CORRESPONDENCE_2010-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C The boundary realignment does not allow any change in the existing use of the property. The property will remain as agricultural use. There will not be excavating, grading, storing of supplies or equipment in the area added to the landfill by the boundary realignment. 10. How does the Landfill intend to address the fact that any disposal on the new 134 -acres of land Would be inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan and potentially PAA guidance cm siting of Landfills in close proximity to airports'? The boundary realignment area falls within the comprehensive airport land use plan for the Stockton Metropolitan Airport. This application was to amend the existing solid waste facility permit boundaries only under Title 27 CCR (California Code of Regulations) and is not for additional waste placement or disposal. Expansion into the undeveloped southwest area of the current permitted landfill site is not permitted. Therefore, the proposed facility boundary amendment will have less than a significant impact on airport imaginary surfaces. A letter dated December 9, 2010, was received from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) stating, "the ALUC will consider this project as a consistent land use under the 1993 Airport Land Use Plan for Stockton Metropolitan Airport." The project is also consistent with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and no additional Master Plan, Specific Plan or Special Purpose Plan are applicable to this solid waste facilities boundary amendment application. 11. Why was the environmental impact of this expansion not considered ctumulatively with the Draft EIR for expansion of the Landfill itself? Same question for why the gas to energy project is undergoing separate, piecentealed environmental review? The proposed request is only to amend the current facilities waste boundary and update thelandfill gas probe monitoring system no additional landfill activities will occas in the 184 acres. The cumulative effects of the proposed request, together with existing, approved and likely development have been reviewed. The initial study found no potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts and a Negative Declaration was posted. 12. What are the environmental impacts of allowing ten (10) additional open days at the Landfill facility, including noise, traffic, :utd other associated impacts, and why was there no detailed discussion of these impacts in the Negative Declaration? The addition of 10 more working days was analyzed during the Final Environmental Impact Report, certified in 2003, State Clearing House # 2001052081. There is more information regarding this document at the link below. htlp://www.ceqanet-c_a.gov/QuerXForm-asE 13. Why is the Landfill allowed to continue to pollute Little John's Creek and degrade the surrounding environment? The EI -1D has heard your clients concern regarding Little Johns Creek and added a condition to the permit that will require the operator to monitor Little Johns Creek on a weekly basis and during storm events for litter and unauthorized discharge. This is an effort to preclude degradation of the creek. If you or your client is aware of a specific instance or activity that is polluting Little Johns Creek, the EHD is willing to investigate the allegation. Page 4 of 5 December 2, 2011