessandro,
Fern and San Timoteo canyon
road with traffic, stink, and
generally degrade an open
space, rural area
Extending Burrell's attack,
appraiser Ed Hill of San
Bernardino said that by
allegedly spoiling the view of
San Timoteo canyon the landfill
would depreciate property
values Although he did not
claim to have made a detailed
study, he guessed that
aggregate losses mjght range
between $500,000 and $1,000,000.
Lots on the Smiley Heights
crest command a premium, he
said. Those which are unim-
proved might depreciate $2,000
Approximately 15 to 20 homes
would decline in value by $5,000
to $10.000 he asserted
Dr. C T Halburg said that he
huilt his home on the ridge for
the view and pays higher taxes
for the privilege of living there.
Km ironmental pollution will
sureh occur if there is a
disposal site in the canyon, he
said.
Garry Brown, acting dr ector
of sanitation for the City of
Redlands, reiterated that the
City Council and Pi.'inning
Commission endorse the San
Timoteo site Refuting
Burrell's allegations about
streets, he said that city
disposal trucks would only use
Alessandro and Fern when
making pickups in
neighborhoods served by those
streets. The main route would
be out Brookside and Barton
and up San Timoteo canyon
road
Dennis Hansberger, chair-
man of the Board of Super-
visors, said that one alternative
for the county is to select no
site That would mean that by
1976 Redlands rubbish vvould
have to be hauled to existing
sites at Vucaipa and Cilton
Hansberger emphatically
i:is,sted that resource recovery-
is not a present alteirative
because the f-ost would be two
or ihree tunes as much as
landfill However, recovery is
the desirable mode and the
coui.ty is vigorously pursuing
paths toward that ultimate
omective
Heche Canyon residents were
adamant witnesses in op-
position to a San Timoteo site,
claiming their ground water
would be polluted, the fire
hazard would be great, and
edors and dust would come
their way.
The issue was before the
board as a planning matter
yesterday. If San Timo'iM is
accepted for that purpose, a
second cycle of planning
commission and supervisorial
hearings would be addressed to
the specific site plans, when
drawn.
— Redlands Daily Facts
May 7, 1975
16
-------
Supervisors bite the
dumpsite bullet
If disposal service to the largest number of people at
the lowest cost is to continue in our end of the valley, a
new dumpsite must be opened within the next year.
Yet, locating a new site is almost impossible politically
because no one wants a landfill in the vicinity of his
home.
A Board of Supervisors hears not one blessed word
from individual citizeas who will benefit from a
courageous decisioa Instead, the members hear only the
strong objections from citizens who want the dump put
somewhere else. This is human nature; nearly everyone
of us responds in this way because our homes are at the
very centers of our lives.
The political line of least resistance is to duck the issue
by making no decision. If that had been done by the
Board of Supervisors, the cost of disposal service in
Redlands and adjacent areas would increase because of
the expensive long haul to the county landfill at Colton,
following closure of the Redlands dump.
The Supervisors, therefore, are to be commended for
biting the bullet They voted Monday to accept the
recommendation of the County Planning Commission
and to amend the general plan to permit the use of a site
in San Timoteo canyon — probably the one above the
Martin ranch.
In taking this first, major step the Supervisors bound
themselves to self-imposed conditions to make the site as
environmentally sound as passible. The county expects
to- be monitored as to fire hazard by the California
Division of Forestry, as to water pollution by the Water
Quality Board and so on.
Displeasing as this may be to people who live on a line-
of-sight from the site, the decision is in the economic
interest of thousands of citizens who live elsewhere.
Now the task is to proceed with property negotiations
and engineering plans for access roads and cut-and-fill at
a site. These will be the subject of further public
hearings.
Supervisors
okay canyon
dumpsite
County Supervisors gave
Iheir final approval yesterday
to a San Timoteo Canyon site
lor the Redlands-Lorna Linda
district's next refuse disposal
operation.
The unanimous action
adopted a resolution that will
carry several provisions back
to the County Planning
Department, where the design
and construction of a sanitary
landfill will proceed.
Visual impact of the
••peration must be protected by
both landscaping and a careful
selection of the actual dumpsite
to favor residents of the Smiley
Heights area, it was stipulated.
Also, State Fish and Game
authorities will be consulted
regarding the hazard to
wildlife, while fire hazards and
water pollution also are
avoided, said the resolution.
Further hearings are ex-
pected to be held by the
Planning Commission, and
again by the Supervisors,
during the actual design of the
project. The design also will
decide precisely what acreage
:s acquired in Ihe old H. L.
Hubbard ranch region, now
owned by A. J. Martins and
neighbors.
— Redlands Dailv Facts
June 17, 1975
— Redlands Dailv Facts
June 11, 1975
17
-------
citizen and civic groups and
environmental agencies can increase
acceptance
disadvantages
timing schedule
In San Bernardino the leadership of the county provided the
overall necessary support. In most cases where additional
support is necessary, citizen and civic groups and environmen-
tal agencies can increase acceptance. These groups may
include the League of Women Voters and other concerned
leading community organizations. They also may include state
and local environmental or land use agencies who have a
vested interest and may be able to lend testimony and support
recommendations with regulatory authority. The private
haulers may also be able to play a strong role as they did in San
Bernardino, where they spoke in favor of the site at public
hearings and continually assured the county of their support.
The disadvantage to some groups is that they may end up
opposing the sites, as in the case of citizen environmental
groups who discover that the impact of the sites may be against
their goals. This was the case with one of the prime San
Bernardino sites, an alleged habitat of the "Steven's
Kangaroo Rat," which is an endangered animal species. In any
case if citizen groups get involved, they should be advised that
a final "no site" position is not an acceptable solution.
Timing. Timing in the San Bernardino experience and in
every siting process is crucial. The process must proceed on a
schedule allowing enough time to do the technical and public
relations work but not so much time that the process loses its
momentum. The newspapers must give advance notice of
hearings soon enough so that the citizens can be prepared, but
not so far in advance that they forget and are upset that they
have not had the opportunity to present their views. Finally,
the hearings must be held at times when decisions are being
made, with several hearings or meetings closely in succession
so that citizens have opportunities to react.
The timing schedule that San Bernardino planned was:
approximately 6 months to a year for technical investigations,
before any site-specific analysis was made; 6 weeks for locating
and selecting specific sites; 6 months for public relations,
citizen input, hearings and a decision by the elected officials;
newspaper coverage at the beginning of the public relations
stage—5 to 6 months before final decisions; notices in the
newspaper averaging 3 to 4 days in advance of hearings;
approximately a year for the site acceptance process—from
the time of the preliminary identification of 13 sites through
18
-------
the acceptance of a final site, and the beginning of site
construction; approximately 2 years for the total siting
process—including the first technical investigation period as
well as the site acceptance process.
the hearings
Key Factors. Despite expense and effort there is no sure
method of holding hearings that result in a successful siting.
There are, however, procedures and strategies that can prepare
a community for constructive hearings. The key factors are in
the timing of the hearings, physical arrangements, speakers,
and their responses to the citizens. Planning and anticipating
minimize the problems and increase the chances of success.
Timing and Status of Hearings
Hearings should be held at each point of decision-making.
In San Bernardino this involved: three preliminary informa-
tion meetings when the preliminary Environmental Impact
Report on the 13 site alternatives was finished; two Planning
Commission hearings 2 months later, when the two final sites
were recommended and an amendment to the general land use
plan was requested to permit a site for solid waste disposal; at
this hearing public testimony was given and objections heard;
a recommendation to use the San Timoteo Site B was given by
the Commission; the recommendation was qualified pending a
final report on the "Steven's Kangaroo Rat"; one Planning
Commission hearing to grant the conditional use permit to the
county to use the new site; one final Board of Supervisors
meeting to give approval.
At each point the county invited public participation and
objections. There were no private hearings prior to decisions,
and in each case feedback from objections helped to plan a
better case to bring to the next hearing. The hearing to be
described in the following pages was the county's Planning
Commission hearing at which a site recommendation was
made.
Physical Arrangements
There are several key elements that help to make a hearing
room most conducive to its purposes, and which were used in
the San Bernardino hearings: (1) be sure the room is large
hearings should be held at each point
of decision-making
key elements for a hearing room
19
-------
Consultant's Charts
Step f—Alternate Sites
sources of input
county Planning Department
county Refuse Disposal Division
previous efforts of the city of Redlands
county solid waste management mas-
ter plan
aerial photos
U.S.G.S. maps
Step II—Fatal Flaw Analysis
transportation access
surrounding land use
drainage control
historical sites
endangered species
operational characteristics
cover material
capacity
on-site roads
Step III—Environmental Matrix
How ratings were determined:
general impacts
access to site
socioeconomic
physical properties
sanitary landfill operational impacts
dust, litter, etc.
How weightings were determined:
impact rating (B)
mitigating potential (C)
acceptibility rating [D = (B-C)]
weight factor (A)
weight value [E = A x D]
Step IV—Draft EIR
project description
environmental setting
impacts to the natural environment
impacts to the human environment
unavoidable adverse environmental
effects
mitigating measures
alternatives
Alternatives
Alternate waste handling techniques
shredding, baling, transfer stations,
primary materials and energy recov-
ery
Alternate disposal sites
enough to comfortably accommodate all the citizens who
appear; (2) post enlarged maps of the area around the room;
highlight familiar areas and site areas so the citizens
understand more easily and quickly; (3) put the siting issue
first on the agenda; emotionally charged citizens should not be
forced to wait before discussing their objections through
several other agenda items; (4) if possible, limit the hearing to
the one subject.
Speakers: The County Representative
The county spokesman reaffirmed the importance of the site
and the county's commitment to it. He introduced the
consultant as the technical spokesman for a well-integrated
process that stressed responsiveness to the citizens, while
maintaining the importance of environmental acceptability.
The consultant then presented the technical details.
Speakers: The Consultant
The consultant began his presentation with a slide show and
explanation of the sanitary landfill. Then he turned to a series
of large charts listing all the procedures the county used to
come up with their sites. The charts are included here as a
review of the technical information in this study.
In presenting these steps the consultant used the informa-
tion developed in the technical investigations of the sites. He
stressed the basics, thoroughness, coordination of efforts, and
strong attention to mitigating factors in the sites selected. He
also gave special attention to the end use of the site as a
recreational area. While end use could not be a major selling
point because it would result so far in the future, the consultant
made every effort to explain the plans, and show a
commitment to this end. In addition he discussed the technical
efforts that would be made to enhance the appearance of the
site from the beginning and throughout site operation.
The Citizens: How can we kill the project? At first the
reactions of the citizens were negative, but in most cases their
objections were answered. One of the strongest objections
came from a citizen who overlooked the access to one of the
sites, and he said that the truck noise could not be taken care of
properly. The consultant pointed out that the trucks would not
be heard by this resident because there were trains running
near his home every day, and the noise from them would be
20
-------
much louder than that of the trucks. The impact would be
minimal.
According to Dr. Hekimian, chief consultant, "Another
strong objector stated that his home overlooked the landfill
site, which would reduce the pleasure of having a view lot and
lessen the value of his home. He was partially assuaged by a
redesign of the site so that the operations would be greatly
hidden."
Another objector was a real estate agent. She had called all
the citizens who purchased homes from her located within 5
miles of the sites, and she told them about the site proposal and
requested that they go to the hearings and object. She was
interested in residential development for the canyon area.
According to Dr. Hekimian, she raised the issue that the area
was known for disasterous fires and the landfill operation and
attendent truck traffic would increase the danger. The county
Fire Department subsequently developed a plan which would
actually decrease the fire danger in the area, by placing certain
restrictions and requirements on landfill operations. When the
issue of the "Steven's Kangaroo Rat" came up for the first
time, and it was determined that the rat was indeed a possible
inhabitant of the areas, the woman seized upon this to
continue to protest the site.
The County Planning Department. After the consultant
made his presentation and answered questions, a representa-
tive from the local planning agency spoke about the remaining
steps to approval by the various state and local agencies. This
was in response to the citizens interested in knowing the
possible administrative stopgaps and delays to final accep-
tance. The following requirements were stated: (1) California
Environmental Quality Act approval from the state; this is the
California equivalent to the National Environmental Quality
Act and involves a state review of the Environmental Impact
Report; (2) letter of qualification from the local Fish and
Game Office that the rat was not an inhabitant of the sites; (3)
general plan approval for "amendment; (4) regional Water
Quality Board approval; (5) State Solid Waste Management
Board approval that the sites were in compliance with the plan
for the county; (6) County Fire Marshal approval.
The citizens were also told that there were several hearings
left, including a hearing of the Board of Supervisors, a
negative reactions of the citizens
remaining steps to approval
21
-------
San Timoteo Site B approved
statements of concurrence received
rezoning hearing and a Board hearing for final approval. In
each of these the citizens could present their cases. They could
not, however, delay the Planning Commission's decision.
They made their decision at this hearing.
final decisions
The Planning Commission recommended the San Timoteo
Site B, and it was also approved several months later by the
Board of Supervisors. Subsequent to acceptance there were no
strong citizen lobbies against the site or moves toward legal
action. According to B. C. Escobar, Director of the Division of
Refuse Disposal, "The site being pursued by the county in this
effort will be the only future site that will be available for
disposal of solid waste by residents of San Bernardino County
in the east part of the valley after the other sites have been
exhausted. Also, this site will be utilized by San Bernardino
County in the disposal of non-reclaimable waste or residue
that will be generated by future resource and energy recovery
plants.
"The approval of the site in question was to amend the
county general plan to indicate a refuse site will be located in
this area. The EIR prepared and the public hearings that were
held were for the purpose of determining the public reaction
with respect to a site location in this area. Also from the EIR
came the mitigating measures that will have to be considered in
the site development plan and site development EIR."
acquiring the site
and beginning
construction
At this time the county has proceeded with the finalization
of the "Steven's Kangaroo Rat" study in order to finalize the
general plan amendment EIR. Statements of concurrence
have been received by the county from all regulatory agencies
that the site is an acceptable site.
According to Director Escobar, the County Board of
Supervisors has allocated funds for site development and is
22
-------
proceeding with the final EIR, land acquisition of 305 acres,
Planning Commission approval, site design, and plan
preparation for construction.
An important rule in siting and the most important after
acceptance by the public is to begin at once. Unless a locality
proceeds in implementation, the momentum of the process
suffers, and the schedule may not meet the need for a new site.
Moreover, waiting increases the chances of the site becoming
unacceptable. Many localities delaying implementation later
find that new constraints have cropped up as well as new
residential communities in the vicinity of the site. The new
residents may not have been aware of the purpose of the
landfill property, and when the locality decides to construct
the site and the residents find out, the site can become a much
more difficult acceptance problem than it was the first time
around.
an important rule in siting is to begin
at once
Table 1. Matrix Summary Comparison
Alternative site
Site 1 (site A)
(west of Scott
Canyon)
Site 3 (east of
Scott Canyon
Site 4
Site 5 (site B)
and 6
General
12
20
11
8
Access
to site
8
17
17
12
Socio-
economic
23
36
38
24
Physical
properties
4
15
11
11
Sanitary
landfill
operations
20
19
19
17
Total
67
107
96
72
All summated values are analyzed as the lowest being the most acceptable. Sites A
and B are recommended as being significantly more acceptable than Sites 3 and 4.
23
-------
Table 2. Site 1 (Site A) Matrix Analysis
GENERAL
Proximity to genera-
tion areas
Relationship to major
freeways and/ or surface
arterials
Screening availability
Capacity
Public reaction impact
Accessibility to the
site
SUBTOTAL
ACCESS TO SITE
Surface arterial usage
Freeway usage
Pedestrian safety
Noise level effects
on residential
on other surrounding
areas
Visual vehicular impacts
Vehicular litter
SUBTOTAL
SOCIOECONOMIC
Existing land use and
zoning
Surrounding land use
Acquisition potential
Development costs
Access road (length and
grade)
Operating costs
Land cost
Ultimate use potential
SUBTOTAL
Weight-
ing
factor
A1
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
3
5
Impact
rating
B2
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
1
Mitiga-
tion
potential
C3
N.A.*
N.A.
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
N.A.
N.A.
1
Accept-
ability
rating
D=(B-C)4
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
Weight
value
E=(AxD)s
0
8
0
0
4
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
8
0
0
0
4
5
8
6
0
23
'0-5, 0 being less significant, 5 most significant.
20-5, 0 least impact potential, 5 maximum impact potential.
30-5, 0 minimum available mitigation potential, 5 maximum mitigation potential.
40-5, 0 is most acceptable, 5 is least acceptable.
5Weighted Value—0-25, 0, being most desirable; 25, least desirable.
*N.A., not applicable.
24
-------
Table 3. Site A Matrix Analysis
Weight-
ing
factor
A1
Impact
rating
B2
Mitiga-
tion
potential
C3
Accept-
ability
rating
D=(B-C)4
Weight
value
E=(AxD)5
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Unique physical features
Seismic
Historical sites
Drainage conditions
Grpundwater quality
Soils percolation
Flora (abundance and/or
endangered)
Fauna (abundance and/or
endangered)
SUBTOTAL
SANITARY LANDFILL
OPERATIONS
Dust
Litter
Vector activity
Erosion
Water resources degrada-
tion
Increased noise levels
Leachate and gas produc-
tion and migration
Aesthetics
Noxious odors
Loss of vegetation and
displacement of
4
2
5
4
4
3
3
4
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
3
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
wildlife
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
3 3 1
2 6
20
67
'0-5, 0 being less significant, 5 most significant.
20-5, 0 least impact potential, 5 maximum impact potential.
30-5, 0 minimum available mitigation potential, 5 maximum mitigation potential.
40-5, 0 is most acceptable, 5 is least acceptable.
5Weighted Value—0-25, 0, being most desirable; 25, least desirable.
25
-------
Table 4. Site 3 Matrix Analysis
GENERAL
Proximity to genera-
tion areas
Relationship to major
freeways and/ or surface
arterials
Screening availability
Capacity
Public reaction impact
Accessibility to the
site
SUBTOTAL
ACCESS TO SITE
Surface arterial usage
Freeway usage
Pedestrian safety
Noise level effects
on residential
on other surrounding
areas
Visual vehicular impacts
Vehicular litter
SUBTOTAL
SOCIOECONOMIC
Existing land use and
zoning
Surrounding land use
Acquisition potential
Development costs
Access road (length and
grade)
Operating costs
Land cost
Ultimate use potential
SUBTOTAL
Weight-
ing
factor
A1
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
3
5
Impact
rating
B2
0
2
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
3
1
0
2
2
2
2
1
1
Mitiga-
tion
potential
C3
N.A.*
N.A.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Accept-
ability
rating
D — / TJ /"^\4
~~\ D~^_. 1
0
2
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
2
2
1
0
Weight
value
E=(AxD)5
0
8
0
0
4
8
20
4
0
0
5
0
4
4
17
4
0
3
8
10
8
3
0
36
26
-------
Table 5. Site 3 (Continued) Matrix Analysis
Weight-
ing
factor
A1
Impact
rating
B2
Mitiga-
tion
potential
C3
Accept-
ability
rating
D=(B-C)4
Weight
value
E=(AxD)5
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Unique physical features
Seismic
Historical sites
Drainage conditions
Groundwater quality
Soils percolation
Flora (abundance and/or
endangered)
Fauna (abundance and/or
endangered)
SUBTOTAL
SANITARY LANDFILL
OPERATIONS
Dust
Litter
Vector activity
Erosion
Water resources degrada-
tion
Increased noise levels
Leachate and gas produc-
tion and migration
Aesthetics
Noxious odors
Loss of vegetation and
displacement of
wildlife
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
4
2
5
4
4
3
3
4
1
0
0
2
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
4
0
0
3
4
15
19
107
'0-5, 0 being less significant, 5 most significant.
20-5, 0 least impact potential, 5 maximum impact potential.
30-5, 0 minimum available mitigation potential, 5 maximum mitigation potential.
40-5, 0 is most acceptable, 5 is least acceptable.
5Weighted Value—0-25, 0, being most desirable; 25, least desirable.
*N.A., not applicable.
27
-------
Table 6. Site 4 Matrix Analysis
Weight-
ing
factor
GENERAL
Proximity to genera-
tion areas
Relationship to major
freeways and /or surface
arterials
Screening availability
Capacity
Public reaction impact
Accessibility to the
site
SUBTOTAL
ACCESS TO SITE
Surface arterial usage
Freeway usage
Pedestrian safety
Noise level effects
on residential
on other surrounding
areas
Visual vehicular impacts
Vehicular litter
SUBTOTAL
SOCIOECONOMIC
Existing land use and
zoning
Surrounding land use
Acquisition potential
Development costs
Access road (LENGTH AND
GRADE(
Operating costs
Land cost
Ultimate use potential
SUBTOTAL
A1
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
£
4
3
5
Impact
rating
B2
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Mitiga-
tion
potential
C3
N.A.*
N.A.
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
Accept-
ability
rating
D=(B-C)4
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
i
2
1
0
Weight
value
E=(AxD)5
0
4
3
0
4
0
11
0
4
0
5
0
4
4
17
4
4
6
8
£
8
3
0
38
28
-------
Table 7. Site 4 (Continued) Matrix Analysis
Weight-
ing
factor
A1
Impact
rating
B2
Mitiga-
tion
potential
C1
Accept-
ability Weight
rating value
D=(B-C)4 E=(AxD)5
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Unique physical features 400
Seismic 200
Historical sites 500
Drainage conditions 4 2 1
Groundwater quality 422
Soils percolation 322
Flora (abundance and/or
endangered) 3 1 0
Fauna (abundance and/or
endangered) 4 2 1_
SUBTOTAL
SANITARY LANDFILL
OPERATIONS
Dust 3 3 3
Litter 332
Vector activity 3 1 1
Erosion 2 2 1
Water resources degrada-
tion 522
Increased noise levels 4 2 1
Leachate and gas produc-
tion and migration 522
Aesthetics 4 2 1
Noxious odors 3 1 1
Loss of vegetation and
displacement of
3
3
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
wildlife
3 2 1
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
1 3
19
96
'0-5, 0 being less significant, 5 most significant.
20-5, 0 least impact potential, 5 maximum impact potential.
30-5, 0 minimum available mitigation potential, 5 maximum mitigation potential.
40-5, 0 is most acceptable, 5 is least acceptable.
'Weighted Value—0-25, 0, being most desirable; 25, least desirable.
29
-------
Table 8. Site 5 (Site B) and Site 6 Matrix Analysis
GENERAL
Proximity to genera-
tion areas
Relationship to major
freeways and/ or surface
arterials
Screening availability
Capacity
Public reaction impact
Accessibility to the
site
SUBTOTAL
ACCESS TO SITE
Surface arterial usage
Freeway usage
Pedestrian safety
Noise level effects
on residential
on other surrounding
areas
Visual vehicular impacts
Vehicular litter
SUBTOTAL
SOCIOECONOMIC
Existing land use and
zoning
Surrounding land use
Acquisition potential
Development costs
Access road (length and
grade)
Operating costs
Land cost
Ultimate use potential
SUBTOTAL
Weight-
ing
factor
A'
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
3
5
Impact
rating
B2
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
Mitiga-
tion
potential
C-1
N.A.
N.A.
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Accept-
ability
rating
D=(B-C)4
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
0
Weight
value
E=(AxD)5
0
4
0
0
4
0
8
0
4
0
0
0
4
4
12
0
0
0
8
5
8
3
0
24
30
-------
Table 9. Site 5 (Site B) and Site 6 (Continued) Matrix Analysis
Weight-
ing
factor
A1
Impact
rating
B2
Mitiga-
tion
potential
O
Accept-
ability
rating
D=(B-C)"
Weight
value
E=(AxD)5
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Unique physical features
Seismic
Historical sites
Drainage conditions
Groundwater quality
Soils percolation
Flora (abundance and/or
endangered)
Fauna (abundance and/or
endangered)
SUBTOTAL
SANITARY LANDFILL
OPERATIONS
Dust
Litter
Vector activity
Erosion
Water resources degrada-
tion
Increased noise levels
Leachate and gas produc-
tion and migration
Aesthetics
Noxious odors
Loss of vegetation and
displacement of
wildlife
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
4
2
5
4
4
3
3
4
1
0
0
2
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
11
17
72
'0-5, 0 being less significant, 5 most significant.
20-5, 0 least impact potential, 5 maximum impact potential.
30-5, 0 minimum available mitigation potential, 5 maximum mitigation potential.
40-5, 0 is most acceptable, 5 is least acceptable.
5Weighted Value—0-25, 0, being most desirable; 25, least desirable.
SW-617
31
------- |