Simi Valley Landfill Recycling CTR Expansion Final EIR

Simi Valley Landfill
and Recycling Center

Expansion Project
Final EIR
VOLUME I
CHAPTERS 1 - 9
December 2010
Submitted to:
County of Ventura Planning Division
Simi Valley Landfill
and Recycling Center
Expansion Project
VOLUME I
CHAPTERS 1 - 9
December 2010
Submitted to:
County of Ventura Planning Division
Table of Contents
1 Acronyms
2 Document Overview
3 Executive Summary
4 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
5 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
6 1.2 Project Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................... 1-1
7 1.3 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................. 1-2
8 1.4 Regulatory Requirements ...................................................................................................... 1-2
9 1.5 Scope of the EIR ................................................................................................................... 1-4
10 1.6 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................... 1-4
11 1.7 EIR Organization ................................................................................................................ 1-19
12 2 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
13 2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 2-1
14 2.2 Site History ........................................................................................................................... 2-4
15 2.2.1 Ownership and Permitting History........................................................................... 2-4
16 2.2.2 Historic Hazardous Waste Disposal ......................................................................... 2-6
17 2.3 Existing Landfill Design and Operation ............................................................................... 2-7
18 2.3.1 Phased Fill Plan........................................................................................................ 2-9
19 2.3.2 Daily and Intermediate Cover .................................................................................. 2-9
20 2.3.3 Drainage and Erosion Control.................................................................................. 2-9
21 2.3.4 Leachate Control Provisions .................................................................................. 2-10
22 2.3.5 Waste Delivery and Processing.............................................................................. 2-14
23 2.3.6 Utilities ................................................................................................................... 2-16
24 2.3.7 Environmental Control Measures .......................................................................... 2-18
25 2.3.8 Administrative Record Keeping............................................................................. 2-19
26 2.3.9 Staff Training Program .......................................................................................... 2-20
27 2.3.10 Site Security ........................................................................................................... 2-20
28 2.3.11 Environmental Monitoring ..................................................................................... 2-20
29 2.3.12 Site Closure ............................................................................................................ 2-20
30 2.4 Proposed Project – SVLRC Expansion Project .................................................................. 2-23
31 2.4.1 Expansion Plan Components ................................................................................. 2-24
32 2.4.2 Project Design Features ......................................................................................... 2-38
33 2.4.3 Construction ........................................................................................................... 2-41
34 2.4.4 Operation Description ............................................................................................ 2-47
35 2.4.5 Site Closure ............................................................................................................ 2-49
36 2.4.5.2 Post-Closure Maintenance and Monitoring ........................................................... 2-49
37 2.4.5.3 Closure and Post-Closure Fund.............................................................................. 2-49
38 2.5 Measures to Minimize Environmental Impacts .................................................................. 2-50
39 2.6 Intended Uses ...................................................................................................................... 2-60
40 3 Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis ................................................................................... 3-1
41 3.1 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs ..................................................... 3.1-1
42 3.1.1 Environmental Setting........................................................................................... 3.1-1
43 3.1.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 3.1-3
44 3.1.3 Mitigation Monitoring......................................................................................... 3.1-22
45 3.2 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3.2-1
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project i

Final EIR – December 2010
Table of Contents
1 3.2.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 3.2-16

2 3.2.3 Mitigation Monitoring Program .......................................................................... 3.2-41
3 3.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................................ 3.3-1
5 3.3.2 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................... 3.3-18
7 3.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................... 3.4-1
9 3.4.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 3.4-31
11 3.5 Agricultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 3.5-1
13 3.5.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 3.5-3
14 3.5.3 Mitigation Monitoring........................................................................................... 3.5-5
15 3.6 Visual Resources/Glare ...................................................................................................... 3.6-1
16 Visual Resources ................................................................................................................ 3.6-1
17 Glare 3.6-1
19 3.6.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 3.6-15
21 3.7 Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources......... 3.7-1
23 3.7.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 3.7-13
25 3.8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 3.8-1
27 3.8.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 3.8-11
29 3.9 Hazards .............................................................................................................................. 3.9-1
31 3.9.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 3.9-7
33 3.10 Noise 3.10-1
34 3.10.1 Environmental Setting......................................................................................... 3.10-1
35 3.10.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................ 3.10-10
36 3.10.3 Mitigation Monitoring....................................................................................... 3.10-15
37 3.11 Traffic and Circulation ..................................................................................................... 3.11-1
39 3.11.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................ 3.11-16
40 3.11.3 Mitigation Monitoring....................................................................................... 3.11-33
41 3.12 Water Supply.................................................................................................................... 3.12-1
43 3.12.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 3.12-2
45 3.13 Waste Treatment/Disposal ............................................................................................... 3.13-1
47 3.13.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 3.13-4
49 3.14 Recreational Facilities ...................................................................................................... 3.14-1
ii Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project
Table of Contents
1 3.14.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 3.14-4

3 4 Cumulative Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 4-1
4 4.1 Requirements for Cumulative Impact Analysis .................................................................... 4-1
5 4.2 Projects Considered for Cumulative Analysis ...................................................................... 4-2
6 4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ............................................................................................. 4-11
7 4.3.1 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs ......................................... 4-11
8 4.3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 4-12
9 4.3.3 Water Resources .................................................................................................... 4-14
10 4.3.4 Biological Resources.............................................................................................. 4-17
11 4.3.5 Agricultural Resources ........................................................................................... 4-19
12 4.3.6 Visual Resources .................................................................................................... 4-20
13 4.3.7 Geologic Hazards/Mineral Resources/Paleontological Resources ........................ 4-21
14 4.3.8 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 4-23
15 4.3.9 Hazards .................................................................................................................. 4-24
16 4.3.10 Noise ...................................................................................................................... 4-26
17 4.3.11 Transportation and Circulation .............................................................................. 4-27
18 4.3.12 Water Supply ......................................................................................................... 4-28
19 4.3.13 Waste Treatment and Disposal .............................................................................. 4-29
20 4.3.14 Recreation Facilities ............................................................................................... 4-30
21 5 Alternatives...................................................................................................................................... 5-1
22 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5-1
23 5.2 Summary of Potential Alternatives for Initial Screening ...................................................... 5-1
24 5.2.1 Off-Site Alternatives ................................................................................................ 5-1
25 5.2.2 Alternative Physical Landfill Configurations .......................................................... 5-1
26 5.2.3 Alternative On-Site Landfill Technologies .............................................................. 5-1
27 5.2.4 Alternative Policy/Permitting Options ..................................................................... 5-2
28 5.3 Discussion of Potential Alternatives ..................................................................................... 5-2
29 5.3.1 Off-Site Alternatives ................................................................................................ 5-2
30 5.3.2 Alternative Physical Landfill Configurations .......................................................... 5-3
31 5.3.3 Alternative Landfill Technologies ........................................................................... 5-4
32 5.3.4 Alternative Policy and Permit Options .................................................................... 5-8
33 5.4 Screening of Potential Alternatives ..................................................................................... 5-13
34 5.5 Alternatives Selected for Impact Assessment ..................................................................... 5-17
35 5.5.1 Alternative 1: Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative ........................................... 5-17
36 5.5.2 Alternative 2: Anaerobic Bioreactor Technology Alternative ............................... 5-28
37 5.5.3 Alternative 3: Phased Permitted Daily Tonnage Limit Alternative ....................... 5-38
38 5.5.4 Alternative 4: Differential Surcharge Alternative .................................................. 5-47
39 5.5.5 Alternative 5: No Project Alternative .................................................................... 5-56
40 5.6 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................ 5-65
41 5.7 Environmentally Preferred Alternative ............................................................................... 5-65
42 6 Other Required Sections .................................................................................................................. 6-1
43 6.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts .......................................................................................... 6-1
44 6.2 Significant Irreversible Impacts ............................................................................................ 6-2
45 6.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6-2
46 6.2.2 Analysis of Irreversible Changes ............................................................................. 6-2
47 6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts ..................................................................................................... 6-3
48 6.3.1 Direct Growth-Inducing Impacts ............................................................................. 6-4
49 6.3.2 Indirect Growth-Inducing Impacts ........................................................................... 6-4
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project iii

Table of Contents
1 7 Persons and Agencies Contacted ..................................................................................................... 7-1

2 8 List of Preparers .............................................................................................................................. 8-1
3 9 References ....................................................................................................................................... 9-1
List of Figures
4 2.1-1 Project Location Map ............................................................................................................ 2-2
5 2.1-2 Parcel Map ............................................................................................................................ 2-3
6 2.3-1 Site Boundaries ..................................................................................................................... 2-8
7 2.3-2. Liner and Leachate Collection and Removal System ......................................................... 2-12
8 2.3-3 Evapotranspirative Alternative Final Cover Design ........................................................... 2-22
9 2.4-1 Proposed and Existing Site Boundaries and Proposed Site Layout .................................... 2-26
10 2.4-2 Phased Development of Waste Footprint within Proposed SVLRC Expansion
11 Project ................................................................................................................................. 2-29
12 2.4-3 Site Plan for Proposed Support/Ancillary Facilities Area ................................................... 2-34
13 2.4-4 LFG Purification Process Flow ........................................................................................... 2-36
14 2.4-5 Rendering of Proposed Material Recovery Facility/Recyclables Transfer Facility ............ 2-38
15 2.4-6 Rendering of Proposed Office Building/Recycling and Resource Recovery
16 Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 2-39
17 2.4-7 Rendering of Heavy Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance Facility ................................... 2-40
18 2.4-8 Rendering of New Entrance Road, Scales, and Scalehouse ................................................ 2-41
19 2.4-9 Proposed On-site Water System.......................................................................................... 2-46
20 2.4-10 Proposed Off-site water system .......................................................................................... 2-47
21 2.4-11 Onsite packaged Wastewater Treatment Plant .................................................................... 2-48
22 3.1-1 Land Use Designations ...................................................................................................... 3.1-2
23 3.3-1 Topography and Drainage .................................................................................................. 3.3-2
24 3.3-2 Simi Valley 100-Year and 500-Year Flood Zones............................................................. 3.3-4
25 3.3-3 Major Drainages in Ventura County .................................................................................. 3.3-5
26 3.3-4 Groundwater Elevations and Inferred Groundwater Flow, Existing LandfillSite............ 3.3-10
27 3.3-5 Groundwater Elevations and Inferred Groundwater Flow, Proposed Expansion
28 Area .................................................................................................................................. 3.3-11
29 3.3-6 Drainage Control at Final Grade ...................................................................................... 3.3-25
30 3.3-7 Updated Flood Map and Project Footprint....................................................................... 3.3-31
31 3.4-1 Plant Communities ............................................................................................................. 3.4-3
32 3.4-2 Wetlands, Waters of the U.S., and Redline Streams in the Proposed Project
33 Vicinity ............................................................................................................................ 3.4-14
34 3.4-3 Alamos Canyon Crossings ............................................................................................... 3.4-20
35 3.4-4 Rare Plant Locations in the Project Area ......................................................................... 3.4-27
36 3.5-1 Soils and Farmland of Local Importance ........................................................................... 3.5-2
37 3.6-1 View Corridor Locations Diagram..................................................................................... 3.6-4
38 3.6-2 View 1: Looking East from State Route 118 ..................................................................... 3.6-5
39 3.6-3 View 2: Looking Northwest from Madera Road ............................................................... 3.6-6
40 3.6-4 View 3: Looking South from Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail .................................. 3.6-7
41 3.6-5 View 4: Looking East from Alamos Canyon Trail ............................................................ 3.6-8
42 3.6-6 View 5: Looking Northeast from Tierra Rejada Park ........................................................ 3.6-9
43 3.6-7 View 6: Looking North from South Crest Place (South of Tierra Rejada) ...................... 3.6-10
44 3.6-8 View 7: Looking West from Big Sky Ranch Development ............................................. 3.6-11
45 3.6-9 View 8: Looking Southeast from North Park Village Residential Development ............ 3.6-12
46 3.6-10 View 9: Looking North from Reagan Library (Air Force One Pavilion outside
47 terrace) ............................................................................................................................. 3.6-13
48 3.7-1 Regional Fault Map ............................................................................................................ 3.7-3
iv Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project
Table of Contents
1 3.7-2 Local Faults ........................................................................................................................ 3.7-4

2 3.7-3 Earthquake Epicenter Map ................................................................................................. 3.7-6
3 3.7-4 Potential Liquefaction and Landslide Area ........................................................................ 3.7-8
4 3.9-1 Oil Well Location Map ...................................................................................................... 3.9-5
5 3.9-2 Small Sump Concrete Lined Flammable Vapor Hazard Footprint .................................. 3.9-13
6 3.9-3 Large Sump Concrete Lined Flammable Vapor Hazard Footprint .................................. 3.9-14
7 3.10-1 Locations of Vibration Sensors near Simi Valley Landfill .............................................. 3.10-5
8 3.10-2. Summary of Individual Truck Passing Measurements .................................................... 3.10-7
9 3.11-1 Project Study Area ........................................................................................................... 3.11-3
10 3.11-2 Project Study Intersections............................................................................................... 3.11-4
11 3.11-3 Existing Intersection Control & Lane Configuration ....................................................... 3.11-5
12 3.11-4 Existing Transit Service ................................................................................................... 3.11-7
13 3.11-5 Existing Peak Hour Volumes & Level-of-Service ........................................................... 3.11-9
14 3.11-6 Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................ 3.11-22
15 3.11-7 Project Trip Assignment ................................................................................................ 3.11-23
16 3.11-8 Existing With Project Peak Hour Volumes & Level-of-Service.................................... 3.11-24
17 3.11-9 Future Without Project Peak Hour Volumes & Level-of-Service ................................. 3.11-27
18 3.11-10 Future With Project Peak Hour Volumes & Level-of-Service ...................................... 3.11-28
19 3.14-1 Recreational Facilities ...................................................................................................... 3.14-2
20 4.2-1 Related and Cumulative Projects Location Map ................................................................... 4-8
21 4.2-1a Related and Cumulative Projects - City of Moorpark ........................................................... 4-9
22 4.2-1b Related and Cumulative Projects - City of Simi Valley...................................................... 4-10
List of Tables
23 1-1. Permits/Approvals Required ................................................................................................. 1-3
24 1-2. Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process ..................................................... 1-5
25 2.1-1. Existing and Proposed CUP Expansion Parcels.................................................................... 2-1
26 2.3-1. Average Tons per Day of MSW and Recyclables Received at SVLRC ............................. 2-14
27 2.4-1. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Landfill Expansion Project .................................... 2-24
28 2.4-2 Current and Proposed Physical Limits of the SVLRC ........................................................ 2-27
29 2.4-3. SVLRC Waste Disposal Capacity Summary ...................................................................... 2-27
30 2.4-4. Summary of Current and Proposed Permit Limits for Materials Received at
31 SVLRC ................................................................................................................................ 2-30
32 2.4-5 Estimated Operating Life Under Current and Proposed Operations ................................... 2-31
33 2.4-6 Dimensions of MRF/RTF ................................................................................................... 2-32
34 2.4-7. Waste Hauling Yard ............................................................................................................ 2-32
35 2.4-8. Dimensions of Office Building ........................................................................................... 2-32
36 2.4-9. Dimensions of the Heavy Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance Facility........................... 2-35
37 2.4-10 Construction Schedule ........................................................................................................ 2-49
38 2.4-11. Construction Equipment and Estimated Daily Hours of Use .............................................. 2-50
39 2.4-12. Construction-Related Total Vehicle Round Trips............................................................... 2-51
40 2.4-13. Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Permitted, Baseline and Proposed
41 Vehicle Trips ....................................................................................................................... 2-52
42 2.4-14. Current and Proposed Landfill Personnel ........................................................................... 2-53
43 2.5-1 Measures to Minimize Environmental Effects .................................................................... 2-54
44 3.1-1. Mitigation for Land Use Impacts ..................................................................................... 3.1-23
45 3.2-1. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................... 3.2-3
46 3.2-2. Maximum Pollutant Concentrations Measured at the Simi Valley – Cochran Street
47 Monitoring Station (2005 – 2008)...................................................................................... 3.2-5
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project v

Table of Contents
1 3.2-3. Average Daily Emissions for Operation of the Existing SVLRC - Baseline Period
2 of 2009-2034 .................................................................................................................... 3.2-19
3 3.2-4. Annual GHG Emissions for Operation of the Existing SVLRC - Baseline Period of
4 2009-2034 ........................................................................................................................ 3.2-19
5 3.2-5. Project Construction Peak Daily Unmitigated Emissions ................................................ 3.2-22
6 3.2-6. Project Construction Peak Daily Mitigated Emissions .................................................... 3.2-23
7 3.2-7. Ambient Air Pollutant Impacts Due to Project Construction without Mitigation(1) ......... 3.2-23
8 3.2-8. Ambient Air Pollutant Impacts Due to Project Construction with Mitigation(1) .............. 3.2-25
9 3.2-9. Annual GHG Emissions for Project Construction............................................................ 3.2-27
10 3.2-10. Project Peak Daily Operational Emissions - Unmitigated ............................................... 3.2-29
11 3.2-11. Project Peak Daily Operational Emissions - Mitigated .................................................... 3.2-30
12 3.2-12. Ambient Air Pollutant Impacts Due to Project Construction and Operations without
13 Mitigation(1)...................................................................................................................... 3.2-31
14 3.2-13. Ambient Air Pollutant Impacts due to Proposed Project Construction and
15 Operations with Mitigation(1) ........................................................................................... 3.2-33
16 3.2-14. Maximum Health Impacts Estimated for Construction and Operations of the
17 SVLRC Project ................................................................................................................ 3.2-34
18 3.2-15. Annual GHG Emissions from the Operation of the SVLRC Project ............................... 3.2-38
19 3.2-16. Annual Mitigated GHG Emissions from the Operation of the SVLRC Project ............... 3.2-40
20 3.2-17. Mitigation for Air Quality Impacts .................................................................................. 3.2-41
21 3.3-1. Mitigation for Water Resource Impacts ........................................................................... 3.3-33
22 3.4-2 Federally and State-Listed Species and Potential Occurrence in the Project Area ............ 3.4-9
23 3.4-3 Locally Important Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area .......................... 3.4-21
24 3.4-5. Mitigation for Biological Impacts .................................................................................... 3.4-45
25 3.5-1. Mitigation for Agricultural Resource Impacts ................................................................... 3.5-5
26 3.6-1. Mitigation for Visual Resource/Glare Impacts ................................................................ 3.6-23
27 3.7-1. Mitigation for Geological Impacts ................................................................................... 3.7-22
28 3.8-1. Mitigation for Cultural Resource Impacts........................................................................ 3.8-14
29 3.9-1. Mitigation for Hazards Impacts ....................................................................................... 3.9-20
30 3.10-1. Definitions of Acoustical Terms ...................................................................................... 3.10-2
31 3.10-4. Interior and Exterior Noise Standards from 1988 Simi Valley General Plan Noise
32 Element Table 10.1 .......................................................................................................... 3.10-9
33 3.11-2 Existing Peak Hour LOS Summary ............................................................................... 3.11-10
34 3.11-3 Caltrans TIA Guidelines: ............................................................................................... 3.11-11
35 3.11-4 Minimum Level Of Service For Roadway Segments .................................................... 3.11-13
36 3.11-5 Threshold Of Significance-Intersection ......................................................................... 3.11-14
37 3.11-6 City of Simi Valley Critical Movements & LOS Values ............................................... 3.11-16
38 3.11-7. Intersection Level of Service Definitions ...................................................................... 3.11-18
39 3.11-8. Waste Hauling Yard Existing Trip Generation (PCE) ................................................... 3.11-20
40 3.11-9. Landfill Existing Trip Generation (PCE) ....................................................................... 3.11-20
41 3.11-10. Landfill Existing & Future Truck Trips ......................................................................... 3.11-20
42 3.11-11. Total Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................ 3.11-21
43 3.11-12. Existing With Project Peak Hour Level of Service Summary ....................................... 3.11-25
44 3.11-13. Existing Freeway Segment Peak Hour Los Summary ................................................... 3.11-26
45 3.11-10 Future With Project Peak Hour Volumes & Level-of-Service ...................................... 3.11-28
46 3.11-14. Future With Project Peak Hour Level of Service Summary .......................................... 3.11-29
47 3.11-15. Existing Roadway Segment Peak Hour Los Summary .................................................. 3.11-30
48 3.11-16. Future Freeway Segment Peak Hour Los Summary ...................................................... 3.11-31
49 3.11-17. Future Roadway Segment Peak Hour LOS Summary ................................................... 3.11-31
50 3.12-1. Projected Water Demand vs Project Demand .................................................................. 3.12-4
51 3.14-1. Parks/Facilities and Trails/Corridors Within the Project Vicinity ................................... 3.14-1
vi Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

Table of Contents
1 3.14-2. Mitigation for Recreation Impacts ................................................................................... 3.14-7

2 4.2-1 Related Projects..................................................................................................................... 4-2
3 5.3-2. Proposed Timeline for Phased Increase in Permitted Daily Tonnage Limit ....................... 5-10
4 5.4-1. Alternatives Screening Analysis ......................................................................................... 5-14
5 5.5-1. Reduced Capacity Alternative Summary Table .................................................................. 5-18
6 5.5-6. Proposed Timeline for Phased Increase in Permitted Daily Tonnage Limit ....................... 5-38
7 5.5-9. Impact Comparison of Alternative 5 to the Proposed Project ............................................. 5-60
Appendices
8 A Material Safety Data Sheet for Benzaco
9 B Air Quality Technical Appendix

10 B-1 Emission Calculations – Simi Valley Landfill Expansion Project DEIR
11 B-2 Criteria Pollutant Dispersion Modeling Analyses for the Simi Valley Landfill
12 Expansion Project DEIR
13 B-3 Health Risk Assessment for the Simi Valley Landfill Expansion Project DEIR
14 C Groundwater Sampling Results

15 C-1 2006/2007 Winter/Spring Semiannual and Annual Monitoring Report
16 C-2 2007 Summer/Fall Semiannual Monitoring Report
17 C-3 2007/2008 Winter/Spring Semiannual and Annual Monitoring Report
18 D Hydraulic Evaluation
19 E Alamos Canyon Floodplain Study
20 F Biological Resources Appendix

21 F-1 Biological Resources Summary Report (PSOMAS)
22 F-2 Federally and State-Listed and Locally Important Species and Potential
23 Occurrence in the Project Area
24 G Simi Valley Cultural Resources Survey Report
25 H Noise Survey Data
26 I Traffic Impact Analysis
27 J Water & Sewer Study
28 K Waste Capacity Study
29 L Surface Water Quality
30 M Initial Study
31 N Hazards Study for Bio-LNG Facility Simi Valley Landfill
32 O Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Letter of May 4, 2010

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
1 °F degree Fahrenheit
2 µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
3 3D three dimensional
4 AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
5 AB Assembly Bill
6 ACM asbestos containing material
7 ADC alternative daily cover
8 AE Agricultural Exclusive
9 Æ Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
10 AEP Association of Environmental Professionals
11 AF acre feet
12 AFY acre-feet per year
13 APN assessor’s parcel number
14 AQMP air quality management plan
15 ARB California Air Resources Control Board
16 ATC Authority to Construct
17 B2EHP bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
18 BACT best available control technology
19 BLM Bureau of Land Management
20 BMPs best management practices
21 BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
22 C&D construction and demolition debris
23 CAA Clean Air Act
24 CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
25 CADD Computer Aided Drafting and Design
26 Cal Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
27 Caltrans California Department of Transportation
28 CAP Corrective Action Plan
29 CAT Camarillo Area Transit
30 CCAR California Climate Action Registry
31 CCR California Code of Regulations
32 CDC United States Center for Disease Control
33 CDF California Department of Finance
viii Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

Acronyms
1 CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

2 CDLB Canada de la Brea
3 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
4 CESA California Endangered Species Act
5 CFR Code of Federal Regulations
6 cfs cubic foot per second
7 CH4 methane
8 CHB Cultural Heritage Board
9 CHL California Historical Landmarks
10 CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
11 CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
12 cm/sec centimeters per second
13 CMP congestion management plan; or corrugated metal pipe
14 CMS changeable message signs
15 CMWD Calleguas Municipal Water District
16 CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
17 CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
18 CNG compressed natural gas
19 CNPS California Native Plant Society
20 CO carbon monoxide
21 CO2 carbon dioxide
22 CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
23 CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
24 CUP Conditional Use Permit
25 CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
26 CWA Clean Water Act
27 cy cubic yard
28 dB decibel
29 dB(A) A-weighted sound level
30 DEM Digital Elevation Model
31 DMP Detection Monitoring Plan
32 DOE Archaeological Determination of Eligibility
33 DOF United States Department of Finance
34 DOGGR California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
35 Resources
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project ix

Acronyms
1 DPM diesel particulate matter

2 DSP Dust Suppression Plan
3 DTSC California Department of Toxic Substance Control
4 EERD Environmental and Energy Resources Department
5 EHD Ventura County Environmental Health Division
6 EIR Environmental Impact Report
7 EMP Evaluation Monitoring Plan
8 EO Executive Order
9 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
10 EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
11 ESA Endangered Species Act or Environmental Site Assessment
12 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
13 FHWA Federal Highway Administration
14 FP California Department of Fish and Game Fully Protected
15 FR Federal Register
16 FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program
17 GCL geosynthetic clay liner
18 gpd gallons per day
19 GHGs greenhouse gases
20 GWLMP Groundwater & Leachate Monitoring Program
21 GWP global warming potential
22 H2 S hydrogen sulfide
23 HAP hazardous air pollutant
24 HCD Housing and Community Development Department
25 HCM Highway Capacity Manual
26 HDPE high density polyethylene
27 HHI chronic and acute non-cancer hazard indices
28 HHW household hazardous waste
29 HRA health risk assessment
30 HRI California State Historical Resources Inventory
31 Hz hertz
32 ICC International Code Council
33 ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
34 IFI Important Farmland Inventory
35 IS Initial Study
x Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

Acronyms
1 IWMD Ventura County Integrated Waste Management Division

2 JTD Joint Technical Document
3 km kilometer
4 kV kilovolt
5 kWh kilowatt hour
6 Leq Equivalent Noise Level
7 LeqT Time Average Sound Level
8 LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
9 LADOT Los Angeles Department of Transportation
10 LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
11 LandGEM Landfill Gas Emissions Model
12 LARWQCB or Los
13 Angeles RWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
14 LCRS leachate collection and removal system
15 LEA local enforcement agency
16 LEED® Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
17 LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee
18 LFG landfill gas
19 LFGTE landfill gas-to-energy
20 LFGTLNG landfill gas-to-liquefied natural gas
21 LIPS liquid injection points
22 LNG liquefied natural gas
23 LOS level of service (related to roadway traffic)
24 LPG liquid petroleum gas
25 Mg mega grams
26 mg/l milligrams per liter
27 MBTA Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
28 MCP Master Concept Plan
29 MDP Master Development Plan
30 Mg million mega grams
31 MLD most likely descendent
32 mph miles per hour
33 MRF Material Recovery Facility
34 MRF/RTF Material Recovery Facility/Recyclables Transfer Facility
35 MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project xi

Acronyms
1 msl mean sea level

2 MSW municipal solid waste
3 MW megawatt
4 MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
5 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
6 NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
7 NAICS North American Industry Classification System
8 NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
9 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
10 NMOC non-methane organic compounds
11 NNR Notice of Nonrenewal
12 N2 O nitrous oxide
13 NO2 nitrogen dioxide
14 NOx nitrogen oxides
15 NOP/IS Notice of Preparation and Initial Study
16 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
17 NPHP National Register of Historic Places
18 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
19 NSPS New Source Performance Standards
20 O3 ozone
21 ODR Optional Demonstration Report
22 OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
23 OPR Office of Planning and Research
24 OS Open Space
25 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
26 OVA organic vapor analyzer
27 PAJ Permit Adjustments
28 Pb lead
29 PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
30 PCE passenger car equivalent
31 PERP Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program
32 pH Potential of hydrogen
33 PHI California Points of Historical Interest
34 PHT peak hour trips
35 PID photo-ionization detector
xii Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

Acronyms
1 PM particulate matter
2 PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
3 PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
4 ppm parts per million
5 PRC Public Resources Code
6 PVC polyvinyl chloride
7 QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
8 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
9 REL reference exposure levels
10 RMA Ventura County Resource Management Agency
11 ROC reactive organic compounds
12 RRA Resource Recovery Area
13 RSRPD Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks District
14 RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
15 RTF Recyclables Transfer Facility
16 SAA Streambed Alteration Agreement
17 SAIC Science Applications International Corporation
18 SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
19 SB Senate Bill
20 SCCAB South Central Coast Air Basin
21 SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
22 SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
23 SCAT South Coast Area Transit
24 SCE Southern California Edison
25 SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
26 SERC State Emergency Response Commission
27 SIC Standard Industrial Classification
28 SIP State Implementation Plan
29 SLP Specific Landscape Plan
30 SO2 sulfur dioxide
31 SR State Route
32 SR-118 State Route 118/Simi Valley Freeway
33 SSC California species of special concern
34 SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
35 SPCC Plan Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project xiii

Acronyms
1 SPL sound pressure level

2 SVECC Simi Valley Environmental Collection Center
3 SVLRC Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center
4 SVOC semi-volatile organic compounds
5 SWANCC Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
6 SWFP Solid Waste Facilities Permit
7 SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
8 SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
9 TAC toxic air contaminants
10 TCE trichloroethylene
11 TDS total dissolved solids
12 TIA traffic impact analysis
13 TIMF traffic impact mitigation fee
14 TOT Thousand Oaks Transit
15 tpd tons per day
16 TSS total suspended solids
17 UBC Uniform Building Code
18 UCLA University of California, Los Angeles
19 UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
20 UFP ultrafine particle
21 USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
22 USBLS United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Occupational Employment
23 Statistics
24 U.S.C. United States Code
25 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
26 USGS United States Geological Survey
27 UWCD United Water Conservation District
28 UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
29 V/C volume/capacity (ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity)
30 VCAPCD Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
31 VCPWA Ventura County Public Works Agency
32 VCRMA Ventura County Resource Management Agency
33 VCTC Ventura County Transportation Commission
34 VCWPD Ventura County Watershed Protection District
35 VIMP Visual Impact Mitigation Program
xiv Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

Acronyms
1 VISTA Ventura Intercity Service Transit Authority

2 VOC volatile organic compounds
3 VRSD Ventura Regional Sanitation District
4 WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
5 WL California Department of Fish and Game Watch List
6 WMC Waste Management of California, Inc.
7 WMI Waste Management, Inc.
8 WMP Water Management Plan
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project xv

Acronyms
1 This page intentionally left blank.
xvi Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

Document Overview
1 Proposed Project
2 The proposed project (Permit Case No. LU07-0048; Major Modification No. 8 to CUP-3142) is an
3 expansion of the existing Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center (SVLRC). The SVLRC’s
4 Conditional use Permit (CUP) boundary is proposed to be expanded to encompass 887 acres within which
5 the waste disposal area would be expanded north and west from its current permitted location to include
6 186 acres of additional waste disposal area and to increase the total capacity of the landfill from 43.5 to
7 123.1 million cubic yards. The amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) that could be received per day is
8 proposed to increase from 3,000 tons to 6,000 tons and the amount of recycling to be reduced from 6,250
9 to 3,250 tons per day (tpd). The total daily tonnage (i.e., combined MSW and recyclables) permitted for
10 the facility would not change. Several existing ancillary facilities and support facilities would be
11 expanded and new facilities constructed within the landfill CUP boundary including: office building;
12 heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance facility; waste hauling yard; material recovery
13 facility/recyclable transfer facility (MRF/RTF); public household hazardous waste collection facility
14 (SVECC); new entrance road, scales, and scale house; expanded construction and demolition (C&D)
15 debris recycling processing area; expanded green waste processing facility; expanded landfill gas-to-
16 energy (LFGTE) facility; and landfill gas-to-liquefied natural gas (LFGTLNG) facility. The proposed
17 project would require a major modification to the existing SVLRC CUP (CUP-3142-7) issued by the
18 County of Ventura.
19 Project Purpose and Need and Project Objectives

20 The purpose of the proposed project is to provide waste disposal capacity within Ventura County to meet
21 the County’s current and projected waste diversion and disposal needs consistent with the goals and
22 policies of the Ventura County General Plan, Ventura County Integrated Waste Management Plan, the
23 requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 939, and other California waste management laws and regulations.
24 The specific objectives of the proposed project include the following:
25 • Provide solid waste transformation and disposal facilities consistent with the Ventura County
26 General Plan and support programs facilitating compliance with diversion requirements of
27 Assembly Bill (AB) 939 [General Plan and AB 939].
28 • Ensure continuous solid waste disposal capacity for solid wastes generated within the County that
29 cannot be reduced, recycled, or composted to meet the County’s current and projected waste
30 disposal needs [General Plan Goal 4.4.1-1, Countywide Siting Element of the CIWMP].
31 • Provide a waste disposal and diversion operation designed and conducted in a manner that
32 complies with local, state, and federal regulations and plans; protects the natural environment;
33 ensures protection of the public’s health, safety and welfare; and is compatible with surrounding
34 land uses [General Plan Goal 4.4.1-2 and 4.4.2-5].
35 • Minimize incompatibilities between industrial and residential land uses.
36 • Minimize adverse impacts on environmental resources.
37 Final Environmental Impact Report

38 This Final EIR consists of the modified portions of a Draft EIR (DEIR) circulated on September 28, 2009
39 plus recirculated portions of the document that were made available to the public on July 27, 2010. Both
40 the DEIR and the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) sections have been modified according to public
41 comments received during their respective public comment periods. This document contains a
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project 1

Document Overview
1 combination of both the DEIR and the RDEIR as modified in response to public comments. All publically
2 circulated material is contained herein.
3 This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) fulfills the requirements of the California Environmental
4 Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14
5 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 15000 et seq.). According to CEQA Guidelines Section
6 15121(a) (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), the purpose of an EIR is to serve as an informational
7 document that will:
8 (1) Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant
9 environmental effects of proposed activities;
10 (2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced;
11 (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects
12 through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the
13 changes to be feasible; and
14 (4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner
15 the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
16 This FEIR evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project in accordance with the
17 provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. It will be used to address potentially significant
18 environmental issues and to recommend adequate and feasible mitigation measures that, where possible,
19 could reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts.
20 Public Draft EIR
21 A public Draft EIR (DEIR) was circulated on September 28, 2009. The public comment period was
22 extended from 45 to 90 days and the comment period closed December 27, 2009. Since distribution of the
23 DEIR, there have been changes to the Project Description (Section 2) and changes in some conclusions
24 with respect to impact significance. Hence, a Recirculated Draft EIR was distributed to various state and
25 local agencies, organizations and individuals for a 45-day review period starting July 27, 2010 and ending
26 September 9, 2010.
27 Recirculated Draft EIR
28 In accordance with Section 15088.5 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
29 Guidelines, the County, as lead agency for the proposed project, is required to recirculate an
30 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) “….when significant new information is added to the EIR after
31 public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 [Public
32 Review of Draft EIR] but before certification.” There have been a number of changes to the Project
33 Description for the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project as well as changes to
34 CEQA Guidelines since the distribution of the Public Draft EIR on September 28, 2009. This document
35 contains the relevant revisions to the Draft EIR related to those changes that represent significant new
36 information.
37 As defined by CEQA, “…the term ‘information’ can include changes in the project or environmental
38 setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not
39 ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to
40 comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or
41 avoid such an affect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined
2 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

Document Overview
1 to implement.” If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need
2 only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified (CEQA Guidelines Section 150088.5).
3 As directed by Senate Bill (SB) 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA
4 Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions effective on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the
5 Office of Administrative Law approved the amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for
6 inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
7 These amendments, among other things, added a new category of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the CEQA
8 Guidelines Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist. The new guidelines for GHGs require lead agencies to
9 analyze and determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions in CEQA documents (CEQA
10 Guidelines Section 15064.4). The Draft EIR for the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion
11 Project (SCH No. 2007121148) was circulated for public review on September 28, 2009, prior to the
12 amendments to the CEQA Guidelines becoming final. While the Draft EIR addressed the project’s
13 individual and cumulative GHG impacts, it did not determine the significance of GHG emissions or
14 define significance thresholds as would be necessary to be consistent with the March 2010 CEQA
15 Guidelines amendment. While Section 15007 of CEQA Guidelines provides that a document need not be
16 revised “[i]f the document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for
17 public review,” the County determined that it would be prudent to revise the portion of the Draft EIR
18 evaluating GHGs to meet the current content requirements.
19 The following sections of the DEIR were recirculated:
20 • 2 Project Description
21 • 3 Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis (following subsections):
22 o 3.1 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
23 o 3.2 Air Quality
24 o 3.9 Hazards
25 o 3.14 Recreational Facilities
26 • 4 Cumulative Analysis (Subsections related to above issue areas)
27 • Appendix N Hazards Study for Bio-LNG Facility Simi Valley Landfill
28 In addition, an Executive Summary was prepared for the Recirculated DEIR. This Executive Summary
29 addressed only the change portions of the document identified above.
30 Presentation and Organization of the Final EIR

31 The Draft EIR was circulated for public review on September 28, 2009. Comments were received on the
32 Draft EIR until December 27, 2009 during an extended 90 day comment period. Following circulation of
33 the Draft EIR, and as noted above, changes were made to the project description and environmental
34 impact analyses that resulted in the identification of significant impacts that had not been identified in the
35 Draft. This was considered to be new information for the purposes of CEQA. Because the revision was
36 limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, only the chapters or portions that have were modified
37 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) were recirculated on July 9, 2010 for a 45 day public comment
38 period.

Document Overview
1 Presentation
2 Since only portions of the document were recirculated, this Final EIR consists of the modified portions of
3 the Draft EIR (DEIR) as well as the recirculated portions. Both the DEIR and the Recirculated Draft EIR
4 (RDEIR) have been modified according to public comments received during their respective public
5 comment periods. This document contains a combination of both the DEIR and the RDEIR as modified in
6 response to public comments. All publically circulated material is contained herein.
7 Where changes have been made to the text of the DEIR or the RDEIR in response to public comments,
8 those changes are indicated by strike-outs for deleted text and underlines for added text. In addition, some
9 portions of the DEIR were completely replaced by portions of the RDEIR. In the case of entire sections,
10 the original text from the DEIR has been removed and entirely replaced by the new section that was
11 circulated with the RDEIR. New RDEIR sections were presented in strike-out and underline format so
12 that all changes to the original DEIR text are visible in the RDEIR text that replaces it. In sections that
13 were not recirculated, modified text is presented in strike-out and underline format as described in the
14 first sentence of this paragraph.
15 As a consequence of the multiple circulations, two Executive Summaries were prepared. To ensure
16 consistency and integrity between the DEIR, the RDEIR, and this Final EIR, both Executive Summaries
17 are included in this document. Those portions of the Executive Summary to the Draft EIR that are no
18 longer accurate or superseded by the Executive Summary to the RDIER are struck out to indicate they are
19 no longer considered relevant. A reference is provided to the appropriate section of the Executive
20 Summary to the RDEIR that replaces that section.
21 Organization
22 The following major sections are included in this FEIR in the order listed below:
23 Volume I
24 • Document Overview
25 • Executive Summary to Draft EIR
26 • Executive Summary to Recirculated Draft EIR
27 • 1 Introduction
28 • 2 Project Description (replaced by Section 2.0 from the RDEIR)
29 • 3 Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis
30 o 3.1 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs (replaced by Section 3.1 from
31 RDEIR)
32 o 3.2 Air Quality (replaced by Section 3.2 from RDEIR)
33 o 3.3 Water Resources
34 o 3.4 Biological Resources
35 o 3.5 Agricultural Resources
36 o 3.6 Visual Resources/Glare
37 o 3.7 Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology
38 o 3.8 Cultural Resources
39 o 3.9 Hazards (replaced by Section 3.9 from RDEIR)
40 o 3.10 Noise
41 o 3.11 Traffic and Circulation
42 o 3.12 Water Supply
43 o 3.13 Waste Treatment/Disposal
44 o 3.14 Recreational Facilities (replaced by Section 3.14 from RDEIR)

Document Overview
1 • 4 Cumulative Analysis (as modified by RDEIR)

2 • 5 Alternatives
3 • 6 Other Required Sections
4 • 7 Persons and Agencies Contacted
5 • 8 List of Preparers
6 • 9 References
7 Volume II
8 • Comments on DEIR and Responses
9 • Comments on RDEIR and Responses
10 Volume III
11 • Appendix A – Material Safety Data Sheet
12 • Appendix B – Air Quality
13 Volume IV
14 • Appendix C – Groundwater Sampling Results
15 Volume V
16 • Appendix D – Hydraulic Evaluation
17 • Appendix E – Alamos Canyon Floodplain Study
18 • Appendix F – Biological Resources Appendix
19 • Appendix G – Simi Valley Cultural Resources Survey Report
20 • Appendix H – Noise Survey Data
21 Volume VI
22 • Appendix I – Traffic Impact Analysis
23 • Appendix J – Water & Sewer Study
24 • Appendix K – Capacity Study
25 • Appendix L – Surface Water Quality
26 • Appendix M – Initial Study
27 • Appendix N – Hazards Study for Bio-LNG Facility
28 • Appendix O – Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Letter of May 4, 2010

Document Overview
This page intentionally left blank.

Executive Summary to Draft EIR
1 ES.1 Intended Uses and Authorizing Agencies

2 This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) fulfills the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
3 Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), Ventura County Initial Study Assessment
4 Guidelines (February 2009), County of Ventura Administrative Supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines
5 (August 3, 1999). According to State CEQA Guidelines [California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14,
6 Division 6, Chapter 3, §15121(a)], the purpose of an EIR is to serve as an informational document that
7 “…will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect
8 of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to
9 the project”.
10 ES.2 Project Purpose and Need and Project Objectives

11 CEQA requires that an EIR state the objectives of a proposed project to explain the reasons for project
12 development, and why this particular solution is currently being recommended. Additionally, the project
13 objectives are instrumental in determining which alternatives should be considered in the document.
14 The purpose of the proposed project is to provide waste disposal capacity within Ventura County to meet the
15 County’s current and projected waste diversion and disposal needs consistent with the goals and policies of
16 the Ventura County General Plan, Ventura County Integrated Waste Management Plan, the requirements of
17 Assembly Bill (AB) 939, and other California waste management laws and regulations. The specific
18 objectives of the proposed project include the following:
19 • Provide solid waste transformation and disposal facilities consistent with the Ventura County General
20 Plan and support programs facilitating compliance with diversion requirements of Assembly Bill
21 (AB) 939 [General Plan and AB 939].
23 cannot be reduced, recycled, or composted to meet the County’s current and projected waste disposal
24 needs [General Plan Goal 4.4.1-1, Countywide Siting Element of the CIWMP].
25 • Provide a waste disposal and diversion operation designed and conducted in a manner that complies
26 with local, state, and federal regulations and plans; protects the natural environment; ensures
27 protection of the public’s health, safety and welfare; and is compatible with surrounding land uses
28 [General Plan Goal 4.4.1-2 and 4.4.2-5].
36 Provide a minimum of 15 years of waste diversion and disposal capacity to meet the County’s
37 projected waste disposal needsstate-mandated waste diversion goals;
38 • Provide solid waste diversion operation consistent with the state-mandated waste diversion goals;
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project ES-1
Final EIR - December 2010
Executive Summary
1 • Provide an environmentally safe waste disposal and diversion operation that complies with local,
2 state, and federal regulations and plans;
3 • Minimize adverse impacts to environmental resources; and
4 • Provide harmony between the project and adjacent land uses.
5 ES.3 Description of the Project and Alternatives

6 Project Location
7 The Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center (SVLRC) is located in an unincorporated area of southeast
8 Ventura County within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute Simi Valley West
9 topographic quadrangle (Figure 2.1-1). The site is north of State Route (SR)-118 and west of the Madera
10 Road overcrossing. The site entrance is approximately 2,800 feet west of Madera Road. The facility address is
11 2801 Madera Road, Simi Valley, California 93065.
12 Project Overview (See Project Overview under ESR.3)
13 The SVLRC is an existing Class III (non-hazardous) municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill permitted to
14 receive 3,000 tons per day (tpd) of MSW. In addition to waste disposal, SVLRC engages in recycling,
15 including materials such as green waste, wood waste, asphalt/concrete, white goods, and scrap metal.
16 SVLRC, which is located in southeast Ventura County, California near the City of Simi Valley, is owned and
17 operated by Waste Management of California, Inc. (WMC) under Conditional Use Permit (CUP)-3142-7.
18 The proposed project (Permit Case No. LU07-0048; Major Modification No. 8 to CUP-3142) is an expansion
19 of the existing SVLRC. The proposed expansion is comprised of five main components: (1) expanding the
20 physical limits of the landfill (CUP boundary, landfill footprint, and elevation); (2) extending the operating
21 limits and life of the site (increasing the waste disposal capacity); (3) constructing support/ancillary facility
22 area; (4) expanding existing and constructing new recycling and resources recovery facilities; and (5)
23 expanding existing and constructing new energy conversion facilities.
24 The SVLRC’s CUP boundary is proposed to be expanded to encompass 887 acres within which the waste
25 disposal area would be expanded north and west from its current permitted location to encompass 186 acres of
26 additional waste disposal area and to increase the total capacity of the landfill from 43.5 to 130123.1.2 million
27 cubic yards. The amount of MSW that could be received per day is proposed to increase from 3,000 tons to
28 6,000 tons and the amount of recycling to be reduced from 6,250 tpd to 3,250 tpd. The total daily tonnage
29 (i.e., combined MSW and recyclables) permitted for the facility would not change. Additionally, several
30 existing ancillary facilities (defined facilities ancillary to the active landfill such as the waste receiving and
31 recycling facilities for the purpose of this project) and support facilities (defined as facilities that support the
32 landfill operation such as administrative offices and maintenance facilities for the purpose of this project)
33 would be expanded and new facilities constructed within the landfill CUP boundary including: office
34 building; heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance facility; waste hauling yard; material recovery
35 facility/recyclable transfer facility (MRF/RTF); public household hazardous waste collection facility; new
36 entrance road, scales, and scale house; expanded construction and demolition (C&D) debris recycling
37 processing area; expanded green waste processing facility; expanded landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) facility;
38 and landfill gas-to-liquefied natural gas (LFGTLNG) facility. The proposed project would require a major
39 modification to the existing SVLRC CUP (CUP 3142-7) issued by the County of Ventura.
ES-2 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

Executive Summary
1 Construction (See Construction under ESR.3)
2 Construction of the SVLRC Expansion Project would involve two types of construction and occur in four
3 phases. The initial construction activities would include the construction of facilities in the 30-acre
4 support/ancillary facilities area (including the MRF/RTF, Simi Valley Environmental Collection Center
5 (SVECC), waste hauling yard, office facilities, heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance Facility, and new
6 scales and scalehouse). This initial construction would also include expansion of the existing LFGTE facility
7 and construction of a LFGTLNG facility. The C&D debris recycling activities and green waste processing
8 operations would occur on the landfill footprint in an area not receiving waste and would migrate from place
9 to place within the landfill as portions are filled to capacity. Construction of additional waste depository space
10 within the waste disposal area would also occur during Phase I. Subsequent construction activities would
11 involve the sequential excavation of Phases II through IV of the waste footprint and would include clearing,
12 compacting, and preparing the phase(s) for landfilling.
13 The approximately 30-acre support/ancillary facilities area would be completed within approximately 18
14 months of project approval. Phase I of the waste footprint would include additional filling of the existing
15 landfill area. Construction of Phase II would begin as Phase I approaches its design capacity, which has been
16 estimated to take approximately seven to eight years. The construction of each subsequent phase would begin
17 as the previous phase reaches capacity (estimated to take between 12 to 14 years).
18 During peak construction, the construction workforce would include approximately 45 personnel for the 30-
19 acre support/ancillary facilities area. The waste disposal areas would be constructed in four consecutive
20 phases with each phase divided into cells. Phase I would be comprised of one cell and would require 29
21 personnel including 18 equipment operators, 9 construction personnel, and 2 managers. Phase II would be
22 comprised of four cells and would require 116 construction personnel. Phases III and IV would each contain
23 three cells and require 87 personnel. Wastes generated from construction would either be hauled within the
24 landfill for disposal or recycling or off-site to local recycling centers.
25 Operations
26 Landfill operations include waste receipt and or disposal, waste hauling within the landfill footprint,
27 application of daily and intermediate cover, and site grading and maintenance. As the landfill expands,
28 additional excavation would begin in new phases, and other heavy equipment operations would occur on the
29 surface of areas surrounding the refuse columns.
30 Currently, SVLRC is permitted for a maximum limit of 822 round trips per day (except for the “free days” as
31 directed by the Agreement for the Operation and Closure of the Simi Valley Landfill pursuant to County
32 Ordinance 4760). Based on an analysis of the current average waste delivery, the SVLRC currently receives
33 approximately 470 truck round trips (i.e., vehicles entering and leaving) per day of waste. This includes
34 approximately 178 vehicle round trips hauling MSW and 292 vehicles round trips delivering recyclable
35 materials. Additionally, the facility receives approximately 22 employee vehicle round trips per day.1 This is
36 considered the baseline condition.
37 As part of the proposed project, SVLRC is projected to generate up to a total of 892 vehicle trips (roundtrips)
38 per day. This number involves up to 6,000 tpd of solid waste (547 round trips) and up to 3,250 tpd of
39 recyclable materials (345 round trips). This would result in the permitted total of up to 9,250 tpd of materials
40 hauled to the site (Table 2.4-14). The additional truck trips associated with MSW are expected to be large
41 capacity transfer trucks, resulting in fewer trips for a given tonnage of waste than is the case when smaller
42 local trucks dominate the truck trips. In addition to the trips associated with the transport of waste (including
43 the relocation of the GI Rubbish waste hauling yard to the SVLRC) and recyclable materials to the site,
1
Based on data provided by WMC from January through March 2008.
Executive Summary
1 employees of SVLRC and GI Rubbish are expected to generate an average of approximately 405 daily
2 roundtrips, bringing the total maximum projected vehicle trips (roundtrips) to 1,297 per day. Thus, the
3 proposed SVLRC Expansion Project would result in a net increase of 475 vehicle round trips per day above
4 SVLRC’s permitted limit and 786 vehicle round trips above the baseline condition.
5 The actual volume of any specific material varies on a daily basis. Therefore, it is the projected daily total
6 (1,297 round trips) that defines maximum traffic for the proposed project, not the number of trips by type of
7 vehicle or by type of waste.
8 Municipal solid waste and recyclables from the local community would be delivered to SVLRC in packer
9 trucks for disposal in the landfill for processing in the MRF/RTF. Each truck would be weighed and specific
10 information about its origin documented at the weigh station. The GI Rubbish fleet of packer trucks would be
11 sent out multiple times per day, but would remain at the SVLRC in the proposed waste hauling yard at the end
12 of each day. GI Rubbish packer trucks would also be maintained at the proposed Heavy Equipment and
13 Vehicle Maintenance Facility within the SVLRC.
14 SVLRC would continue to receive transfer trucks, trucks carrying recyclables, and trucks carrying roll-off
15 bins. Each truck would be weighed and specific information about its origin documented at the weigh station.
16 The trucks would dispose of their contents at the tipping areas based on the type of commodity they are
17 carrying. To the maximum extent possible, trucks bringing material in would be reloaded and sent outbound
18 with material from the MRF/RTF and resource recovery facility areas. The trucks would be weighed upon
19 leaving the facility.
20 The proposed project would result in an overall increase of 150 employees. Currently, SVLRC and GI
21 Rubbish employ 250 personnel of which 25 are located at SVLRC and 225 (135 drivers and 90 customer
22 service, shop, support, and management personnel) are located off-site at the existing GI Rubbish hauling
23 facility. Under the proposed project the existing hauling facility would be relocated to the SVLRC and the
24 hauling facility personnel would increase to 350 (225 drivers and 125 customer service/billing staff, shop,
25 support, and management personnel) over the life of the project. Additionally, the landfill personnel would
26 increase to 50 personnel.
27 The expanded SVLRC would continue to comply with the currently permitted hours of operation: 6:00 AM to
28 8:00 PM, 7 days per week, 365 days per year. However, SVLRC is typically closed on New Year’s Day,
29 Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. The hauling vehicle fleet
30 would operate between the hours of 4:00 AM and 8:00 PM, 7 days per week, 365 days per year with the
31 exception of the holidays listed above. However, it should be noted that current operations occur six days a
32 week plus one Sunday per month. Other activities such as LFG and leachate collection/disposal, equipment
33 and vehicle maintenance, MRF/RTF operations, and compliance tasks would not be limited by this condition.
34 An updated closure plan would be prepared to take into account the revised fill plan, the increased waste
35 disposal capacity, and the extended site life. The closure plan would be submitted to the Ventura County
36 Environmental Health Division, which is the local enforcement agency (LEA) for solid waste disposal
37 facilities, along with the application for revision of the Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP).
38 The SVLRC would be filled sequentially within the four phases. Once the landfill reaches capacity it would
39 be brought to final grade and the final alternative evapotranspirative cover currently approved under
40 SVLRC’s Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan would be installed (Geosyntec 2002).
41 WMC has an existing Post-Closure Maintenance and Monitoring Agreement to ensure protection of the
42 surrounding environment during the closure period (a minimum of 30 years after the last wastes have been
43 deposited). This agreement would be extended to include the proposed project area.

Executive Summary
1 As required by 27 CCR §21190(c), all proposed post-closure land uses, other than non-irrigated open space,
2 shall be submitted to the LEA, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), Ventura
3 County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), and local land use agency for review. The LEA must
4 review and approve proposed post-closure land uses if the proposed use involves structures within 1,000 feet
5 of the disposal area, structures on top of waste, modification of the low permeability layer, or irrigation over
6 waste.
7 Environmental Design
8 Currently, the SVLRC is required to comply with a variety of plans and programs to reduce the impacts of
9 operation on both the work area and surrounding area as conditions of the landfill’s CUP permit. Programs
10 include, but are not limited to, groundwater and leachate monitoring program; gas emissions control and
11 monitoring program; wind monitoring program; noise abatement plan; visual impact mitigation program; fire
12 protection program; seismic design; clay and cover availability study; site sign program; noise abatement
13 plan; hazardous waste exclusion program; radioactive waste exclusion program; emergency procedures
14 program; on-site drainage control plan; and stockpile plans. Several of these programs are outlined below.
15 As a part of the routine daily activities, the site supervisor periodically inspects the facility to ensure the
16 operation is in compliance with applicable regulations, especially 27 CCR §20005-20890, and standard
17 operating policies.
18 These plans and programs would be reviewed prior to approval of a modification to the existing CUP to
19 determine if changes would be required to address the specific features of the modified permit and current
20 regulations.
21 Alternatives
22 The following alternatives were considered, but eliminated from further analysis:
23 Offsite Alternatives – Other waste-disposal options for Ventura County, including:

24 • Expand the Toland Road Landfill: (eliminated based on the inability of the applicant and/or County
25 to implement and the low potential to reduce project environmental impact);
26 • Develop a new landfill in western Ventura County (eliminated based on the inability of the applicant
27 and/or County to implement, the low potential to reduce project environmental impacts, and the
28 substantial associated costs);
29 • Transport waste to out-of-County or out-of-state landfill sites via Countywide transfer facility
30 (eliminated based on: the inability of the applicant and/or County to implement; potential for
31 equivalent or greater environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project; and the substantial
32 associated costs); and
33 • Install multiple waste-to-energy facilities (thermal incinerators) at locations near sources of waste
34 within Ventura County ((eliminated because of: the inability of the applicant and/or County to
35 implement; potential for equivalent or greater environmental impacts as compared to the proposed
36 project; and the substantial associated costs).
37 Alternative On-Site Technologies – Other waste disposal technologies (i.e., conversion, diversion, and
38 minimization technologies) that can be implemented once waste reaches the SVLRC to reduce the amount of
39 material deposited in SVLRC, including:
40 • Aerobic bioreactor technology (eliminated based: on the incompatibility of the technology with
41 current landfill operations at SVLRC; its increased need for water as compared to the proposed
42 project; and substantial cost as compared to the proposed project);
Executive Summary
1 • Thermal incinerator technology (eliminated based on: the potential of this technology to result in
2 additional environmental impacts including air quality issues and the production of residual ash; and
3 the substantial costs as compared to the proposed project); and
4 • Thermochemical technologies (eliminated based on the potential of this technology to result in
5 additional environmental impacts including increased air pollutant emissions and the production of
6 residual non-degradable material that would need to be disposed of conventionally; and the
7 substantial costs as compared to the proposed project).
8 Alternative Policy & Permit Options – Permit requirements, changes to public policy, or the
9 implementation of programs to reduce the amount of waste received by landfills in Ventura County,
10 including:
11 • Education/outreach program to decrease the need for landfill facilities (eliminated based on the
12 uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of educational outreach and how the applicant or the County
13 could feasibly implement this alternative, and based on potentially high associated costs);.
14 • Change California policies to increase diversion and recycling (eliminated based on: the uncertainty
15 of how the applicant or the County would change state policies to increase the incentive for recycling
16 without widespread collaboration and support; and the costs of pursuing this policy change are
17 unknown, but possibly considerable); and
18 • Impose a wasteshed boundary on the SVLRC to limit the geographic area from which waste could be
19 received (eliminated based on the legal infeasibility of the County to implement a wasteshed
20 boundary without violating the commerce clause of the U.S.).
21 Table ES.3-1 provides an overview of the key features of the proposed project as compared to the five project
22 alternatives.
Table ES.3-1. Comparison of Key Parameters Among Alternatives
Proposed Alternative Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Parameter Project 1 Reduced Bioreactor Graduated Differential No Project
Capacity Permit Limit Surcharge
Landfill Height (above 1,193 –
MSL) 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,118
Landfill Area (acres) 371 307 371 371 371 185
Daily Permitted 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 3,000
Disposal (Tons)
Daily Permitted with 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,250 6,250
Recycling (Tons)
Total Capacity (million 112 -
yd3) 123.1 86 123+ 123 123 43.5
Building Area (sq ft) 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 20,000
Net Increase of 150 150 150 150 150 0
Employees on-site
Closure year 20514 2049 - 2054+2 20542 20542 20242
20442
LFGTE Units (total) 5 5 6 5 5 2
LNG Units (total) 1 1 1 1 1 0
971
Water Use (afy) 174 174 290 174 174
Source: Psomas 2007a and
Note:
1. Based on the actual water usage at SVLRC during 2008
1.2. The closure year for alternatives was based on airspace calculations for proposed Landfill Phases II, III,
and IV as presented in the Final Cover Grading Plan (WMC 2007).

Executive Summary
1 Alternative 1: Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative
2 The Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative would involve either reducing the overall height of the landfill,
3 reducing the overall footprint of the area used to deposit waste, or some combination of the two. Reducing the
4 landfill capacity would have the effect of limiting the overall volume of waste the landfill could receive over
5 its lifetime.
6 Depending on the approach to reducing the overall capacity of the landfill, the reduction in capacity could
7 range from 11 million cubic yards (approximately 8.7 million tons) to 37 million cubic yards (28.1 million
8 tons). At an estimated annual receipt rate of 2.6 million tons per year at fully permitted capacity based on
9 current operational levels, these capacity reductions would reduce the landfill life by approximately 3 2 to 10
10 7 years. The reductions would modestly reduce visual impacts and potential biological impacts if the landfill
11 footprint were reduced.
12 In all other respects, the Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative would be identical to the proposed project.
13 All other proposed project components would be constructed, including the: office building; heavy
14 equipment and vehicle maintenance facility; waste hauling yard; MRF/RTF; public household hazardous
15 waste collection facility; new entrance road, scales, and scale house; expanded C&D debris recycling
16 processing; expanded green waste processing; additional LFGTE generator units; and LFGTLNG facility.
17 Alternative 2: Anaerobic Bioreactor Technology Alternative
18 Under this alternative, the existing waste disposal area (Phase I) would continue operating as it has in the past
19 until it reaches capacity. All future phases would be developed as in-situ anaerobic bioreactor cells. Although
20 prepared similarly to a standard landfill cell, bioreactor cells require different liner systems as well as
21 substantially modified and expanded leachate and landfill gas recovery systems and could not be implemented
22 in the Phase I where portions are unlined and the lined areas were not designed for bioreactor systems.
23 Therefore, it is not feasible to implement bioreactor technology on Phase I.
24 Within the permitted footprint area, approximately five bioreactor cells would be constructed instead of
25 traditional landfill cells. The exact number and size of cells would depend on design considerations and the
26 optimal allocation of available landfill volume to ensure acceptable cell function. Each cell would have a
27 capacity of approximately 12 to 15 million cubic yards and would take from 7 to 8 years to fill at the
28 permitted level of 6,000 tons per day. If less than 6,000 tons per day is received, on average, in any future
29 year, the effective life would be correspondingly extended by an unknown amount. Anaerobic processing
30 would require approximately170,000 gallons per day of additional water over and above what is currently
31 consumed at the site. There is no confirmed readily available local source for water (e.g. industrial process
32 waste water) in the immediate vicinity of the landfill, so the source of water for anaerobic operations is
33 uncertain. This alternative is analyzed based on the assumption that a reasonably available and reasonably
34 priced water source can be found.
35 In most other respects, the Anaerobic Bioreactor Technology Alternative would be the same as the proposed
36 project. All other proposed project components would be constructed, including the office building; heavy
37 equipment and vehicle maintenance facility; waste hauling yard; MRF/RTF; public household hazardous
38 waste collection facility; new entrance road, scales, and scale house; expanded C&D debris recycling
39 processing; and expanded green waste processing would be constructed as for the proposed project.
40 Bioreactors are expected to maximize landfill gas production, potentially requiring expanding the number of
41 LFGTE generator units plus the LFGTLNG facility. For the purpose of the environmental impact analysis, it
42 is assumed here that one additional LFGTE generator. The LFGTLNG facility would be built as proposed.
43 Anaerobic bioreactor cell technology would accelerate waste decomposition compared to the standard
44 restricted moisture disposal methods currently employed and required by regulations. For the purposes of
Executive Summary
1 analysis, it is assumed that decomposition in a cell would take approximately 10 years, rather than more than
2 30 for a typical dry cell technology. At maximum decomposition, the volume would be reduced to
3 approximately 60 percent of the original airspace of the cell (allowing for decomposition, settlement, and the
4 application of daily cover) in 10 years or less making 40 percent of the originally available airspace available
5 for additional disposal.
6 Therefore, each cell would be reactivated after the contents complete decomposition approximately 10 years
7 following its first closure. The newly available 40 percent of the original capacity would then be prepared to
8 accept more waste and the cell would again be operated as an anaerobic reactor until filled and the contents
9 have decomposed. The effect of the anaerobic bioreactor implementation would be to provide for the reuse of
10 waste capacity made available through the accelerated decomposition process during continuing operations.
11 This would increase the overall capacity of a given volume of landfill to accept waste over the life of the
12 project.
13 Alternative 3: Phased Permitted Daily Tonnage Limit Alternative
14 Under this alternative, the SVLRC Expansion Project would proceed as described under the proposed project.
15 However, the permitted daily tonnage limit would be incrementally increased from its current 3,000 ton per
16 day level, to an intermediate limit of 4,500 tons per day immediately following permit approval, and,
17 ultimately, to the full 6,000 tons per day in 2014. Upon approval of the CUP modification (anticipated to be in
18 2009), the SVLRC would comply with a daily tonnage limit of 4,500 tpd through 2013. Between 2014 and
19 2052 2051 (expected closure date) the permitted daily tonnage limit would be increased to 6,000 tpd. This
20 alternative may result in a reduction in truck traffic in the near term, and a potential reduction in the
21 associated traffic/circulation impacts as compared to the proposed project until the full 6,000 tons per day is
22 being received. However, it is unclear, since the facility currently fails to receive its full 3,000 ton per day
23 limit except very occasionally, whether waste receipts under phased permit limits would actually differ from
24 those without such limits.
25 Receipts are very unlikely to suddenly jump from an average of about 2,500 tons per day currently to 6,000
26 tons per day if the permit is issued for the new facility. Realistically, there would be a period of time after the
27 permit is issued when receipts would gradually ramp up to the full 6,000 tons per day. The most likely driver
28 of significant increased receipts would be the closure of a major nearby landfill. Since the Puente Hills
29 landfill is scheduled to close in 2013, it would be reasonable to expect an incremental increase at that time.
30 Whether an additional 3,000 tons per day would begin being delivered to the SVLRC when Puente Hills
31 closes is difficult to predict. Puente Hills is currently permitted to receive 13,200 tons per day and regularly
32 closes early when this limit is reached. It is unlikely that 3,000 tons per day (about 22 percent) of that waste
33 stream would be delivered to SVLRC following the Puente Hills closure given several other closer available
34 landfills. However, when other landfills in the vicinity close, it is reasonable to expect the SVLRC to be a
35 logical choice for alternate disposal. Since the Puente Hills landfill closure is the earliest major landfill
36 closure scheduled, it is unlikely that an increment of more than 1,500 tons per day (i.e. to the 4,500 tons per
37 day intermediate phased limit) would be received prior to 2014.
38 Alternative 4: Differential Surcharge Alternative
39 Under this alternative, the SVLRC Expansion Project would be constructed as considered under the proposed
40 project. However, the waste received by SVLRC would be limited indirectly by a fee schedule established by
41 the County that would require higher payments for disposal of waste from outside a specified geographic area.
42 This alternative would need to be accompanied by a system whereby waste haulers would be required to
43 provide documentation or other certification of waste origin to the landfill operator, who would, in turn, be
44 required to provide documentation to the County, along with payment of the surcharges, demonstrating that
45 fees were properly collected on out-of-area wastes. The additional surcharge on out-of-area waste is expected
46 to discourage haulers from outside the area from using the SVLRC by making it more costly than alterative
Executive Summary
1 facilities with lower total charges (tipping fees plus surcharge). Existing waste collection and disposal
2 contracts should be considered to ensure that long term patterns of waste collection and disposal are not
3 disrupted unnecessarily. Issues related to the documentation of waste sources required to enforce the
4 boundary would need to be resolved, as would reporting and enforcement mechanisms.
5 Implementing a graduated surcharge system would prolong the working life of the SVLRC by limiting
6 receipts from sources outside the area of lowest surcharge. This alternative has the potential to reduce impacts
7 from truck traffic compared to the proposed project since the distance between the origin and destination of
8 waste may be reduced and the amount of waste delivered for disposal may not result in the full permitted
9 6,000 tons per day being received.
10 In all other respects, the Graduated Surcharge Alternative would be identical to the proposed project. All
11 other proposed project components would be constructed, including: the office building; heavy equipment and
12 vehicle maintenance facility; waste hauling yard; MRF/RTF; public household hazardous waste collection
13 facility; new entrance road, scales, and scale house; expanded C&D debris recycling processing; expanded
14 green waste processing; additional LFGTE generator units; and LFGTLNG facility would be constructed as
15 for the proposed project.
16 Alternative 5: No Project Alternative
17 As specified in the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e), an EIR must evaluate the specific alternative
18 of "no project" along with its potential impacts. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project
19 alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the
20 impacts of not approving the proposed project.
21 For this EIR, the No Project Alternative is defined as no approval of an expansion of the existing SVLRC.
22 Under the No Project Alternative, the SVLRC would continue operating under the existing Conditional Use
23 Permit (CUP 3142). On or before 2034, the site would reach the end of its permitted life, would no longer
24 accept waste, and would undergo formal closure. The County of Ventura and the cities that use the landfill (or
25 their haulers) would have to identify another location or locations for disposal of waste and delivery of
26 recyclable materials. After closure, the remaining permitted disposal capacity of the site, if any, would go
27 unused.
28 ES.4 Environmental Issues

29 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs (See also Land Use/General
30 Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs under ESR.4)
31 The land use analysis evaluates consistency or compliance of the proposed project with adopted plans and
32 policies governing land use and development in the County of Ventura including the Ventura County General
33 Plan, the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable plans. The land use analysis also evaluates
34 the potential for the proposed project to introduce incompatible land uses relative to existing surrounding land
35 uses or activities.
36 The proposed project area is zoned as open space with a 160 acre minimum lot size. The proposed project
37 would result in the expansion of the existing SVLRC by 186 acres over open space land. The facilities
38 proposed within the expansion area are consistent with surrounding zoning and land uses. In addition, the
39 proposed project is consistent with all land use policies of the General Plan. As such the proposed project
40 would result in less than significant impacts to community character.
41 The proposed project would not remove any existing housing units. Therefore, no impacts to existing housing
42 would occur. In addition, the proposed project construction activities would generate employment
Executive Summary
1 opportunities that could create a demand for additional housing. However, it is reasonable to assume that due
2 to the temporary nature of construction activities and the sufficient number of construction workers available
3 within Ventura County and the Los Angeles Metropolitan region, impacts on housing demands during project
4 construction would be less than significant. During proposed project operations, the workforce would increase
5 by a total of 150 permanent employees. Although the County of Ventura does not maintain statistics on the
6 amount of affordable housing available to lower-income families, recent inventory studies have shown that
7 there is not adequate lower-income inventory available throughout the County (personal communication,
8 Shelley Sussman 2009). As such and because the project would employ more than 30 new full-time
9 employees, the proposed project’s impact on housing demand would be significant. Implementation of
10 Mitigation Measure LU-1, an in-lieu fee to support funding housing developments in the vicinity of Simi
11 Valley, would reduce impacts on housing demand to less than significant.
12 The project does not include and would not necessitate the expansion of critical public facilities, including
13 roads, water supply, sewers, or flood control facilities. No new roads or Watershed Protection District
14 facilities would be constructed as part of the project. Additionally, the proposed project does not include an
15 amendment to an adopted policy of the County that could establish a precedent or an accommodation for
16 further growth. As the project would not result in the expansion of public facilities or an amendment to a
17 County policy, impacts to growth inducement would be less than significant.
18 Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in inconsistencies with plans and policies
19 contained in the Ventura County General Plan. Without mitigation, some inconsistencies would exist with
20 regards to land use, air quality, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and recreation;
21 however, implementation of the resources specific mitigation measures included in the various resource
22 sections contained in this EIR would ensure compliance with these plans and policies. As resource specific
23 measures would ensure consistency with the plans and policies contained in the Ventura County General Plan,
24 impacts on land use would be less than significant.
25 Air Quality (See Air Quality under ESR.4)
26 Emissions from proposed project construction and operation would exceed the VCAPCD daily nitrogen oxide
27 (NOx) and reactive organic compounds (ROC) emission thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
28 AQ-1 would reduce emissions of ROC and NOx from construction to less than significant levels during a
29 peak day of activity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would reduce combustive emissions from
30 project operations; however, impacts would remain significant.
31 Project construction and operation would result in offsite ambient air pollutant concentrations that would
32 contribute to exceedances of the following standards: (1) 1-hour California Ambient Air Quality Standard
33 (CAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2); (2) 24-hour CAAQS and National Ambient Air Quality Standard
34 (NAAQS) for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10); (3) annual CAAQS for PM10; (4) the
35 24-hour NAAQS for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5); and (5) annual CAAQS and
36 NAAQS for PM2.5. All other pollutant impacts would remain below significance levels. Implementation of
37 Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce combustive and fugitive dust emissions from
38 construction and operations. These mitigation measures would reduce proposed impacts to below the
39 NAAQS for 24-hour PM10 and annual PM2.5. However, all other construction and operational impacts
40 identified above would remain significant. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would further reduce operations related
41 impacts, but since it is uncertain the extent to which this measure would offset overall project-related
42 vehicular emissions it is not possible to calculate what those reductions might be. these exceedances would
43 remain significant.
44 A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) estimated cancer and non-cancer effects to several population subgroups
45 (receptors), including residential, offsite occupational, and sensitive receptors. Project construction and

Executive Summary
1 operations would not expose the public to significant levels of toxic air contaminants (TACs). Thus,
2 associated health risks to the public would be less than significant.
3 Project consistency with the AQMP requires an evaluation of the impact of a project on population growth
4 and air quality. Project construction would nominally affect population in Ventura County, as proposed
5 construction would occur for less than two years and many of the construction workers would originate from
6 the existing residents in the County. Project construction would produce nonattainment pollutants in the form
7 of combustive and fugitive dust (PM10/PM2.5) emissions. The 2007 AQMP proposes emission reduction
8 measures that are designed to bring the County into attainment of the ambient air quality standards. The
9 attainment strategies in this plan include mobile source control measures and clean fuel programs that are
10 enforced at the state and federal level on engine manufacturers and petroleum refiners and retailers and as a
11 result, project construction would have to comply with these control measures. The 2007 AQMP includes
12 projections of future emissions from construction activities. Project construction emissions would fit into
13 these future emission growth projections. The 2007 AQMP also assumes source compliance with adopted
14 VCAPCD rules. Project construction would comply with all applicable VCAPCD rules and regulations, such
15 as Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust). Lastly, this EIR analysis requires mitigations to minimize emission from project
16 construction (Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2). Therefore, compliance with these requirements would
17 ensure that project construction would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
18 quality plans.
19 The combined ambient impact of both construction and operational emissions would not generate significant
20 levels of fugitive dust. Project construction and operation would comply with VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive
21 Dust. The air quality analysis estimates that the proposed project, prior to mitigation, would reduce PM10
22 emissions from uncontrolled levels by 50 percent, depending on the source type. Mitigation Measures AQ-2
23 and AQ-4, Additional Fugitive Dust Controls for Construction and Operations, respectively, would further
24 reduce fugitive dust emissions from these sources to 90 percent from uncontrolled levels. As a result,
25 implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-4 would further lower the ambient fugitive dust,
26 ensuring a less than significant impact.
27 Project construction would increase air pollutants due to the combustion of diesel fuel. The mobile and
28 intermittent nature of most emission sources would help to adequately disperse combustive emissions from
29 project construction. Additionally, since there are no sensitive receptors in close proximity to the project site,
30 project construction and operations would not expose the public to significant levels of odors. Project
31 operations would generate odorous emissions due to: (1) the combustion of diesel fuel in mobile equipment;
32 (2) the presence of municipal refuse and green waste; and (3) the decomposition of refuse and green waste.
33 Historically, the green waste operations have been the main source of odor emissions from the SVLRC. With
34 the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-6, effective use of the odor control system and implementation
35 of the Odor Control Plan in the future, project operations would not expose the public to significant levels of
36 odors.
37 The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by project construction and operations would incrementally
38 contribute to global climate change. Measures that reduce fossil fuel consumption of proposed construction
39 equipment would reduce GHG emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would have this effect.
40 This is the case, as use of equipment that comply with the newest emission standards would have more fuel-
41 efficient engines compared to older equipment. Additionally, minimizing equipment idling time and using
42 alternatively-fueled equipment would reduce fossil fuel consumption and resulting GHG emissions compared to
43 unmitigated construction activities.
44 Water Resources
45 Expansion of the SVLRC would not result in significant impacts to groundwater quantity. Although the
46 Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD), the water purveyor for the SVLRC, would use limited
Executive Summary
1 groundwater from the Las Posas Basin, the main source of water would be imported State San Joaquin Delta
2 water. Because a water availability letter would be submitted by CMWD with the proposed project
3 application, verifying that adequate water supplies are available; an updated water supply plan would be
4 included as part of a Master Development Plan; and the CMWD is considered a permanent source of water
5 (See Section 3.12, Water Supply); groundwater quantity impacts would be less than significant.
6 The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect groundwater quality in the Simi Valley
7 Groundwater Basin due to landfill leachate. However, the expanded waste disposal area would be fully lined
8 with regulation-compliant liner systems to prevent direct contact between the waste and soil or bedrock
9 Therefore, the potential for leachate contamination from expanded areas of the land fill would be less than
10 significant. In addition, groundwater quality impacts due to landfill gas, pesticides, oil field impact, and
11 laboratory contaminants would not become incrementally greater than the baseline condition as more waste is
12 placed into the landfill. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project to groundwater quality would be less than
13 significant.
14 The proposed project would not increase the net utilization of surface water in a hydraulic unit that is
15 overdrafted or adversely impact an overdrafted hydraulic unit. Surface runoff within the proposed CUP
16 boundary would continue to be collected at the perimeter of the fill area. This runoff, along with sheet flow
17 generated on the fill area itself, would continue to be diverted through a combination of lined and unlined
18 ditches, sediment traps, and slope benches, with the runoff culminating in six detention basins around the
19 perimeter of the landfill. Surface water would subsequently be discharged from these basins to downstream
20 drainage features. Drainage to these discharge points would accumulate within the proposed CUP project
21 boundary, but outside the proposed waste disposal area. Surface runoff would not be utilized for any project-
22 related purpose. Thus, proposed project impacts to surface water quantity would be less than significant.
23 During the proposed expansion period, contamination of surface waters could occur by various means
24 including: use of inadequately treated toe barrier liquids for dust control; ponding of water on the surface of a
25 landfill; washout of cover materials and waste due to inadequate drainage; and exposure of areas of bare earth
26 (from excavations) and loose soil (from stockpiling and covering activities) to erosion. These, in turn, could
27 result in incremental increases in debris loading and siltation of downstream drainage conveyances. However,
28 due to the implementation of the planned landfill drainage and cover provisions, and the limited precipitation
29 in the area, incremental project impacts from the proposed expansion would be less than significant.
30 Likewise, in addition to existing drainage and erosion control measures and water quality monitoring, a
31 system of six detention/sedimentation basins is proposed for removal of silt from stormwater runoff before
32 being discharged from the site. Except during peak flow conditions, sand particles 0.1 millimeters and greater
33 are expected to settle and not be transported downstream, thus preventing downstream siltation of drainages
34 and creeks. Use of existing and proposed drainage and erosion control measures would reduce incremental
35 increases in infiltration of surface water into the landfill waste mass, which increases leachate generation, and
36 erosion-related impacts. As such, incremental increases in water quality impacts due to erosion would be less
37 than significant.
38 However, recent on-site sampling data indicated that surface water quality objectives were exceeded for
39 nitrates, nitrites, sulfate, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, specific conductance, and several metals,
40 including iron, lead, and mercury. Because 1) existing surface water quality at the SVLRC exceeds Basin Plan
41 and Federal EPA benchmark water quality objectives, thus contributing to impairment of the Calleguas Creek
42 watershed; 2) there is no indication that future landfill operations would be different from existing landfill
43 operations (i.e., contaminated runoff would continue to occur); 3) currently contaminated runoff from the
44 existing landfill would be co-mingled with runoff from the proposed expansion; and 4) toe barrier liquids
45 from the landfill, possibly containing groundwater-based pollutants, would continue to be used for dust
46 control, surface water quality impacts are considered significant. Mitigation Measures WR-1, Toe Barrier
47 Liquid Analysis by VCWPD, and WR-2, Stormwater Runoff Analysis by VCWPD, would be implemented to
48 reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the contaminated runoff to a less than significant level.
Executive Summary
1 Project construction and operation would have the potential to result in increased flooding. The west end of
2 the northern expansion area is located within a 100-year flood plain, as designated by the Federal Emergency
3 Management Agency (FEMA) (FEMA 2008). This flood plain merges westward with the flood plain of upper
4 Alamos Canyon Creek. The proposed landfill expansion would fill the Alamos Canyon tributary creek and
5 substantially change the drainage performance of the drainage area, effectively eliminating the existing 100-
6 year flood storage capacity of the tributary creek. However, because surface runoff within this tributary
7 canyon (to Alamos Canyon Creek) would be controlled by project-related drainage features, including a
8 detention basin, flooding would not occur within the landfill expansion area during landfill operations,
9 resulting in less than significant impacts. In addition, because 100-year storm flow rates would be reduced to
10 less than or equal to existing flood flows, as a result of the detention basin, less than significant impacts would
11 occur with respect to contributing flood flow to Alamos Canyon Creek. The structural integrity of the
12 detention basin could be undermined by erosive floodwaters along Alamos Canyon Creek, resulting in
13 potentially significant flooding impacts. Mitigation Measure WR-3, Detention/Sedimentation Basin
14 Armoring, would be implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the potential
15 erosive undercutting of the detention basin bank, due to 100-year flood along Alamos Canyon Creek to a less
16 than significant level. In addition, construction of the detention/sedimentation basin partially within the
17 floodplain could result in downstream erosion within Alamos Canyon Creek. Mitigation Measure WR-4,
18 Downstream Erosion Control Measures and/or Redesign of Detention/Sedimentation Basin, would be
19 implemented to reduce potential downstream erosion impacts.
20 Biological Resources
21 Impacts on biological resources were evaluated by determining the potential for the proposed project to
22 adversely affect: endangered, threatened, or rare plant or wildlife species; wetland habitat; migration
23 corridors; or locally important species or communities. No federally or state listed plants are known or
24 believed to occur on-site; however, limited potentially suitable habitat may be present within the project site
25 for several listed species including Braunton’s milk vetch (Astragalus brauntonii), San Fernando Valley
26 spineflower (Choizanthe parryi var. ferandina), or Lyon’s pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyoni). Impacts to these
27 species, if present, would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce these
28 potentially significant impacts to less than significant. The proposed project would result in the removal of
29 249.4 acres of sage scrub habitat, and could affect the coastal California gnatcatcher, a federally listed bird
30 species, if present. Impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher would be significant, but feasibly mitigated
31 by Mitigation Measure BIO-2, requiring protocol surveys for costal California gnatcatcher to be conducted
32 prior to project-related removal of coastal scrub habitat. Construction of the proposed project could also
33 result in adverse impacts to nesting birds, which are protected under federal and state regulations. Impacts to
34 nesting birds would be significant, but feasibly mitigated by Mitigation Measure BIO-3, requiring either that
35 vegetation removal activities be conducted outside of bird breeding season (February 1 through August 15) or
36 that pre-grading surveys be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of suitable nesting
37 habitat for resident or migratory bird species. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce
38 impacts on biological resources to less than significant.
39 Proposed project construction would also result in the permanent removal of approximately 0.05 acre of
40 marsh vegetation associated with two seeps in the southern part of the expansion area. Mitigation Measure
41 BIO-4 would ensure that the removed wetland habitat would be mitigated to less than significant.
42 Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in indirect impacts to Alamos and Brea
43 Canyons resulting from sediment washing into these areas from exposed surfaces adjacent to active landfill
44 areas. Since, the proposed project would require permits to control stormwater during both construction
45 (General Construction National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permit) and operations
46 (Industrial Activities Storm Water General NPDES Permit) and measures would be built into the project to
47 control stormwater and sediment movement during operations, indirect impacts on offsite wetlands would be
48 less than significant.

Executive Summary
1 Construction and operational activities could adversely affect wildlife migration in Brea and Alamos canyons
2 in a variety of ways including: impeding access from Brea to Alamos Canyons causing wildlife to move
3 across busy highways; increasing noise and nighttime lighting; and impacting adjacent vegetation and wildlife
4 habitat. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5, vector control methods, BIO-6, habitat enhancements
5 in and adjacent to the Alamos Canyon wildlife corridor, BIO-7, habitat enhancements along the channel in
6 Alamos Canyon, BIO-8, improvements or enhancements to the Alamos Canyon crossings and BIO-9, CUP
7 conditions, would ensure that significant impacts to wildlife migration would be less than significant.
8 Construction and operational activities would result in a substantial direct reduction in population and direct
9 long-term loss and degradation of habitat of two locally important plant species, Plummer’s mariposa lily and
10 Catalina mariposa lily. Mitigation Measures BIO-6 and BIO-7 would reduce significant impacts to these two
11 locally important plant species. In addition, locally important wildlife species known to be residents or regular
12 visitors to the SVLRC site and vicinity and locally important raptor species known to forage within the
13 project would experience a substantial loss of foraging and breeding habitat (252.2 acres of native and
14 naturalized vegetation and habitat would be lost as a result of landfill development, 198.9 of these acres
15 would be permanently lost). Populations of species having smaller home ranges would also be reduced as a
16 result of the habitat loss. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 and Mitigation Measures BIO-12 and BIO-14 would
17 reduce significant impacts to locally important wildlife to less than significant.
18 Direct losses of over 252.1 acres of these habitats, including sage scrub (91.1 acres), chamise chaparral (8.1
19 acres), grassland (152.7 acres), and coast live oak woodland (0.2 acres) as a result of landfill expansion
20 represent a substantial reduction in these locally important communities, a long-term direct impact. In
21 addition to the direct loss of these locally important communities, expansion of the landfill would contribute
22 to the degradation of habitat quality in adjacent areas due to off-site effects as well as introduction and spread
23 of invasive non-native species in the project vicinity of the landfill. Examples include tree tobacco (Nicotiana
24 glauca), Russian-thistle (Salsola tragus), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), and bull thistle (Cirsium
25 vulgare). Mitigation Measures BIO-13 and BIO-14 would reduce significant impacts on locally important
26 plant and wildlife communities to less than significant.
27 Agricultural Resources
28 The proposed project would convert approximately 165 acres of open space/rural designated farmland of local
29 importance to industrial/commercial uses. Although proposed project soils are considered locally important,
30 the site does not currently support agricultural operations and the agricultural viability of on-site soils is
31 dependent upon irrigation. However, the conversion and loss of locally important agricultural soils to
32 industrial/commercial uses would be a significant impact on agricultural resources. No feasible mitigation
33 measures would reduce or avoid the conversion of locally important farmland onsite while meeting the project
34 objectives. Thus, project impacts to agricultural resources would be significant.
35 Farmlands of local importance extend directly west of the project site in Alamos Canyon. The air quality
36 analysis in this EIR performed dispersion modeling analyses to estimate the ambient impact of project
37 construction and operational emissions. Review of the project dispersion modeling shows that unmitigated
38 project construction and operational emissions would produce a maximum ambient 24-hour PM10 impact of
39 54 µg/m3, which would exceed the 24-hour PM10 CAAQS of 50 µg/m3. The overwhelming majority of this
40 impact would occur from fugitive dust generated from proposed earth-moving activities and the operation of
41 mobile sources on paved and unpaved surfaces. The maximum ambient impact estimated for project PM10
42 and therefore fugitive dust emissions would occur within the farmlands of local importance directly west of
43 the project site in Alamos Canyon. While the 24-hour ambient background concentration of fugitive dust
44 within these areas is not known, it is expected to be somewhat less than 49 µg/m3. Therefore, unmitigated
45 proposed construction and operation would increase ambient fugitive dust levels by more than 10 percent
46 from background levels to farmlands within one-half mile of the project site. Implementation of Mitigation
47 Measure AG-1 would reduce impact from fugitive dust to agricultural resources. However, mitigated
Executive Summary
1 proposed construction and operation would increase ambient fugitive dust levels by more than 10 percent to
2 farmlands within one-half mile of the proposed project site, resulting in a significant impact.
3 Visual Resources/Glare
4 This analysis of potential visual effects of the proposed project was conducted using quantitative Federal
5 Highway Administration (FHWA) Visual Impact Assessment and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
6 Visual Resource Management techniques.
7 The project site is located within one-half mile of SR-118, which is designated as an Eligible Scenic
8 Highway. The proposed landfill footprint and elevations would be visible to individuals traveling eastbound
9 on SR-118 and thus obstruct important visual resources experienced from SR-118, resulting in a significant
10 impact to a scenic highway.
11 The visual impacts that would result from the project construction and operations would depend on the
12 specific location and elevation of the observer. Impacts on sensitive visual resources as viewed from Tierra
13 Rejada Park, South Crest Place (south of Tierra Rejada), and Big Sky Ranch Development would be less than
14 significant while impacts from Madera Road, Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail, Alamos Canyon Trail, and
15 North Park Village Residential Development would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
16 VIS-1, requiring a landscape plan, would ensure impacts on scenic areas/features from the Madera Road,
17 Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail, and North Park Village Residential Development vantage points would
18 be reduced to a less than significant level. However, as the final landfill contour would extend above the
19 existing horizon defined by the Santa Susana Mountain ridgelines and due to the close proximity of the
20 viewer, impacts on visual resources from the Alamos Canyon Trail vantage point would be significant.
21 The proposed project would increase the number of lighting fixtures as a result of the need for illumination of
22 proposed structures and exterior areas, and for nighttime maintenance or operations. As such, the project
23 would introduce a substantial amount of new night light and glare, representing a significant change in the
24 level of night light illumination when compared to what is presently generated over the project site.
25 Furthermore, the proposed project does not include any specifications identifying the number, type, location,
26 and/or intensity of lighting infrastructure. Although existing topography would screen the proposed facilities
27 area from adjacent public view corridors, impacts on visual resources would be potentially significant.
28 Implementation of the project Lighting Plan (Mitigation Measures VIS-2 and VIS-3) would ensure that the
29 illumination and glare of exterior fixtures would be directed so as to reduce the potential for spillover light
30 onto surrounding areas. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts on visual resources would
31 be less than significant.
32 Geologic Hazards/Mineral Resources/Paleontological Resources
33 Geology and Seismic Hazards
34 The geological analysis evaluated impacts of geohazards on project components that may result in substantial
35 damage to structures or infrastructure or expose people to substantial risk of injury. The project area and
36 immediate vicinity consist of generally rugged terrain. Canyon sides are steep and slopes of 1:1 (horizontal:
37 vertical) are common. Local relief ranges up to 250 feet. Earthquakes could result in impacts to proposed
38 project operations. The principal damaging effects of earthquakes consist of surface rupture, ground shaking,
39 and liquefaction. The closest large active fault is the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault, which trends east-west about
40 3,000 feet south of the landfill. Also, two potentially active faults, the Canada de la Brea and Strathearn faults,
41 traverse the landfill property. The Canada de la Brea fault is likely too short to generate an independent
42 earthquake of sufficient size to produce fault rupture, but may experience sympathetic (i.e., triggered) slip
43 during large earthquakes on nearby faults. This sympathetic slip, if it occurs, likely will be minor (i.e., on the

Executive Summary
1 order of several centimeters). Therefore, impacts due to fault rupture hazard are considered less than
2 significant.
3 A large earthquake on a nearby or regional fault could cause severe ground shaking, resulting in damage to
4 project structures such as buildings, containment structures, leachate and gas collection facilities, and surface
5 drainage facilities. Ground shaking can also cause landfill settlement and trigger landslides. Cracking of the
6 containment structure could result in the exposure of buried waste. In extreme cases, human life may be
7 endangered. The potential for the occurrence of these impacts would be incrementally greater under the
8 proposed project than under existing conditions. In addition, the alluvial areas in canyon bottoms of the
9 project area would be subject to liquefaction in the event of severe seismically induced ground movement,
10 potentially resulting in damage to site structures such as buildings, containment structures, leachate and gas
11 collection facilities, and surface drainage facilities during project operations. However, design and
12 construction in accordance with this updated seismic design study, as well as all relevant federal, state, and
13 local regulations, would result in less than significant seismic impacts.
14 Subsidence is not expected to occur at the landfill site in association with extraction of oil, gas, or
15 groundwater. The project site is underlain by the Simi Oil Field. Previous oil and gas extraction has occurred
16 in the vicinity of the landfill; however, the oil production activities have been terminated and the proposed
17 project would preclude oil and gas drilling from within project boundaries. In addition, groundwater
18 extraction is not occurring in large quantities in the landfill vicinity. Subsidence within the waste footprint
19 would occur during landfill operations due to compaction and settlement of refuse over time. However, this
20 phenomenon is typical of all landfills and is anticipated during long-term landfill management. Also, no
21 permanent structures that might be adversely affected by subsidence-induced settlement would be constructed
22 on an area of engineered fill in the southern portion of the project site, where no refuse would be placed.
23 Therefore, subsidence impacts would be less than significant.
24 Superficial soils at the project site generally consist of clay loams, and the underlying Sespe Formation
25 contains beds of claystone. These clays could be expansive. Construction on expansive soils could result in
26 damage to foundations, roads, utilities, and other infrastructure as a result of the contracting and expanding
27 clays. However, development of the project site will be subject to the requirements of the Ventura County
28 Building Code, which is adopted from the California Building Code, Chapter 18, §1804.4 (ICC 2007) and
29 which requires mitigation of potential adverse effects of expansive soils for the proposed structures.
30 Compliance with these requirements would ensure that impacts relating to expansive soils would be less than
31 significant.
32 Slope instability could occur from excavation of soil from slopes within the project area during construction
33 activities. Likewise, slope instability could occur within the waste disposal area during project operations. The
34 stability and containment of the waste fill depends on the integrity of the final landfill slopes. Potential fill
35 slope stability impacts would be minimized or prevented through development of the proposed project in
36 compliance with regulatory requirements, implementation of proper landfill design and operating procedures,
37 and standard engineering geology and geotechnical engineering principles. Therefore, the proposed project
38 would result in less than significant slope stability impacts.
39 Mineral Resources
40 The proposed landfill expansion area is located within a portion of the Canada de la Brea sections of the
41 former Simi Oil Field. There are no active oil wells, pipelines, or other facilities within the proposed
42 expansion or buffer areas. All wells have been abandoned. Proposed landfill expansion would preclude oil
43 and gas drilling from within proposed project boundaries; however, petroleum reserves beneath the site could
44 be accessed from remote locations, using directional (or slant) drilling techniques. Therefore, the proposed
45 project would not result in the permanent loss of availability of a known petroleum resource that would be of

Executive Summary
1 future value to the region and the residents of the state. Mineral resource impacts would be less than
2 significant.
3 Paleontological Resources
4 The occurrence of a number of previously recorded fossil sites in the middle member of the Sespe Formation
5 and of numerous additional sites in the project area, suggests a high potential for previously unrecorded fossil
6 sites and remains being encountered by earth-moving activities during excavation of the expansion area,
7 excavation of daily cover, and general grading of the site. As such, the proposed project would cause the loss
8 of scientifically important fossils and associated geologic data, resulting in a significant impact on
9 paleontological resources. Additional adverse impacts could potentially result due to unauthorized fossil
10 collecting by rock hounds, commercial collectors, and project personnel who would be afforded easier access
11 to fossiliferous exposures as a result of the proposed project. This impact could contribute to the loss of
12 highly important fossil specimens and associated scientific data, particularly from the middle member of the
13 Tertiary continental formation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, requiring a Paleontological
14 Mitigation Program, would mitigate many of the paleontological impacts of the proposed project. However,
15 since any such program would only recover a small sample of the total number of fossils disturbed by landfill
16 operations, the overall impact of the proposed project on paleontological resources would still be considered
17 significant.
18 Cultural Resources
19 Impacts on cultural resources were evaluated by determining the potential for the proposed project to
20 adversely affect a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
21 the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or otherwise considered a unique or important
22 archaeological resource under CEQA. Due to a lack of potential for data recovery, none of the five prehistoric
23 sites described in Section 3.8.1.2.4 are considered a unique archaeological resource; nor are they considered
24 eligible for listing on the CRHR. Therefore, these sites are not historical resources for the purpose of CEQA.
25 Although no significant prehistoric sites have been recorded within the expansion area, the presence of
26 previously recorded prehistoric sites in close proximity show that regional site utilization during prehistoric
27 times did occur and unidentified, subsurface deposits may exist in some areas.
28 The Unrecorded Areas of Interest have no clear historic association and lack the potential for data recovery.
29 Therefore, these locations do not appear eligible for listing on the CRHR and are not considered to be
30 historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
31 The Wharton Ranch contains the only standing structures within the project site, but does not retain sufficient
32 integrity to qualify for the CRHR and is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
33 However, the Wharton Ranch is considered to possess the potential for subsurface historical archaeological
34 deposits that would qualify the site for eligibility for the CRHR. Construction and operation of the proposed
35 project is not expected to occur in this area. However, any project-related clearing, grubbing, and grading in
36 this area would have the potential to result in a significant adverse effect on any significant archaeological
37 deposits.
38 Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3, would ensure that any impacts to subsurface
39 archaeological deposits during grading or construction activities would be less than significant.
40 Hazards (See Hazards under ESR.4)
41 Hazards impacts were evaluated assessing the potential for fires, the release of hazardous materials/wastes,
42 and/or exposure to petroleum contaminated soil and associated soil gas from abandoned oil wells during
43 project construction and operation.
Executive Summary
1 A potential exists for both surface and subsurface fires at the project site. The SVLRC is located in a high
2 wildfire hazard area, as it is surrounded by uncultivated, flammable vegetation in the form of coastal sage
3 scrub and grassland, shrubs with scattered chaparral, and oaks. However, similar to the existing County-
4 approved CUP 3142-7, Sections 14(l) and 56,the SVLRC would respond to fires through implementation of
5 the site specific Simi Valley Landfill Emergency Procedures Manual, which includes procedures to contain
6 potential fire hazards, such as use of on-site fire suppression capabilities. In addition, the SVLRC maintains a
7 fire response training program for site personnel. The SVLRC is surrounded by a fire break to reduce the
8 potential for off-site migration of landfill fires. With respect to subsurface fires, open flames typically do not
9 occur, thus, the potential for wildfires to be ignited on adjacent, off-site areas is low and the potential for
10 subsurface fire as a result of a surface fire is remote. Additionally, sufficient water pressure is available for
11 fire-fighting purposes at the SVLRC. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant fire
12 hazard impacts.
13 As a Class III landfill, the SVLRC does not accept hazardous waste as part of the municipal solid waste
14 disposed of in the landfill. This would not change due to the proposed project. As such, the proposed project
15 would not increase the potential health risk due to disposal of household hazardous wastes or other hazardous
16 materials in the landfill.
17 The SVLRC Expansion Project includes the construction and operation of a landfill gas to liquefied natural
18 gas (LNG) facility, located just north of the existing landfill gas flare station. The project also includes
19 storage, use, handling, and disposal of various hazardous materials including petroleum products used to fuel,
20 repair, and maintain the vehicles and household hazardous materials that would be collected and stored at the
21 SVECC for off-site disposal. Improper storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials could result in
22 contamination of on-site soils, as wells as adverse impacts to health and safety of on-site personnel. However,
23 hazardous materials would be stored, handled, and disposed in accordance with the Ventura County Uniform
24 Fire Code, as well as all other relevant Federal, State, and local regulations and standard best management
25 practices (BMPs) would be implemented. As such, the project would result in less than significant hazardous
26 materials and waste impacts.
27 Residual concentrations of petroleum products and hazardous substances may be present in on-site soil as a
28 result of oil and gas drilling operations. Abandoned oil wells are typically cut off 5 feet below grade and may
29 not be visible during excavation activities for landfill construction. Excavations could cause damage to the
30 abandoned oil well casings, potentially resulting in an oil and/or gas leak. The possibility of damage to the
31 abandoned oil wells during grading is a potentially significant impact. In addition, health and safety impacts
32 associated with a potential release of hazardous substances or petroleum products as a result of landfill
33 construction, in the vicinity of on-site abandoned oil wells, is a potentially significant impact. Implementation
34 of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would reduce potential health and safety impacts to on-site
35 personnel to less than significant levels.
36 Exposure to Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) from soil disturbed at the landfill would pose a less than
37 significant impact. Landfill-relate activities have the potential for release of coccidioides immitis spores at the
38 landfill. However, it is assumed that of the majority of the population of Ventura County have already been
39 exposed to Valley Fever and would continue to be exposed from the various earthmoving activities that occur
40 throughout the region. Given the endemic nature of the disease and the number of earthmoving activities in
41 the County, it is not possible to attribute a specific case of Valley Fever to a specific earthmoving activity.
42 Furthermore, the SVLRC has an ongoing, aggressive dust control program to minimize dust at the landfill due
43 to vehicular movement, earthmoving, and other onsite activities. This dust program would continue with
44 implementation of the proposed project. The impact due to the potential for exposure to Valley Fever would
45 therefore be less than significant.

Executive Summary
1 Noise
2 Noise impacts were evaluated to determine the levels of noise generated during construction and operation,
3 and the vibration that would be generated during project operation. Proposed project construction would not
4 result in an Equivalent Noise Level (Leq1H) of 55 A-weighted sound levels [dB(A)] or ambient noise level
5 plus 3dB(A), whichever is greater, during any hour from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Because of the topography of the
6 landfill site and the location of the proposed new support facilities within a bowl surrounded by hills on nearly
7 all sides, potential noise impacts from construction of those facilities within the bowl would be reduced
8 substantially by the barrier effect of the surrounding hills. The only direct line-of-sight between public areas and
9 the new facility construction location is through the canyon draining the landfill site to the south. The SR-118 is
10 the closest public location to the landfill. Because of the significant traffic-generated noise along the freeway
11 and the minimal time window within which they could be exposed, travelers on the freeway are not expected to
12 be impacted by construction related noise. Therefore, the construction noise increase impact of the project
13 would be less than significant. Similarly, the proposed project operation would not result in an Leq1H of 55
14 dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is greater, during any hour from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM
15 nor would it result in an Leq1H of 50 dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is greater, during
16 any hour from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Therefore, the operational noise increase impact of the project would be
18 The project would not result in detectable vibration at sensitive land uses. The vibration associated with the
19 increased truck traffic is not likely to be detectable at the sensitive receptor locations. As indicated, the actual
20 increases in noise levels, estimated as LAeq, are relatively small and not likely to be perceived by receptors.
21 Similarly, air-borne vibrations from the incident increase in pressure would not be noticeable. Moreover,
22 vibrations transmitted through structural connection generally do not travel far and are considered
23 insignificant when contrasted to the existing vibration associated with present traffic on SR-118 and
24 associated traffic on surface streets. The project’s incremental contribution to transportation-related ground-
25 transmitted vibration would be undetectable at locations adjacent to a roadway on which project vehicles
26 travel. Therefore, the impacts of operation vibration would be less than significant.
27 Transportation/Circulation
28 Traffic operations in the vicinity of the project were analyzed using an intersection capacity-based
29 methodology known as the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method for the signalized locations, per
30 County of Ventura standards. At stop-controlled intersections, the Highway Capacity Model (HCM)
31 methodology for unsignalized locations is used to calculate the average delay and corresponding LOS.
32 Freeway roadway segments were analyzed using the guidelines from the Caltrans Guide for Preparation of
33 Traffic Impact Studies, State of California, December 2002.
34 The Existing with project peak hour volumes were derived from the number of new trips generated by the
35 project added to existing intersection volumes identified in the previous section. The trip generation for the
36 proposed project was calculated using the existing SVLRC trip rates and accounting for the projected growth
37 in waste tonnage and associated truck trips from the SVLRC expansion.
38 The total project trip generation consists of the existing auto and trucks trips at the SVLRC, the projected
39 additional truck trips generated by the proposed project, and the relocation of the existing auto and truck trips
40 at the recycling/waste hauling yard from 195 W. Los Angeles Avenue to the SVLRC. The relocation of the
41 hauling yard requires that all auto and truck trips be shifted to the SVLRC and be counted as part of the
42 landfill trip generation during buildout.
43 The existing AM and PM peak hour counts show that the SVLRC is currently generating 54 AM and 18 PM
44 peak hour auto trips, and 162 AM and 30 PM peak hour passenger car equivalent (PCE) (one truck equals two
45 passenger vehicles) truck trips for a total of 216 AM peak hour PCE trips and 48 PM peak hour PCE trips. The
Executive Summary
1 proposed project is forecast to generate an additional 217 AM and 40 PM peak hour PCE truck trips at the
2 project site at buildout. The relocation of the recyclable/waste hauling yard to the SVLRC will add 11 AM and
3 30 PM peak hour auto trips, and 118 AM and 30 PM peak hour PCE truck trips to the project site. The total new
4 trips from the proposed expansion is 562 AM peak hour PCE trips (246 inbound and 316 outbound) and 148
5 PM peak hour PCE trips (49 inbound and 99 outbound).
6 Using the Caltrans TIA guidelines, all of the study freeway segments are projected to continue to operate at
7 unacceptable LOS D and E during the AM peak hour, and two of the three study segments are projected to
8 continue to operate at unacceptable LOS D and E during the PM peak hour. However, the additional traffic
9 from the proposed project will not trigger a change in the LOS. Therefore the proposed project roadway
10 segment impact is considered less than significant.
11 According to the City of Simi Valley TIA guidelines, the results of the intersection analyses indicate that
12 impacts from the addition of the traffic from the proposed project will not reach a level considered significant
13 at any of the study area intersections. The LOS remains an acceptable C or better on all segments even with
14 project traffic.
15 The County of Ventura has noted that the addition of one PHT to the intersection of Somis Road and SR-118
16 is considered a significant impact. However, Caltrans is currently in the process of environmental review for a
17 project to improve safety conditions along State Route (SR) 118 at the intersections with SR 34 and Donlon
18 Road. Independently, the County of Ventura Public Works Agency, Transportation Department has developed
19 a separate project for realignment of Donlon Road. The effect of the State project is anticipated to improve the
20 LOS of this intersection to LOS ‘D’. If the State project is delayed, the effect of the County project alone
21 should improve the LOS of this intersection to a satisfactory level. With the commitment to road
22 improvements that ensure that the impact will be reduced to an acceptable LOS in a reasonable period of time,
23 projected impacts of the proposed project would not adversely affect the LOS and would therefore be
24 considered less than significant.
25 Water Supply
26 Water supply impacts were evaluated to determine compliance of the domestic water available to the
27 development with applicable State Drinking Water Standards and the availability of a permanent source of
28 water supply. The project site is served by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8, which is a retail
29 customer of the CMWD. The main source of water for District No. 8 is imported State San Joaquin Delta
30 water, supplied by CMWD, which originates from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
31 (MWD), as part of their State Water Project annual contract rights. At least a portion of the water supply
32 includes groundwater from the Las Posas Basin and recycled water from the City of Simi Valley Wastewater
33 Treatment Plant, which is supplied via an existing pipeline installed by the City of Simi Valley and the
34 CMWD.
35 The annual water demand for the project would be 174 acre-feet per year (Psomas 2007b). The project would
36 be served by the CMWD, which is considered by Ventura County to be a permanent source of water. A water
37 availability letter from Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 would be submitted by CMWD with the
38 proposed project application, verifying that adequate water supplies are available. In addition, similar to
39 Condition #14 (Master Development Plan) of CUP-3142-7, imposed by Ventura County for the current phase
40 of landfill expansion, an updated water supply plan would be included as part of a Master Development Plan,
41 which is designed to ensure that the landfill is operated in an environmentally safe manner and to mitigate any
42 significant avoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR. The water supply plan would describe
43 improvements to be made to assure adequate potable and non-potable water for landfill operations, dust
44 control, fire protection, landscaping, human consumption, and hygiene. Therefore, impacts to water supply
45 would be less than significant.

Executive Summary
1 Waste Treatment/Disposal
2 Individual sewage disposal system impacts were evaluated to determine conformance of the system with the
3 requirements of the LARWQCB Basin Plan concerning development utilizing septic systems and with the
4 applicable sections of the Ventura County Building Code, enforced by the Ventura County Environmental
5 Health Division.
6 The proposed project would result in an increase in generation of domestic wastewater due to the increased
7 number of employees. Additional industrial wastewater would be generated from proposed truck and
8 equipment washing facilities. In total, the proposed project is expected to generate an average of 7,000
9 gallons of wastewater and a peak (2,500 gallons of domestic and 4,500 gallons of industrial) per day and a
10 peak of 24,500 gallons of wastewater (8,750 gallons of domestic and 15,750 gallons of industrial) per day.
11 The Ventura County Environmental Health Division determined that because the public sewer system with
12 capacity for additional wastewater load is not available within one-half mile of the SVLRC the proposed
13 project would meet exception condition #3 of the Ventura County Sewer Policy (Personal communication,
14 Melinda Talent 2008). The proposed project is expected to meet the remaining two Sewer Policy exception
15 conditions. Due to the size of the facility, the proposed project is expected to meet exception condition #1.
16 The proposed project would be required to comply with Exception condition #2 prior to project approval. As
17 such, the proposed project would be expected to meet the three Ventura County Sewer Policy exception
18 conditions and would not be required to connect to a public sewer system.
19 The California Water Code, Chapter 4, Article 5, sets forth criteria for regulating individual disposal systems.
20 While the LARWQCB has delegated local health or public works departments jurisdiction to permit septic
21 systems, such as those for single family dwellings, the Board would likely take jurisdiction over permitting
22 the proposed on-site wastewater treatment plant under an individual Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR)
23 permit. The level of treatment required and permitted reuse would be specified in the WDR issued by the
24 LARWQCB. As such, the proposed project would conform with the requirements of the LARWQCB’s Basin
25 Plan concerning development utilizing individual sewer systems (LARWQCB 1994). The individual sewer
26 system proposed is a package treatment plant, not a septic system and would not involve discharges to the
27 ground. In addition, the proposed on-site wastewater treatment facility must meet operation and maintenance
28 guidelines required by the Ventura County Environmental Health Division; and meet requirements outlined in
29 the Ventura County Building Code. The proposed project would require a revised permit issued by the
30 LARWQCB to allow commingled treated leachate and treated wastewater to be beneficially reused as
31 discussed above. Issuance of these permits and compliance with applicable State and County regulations with
32 respect to design and operation of the treatment plant would reduce potential impacts from on-site sewage
33 disposal to a level considered less than significant.
34 A capacity study was completed to assess the future landfill capacity in Ventura County as it would be
35 affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would provide substantial additional waste disposal
36 capacity. The results of the capacity study indicated that the SVLRC would result in the County reaching its
37 15 year capacity in approximately 2060 based on the assumptions used in the model. As such, the proposed
38 project would not substantially impact the demand for solid waste disposal capacity in Ventura County such
39 that there would be less than 15 years of disposal capacity available for county disposal. Thus, impacts to
40 waste treatment and disposal would be less than significant.
41 Recreational Facilities (See Recreation under ESR.4)
42 The analysis of potential impacts to recreational facilities identified and evaluated the type and quantity of
43 recreational facilities within the project’s area of influence to determine if the needs of the proposed project
44 could be adequately served by existing resources, or if the proposed project would result in an increase in
45 demand for recreational facilities. Additionally, proposed trail/corridor systems and park sites within the area
Executive Summary
1 of influence were evaluated to determine whether the proposed project would preclude future development of
2 these recreational facilities. The nearest local or regional park/facility is located approximately 0.8 miles from
3 the proposed project site and two regional trails/corridors are located within a two-mile radius of the proposed
4 project site, including the Arroyo Simi Bike Path and the Mt. McCoy Trail. No local or regional
5 parks/facilities or regional trails/corridors are located within the proposed project area thus, no existing
6 facilities would be directly impacted by the proposed project. However, because project-related employees
7 and worker households would increase the demand for local and regional parks/facilities and trails/corridors,
8 and no ordinance is in place to require payment of fees or dedication of land, the proposed project would
9 create a significant impact on local and regional parks/facilities and trials/corridors. Implementation of
10 Mitigation Measure REC-1 (payment of in lieu fees for local parks/facilities), REC-2 (payment of in lieu fees
11 for regional parks/facilities), and REC-3 (dedication of public easements for future trails) would ensure that
12 impacts on local and regional parks/facilities and trails/corridors would be less than significant.
13 Two planned multi-purpose trails are located in the project vicinity, including the Alamos Canyon Trail and
14 the Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail. As the Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail is not located within the
15 proposed project area, the project would not directly impede the future development of this regional
16 trail/corridor. However, the Alamos Canyon Trail would be located within the western portion of the
17 proposed project area. In addition, a planned 20-acre community park site is located within the project site.
18 Although the exact location of the facility has not been determined, it is reasonable to assume the community
19 park would be located within the proposed 516-acre buffer area around the disposal footprint. As the proposed
20 project does not include provisions for on-site recreational facilities, the proposed development would impede
21 future development of recreation parks/facilities and regional trails resulting in a significant impact on
22 recreational resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures REC-1 through REC-3, would ensure that
23 impacts on planned recreational facilities and multi-use trails would be less than significant.
24 ES.5 Cumulative Impacts

25 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs (See Land Use/General Plan
26 Goals, Policies, and Programs in ESR.5)
27 Over the years, the County has developed consistency with the General Plan and site zoning regulations,
28 ensuring consistency with land use/density designations to minimize impacts on surrounding areas. Similarly,
29 existing facilities within the project vicinity have been modified as necessary to ensure proposed land
30 use/density designations are consistent with their respective land use plan and site zoning designations. As the
31 proposed project would be consistent with zoning and General Plan land use policies, and would be
32 compatible with surrounding land uses, impacts on community character would be less than significant.
33 Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative contribution to cumulative
34 impacts on land use.
35 The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would not cause growth (i.e., new housing
36 generators) that exceeds project levels for the year of proposed project buildout (2050) that would result in
37 adverse impacts on housing demands. It is expected that local workers will fill most of the construction and
38 operations jobs associated with these projects and would not require relocation within the region that would
39 require new development of housing. Since the proposed project would have no impacts on existing housing,
40 it is not necessary to analyze the proposed project‘s contribution to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
41 impacts on existing housing.
42 Air Quality (See Air Quality in ESR.5)
43 The region of analysis for cumulative effects on air quality is the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB).
44 However, the most severe impacts under the proposed project in the context of past, present, and reasonably

Executive Summary
1 foreseeable projects would occur within the areas adjacent to the proposed project, including unincorporated
2 portions of Ventura County, the City of Simi Valley, and the City of Moorpark.
3 The Ventura County region does not attain the national and state ambient air quality standards for ozone (O3),
4 respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). These pollutant nonattainment
5 conditions within the project region are considered to be cumulatively significant. Foreseeable future projects
6 in the vicinity of SVLRC with overlapping construction schedules with the proposed project may add to the
7 emission levels and ambient concentrations around the landfill. Impacts of multiple construction projects,
8 along with the proposed project, could be cumulatively considerable. In addition, project construction and
9 operations would produce emissions that would exceed the VCAPCD daily ROC and NOx emission
10 thresholds for each modeled year. Additionally, emissions from project construction and operation would
11 contribute to exceedances of the following standards: (1) 1-hour CAAQS for NO2; (2) 24-hour CAAQS and
12 NAAQS for PM10; (3) annual CAAQS for PM10; (4) 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5, and (5) annual CAAQS and
13 NAAQS for PM2.5. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce proposed
14 impacts to below the NAAQS for 24-hour PM10 and annual PM2.5. However, all other criteria pollutant
15 impacts identified above would remain significant and unavoidable. Existing and future project construction
16 and operational activities would add additional air emission burdens to these significant levels of project
17 emissions. Thus, the proposed project with mitigation would produce cumulatively considerable and
18 unavoidable contributions to O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 levels.
19 With regard to ambient levels of TACs due to the relatively rural setting of the area of influence, impacts
20 from cumulative projects adjacent to the project site are cumulatively less than significant. Emissions of
21 TACs from project construction and operation would marginally increase cancer risks and non-cancer effects
22 in proximity to the project site. Existing and future project construction and operational activities would
23 nominally combine with these project impacts at low levels, due to their relatively long distance from the
24 project site. As a result, the project construction and operational activities would produce less than
25 cumulatively considerable impacts to levels of TACs and public health effects.
26 Fugitive dust from project construction and operations would exceed the 24-hour PM10 CAAQS. However,
27 this maximum impact is predicted to occur on the SVLRC property line and proposed ambient PM10 impacts
28 would quickly decrease in magnitude with distance from the SVLRC facility. Therefore, project construction
29 and operation would not generate a cumulatively considerable impact to levels of fugitive dust.
30 Odorous emissions from project construction would occur due to the combustion of diesel fuel. The mobile
31 and intermittent nature of most emission sources would adequately disperse such emissions during
32 construction. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors in close proximity to the project site. Odorous
33 emissions during project operation would result from diesel fuel emissions from mobile equipment, municipal
34 refuse and green waste, and the decomposition of refuse and green waste. Implementation of Mitigation
35 Measure AQ-6 would ensure that the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact from
36 odorous emissions.
37 Scientific evidence indicates a correlation between increasing global temperatures/climate change over the
38 past century and human induced GHG emissions. These and other environmental changes have potentially
39 negative environmental, economic, and social consequences around the globe. Climate change, as it relates to
40 man-made GHG emissions, is by nature a global impact. Thus, the issue of global climate change is a
41 cumulative impact and an appreciable impact on global climate change would occur when GHG emissions
42 from a project combine with GHG emissions from other man-made activities on a global scale. The approved
43 and proposed projects would contribute to the existing cumulative air quality conditions. The proposed project
44 would produce GHG emissions that would exceed levels of GHG emissions produced from the existing
45 SVLRC. These project increases of GHG emissions would incrementally contribute to global climate change.
46 Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-3, and AQ-6 would reduce the project’s contribution to
47 global climate change. The significance of the impacts in the absence of established criteria is not determined.
Executive Summary
1 Water Resources
2 Past projects have not contributed to groundwater withdrawal from the Las Posas Groundwater Basin, as the
3 Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD), the water purveyor for these past projects, has not historically
4 used the Las Posas Groundwater Basin for its water supplies. However, the CMWD intends to initiate
5 groundwater pumping from this basin, to supplement its supplies from the State Water Project. Therefore,
6 some present and most reasonably foreseeable projects, including the proposed project, would receive water
7 from the CMWD, thus contributing to groundwater withdrawals from the Las Posas Groundwater Basin.
8 Because a water availability letter would be submitted by CMWD with the proposed project application,
9 verifying that adequate water supplies are available; an updated water supply plan would be included as part
10 of a Master Development Plan; and the CMWD is considered a permanent source of water (See Section 3.12,
11 Water Supply); groundwater quantity impacts associated with proposed expansion of the SVLRC would be
12 less than significant. However, because of the uncertainty associated with future groundwater withdrawals by
13 other users within the already overdrafted Las Posas basin, the project’s contribution to cumulative effects
14 would potentially result in a significant cumulative impact on groundwater quantity..
15 Numerous past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin that
16 use and/or dispose of hazardous materials/waste and/or bulk petroleum products, including the existing
17 SVLRC, could further contribute to groundwater quality degradation. However, because of the poor water
18 quality in the basin, groundwater from the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin is generally not extracted for
19 beneficial uses. Impacts to water quality impacts would not become incrementally greater if the existing
20 landfill were expanded. Therefore, the cumulative impact to groundwater quality is less than significant and
21 the contribution of the proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.
22 Past projects that diverted surface waters for project related beneficial uses may have increased the net
23 utilization of surface water in a hydraulic unit that is overdrafted or adversely impacted an overdrafted
24 hydrologic unit. Similarly, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects may increase the net utilization
25 of surface water in an overdrafted hydraulic unit. The proposed landfill expansion would not increase the net
26 utilization of surface water in a hydraulic unit that is overdrafted or adversely impact an overdrafted
27 hydrologic unit. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would occur in association with surface water quantity.
28 Construction and operation of the proposed project would use existing and proposed drainage and erosion
29 control measures, reducing incremental increases in infiltration of surface water, which increases leachate
30 generation, and erosion-related impacts. However, similar to the proposed project, numerous past, present,
31 and reasonably foreseeable projects within local drainages and creeks would contribute runoff and pollutants,
32 potentially resulting in adverse surface water quality impacts. Although existing surface water flows and
33 water quality on and proximal to the site have been monitored on a regular or periodic basis, in accordance
34 with Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ, sampling data indicate that stormwater runoff is not in
35 compliance with water quality objectives established in the Basin Plan, including associated TMDLs, nor in
36 compliance with Federal EPA benchmarks. Such contaminated runoff is incrementally contributing to water
37 quality impacts within the Calleguas Creek watershed. A representative with the LARWQCB indicated that it
38 is common for stormwater runoff at commercial and industrial facilities located throughout RWQCB Region
39 4, the Los Angeles Region (as established by the State Water Resources Control Board), to exceed Federal
40 EPA water quality benchmarks (Lee, personal communication 2009). Therefore, past, present, and
41 reasonably foreseeable projects located within the watershed would similarly contribute to adverse water
42 quality impacts within the Calleguas Creek watershed, which is considered an impaired water body due to
43 water column and sediment toxicity, organophosphate pesticides in water, and chlorpyrifos in fish tissue. The
44 cumulative impact is significant and the contribution of the proposed project is cumulatively considerable.
45 Past projects may have resulted in increased flooding in Arroyo Simi, primarily as a result of increased
46 paving, less permeable surfaces, and associated increased surface runoff. Projects that did not include
47 detention basins to retard project related increased surface flows would be especially prone to downstream
48 flooding contributions. The proposed project would result in an increase in surface water runoff. However,
Executive Summary
1 prior to construction of the proposed project, proposed drainage facilities and improvements to existing
2 facilities would provide stormwater management capabilities equivalent to those of existing conditions and
3 those at final development of the expanded landfill as well as control surface runoff to Alamos Canyon Creek
4 As a result, flooding would not occur within the landfill expansion area during landfill operations. A flooding
5 analysis completed by Hall & Foremen, Inc. (2009) indicated that future grading improvements affecting a
6 tributary canyon to Alamos Canyon Creek that would be filled by the expansion project should not negatively
7 impact the upstream or downstream 100-year floodwater surface of Alamos Canyon Creek. However,
8 potentially increased surface flow velocities, as a result of partial infringement of the detention/sedimentation
9 basin on the floodplain, could result in downstream erosion within Alamos Canyon Creek. Implementation of
10 downstream erosion control features, in coordination with the VCWPD, Floodplain Management Division,
11 and/or redesign of the basin such that it does not infringe on the floodplain, would reduce potential
12 downstream erosion during 100-year flood events, such that impacts would be less than significant. There are
13 no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects that include construction within the Alamos Canyon
14 Creek floodplain that might contribute to increase flood-induced erosion. Therefore, the cumulative impact is
15 less than significant and the contribution of the proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.
17 The area of influence for cumulative projects with respect to biological resources is limited within one mile of
18 the project site. All listed projects occurring with one mile of the project area and north of SR-118 are located
19 within an urban landscape and, therefore, are unlikely to add cumulative adverse impacts to native habitat
20 communities and wildlife. Urban projects that include vegetation removal during nesting season in the
21 vicinity may adversely impact nesting birds. In addition, cumulative projects with regards to wildlife
22 corridors are those located within the Santa Monica Mountains-Tierra Rejada-Santa Susana Mountain Range
23 wildlife corridors. Cumulative impacts on biological resources within wildlife corridors may result from the
24 combined incremental impact of increases in removal of high quality native habitat.
25 The proposed project would result in significant impacts to: the California coastal gnatcatcher and nesting
26 birds; about 2,125 square feet (0.05 acre) of marsh vegetation associated with two seeps in the southern part
27 of the expansion area; movement corridors and important habitat in Alamos and Brea canyons adjacent to the
28 project site; and locally important plants, wildlife, and communities. Impacts to these biological resources
29 would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-14. Because
30 adjacent projects occur in urban settings that are already partially or fully developed, the cumulative impact to
31 Impacts BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-4 are less than significant and the contribution of the proposed project is less
32 than cumulatively considerable. With implementation of these measures, the cumulative impact on wildlife
33 corridors (Impact BIO-3 is potentially significant and the contribution of the proposed project is less than
34 cumulatively considerable.
35 Agricultural Resources
36 Cumulative impacts on agricultural resources may result from the combined incremental conversion of
37 agricultural lands to urban uses within Ventura County. Past development has converted and/or displaced
38 agricultural land within the cumulative region of influence. Present and reasonably foreseeable projects
39 located on the periphery of the urban/rural boundary, would convert agricultural lands to urban uses.
40 Together with past development, they would incrementally contribute to cumulative adverse impacts on
41 agricultural resources. Cumulative impacts on agricultural resources due to dust may result from the
42 combined incremental impact of increases in dust on agricultural parcels. Present and reasonably foreseeable
43 projects located on or within a half-mile of the property that currently are in or suitable for agricultural
44 production could experience a 10 percent or greater increase in dust on agricultural parcels.
46 importance to industrial/commercial uses. The resulting the direct loss of locally important farmland to non-
Executive Summary
1 agricultural uses would be a significant impact, and the proposed project would result in a cumulatively
2 considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts associated with the loss of agricultural soils.
3 Regarding impacts related to dust, unmitigated proposed construction and operations would increase ambient
4 fugitive dust levels by more than 10 percent from background levels to farmlands within one-half mile of the
5 proposed project site, thereby resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure AG-1 would reduce these
6 impacts, but not to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively
7 considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts associated with increases of dust on agricultural
8 resources.
9 Visual Resources and Glare
10 Past development in the project vicinity and surrounding areas has transformed the natural setting to create an
11 urbanized landscape. In this area, construction of residential communities, industrial facilities, and
12 commercial centers has eliminated public views of natural features, including undulating ridgelines, canyons,
13 expansive grasslands, and oak/riparian woodlands. Probable future projects would contribute to cumulative
14 impacts on visual resources are projects due to the conversion of undeveloped, natural areas to
15 industrial/commercial development, obstruction of public views along the SR-118 scenic view corridor, and
16 light/glare. These sites also include important visual qualities experienced from public viewpoints that would
17 be compromised when developed.
18 Construction and operation of the proposed project would obstruct scenic views of the Santa Susana Mountain
19 Range from the SR-118 scenic viewshed resulting in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant
20 cumulative impacts associated with obstruction of important public views from the SR-118 scenic viewshed.
21 In addition, the proposed project would result in significant impacts to visual resources as viewed from
22 Madera Road, Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail, elevated North Park Village residential lots, and Alamos
23 Canyon Trail. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VIS-1 would reduce impacts to these scenic features to
24 a less than significant level. However, as the final landfill contour would extend above the existing horizon
25 defined by the Santa Susana Mountain ridgelines and due to the close proximity of the viewer, impacts on
26 visual resources from the Alamos Canyon Trail vantage point would be significant. Therefore, cumulative
27 impacts on scenic areas/features from the Alamos Canyon Trail would be cumulatively considerable.
28 Past development in the project vicinity and surrounding areas have created sources of light and glare and
29 resulted in changes in ambient illumination levels in adjacent areas. Because of the lighting policies and
30 standards that are currently implemented by local jurisdictions to minimize exterior light illumination, the
31 contributions of present and reasonably foreseeable projects to cumulative light/glare impacts in the area will
32 be limited. The proposed project would introduce a substantial amount of new night light and glare,
33 representing a significant change in the level of night light illumination when compared to what is presently
34 generated over the project site. Impacts would be potentially significant; however implementation of the
35 project Lighting Plan (Mitigation Measures VIS-2 and VIS-3) would result in a less than significant
36 cumulative contribution to cumulative light/glare impacts.
37 Geologic Hazards/Mineral Resources/Paleontological Resources Geology and Seismic

38 Hazards
39 Past projects, including projects may have been impacted by geologic hazards, including fault rupture, severe
40 seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence, expansive soils, and landslides/mudslides. Past
41 development has increased the amount of infrastructure, structural improvements, and number of people
42 working in the Simi Valley area (i.e., the cumulative geographic scope) and has placed commercial,
43 industrial, and residential structures and their occupants in areas that are susceptible to geologic hazards.
44 Thus, these developments have had the effect of increasing the potential for geologic hazards to result in
45 damage to property and injury to people. Similarly, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects,
46 including the existing SVLRC, may be impacted by geologic hazards. However, past, present, and reasonably
Executive Summary
1 foreseeable future projects (including the proposed project) would not change the risk of these geologic
2 hazards. The proposed landfill expansion area is not located within a: 1) State of California designated
3 Alquist-Priolo Special Fault Study Zone; 2) County of Ventura designated Fault Hazard area; or 3) County of
4 Ventura designated Potential Fault Hazard Area. The nearest large active fault is the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault,
5 which trends east-west about 3,000 feet south of the landfill. The on-site, potentially active Canada de la Brea
6 Fault may experience sympathetic (i.e., triggered) slip during large earthquakes on nearby active faults. This
7 sympathetic slip, if it occurs, likely will be minor (i.e., on the order of several centimeters). In addition,
8 alluvial areas in canyon bottoms would be subject to liquefaction in the event of severe seismically induced
9 ground movement, potentially resulting in damage to site structures such as buildings, containment structures,
10 leachate and gas collection facilities, and surface drainage facilities. However, impacts are site-specific and
11 relate primarily to construction techniques. In addition, the expanded landfill, as well as all cumulative
12 projects would be designed and constructed in accordance with seismic design studies, as well as all relevant
13 State and County regulations. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of
14 the proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.
15 Past projects may have been constructed over known or unknown petroleum resources, thus precluding oil
16 drilling from within project boundaries. Past projects may have also resulted in displacement of oil wells that
17 have produced oil from the Simi Valley area. However, modern directional (or slant) drilling techniques have
18 allowed access to oil reserves from remote locations; therefore, past industrial and commercial development
19 have not substantially reduced access to oil reserves in the Simi Valley area. Similarly, present and
20 reasonably foreseeable future projects will not preclude continued development of the Simi Valley area, as
21 these project sites could be accessed from remote locations, using directional drilling techniques. Although
22 previous oil and gas extraction has occurred in the vicinity of the landfill, most of the production activities
23 have been terminated at the project site, as well as within the encompassing Simi Valley. In addition,
24 groundwater extraction is not occurring in large quantities in the landfill vicinity or the encompassing Simi
25 Valley Groundwater Basin. Therefore, cumulative subsidence is not expected to occur in association with
26 extraction of oil, gas, or groundwater. The cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of
28 Mineral Resources
29 Past projects, including projects have been constructed over known or unknown petroleum resources, thus
30 precluding oil drilling from within project boundaries. Past projects may have also resulted in displacement of
31 oil wells that have produced oil from the Simi Valley area. However, modern directional (or slant) drilling
32 techniques have allowed access to oil reserves from remote locations; therefore, past industrial and
33 commercial development have not substantially reduced access to oil reserves in the Simi Valley area.
34 Similarly, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects will not preclude continued development of the
35 Simi Valley area, as these project sites could be accessed from remote locations, using directional drilling
36 techniques.
37 Proposed landfill expansion would preclude oil and gas drilling from within proposed project boundaries.
38 However, petroleum reserves beneath the site, as well as beneath other cumulative projects listed in Table 4.1-
39 1, could be accessed from remote locations, using directional (or slant) drilling techniques. Therefore, the
40 proposed project, as well as cumulative projects in the Simi Valley area, would not result in the permanent
41 loss of availability of a known petroleum resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents
42 of the state. Because of modern oil and gas drilling techniques, the cumulative impact is less than significant
43 and the contribution of the proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.
45 Past projects, including may have destroyed paleontological resources. Construction activities associated with
46 present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would potentially require excavation into portions of the
Executive Summary
1 Sespe Formation with potentially significant vertebrate paleontological resources. Therefore, such projects
2 may result in the destruction of paleontological resources. The proposed project would result in ground
3 disturbances within areas of high paleontological sensitivity. Based on the relative uniqueness of land
4 mammal fossils found in this area, the potential disturbance to these paleontological resources by the
5 proposed project would be significant, prior to mitigation. Therefore, the incremental effect of the proposed
6 project on paleontological resources prior to mitigation would be cumulatively considerable when considered
7 in conjunction with past projects and related present and future projects.
8 Cultural Resources
9 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development that would contribute to cumulative impacts on
10 cultural resources includes projects that would have the potential for ground disturbance in the region of
11 analysis. Those projects that have the potential to modify and/or demolish structures over 50 years old have
12 the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts on historical architectural resources. Projects that involve
13 grading of intact, natural landforms have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts on archaeological
14 resources. Reasonably foreseeable future cumulative projects would potentially disturb unknown, intact
15 subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Although much of the area has been previously
16 disturbed, there is potential for related infill projects to potentially contribute to this impact. Discretionary
17 review of incremental projects would minimize impacts on cultural resources, as local policies encourage the
18 avoidance and protection of archaeological resources. However, impacts on cultural resources associated with
19 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable buildout would be cumulatively considerable. If significant
20 archaeological deposits are discovered during grading or construction, the project would have a significant
21 impact on archaeological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3, would
22 ensure that impacts to subsurface archaeological deposits would be less than significant. With implementation
23 of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative
24 contribution to cumulative impacts on archaeological resources. Since the proposed project would have no
25 impacts on historical resources, it is not necessary to analyze the proposed project‘s contribution to past,
26 present, and reasonably foreseeable impacts on historical resources.
27 Hazards (See also Hazards in ESR.5)
28 Past projects may have been impacted by hazards, including fire, hazardous materials/waste spills, and soil
29 contamination/soil gas associated with former oil wells. Past development has had the effect of increasing the
30 potential for hazards to result in damage to property and injury to people. Similarly, present and reasonably
31 foreseeable future projects, including the existing SVLRC, may be impacted by fire, hazardous
32 materials/waste, and oil field hazards.
33 The potential for wildfires to be ignited on adjacent, off-site areas is low and impacts are considered less than
34 significant. The expanded landfill, as well as all cumulative projects would be required to comply with fire
35 prevention regulations established by the Ventura County Fire Protection District. Therefore, the cumulative
36 impact is less than significant and the contribution of the proposed project is less than cumulatively
37 considerable.
38 The proposed SVLRC expansion includes the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials and
39 hazardous waste. Improper storage, handling, and disposal of these substances could result in contamination
40 of on-site soils, as wells as adverse impacts to health and safety of on-site personnel. Expanded landfill
41 operations, as well as all cumulative projects would be required to comply with fire prevention regulations
42 established by the Ventura County Uniform Fire Code, as well as all other relevant County, State, and Federal
43 regulations. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of the proposed
44 project is less than cumulatively considerable.

Executive Summary
1 Residual concentrations of petroleum products and hazardous substances may be present in on-site soil as a
2 result of historic oil and gas drilling operations. Grading and landfill operations in the immediate vicinity of
3 the existing oil wells could create significant adverse health and safety impacts, such as organic vapor
4 emissions and exposure of contaminated soils. In addition, elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons
5 are present beneath oil field service roads, to a depth of approximately two feet. Grading in the vicinity of
6 these roads could similarly result in adverse health and safety impacts. Excavations could cause damage to the
7 abandoned oil well casings, potentially resulting in an oil and/or gas leak. The possibility of damage to the
8 abandoned oil wells during grading is considered a potentially significant, but mitigable impact. In addition,
9 health and safety impacts associated with a potential release of hazardous substances or petroleum products as
10 a result of landfill construction, in the vicinity of on-site abandoned oil wells, is considered a potentially
11 significant, but mitigable impact. Expanded landfill operations, as well as cumulative projects that are located
12 in the vicinity of active or abandoned oil wells, would similarly result in potentially significant health and
13 safety impacts in the event that grading and construction is completed in proximity to active or former oil
14 field infrastructure. However, such health and safety impacts are localized in nature and specific to each
15 cumulative project site. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of the
16 proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.
17 Exposure to Valley Fever from soil disturbed at the landfill would pose a less than significant impact because
18 ground-disturbing activities are considered baseline and represent a continual source of spores that contribute
19 to the low number of Valley Fever cases reported each year; and a major ground-disturbing event (i.e., large
20 earthquake) is required to release a large number of spores over a wide area wide enough for a significant
21 outbreak of Valley Fever to occur. Expanded landfill operations, as well as cumulative projects, would result
22 in less than significant impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution
23 of the proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.[Moved to Air Quality]
24 Noise
25 The geographic scope for cumulative noise impacts is the vicinity of the SVLRC and local roadways that
26 would be used by waste vehicles. Projects that could contribute to cumulative construction noise and vibration
27 impacts include demolition, grading and construction projects in the vicinity of the proposed project. Those
28 that could contribute to operational noise and vibration impacts include projects in the vicinity of SVLRC that
29 could exceed the standards of Ventura County Noise Policy 2.16.2-1(4).
30 Virtually all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will make some incremental contribution
31 to noise, at least during construction and most likely during operations, as well. Residential development
32 results in noise from vehicles, household occupants (people and pets), and associated lawn and garden
33 equipment, recreational vehicles, mechanized toys, etc. Commercial development involves vehicle traffic
34 noise as well as noise associated with the presence of people and the loading and unloading of goods.
35 Industrial development involves noise associated with vehicles, loading and unloading of goods, industrial
36 processes including release of pressure, clanging of metal on metal, whistles, and equipment and vehicle
37 noise. The cumulative effect of development projects over time has been to overall increase the noise levels in
38 developed areas to levels considerably above pre-development ambient levels. Therefore, the cumulative
39 noise impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects has been considerable.
40 The proposed project would cause increases in noise of less than one dB (A) over current ambient levels at all
41 analyzed locations. Since three dB (A) is considered the threshold of audibility for a person with normal
42 hearing in a typical setting, the incremental noise from the proposed project would be considerably below the
43 threshold of audibility and would therefore not, on its own, be distinguishable from background levels.
44 Nevertheless, the project would contribute a measureable increment to existing noise levels and may be
45 considered to contribute to cumulatively considerable noise impacts.

Executive Summary
2 The transportation environmental setting for the cumulative transportation and circulation analysis includes
3 those streets and intersections that would be used by both automobile and truck traffic to gain access to and
4 from the proposed project and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the SVLRC
5 vicinity, as well as those streets that would be used by construction traffic (i.e., equipment and commuting
6 workers).
7 Future peak hour and annual average daily freeway volumes along SR-118 from the City of Simi Valley
8 Travel Demand Forecasting Model were used for the Future freeway segment analysis. All the study freeway
9 segments are projected to continue to operate at the same LOS during the Future With Project scenario.
10 Therefore, the contribution of the project to cumulative freeway segment impacts is less than cumulatively
11 considerable.
12 Future peak hour volumes from the City of Simi Valley Travel Demand Forecasting Model were used for the
13 Future local roadway segment analysis. All the study roadway segments are projected to continue to operate
14 at the same unacceptable LOS during the Future With Project scenario. However, the project would not
15 contribute to a lowering of the level of service nor would it be responsible for more than 50 percent of the
16 increase in traffic volumes. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the project with regard to local roadway
17 segments is less than cumulatively considerable.
18 With regard to the intersection of Somis Road and SR-118, the proposed project is not expected to add
19 substantial traffic to the intersection. Given the proposed improvements in the reasonably foreseeable future,
20 the contribution of the project to the cumulative impacts is less than cumulatively considerable.
21 Water Supply
22 Past development has increased the amount of infrastructure, structural improvements, and number of people
23 working in the Simi Valley area (i.e., the cumulative geographic scope). Most of the water associated with
24 this past development has been supplied by the CMWD. Thus, these developments have had the effect of
25 increasing the water demand from this water purveyor. Similarly, present and reasonably foreseeable future
26 projects, including the existing SVLRC, would require water supply from the CMWD. In addition, in the
27 eastern portion of Simi Valley, there is a regional shortage of water pressure, which potentially affects fire-
28 fighting capabilities. Specifically, the lack of sufficient water pressure occurs in the Knolls area, a result of
29 insufficient water storage in the Alta Vista Zone storage tank.
30 The project would be served by the CMWD, which provides water that is in compliance with the applicable
31 State Drinking Water Standards. Therefore, impacts to water quality would be less than significant. CMWD
32 is considered by Ventura County to be a permanent source of water. A water availability letter from Ventura
33 County Waterworks District No. 8 would be submitted by CMWD with the proposed project application,
34 verifying that adequate water supplies are available. In addition, an updated water supply plan would be
35 included as part of a Master Development Plan, which is designed to ensure that the landfill is operated in an
36 environmentally safe manner and to mitigate any significant avoidable environmental impacts identified in the
37 EIR. The water supply plan would describe improvements to be made to assure adequate potable and non-
38 potable water for landfill operations, dust control, fire protection, landscaping, human consumption, and
39 hygiene. In addition, water supply at SVLRC is not derived from the Alta Vista water storage tank. Thus,
40 sufficient water pressure is available for fire-fighting purposes at SVLRC. Therefore, impacts would be less
41 than significant. All cumulative projects would be required to comply with the same protocol described
42 above for the proposed project, in order to determine availability of water supply from CMWD as well as
43 meet applicable water quality regulations. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the
44 contribution of the proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.

Executive Summary
1 Waste Treatment/Disposal
2 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development that have an individual sewage disposal system,
3 or involve new or expanded solid waste facilities may have contributed cumulative impacts. There are no
4 past, present, or reasonably foreseeable solid waste facility projects that would contribute to cumulative
5 impacts. With respect to cumulative projects with an individual sewage disposal system, discretionary review
6 of these incremental projects minimizes cumulative impacts due to individual sewage disposal systems, as
7 projects are required to comply with state and local policies regarding individual sewage disposal systems.
8 Thus, impacts on sewage and treatment disposal associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
9 buildout of the cumulative projects would not be cumulatively considerable. The project would be required to
10 obtain an individual WDR permit for the proposed on-site wastewater treatment plant from the LARWQCB.
11 The level of treatment required and permitted reuse would be specified in the WDR. As such, the proposed
12 project would conform with the requirements of the LARWQCB’s Basin Plan concerning development
13 utilizing septic systems (LARWQCB 1994). In addition, the proposed on-site wastewater treatment facility
14 must meet operation and maintenance guidelines required by the Ventura County Environmental Health
15 Division; and meet requirements outlined in the Ventura County Building Code. Issuance of these permits
16 and compliance with applicable State and County regulations with respect to design and operation of the
17 treatment plant would reduce potential impacts from on-site sewage disposal to a level considered less than
18 cumulatively considerable. Cumulative projects that include individual sewage disposal systems would be
19 required to comply with the same regulations. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and
20 the contribution of the proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.
21 Recreational Facilities (See Recreational Facilities in ESR.5)
22 Cumulative impacts on recreational resources may result from the combined incremental demands on existing
23 local and regional parks/facilities and trails resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
24 development within the cumulative region of influence. Past development in the project vicinity and
25 surrounding areas has resulted in a deficit of developed parkland within the region. The majority of present
26 and reasonably foreseeable projects are residential developments that would result in a substantial demand for
27 recreational facilities in the region. Additionally, the Colton Lee Manufactured Housing Community (#8) has
28 the potential to impede future development of the RSRPD Trail #15 (Las Llajas to Black Canyon). Because
29 Quimby fees (provisions for the dedication of fees and/or parkland) are currently required for proposed
30 subdivision developments, the contributions of present and reasonably foreseeable projects to cumulative
31 recreation impacts in the area would not be cumulatively considerable.
32 No local or regional parks/facilities, regional trails/corridors are located within the proposed CUP boundary
33 such that no existing facilities would be directly impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project
34 would, however, result in a net increase of 150 employees, thereby creating the potential for an increase in
35 population and a corresponding increase in the demand for local and regional parks/facilities and
36 trails/corridors. Mitigation Measures REC-1 through REC-3 would offset costs of developing and/or
37 improving local and regional park/facilities and trails/corridors associated with increased demands on existing
38 recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative
39 contribution to cumulative impacts on local and regional parks/facilities.
40 One planned multi-purpose trail (Alamos Canyon Trail) and a 20-acre community park site is located within
41 the proposed CUP boundary. Thus, the proposed development would impede future development of
42 recreation parks/facilities and regional trails and impacts to these future facilities would be significant.
43 However, implementation of Mitigation Measures REC-1 through REC-3would ensure that impacts would be
44 less than significant. As such, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative
45 contribution to cumulative impacts on the future development of recreational facilities.

Executive Summary
1 ES.6 Public Involvement (See ESR.6)

2 The County issued a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study (NOP/IS) for SVLRC CUP-3142-8 on December
3 20, 2007. The NOP/IS described the project and the environmental review process and solicited public input
4 on environmental issues two be addressed in the EIR. Copies of the NOP/IS were distributed to various
5 movement agencies, organizations and individuals during the 30-day review period. The NOP and IS was also
6 made available for review at various libraries and online at the County Planning Department website. During
7 the public review period, 21 comment letters were received.
8 The County conducted a public scoping meeting on June 2, 2008 at the City of Simi Valley Council Chamber.
9 During this meeting the County presented information on the project and solicited public input on topics to be
10 addressed in the EIR. During the Scoping meeting 11 individuals provided comments. Table 1.6-1
11 summarizes the environmental issues that were identified during the NOP/IS public review period and the
12 public scoping process and indicates the EIR sections in which these issues were addressed.
13 ES.7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

14 Table ES.7-1 summarizes the environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified in this EIR.

Executive Summary
Table ES.7-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures in Draft EIR
Impact Significance Mitigation Significance

Before Mitigation After Mitigation
Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
Impact LU-1: Community Character. Less than None necessary. Less than
Compatibility of design/architectural style with significant significant
the surrounding community. Including
surrounding land uses, buildings, General Plan
designations, zoning, and parcel sizes.
Impact LU-2: Existing Housing. Forced Less than None necessary. Less than
removal of housing that are currently or were significant significant
formerly renter-occupied, that are affordable to
families of either moderate-income located
within the coastal zone and/or lower-income
located within the County, resulting in adverse
impact on existing housing.
Impact LU-3: Demand for Housing. Increase Significant LU-1: The applicant shall pay a one-time fee (as determined by the Less than
the demand for housing due to construction or decision-making body) to a County-approved low-income-housing significant
operation. entity or an established housing trust fund to assist in providing for
(See Table ESR.7-1) construction of affordable housing within the vicinity of Simi Valley.
Impact LU-4: Growth Inducement. Less than None necessary. Less than
Significance of growth inducing impacts of a significant significant
project depends on how much added growth
would be accommodated by removing the
impediment and setting a precedent for similar
actions in the future and whether that growth is
consistent with the planned land use of an areas,
and the physical impacts of said growth.
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1c: VCAPCD Daily Emission Significant AQ-1: The construction contractor shall implement following Less than
significance Criteria. Project construction measures to mitigate ozone precursor emissions from on-site off-road significant
would produce emissions that exceed VCAPCD construction equipment:
daily ROC and NOx emission significance 2. All construction equipment shall meet the EPA Tier 3 nonroad
thresholds. equivalent standards. The construction contractor shall be exempt
from this requirement if he provides proof that a given piece of
(See Table ESR.7-1) equipment is unavailable within the California that meets Tier 3
standards.
3. Minimize equipment idling time.
4. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune
as per manufacturers’ specifications.
5.1. Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May
through October), to minimize the number of vehicles and
equipment operating at the same time.

Executive Summary

Air Quality (continued)
Impact AQ-1c (continued) Significant Encourage the use of alternatively fueled construction equipment, Less than
such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), significant
or electricity, if feasible.
Impact AQ-2c: Project construction would Significant See AQ-1. Significant for
result in offsite ambient air pollutant AQ-2: Additional Fugitive Dust Controls for Construction. (1) 1-hour
concentrations that would contribute to an CAAQS for NO2,
exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. The calculation of unmitigated fugitive dust emissions from proposed (2) 24-hour
construction activities is based upon compliance with VCAPCD Rule CAAQS for
55, Fugitive Dust, which is assumed to produce a 50 percent reduction PM10, (3) annual
in PM10 emissions from uncontrolled levels. This would occur with the CAAQS for
use of rigorous watering of the site and other control measures, such as PM10, and (4) 24-
a limitation of vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour (mph) on-site. hour NAAQS for
The proposed construction contractor shall develop and implement dust PM2.5.
control methods to achieve a 90 percent reduction of fugitive dust
emissions from uncontrolled levels. Additional control measures to
reduce fugitive dust shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Designate personnel to monitor the dust control program and order
increased watering, as necessary, to ensure a 90 percent control level.
Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work
may not be in progress.
2. Apply approved non-toxic chemical soil stabilizers according to
manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas or
replace groundcover in disturbed areas.
3. Provide temporary wind fencing around sites being graded or worked.
4. Cover truck loads that haul dirt, sand, or gravel or maintain at least
two feet of freeboard in accordance with Section 23114 of the
California Vehicle Code.
5. Ensure dust is not tracked onto paved roads in compliance with APCD
Rule 55. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved
roads onto paved roads, or wash off tires of vehicles and any
equipment leaving the site.
6. Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed 25 mph as
instantaneous gusts or when visible dust plumes emanate from the site
and stabilize all disturbed areas.
7. Sweep all streets at least once a day if visible soil materials are carried
to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).
8. Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according
to manufacturers’ specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging
areas or unpaved road surfaces.
Pave road and road shoulders.

Executive Summary

AQ-3c: Project construction would expose the Less than See AQ-1. Less than
public to toxic air contaminants (TACs). significant significant
AQ-4c: Project construction would conflict with Less than See AQ-1 and AQ-2. Less than
or obstruct implementation of the applicable air significant significant
quality plan.
AQ-5c: Project construction would generate Less than See AQ-2. Less than
fugitive dust emissions in such quantities as to significant significant
endanger the public.
AQ-6c: Project construction would generate Less than None necessary. Less than
odorous emissions in such quantities as to significant significant
AQ-7c. Potential incremental contributions Incrementally See AQ-1. Incrementally
from the project to global climate change. contribute to contribute to
global climate global climate
(See Table ESR.7-1) change. change.
Impact AQ-1o: Project operations would Significant AQ-3: To reduce peak daily emissions of ROC and NOx from Project Significant
produce emissions that exceed VCAPCD daily operations, the landfill operator shall implement the following
ROC and NOx emission significance thresholds. measures to mitigate ozone precursor emissions from on-site off-road
mobile equipment:
(See Table ESR.7-1) 2.1. Beginning in 2009, convert equipment to engines with EPA
nonroad Tier 3 standards, where feasible.
3.2. Minimize equipment idling time.
4.3. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper
tune as per manufacturers’ specifications.
5.4. Use alternatively fueled equipment, such as CNG, LNG, or
electric, if feasible.
Impact AQ-2o: Project construction and Significant See AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3. Significant for (1)
operation would result in offsite ambient air AQ-4: The calculation of unmitigated fugitive dust emissions from 1-hour CAAQS
pollutant concentrations that would contribute to proposed construction and operational activities is based upon for NO2; (2) 24-
an exceedance of an ambient air quality compliance with VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust, which is assumed hour CAAQS for
standard. to produce a 50 to 75 percent reduction in PM10 emissions from PM10; (3) annual
uncontrolled levels, depending on the source type. This would occur CAAQS for
(See Table ESR.7-1) with the use of rigorous watering of the site and other control PM10;(4) 24-hour
measures, such as a limitation of vehicle speeds to 15 mph on-site. NAAQS for
The project landfill operator shall develop and implement dust control PM2.5; and (5)
methods to achieve a 90 percent reduction of fugitive dust emissions annual CAAQS
from uncontrolled levels. Additional control measures to reduce and NAAQS for
fugitive dust shall include, but are not limited to, the following: PM2.5.

Executive Summary

Impact AQ-2o (continued) Significant 1. Designate personnel to monitor the dust control program and order Significant for (1)
increased watering, as necessary, to ensure a 90 percent control level. 1-hour CAAQS
(See Table ESR.7-1) Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work for NO2; (2) 24-
may not be in progress. hour CAAQS for
2. Apply approved non-toxic chemical soil stabilizers according to PM10; (3) annual
manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction and CAAQS for
operational areas or replace groundcover in disturbed areas. PM10;(4) 24-hour
3. Provide temporary wind fencing around sites being graded or worked. NAAQS for
4. Cover truck loads that haul dirt, sand, or gravel or maintain at least PM2.5; and (5)
two feet of freeboard in accordance with Section 23114 of the annual CAAQS
California Vehicle Code. and NAAQS for
5. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads PM2.5.
onto paved roads, or wash off tires of vehicles and any equipment
leaving the site.
6. Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed 25 mph as
instantaneous gusts or when visible dust plumes emanate from the site
and stabilize all disturbed areas.
7. Sweep all streets at least once a day if visible soil materials are carried
to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).
8. Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according
to manufacturers’ specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging
areas or unpaved road surfaces.
9. Pave road and road shoulders.
AQ-5: Simi Valley Landfill Emissions Reduction Program
Agreement. In instances, when air quality impacts from mobile
sources due to project operations cannot be mitigated to insignificant
levels with the available air pollution control measures recommended
for the project, the VCAPCD, in its Air Quality Assessment
Guidelines, recommends implementing an Emissions Reduction
Program to ensure additional mitigation of air quality impacts by
requiring the project proponent to contribute funds for programs that
reduce air pollutant emissions from non-project sources. However,
while several municipal jurisdictions in the county have enacted air
emissions mitigation programs in the form of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs, Ventura County has not established a
Government Code section 66000 et seq. fee rule or made a Board of
Supervisors commitment to adopt such a fee rule to assess, collect,
and spend such fees on mitigation programs.

Executive Summary

Impact AQ-2o (continued) Significant Therefore, to accomplish the purposes of an Emissions Reduction Program, Significant for (1)
some other legally enforceable, feasible mechanism to achieve the same 1-hour CAAQS
(See Table ESR.7-1) result is required. In this instance, a legally enforceable agreement between for NO2; (2) 24-
the County of Ventura, VCAPCD, and the applicant (WMI) could be hour CAAQS for
executed such that funding would be provided by the applicant via the PM10; (3) annual
agreement to the VCAPCD for the purpose of funding emission reduction CAAQS for
programs in Ventura County, based on estimated mobile source emissions PM10;(4) 24-hour
from operations in excess of standards. Such an agreement would, at a NAAQS for
minimum, have the following features: PM2.5; and (5)
• A binding agreement would be executed by the County of Ventura, the annual CAAQS
VCAPCD, and the applicant wherein the applicant commits:
o To the payment of fees, calculated based on the amount of project and NAAQS for
operational emissions from mobile sources in excess of standards, PM2.5.
into a fund administered by the VCAPCD. Fees would be
determined based on the project’s mobile source emissions in
excess of standards and the cost-effectiveness of projects funded by
the VCAPCD’s Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards
Attainment Program.
o Pay the assessed fees over a time period mutually agreeable to all
parties.
• The VCAPCD would be entitled to recover all cost of administrating
the expenditure of the funds so collected.
• The fees would be used by the VCAPCD to fund emission reduction
projects in Ventura County. Projects that could be funded include, but
would not necessarily be limited to, project types eligible for funding
under the VCAPCD’s emission reduction incentive programs such as:
o The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment
Program, Clean Air Fund,
o The Lower Emissions School Bus Program, and
o The Lawn Mower Trade-In Program.
o Emission reduction programs such as the one described above
facilitate reductions in emissions by reducing individual vehicle
emissions (buses, trucks, etc.) and emissions from other devices and
equipment powered by internal combustion engines through the use
of more efficient engines, less polluting fuels, or electric or hybrid
power sources. It is uncertain the extent to which the Simi Valley
Landfill and Recycling Center Emissions Reduction Program
would offset overall project-related vehicular emissions and it is not
possible to calculate what those reductions might be because the
specific emission mitigation projects are unknown at this time.
However, implementing an Emissions Reduction Program
Agreement for the proposed Simi Valley Landfill expansion project
is considered an effective emission reduction measure.

Executive Summary

AQ-3o: Project construction and operation Less than See AQ-1 and AQ-3. Less than
would expose the public to TACs. significant significant
AQ-4o: Project operation would conflict with or Less than See AQ-3 and AQ-4. Less than
obstruct implementation of the applicable air significant significant
quality plan.
AQ-5o: Project operations would generate Less than See AQ-4. Less than
fugitive dust emissions in such quantities as to significant significant
AQ-6o: Project operation would generate Less than AQ-6: Odor Control Plan. The landfill operator shall implement Less than
odorous emissions in such quantities as to Significant Condition Number 41, Odor Control Plan, in Conditional Use Permit Significant
endanger the public. CUP-3142-7 during proposed operations at the SVLRC. This plan
shall be updated, as deemed necessary to comply with current
regulations, by the Ventura County Environmental Health Division
(EHD) and Planning Division.
Impact AQ-7o: Potential incremental Incrementally See AQ-3. Incrementally
contributions from the project to global climate contribute to contribute to
change. global climate global climate
change. change.
(See Table ESR.7-1)
Water Resources
Impact WR-1: Groundwater Quantity. Less than None necessary. Less than
Directly or indirectly decrease the net quantity significant significant
of groundwater in a basin that is overdrafted;
cause non overdrafted basin(s) to become
overdrafted; result in a net increase in
groundwater extraction In areas where the basin
condition is not known.
Impact WR-2: Groundwater Quality. Less than None necessary. Less than
Degrade the quality of groundwater and cause significant significant
groundwater to fail to meet groundwater quality
objectives set by the LARWQCB.
Impact WR-3: Surface Water Quantity. Less than None necessary. Less than
Increase the net utilization of surface water in a significant significant
hydraulic unit that is overdrafted; adversely
impacts an overdrafted hydrologic unit; cause
the hydraulic unit to become overdrafted; or
result in a net increase in surface water for
hydraulic units in which the condition is not
known.

Executive Summary

Water Resources (continued)
Impact WR-4: Surface Water Quality. Significant WR-1: Toe Barrier Liquid Analysis by VCWPD. Toe barrier liquids Less than
Degrades the quality of surface water and causes sampling results shall be reviewed by the Ventura County Watershed significant
it to fail to meet surface water quality objectives Protection District, Water & Environmental Resources Division,
for a hydrologic unit defined in the most recent Water Quality Section, for conformance with Basin Plan surface
Water Quality Control Plan. water quality objectives, including associated TMDLs, prior to use in
dust control. In the event that sampling results are in excess of these
water quality objectives, use of toe barrier liquids for dust control
shall cease pending enhanced remedial actions and additional
sampling demonstrating that the toe barrier liquids are within
acceptable limits.
WR-2: Stormwater Runoff Analysis by VCWPD. Stormwater runoff

sampling results shall be reviewed by the Ventura County Watershed
Protection District, Water & Environmental Resources Division,
Water Quality Section, for conformance with Basin Plan surface
water quality objectives, including associated TMDLs. In the event
that sampling results are in excess of these water quality objectives,
on-site Best Management Practices shall be adjusted and enhanced
until additional sampling demonstrates that stormwater runoff is
within acceptable limits.
Impact WR-5: Flooding. Flooding hazards are Significant WR-3: Detention/Sedimentation Basin Armoring. The proposed Less than
ubiquitous throughout Ventura County and are detention/sedimentation basin in the northwest portion of Phase III, at significant
accommodated by the Ventura County Building the confluence of Alamos Canyon Creek and the tributary creek to the
Code and the Ventura County Watershed northeast, shall be armored sufficiently to withstand erosive flow
Protection District Standards and Specifications associated with a 100-year storm event along Alamos Canyon Creek.
Design Manual. The effects of flooding hazards Basin armoring shall include rock rip-rap, precast concrete block, or
are required to be considered within the existing roller compacted concrete.
framework of grading and building code WR-4. Downstream Erosion Control Measures. The applicant shall
ordinances which apply to all projects. coordinate with the VCWPD, Advanced Planning Section, Floodplain
Management Division, in developing erosion control features within
Alamos Canyon Creek, downstream of the proposed
detention/sedimentation basin in the northwest portion of Phase III, at
the confluence of Alamos Canyon Creek and the tributary creek to the
northeast, to address increased stormwater runoff flow velocities
adjacent to the proposed basin. Alternatively, the
detention/sedimentation basin shall be redesigned such that it does not
encroach on the designated floodplain.

Executive Summary

Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Endangered, Threatened, or Significant BIO-1: Pre-construction botanical surveys shall be conducted by a Less than
Rare Species and Nesting Birds. Directly or qualified, USFWS and CDFG-approved biologist for the Braunton’s significant
indirectly: reduce species population; reduce milk vetch, San Fernando Valley spineflower, Lyon’s pentachaeta,
species habitat; or restrict reproductive capacity. and other listed species during the appropriate flowering period prior
to start of vegetation clearing and grading activities within suitable
habitat for these species. The applicant shall notify USFWS for
species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
CDFG for species listed under the California Endangered Species Act
(CESA) within 24 hours of locating any individuals of listed species.
In the event of positive survey results, the project applicant will
consult with the USFWS for species listed under the ESA to
determine whether formal Section 7 consultation is required and
CDFG to obtain an incidental take permit for species listed under the
CESA. Compensatory mitigation for the loss of any listed plant
species shall be at least on a 1:1 ratio as described in BIO-10.
BIO-1: Pre-construction botanical surveys shall be conducted by a
County-approved biologist for the Braunton’s milk vetch, San
Fernando Valley spineflower, Lyon’s pentachaeta, and other listed
species during the appropriate flowering period prior to start of
grading activities (including, but not limited to: initial construction
activities, development of each landfill cell, and other project-related
activities) within suitable habitat for these species. The applicant shall
notify United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) within 24
hours of locating any individuals of these species. In the event of
positive survey results, the project applicant would consult with the
USFWS to determine whether formal Section 7 consultation should
be initiated.
BIO-2: Prior to removal of coastal scrub habitat or habitat designated
as critical habitat by the USFWS for coastal California gnatcatcher
(CAGN), a qualified, USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct
protocol surveys for CAGN and provide the results to the County of
Ventura, USFWS, and CDFG. The applicant shall notify USFWS at
least 7 days prior to initiation of surveys and within 24 hours of
locating any CAGN individuals. In the event of positive survey
results, the project applicant will consult with the USFWS to
determine whether formal Section 7 consultation is required or
whether a Section 10 permit must be obtained. In addition, should
this species be found on-site, a qualified, USFWS-approved biologist
shall do the following:

Executive Summary

Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-1 (continued) Significant a. Perform additional surveys once a week during project Less than
construction during the breeding season of CAGN. These significant
additional surveys may be suspended as approved by the USFWS.
The applicant shall notify the USFWS at least 7 days prior to the
initiation of surveys, and within 24 hours of locating any CAGN
individuals.
b. Postpone work if a CAGN nest is found within 500 feet of project
construction activities. A qualified, USFWS-approved biologist
shall coordinate with USFWS to devise an optimal strategy of
postponing work only in areas where continued construction
activities may pose an adverse impact to the CAGN, thereby
allowing work to continue beyond the appropriate buffer
determined for the documented CAGN nests.
Removal of designated critical habitat for the coastal California
gnatcatcher within the project site shall be compensated through
preservation of existing intact suitable habitat or improvement and
preservation of disturbed habitat either on- or off-site and approved by
USFWS and the County. Compensation shall be at a minimum of a 1:1
ratio for critical habitat lost due to construction of the project. Off-site
compensation shall be conducted within the critical habitat Unit 13
(Unit 13: Western Los Angeles and Ventura Counties) as designated by
the USFWS. Preservation of critical habitat shall be ensured through
recordation of a biological restrictive covenant with the County of
Ventura.
BIO-2: Prior to removal of coastal scrub habitat from construction
activities (including initial construction activities, development of
each landfill cell, and any other project-related activities), a qualified
biologist shall conduct protocol surveys for coastal California
gnatcatcher and the results provided to the County of Ventura,
USFWS, and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).
Appropriate coordination with and approval of agencies would be
required. The applicant shall notify USFWS at least 7 days prior to
initiation of surveys and within 24 hours of locating any gnatcatchers

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-1 (continued) Significant In the event of positive survey results, the project applicant would Less than
consult with the USFWS to determine whether formal Section 7 significant
consultation should be initiated. In addition, should this species be
found on-site a qualified biologist shall do the following:
Perform additional surveys once a week during project construction
during the breeding season of the costal California gnatcatcher. These
additional surveys may be suspended as approved by the USFWS.
The applicant shall notify the USFWS at least 7 days prior to the
initiation of surveys, and within 24 hours of locating any coastal
California gnatcatchers.
Postpone work if a gnatcatcher nest is found within 500 feet of project
construction activities. A qualified biologist shall coordinate with
USFWS to devise an optimal strategy of postponing work only in areas
where continued construction activities may pose an adverse impact to
the coastal California gnatcatcher, thereby allowing work to continue
beyond the 500 foot buffer beyond documented gnatcatcher nests.
BIO-3: Removal of vegetation, grading, and/or other land disturbance
activities shall be conducted outside the bird breeding and nesting
season (February 1 through August 31) in order to avoid destruction of
bird nests or eggs.
If land disturbance activities cannot be completed outside the February
1 through August 31 breeding season, a breeding and nesting bird
survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with a CDFG
Scientific Collecting Permit within 7 days prior to the land disturbance
activity. The nesting bird survey shall cover the construction footprint
and a buffer of 500 feet from the construction footprint. If active nests
are found, land disturbance activities within 300 feet of the nest (500
feet for raptors) shall be postponed or halted until the nest is vacated
and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt
at nesting, as determined by the biologist. If the construction area is
larger than the buffered nesting bird area(s), then land disturbance
activities can commence outside the restricted area(s). If land
disturbance activities are delayed after the survey has been conducted,
then an additional nesting bird survey must be conducted such that no
more than 7 days have elapsed between the last survey and the
commencement of land disturbance activities.

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-1 (continued) Significant Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for development, the Less than
applicant shall provide a signed contract with one of the Planning significant
Division’s approved biological consultants that guarantees that a
nesting bird survey will be conducted 7 days prior to any land
disturbing activities.
BIO-3: Removal of vegetation from construction activities (including
initial construction activities, development of each landfill cell, and
any other project-related activities) shall be conducted outside the
breeding season (February 1 through August 15) in order to avoid
destruction of bird nests or eggs.
If vegetation removal cannot be completed outside the February 1
through August 15 breeding season, vegetation removal in areas
where suitable nesting habitat for resident or migratory bird species
may occur shall occur only after pre-grading surveys by a County-
approved biologist show that active nests would not be impacted by
the activities. The pre-grading surveys shall focus on breeding
behavior and nesting locations in the proposed work area and
immediately adjacent to that area. Based on the results of the surveys,
recommended buffer areas between construction activities and
observed nesting habitat shall be provided to the County and to the
project engineer if the work needs to occur near those locations while
nesting is occurring (February 1 through August 15).
Impact BIO-2: Wetland Habitat. Direct Significant BIO-4: The project applicant shall prepare and implement a Wetlands Less than
reduction of, or a substantial indirect impact to, Mitigation Plan acceptable to the County of Ventura prior to initiation of significant
a significant Wetland Habitat. All wetlands are vegetation clearing and grading activity within 100 feet of the known
potentially significant.
seeps. Appropriate mitigation includes enhancing, expanding, or restoring
existing wetlands, or creating/establishment of new wetlands in the
proposed project vicinity. The Wetlands Mitigation Plan shall include the
following components at a minimum:
1. A minimum mitigation ratio of 3:1 for acres of wetlands lost versus
acres mitigated as a result of the Plan.
2. Location(s) of mitigation on suitable portions of the project site or
other property that can be protected in perpetuity from future
development.

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-2 (continued) Significant 3. Timing which shall be initiated prior to acceptance of waste Less than
within the proposed expansion area. significant
4. Detailed information on the vegetation, quality, soils, and hydrology of
the mitigation site prior to implementation
5. The mitigation shall have a goal of no net loss of wetlands.
6. Methods for restoration, creation, or enhancement (as applicable).
7. Baseline information (i.e., a description of the ecological
characteristics of the proposed mitigation site) shall be obtained as a
basis for measuring mitigation performance. Baseline information may
include: descriptions of historic and existing plant communities,
historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a map showing the
locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic
coordinates for those site(s), and other characteristics appropriate to
the type of resource proposed as compensation.
8. Monitoring, maintenance, and reporting for a minimum monitoring
period, which shall not be less than 5 years.
9. Performance criteria that are based on replacement of the
characteristics and functions of the wetlands being impacted must be
approved by the County and any other appropriate regulatory agency.
Performance criteria shall at a minimum include the following
parameters: percent vegetative cover, plant diversity, percent non-
native plant species, target functions and values, and target
hydrological regime.
10. The Plan shall include an adaptive management strategy to
address unforeseen changes in site conditions or other components of
the mitigation project, including the party or parties responsible for
implementing adaptive management measures.

Procedures to ensure protection of the mitigation sites in perpetuity,
either through the recordation of a conservation easement, a biological
restrictive covenant, or other agreement approved by the County and
other relevant regulatory agencies.
mitigation plan shall include the following components at a minimum:
3.1. A minimum mitigation ratio of 3:1 for acres of wetlands lost

versus acres mitigated as a result of the Plan.
4.2. Location(s) of mitigation on suitable portions of the project
site or other property that can be protected in perpetuity from
future development.

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-2 (continued) 5.3. Timing which shall be initiated prior to acceptance of waste Less than
within proposed expansion area. significant
Detailed information on the vegetation, quality, soils, and
hydrology of the mitigation site prior to implementation
The mitigation shall have a goal of no net loss of wetlands.
Additional goals may include specific functions and values of
habitat types to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved.
Methods for restoration, creation, or enhancement (as applicable).
7. Baseline information (i.e., a description of the ecological
characteristics of the proposed mitigation project site), if
applicable, shall be obtained as a basis for measuring mitigation
performance. Baseline information may include: descriptions of
historic and existing plant communities, historic and existing
hydrology, soil conditions, a map showing the locations of the
impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic coordinates for
those site(s), and other characteristics appropriate to the type of
resource proposed as compensation.
8. Monitoring, maintenance, and reporting for a minimum monitoring
period, which shall not be less than 5 years, if applicable.
9. Performance criteria, if applicable, must be approved by the
County and any other appropriate regulatory agency. Performance
criteria shall at a minimum include the following parameters:
percent cover, plant diversity, percent non-native plant species,
target functions and values, and target hydrological regime.
10. The plan shall include an adaptive management strategy to address
unforeseen changes in site conditions or other components of the
mitigation project, including the party or parties responsible for
implementing adaptive management measures.
11. Procedures to ensure protection of the mitigation sites in
perpetuity, either through the recordation of a conservation
easement, a deed restriction, recordation of a development’s
covenants, codes, and restrictions, or other agreements approved
by the County and other relevant regulatory agencies.

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-3: Migration Corridors. Significant BIO-5: The permittee shall implement vector control methods to deter Less than
Substantially interfere with the use of said area refuse scavenging species such as gulls and crows from the waste significant
by fish or wildlife. This could occur through disposal area. In the vicinity of Alamos Canyon, vector control
elimination of native vegetation, erection of
physical barriers, or intimidation of fish or methods (such as noisemakers and propane cannons, distress call, and
wildlife via introduction of noise, light, use of falcons and dogs) that could result in the avoidance of wildlife
development, or increased human presence. use of Alamos Canyon as a corridor shall be avoided.
BIO-5: The permittee shall implement vector control methods to
deter refuse scavenging species such as gulls and crows from the
waste disposal area. In the vicinity of Alamos Canyon, vector control
methods (such as noisemakers and propane cannons, distress call, and
use of falcons and dogs) that could result in the avoidance of the use
of Alamos Canyon as a wildlife corridor, shall be avoided.
BIO-6: To ensure the continued availability of the Alamos Canyon
Wildlife Corridor for the benefit of native plants and wildlife, the
permittee shall obtain, dedicate, enhance, and manage habitat in and
adjacent to the Alamos Canyon wildlife corridor (including the
riparian zone and adjacent upland habitats) from the SR-118 freeway
place extending northward at least to the latitude of the northernmost
portion of buffer area associated with the proposed landfill expansion.
Dedication shall be in perpetuity through a legal instrument such as a
conservation easement. Enhancement shall be as described in
Mitigation Measure BIO-7.
BIO-7: As part of a Habitat Restoration and Management Plan, the
permittee shall design and implement a plan acceptable to the County
of Ventura for habitat enhancements along the channel in Alamos
Canyon in order to improve overstory cover for migrating animals and
to increase potential habitat for species that rely on riparian corridors.
The plan must provide for planting and maintenance of sycamore and
coast live oak trees in and adjacent to Alamos Canyon in areas void of
trees. By focusing especially on areas of the canyon near the landfill
and areas having direct line of sight to the landfill, the plan will create
a pattern of more continuous tree cover. A minimum of 30 sycamores
and 30 coast live oaks shall be established within the area identified
above (see also Figure 3.4-3). In addition, planting of vegetation or
other work within or adjacent to the channel above falls under the
regulatory and permitting authority of the Ventura County Watershed
Protection District per Ordinance FC-18 as amended. As such, habitat
enhancement plans for Alamos Canyon shall be reviewed and
approved by the Watershed Protection District.

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-3 (continued) Significant BIO-7: The permittee shall design and implement a plan acceptable to Less than
the County of Ventura for habitat enhancements along the channel in significant
Alamos Canyon in order to improve overstory cover for migrating
animals and to increase potential habitat for species that rely on
riparian corridors. The plan must provide for planting and
maintenance of sycamore and coast live oak trees to be planted and
maintained in and adjacent to Alamos Canyon in areas void of trees.
By focusing especially on areas of the canyon near the landfill and
areas having direct line of sight to the landfill, the plan will create a
pattern of more continuous tree cover. A minimum of 30 sycamores
and 30 coast live oaks shall be established within the area identified
above (see also Figure 3.4-3). Specifications for these habitat
enhancements shall be included in the Habitat Restoration and
Revegetation Plan identified in Mitigation Measure BIO-13. In
addition, planting of vegetation or other work within or adjacent to
Los Alamos Canyon channel falls under the regulatory and permitting
authority of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District per
Ordinance FC-18 as amended. As such, habitat enhancement plans
for Alamos Canyon shall be reviewed and commented on by the
Watershed Protection District.
BIO-8: As part of a Habitat Restoration and Management Plan, the
permittee shall design a plan for and implement at least 2 of the
following improvements or enhancements to the Alamos Canyon
crossings (i.e., Alamos Canyon East and West culverts and Alamos
Canyon Road undercrossing) as shown on Figure 3.4-3:
Alamos Canyon West Corridor:
• Enhance and maintain riparian vegetation near culverts.
Alamos Canyon Road Undercrossing:

• Increase the vegetative cover along Alamos Canyon Road.
• Replace the paved road with a decomposed granite surface if it is
still used for maintenance, otherwise remove the road surface and
base entirely and replace it with native vegetation.
• Remove the barbed wire fencing along the road.
Alamos Canyon East Corridor:

• Increase vegetation cover along the drainage.

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-3 (continued) Significant Measures Applicable to the three Alamos Canyon Corridors: Less than
• Installation of fencing by the project applicant to funnel wildlife significant
into the Alamos Canyon undercrossings,
The permittee shall coordinate with Caltrans to ensure that the
improvements selected will not conflict with any planned Caltrans
projects. Prior to initiation of project construction activities, the
permittee shall provide the plan for these improvements to the County
and Caltrans for approval.
Planting of vegetation or other work within or adjacent to Los Alamos
Canyon channel falls under the regulatory and permitting authority of
the Ventura County Watershed Protection District per Ordinance FC-
18 as amended. As such, habitat enhancement plans for Alamos
Canyon shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed Protection
District prior to implementation.
BIO-8: The permittee shall construct or materially participate in
improvements or enhancements to the Alamos Canyon crossings (i.e.,
Alamos Canyon East and West culverts and Alamos Canyon Road
undercrossing ) as shown on Figure 3.4-3) in order to enhance the
ability of wildlife in the project vicinity, including Alamos and Brea
canyons, to move under SR-118 thereby helping to maintain wildlife
diversity in Ventura County. Mitigation proposed below was
originally described by LSA Associates (2004) and adopted by the
Ventura SR-118 Wildlife Corridor Multi-Agency Working Group
(2006). These measures were supported and supplemented by Penrod
et al. (2006). The permittee shall work with the County of Ventura,
Caltrans, and technical advisors selected by the County to identify and
implement the most effective and feasible measures to increase
connectivity across SR-118 along Alamos Canyon, with final approval
of measures from the County prior to commencing project
construction. These may be a combination of measures from the
following list of previously identified measures from studies
referenced above. Because it is not known which of these measures
would be technically feasible, the standard for success of this measure
will be independent scientific verification via appropriately designed
seasonal surveys that wildlife movements across the SR118 corridor,
primarily of larger mammal species (such as bobcat and gray fox) to
be agreed on with the County, have substantially increased following
implementation and maintenance of an appropriate selection three or
more of the actions identified below, which have been previously

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-3 (continued) Significant identified by experts as actions that would facilitate wildlife crossing Less than
under SR-118, plus the two measures identified below that are significant
applicable to all three crossings. If a substantial increase cannot be
demonstrated between pre- and post-implementation surveys
following the initial implementation, additional measures shall be
implemented until a substantial increase in wildlife movements is
documented. Planting of vegetation or other work within or adjacent
to Los Alamos Canyon channel falls under the regulatory and
permitting authority of the Ventura County Watershed Protection
District per Ordinance FC-18 as amended. As such, habitat
enhancement plans for Alamos Canyon shall be reviewed and
commented on by the Watershed Protection District
The following enhancements would decrease the angle of approach,
thereby improving access and line-of-sight for wildlife.
Enlarge the existing twin culverts into a single undercrossing under
SR-118 by re-grading the existing steep approach and lowering the
entrance on the north side of the culvert; or, by creating a raised 5-
foot wide inside “catwalk” running the length of both culverts. Alamos
Canyon Road Undercrossing:
The following changes would enhance the utility of the undercrossing.
• Replace the paved road with a decomposed granite surface if it is
still used for maintenance, otherwise remove the road surface and
base entirely and replace it with native vegetation.
Enlarge undercrossings at the railroad crossing south of SR-118 and at
Los Angeles Avenue.
The following enhancements would increase the utility of the
undercrossing.
• Enlarge the culvert by means of “tunnel jacking”.
Measures Applicable to the three Alamos Canyon Corridors:
The following measures apply to the three Alamos Canyon
corridors/undercrossings identified above and in Figure 3.4-3:
• Installation of fencing by the project applicant to funnel
wildlife into the Alamos Canyon undercrossings,
• Reporting to the proper authorities (including police or
Caltrans) any unauthorized human activities or trespassing (

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-3 (continued) Significant • including homeless encampments) in the vicinity of Alamos Canyon Less than
observed during routine patrols would increase the utility of the significant
undercrossings.
Additionally, collaboration should be done with local groups to secure
conservation easements on properties between the SLVRC and the Simi
Hills to provide a continuous habitat corridor between the Santa Susana
Mountains, Oak Ridge, Big Mountain, and the Simi Hills.
BIO-9: The conditions applicable to minimizing off-site noise and
vibration, nighttime lighting, control of wind-blown refuse, and control
of nuisance species of birds (crows, ravens, gulls) and mammals (non-
native rodents) in CUP-3142-7 shall be applied to the expansion project
including:
• Night lighting for the proposed project shall be in accordance with
CUP-3142-7 Condition 34 limiting hours of operation to 6 AM to 8
PM and CUP-3142-7 Condition 105 requiring shielding to ensure
that when night lighting is used, natural areas are not lighted. These
measures shall be updated as necessary and applied to the proposed
project.
• A revised dust suppression plan shall be implemented as required
under CUP-3142-7 Condition 44.
Litter shall be controlled through the use of portable wind fences to
confine waste to the area of the working face and to ensure that adjacent
habitats are maintained free of litter. Existing litter control measures
(CUP-3142-7 Condition 45) shall be applied to the proposed project.
BIO-9: The conditions applicable to minimizing off-site noise and
vibration, nighttime lighting, control of wind-blown refuse, and control
of nuisance species of birds (crows, ravens, gulls) and mammals (non-
native rodents) in CUP-3142-7 shall be applied to the expansion project
including:
Night lighting for the proposed project shall in accordance with CUP-
3142-7 Condition 34 limiting hours of operation to 6 AM to 8 PM and
CUP-3142-7 Condition 105 requiring shielding to ensure that when
night lighting is used, natural areas are not lighted. These measures
shall be updated as necessary and applied to the proposed project.
A revised dust suppression plan shall be implemented as required under
CUP-3142-7 Condition 44.
Litter shall be controlled through the use of portable wind fences to
confine waste to the area of the working face and to ensure that
adjacent habitats are maintained free of litter. Existing litter control
measures (CUP-3142-7 Condition 45) shall be applied to the
proposed project.

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-4: Locally Important Plant and Significant See BIO-3. Less than
Wildlife Species/Communities. Directly or BIO-10: As part of a Habitat Restoration and Management Plan, the significant
indirectly cause a substantial reduction in permittee shall develop and implement a Sensitive Plant Species Less than
population numbers, habitat area, or significant
Restoration Plan acceptable to the Ventura County Planning Division
reproductive capacity. For locally important
communities or habitats a significant impact for Plummer’s and Catalina mariposa lily, and any federal or state
would result if the Project caused a substantial listed plant species found during pre-construction surveys prior to
reduction in area or impairment in quality or onset of grading in the expansion area. The goal of the Plan shall be
function. the replacement of these sensitive and/or listed plants on a 1:1 ratio.
The Plan shall include:
• An up to date review of research on the reproductive success of
each species and the success of previous attempts at salvage and
transplanting;
• Methodology and timing for salvaging seed and plants (corms)
from areas to be impacted and procedures for transplanting and/or
propagation;
• Identification of suitable (approved) locations for transplants and
the means to protect the locations from future development;
• Maintenance, monitoring, and replacement program to document
the success of the transplantation; and,
The number of individuals to be transplanted/propagated in order to
meet the goal of the 1:1 replacement ratio.
BIO-10: The project proponent shall develop and implement a
Sensitive Plant Species Restoration Plan for Plummer’s and Catalina
mariposa lily acceptable to Ventura County Planning Division prior to
onset of grading in the expansion area. The plan shall include:
• An up to date review of research on the reproductive success of each
species and the success of previous attempts at salvage and
transplanting;
• Methodology and timing for salvaging seed and plants (corms) from
areas to be impacted and procedures for transplanting and/or
propagation;
• Identification of suitable (approved) locations for transplants and
the means to protect the locations from future development;
• Maintenance, monitoring, and replacement program to document
the success of the transplantation and restoration of Plummer’s
mariposa lily and Catalina mariposa lily; and,
• The number of individuals lost as a result of the proposed project
shall be restored in-kind on-site with a 1:1 ratio.

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-4 (continued) Significant BIO-11: Pre-construction spring botanical surveys shall be conducted Less than
by a qualified, County-approved biologist for listed and locally significant
important plant species with the potential to occur within the project
site prior to the start of vegetation clearing and grading. To the extent
feasible, grading limits shall be adjusted to exclude documented
occurrences of listed and locally important plant species, including
Plummer’s mariposa lily and Catalina mariposa lily. Because of the
concentration of occurrences of Plummer’s mariposa lily along the
northwestern grading limits of the property (Figure 3.4-4), relatively
slight adjustments in the grading limit could enable large numbers of
individuals (up to 520 individuals in 13 occurrences) of this species to
be avoided. The occurrences of Plummer’s and Catalina mariposa lily
and any other listed or locally important plant species located within
the buffer zone shall be protected by identification of the area on a
map and by placing construction fencing along the limits of grading
where appropriate to prevent inadvertent loss or damage as a result of
construction or other project-related or property management
activities. During years of unfavorable conditions for mariposa lilies,
the distributional data from 2005 shall be used to adjust grading
limits, because the numbers and local distribution of mariposa lilies
may vary considerably from year to year in response to environmental
conditions, and conditions in 2005 were relatively favorable for
identifying the distribution of the mariposa lilies.
BIO-11: Pre-construction spring botanical surveys shall be conducted
by a County-approved biologist for the Plummer’s mariposa lily,
Catalina mariposa lily, and other locally important plant species with
the potential to occur within the project site prior to start of grading
activities including, but not limited to: initial construction.
BIO-12: A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified,
County-approved biologist for locally important wildlife species no
sooner than 14 days prior to the start of vegetation removal and
grading. Prior to vegetation removal, the biologist shall ensure that
potential natal badger dens are avoided and that less mobile species,
such as coast horned lizard, will be relocated to suitable habitat
outside of the construction area. A qualified, County-approved
biologist shall be on-site to monitor vegetation removal and topsoil
salvaging and stockpiling to minimize injury or mortality to locally
important wildlife species.

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-4 (continued) Significant CDFG shall be contacted immediately if burrowing owls or burrowing Less than
owl sign are observed. No disturbance shall occur within 50 meters significant
(approx. 160 feet) of occupied burrows during the non-breeding
season of September 1 through January 31. No disturbance shall
occur within 75 meters (approx. 250 feet) of occupied burrows during
the nesting season, February 1 through August 31, unless CDFG
verifies that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or
that the juveniles from those burrows are foraging independently and
capable of independent survival at an earlier date.
When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, the owls shall
be passively relocated to alternate burrows, only during the non-
breeding season. Occupied burrows during the breeding season shall
be avoided. Passive relocation will involve enhancing existing
unoccupied burrows or creating artificial burrows in a ratio of 1:1 in
adjacent, protected, suitable habitat that is contiguous with the
foraging habitat of the affected owls and at least 50 meters from the
impacted area. The relocated owls shall be monitored for 90 days
following relocation, and a report on the status of the relocated owls
shall be submitted to the County and CDFG. If the monitoring results
show the relocation effort to be unsuccessful, the County and CDFG
will require contingency measures, which may include preservation of
existing off-site burrowing owl habitat, in accordance with the off-site
mitigation recommendations of the California Burrowing Owl
Consortium.
BIO-12: A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a County-
approved biologist for locally important wildlife species no sooner
than 14 days prior to the start of grading including, but not limited to:
initial construction activities, development of each landfill cell, and
any other project-related activities in vegetated areas. Prior to
vegetation removal, the biologist shall ensure that potential natal
badger dens are avoided and that less mobile species, such as coast
horned lizard, will be relocated to suitable habitat outside of the
construction area. A qualified biologist shall be on-site to monitor
vegetation removal and topsoil salvaging and stockpiling to minimize
injury or mortality to locally important wildlife species.

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-4 (continued) Significant BIO-13: As part of a Habitat Restoration and Management Plan, the Less than
applicant shall develop a plan to revegetate all lands temporarily significant
disturbed by grading as well as intermediate, permanent slopes and
closed portions of the landfill as indicated below. Revegetation efforts
shall emphasize native plant species and provision of quality habitat for
locally important wildlife species and other native wildlife. The plan
shall be subject to review and approval by Ventura County prior to the
initiation of ground disturbance. The plan shall include the following:
• Provisions for salvaging and stockpiling topsoil and seed bank for use in
revegetation.
• Procedures to stabilize soil and revegetate areas disturbed by site
preparation or other grading outside the overall waste boundary with
native species from seed or cuttings collected in the immediate project
area creating habitat conditions compatible with adjoining habitat not
disturbed by the project.
• Specifications that native plants and seed stock used in revegetation
shall be locally collected or propagated from locally collected seed or
cuttings (from the Simi Valley area) to maintain the genetic integrity of
the local flora. An attempt shall be made to restore some of the existing
native plant diversity by specifically including some of the less common
native species currently found on the site.
• Specifics for seed mix, seed application, seeding methods, timing of
monitoring and reporting and performance criteria.
• Provision that non-native, non-invasive species may be used for short-
term erosion control (such as barley on temporarily denuded slopes).
Where invasive species have persisted after having been used in the
past, they shall be removed.
• Procedures for maintenance and reduction of non-native invasive plant
species on the proposed SVLRC landfill site and adjacent property
owned by the applicant. The invasive non-native plants/escaped non-
natives listed in the following sources shall be targeted as undesirable
plants:
Cal-IPC Inventory (http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/invento ry/index.php);
CDFA list of Noxious Weeds (http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/
PHPPS/IPC/weedinfo/ winfo_list-pestrating.htm); and the Ventura

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-4 (continued) Significant County Landscape Design Criteria (Ventura County RMA 1992). The Less than
goal is to reduce their presence at the landfill site and achieve significant
complete eradication, where feasible, and to minimize the likelihood
that non-native invasive species would escape into adjacent areas.
BIO-13: The applicant shall develop a Habitat Restoration and
Revegetation Plan to address losses of habitats of locally important
species through revegetation efforts that emphasize native plant species
and provision of quality habitat for locally important wildlife species and
other native wildlife. This shall be applied to all lands temporarily
disturbed by grading as well as intermediate, permanent slopes and
closed portions of the landfill as indicated below. The plan shall be
subject to review and approval by Ventura County prior to its
implementation and be completed and implemented prior to the initiation
of ground disturbance. The plan shall include the following:
• Provisions for salvaging and stockpiling topsoil and seed bank for
use in revegetation.
• Procedures to stabilize soil and revegetate areas disturbed by site
preparation or other grading outside the overall waste boundary with
native species from seed or cuttings collected in the immediate project
area creating habitat conditions compatible with adjoining habitat not
• Specifications that native plants and seed stock used in revegetation
shall be locally collected or propagated from locally collected seed or
cuttings (from the Simi Valley area) to maintain the genetic integrity
of the local flora. An attempt shall be made to restore some of the
existing native plant diversity by specifically including some of the
less common native species currently found on the site.
• Specifics for seed mix, seed application, seeding methods, timing of
monitoring and reporting and performance criteria.
Provision that non-native, non-invasive species may be used for short-
term erosion control (such as barley on temporarily denuded slopes)
or for long-term visual mitigation. Where invasive species have
persisted after having been used in the past, they shall be removed.
Procedures for maintenance and reduction of non-native invasive
plant species on the proposed SVLRC landfill site and adjacent
property owned by the applicant. The invasive non-native
plants/escaped non-natives listed in the following sources shall be
targeted as undesirable plants:

Executive Summary

Impact BIO-4 (continued) Significant BIO-14: The loss of habitat for locally important wildlife species, Less than
including sage scrub, chamise chaparral, grassland, and oak woodland significant
as documented in Table 3.4-4 of the EIR, shall be mitigated through
preservation of existing intact plant communities or restoration and
preservation of disturbed plant communities at a 1:1 ratio in the project
vicinity. This measure can be coordinated with Mitigation Measure
BIO-6. If disturbed plant communities are selected to meet this
measure, a site-specific habitat restoration and enhancement plan
including details of restoration measures appropriate to the site and
performance criteria shall be developed by the applicant and approved
by the County of Ventura prior to initiation of ground disturbance.
Restoration measures could include control of invasive non-native
species, increasing the prevalence of wildlife species by planting or use
of other management techniques, revegetation of barren surfaces
resulting from previous human activities or control of erosion related to
human activities (e.g., originating from concentrated runoff from
unpaved roads). Preserved and restored habitat shall be of similar or
higher quality and integrity in comparison to the habitat removed and
shall be dedicated and managed as vegetation and wildlife habitat in
perpetuity through a legal instrument such as a conservation easement.
In addition, a biological restrictive covenant shall be recorded with the
County of Ventura to protect the habitat in perpetuity.
BIO-14: The loss of habitat for locally important wildlife species on-site,
including sage scrub, chamise chaparral, grassland, and oak woodland,
shall be mitigated by off-site restoration and preservation of an equal or
greater acreage of these plant communities in the project vicinity. This
measure would ideally be coordinated with the Mitigation Measure BIO-6.
Restoration measures would depend on the specifics of the parcel to be
preserved but could include control of invasive non-native species,
increasing the prevalence of high-value wildlife species by planting or use
of other management techniques, revegetation of barren surfaces resulting
from previous human activities or control of erosion related to human
activities (e.g., originating from concentrated runoff from unpaved roads).
Preserved and restored habitat shall be of similar or higher quality and
integrity in comparison to the habitat removed and shall be dedicated and
managed as vegetation and wildlife habitat in perpetuity through a legal
instrument such as a conservation easement. A site-specific habitat
restoration and enhancement plan including details of restoration measures
appropriate to the site and performance criteria shall be developed by the
applicant and approved by the County of Ventura prior to initiation of
ground disturbance.

Executive Summary

Agricultural Resources
Impact AG-1: Soils. Direct and/or indirect Significant None feasible. Significant
loss of soils designated Prime, Statewide
Importance, Unique or Local Importance or
agricultural soils meeting or exceeding the acres
lost criteria.
Impact AG-2: Dust. Result in a ten percent or Significant AG-1: Fugitive Dust. Project construction and operations would Significant
greater increase in dust on agricultural parcels comply with VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust, which would reduce
within one-half mile of the proposed project. project PM10 emissions from uncontrolled levels by 50 to 75 percent,
depending on the source type. Mitigation measures AQ-2, Additional
Fugitive Dust Controls for Construction and AQ-4, Additional
Fugitive Dust Controls for Operations (presented in Section 3.2.2.4of
this EIR), would further reduce fugitive dust emissions from these
sources to 90 percent from uncontrolled levels.
Visual Resources/Glare
Impact VIS-1: Scenic Highways. Change or Significant None feasible. Significant
obstruct important visual resources as
experienced from a scenic highway during
construction or operation.
Impact VIS-2: Scenic Areas/Features. Significant VIS-1: All landscaping plans shall follow the Ventura County Guide Significant
Degrade scenic areas or features or significantly to Landscape Plans guidelines. This shall occur prior to the issuance
alter them during construction or operation. of the Conditional Use Permit modification. The Plans specify the
minimum landscape and irrigation coverage, minimum plant survival
rates, and suggested drought tolerant species.
Impact VIS-3: Glare. Create substantial Significant VIS-2: Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the construction of Less than
sources of light or glare. any facilities that include outdoor lighting, the permittee shall develop a significant
Lighting Plan that meets the following requirements:
• There shall be no light source in excess of 150 watts that directly
illuminates adjacent properties;
• Outdoor lighting shall not result in the indirect illumination of
adjacent properties in excess of 0.5 foot candles;
• For pedestrian lighting systems, there shall be no point of overlap
between light patterns greater than seven feet; and
• There shall be no lighting within the Project site that is greater than
seven foot-candles.
The locations of all exterior lighting fixtures, an arrow showing the
direction of light being cast by each fixture, and the height of the
fixtures shall be depicted on the Lighting Plan to be reviewed by the
Resource Management Agency, Planning Division, prior to issuance of
a Zoning Clearance. All lighting shall be shielded, shall be directed
downwards, and shall avoid being directed towards facilities with
reflective services that could produce glare off-site. The Lighting Plan
shall be consistent with any mitigation measures that are developed to
avoid or reduce impacts to wildlife movement, and shall not result in
the illumination of sensitive habitat.

Executive Summary

Visual Resources/Glare (continued)
Impact VIS-3 (continued) Significant VIS-3: Prior to the issuance of a Use Inauguration Zoning Clearance Less than
for grading activities within the proposed landfill expansion area, the significant
permittee shall submit a lighting plan to the Resource Management
Agency, Planning Division for temporary lighting that will be used to
facilitate start-up/shutdown operations. The lighting plan shall comply
with the following requirements:
• There shall be no light source in excess of 150 watts that directly
• Outdoor lighting shall not result in the indirect illumination of
adjacent properties in excess of 0.5 foot candles; and
• There shall be no lighting within the Project site that is greater than
seven foot-candles.
All lighting shall be shielded, shall be directed downwards, and shall
avoid being directed towards equipment with reflective services that
could produce glare off-site. The lighting plan shall specify the
number, type, intensity, and duration of use of all lighting that will be
used for start-up/shutdown operations.
Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources
Impact GEO-1: Fault Rupture Hazards. Less than None necessary. Less than
Project exists along pre-existing faults or within a significant significant
State of California designated Alquist-Priolo
Special Fault Study Zone; a County of Ventura
designated Fault Hazard area; or a County of
Ventura designated Potential Fault Hazard Area.
Impact GEO-2: Ground Shaking Hazards. Less than None necessary. Less than
Ground shaking hazards are ubiquitous significant significant
throughout Ventura County and, ground failure
phenomena aside, are accommodated by the
Ventura County Building Code. The effects of
ground shaking hazard are required to be
considered within the existing framework of
grading and building code ordinances which
apply to all sites and projects. Special threshold
criteria for ground shaking hazard are thus not
established.

Executive Summary

Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources (continued)
Impact GEO-3: Liquefaction Hazards. A Less than None necessary. Less than
liquefaction hazard is considered to exist based significant significant
on project location with respect to mapped
liquefaction-susceptible areas on the County
General Plan maps, on maps contained in
Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report
76-5LA; and whether the project is located in a
shallow bedrock area versus and area underlain
by recent or older alluvium.
Impact GEO-4: Subsidence. A subsistence Less than None necessary. Less than
hazard is considered to exist on all new water significant significant
and oil well projects in Ventura County and for
all utility and drainage facility projects in the
Oxnard Plain.
Impact GEO-5: Expansive Soils. An Less than None necessary. Less than
expansive soil hazard is considered to exist where significant significant
soil with an expansion index of greater than 20
are present.
Impact GEO-6: Landslides/Mudslides. Less than None necessary. Less than
Location of the site or project in areas with slopes significant significant
greater than ten percent.
Impact GEO-7: Petroleum Resources. Land Less than None necessary. Less than
use that is proposed to be located in or significant significant
immediately adjacent to any known petroleum
resource area, or adjacent to a principal access
road to an existing petroleum Conditional Use
Permit (CUP).
Impact GEO-8: Paleontological Resources. Significant GEO-1: Paleontological Mitigation Program. An updated/expanded Significant
Direct impacts to fossil sites including grading Paleontological Mitigation Program shall be submitted by Waste
and excavation of fossiliferous rock, which can Management, Inc. to the County Planning Division for review and
result in the loss of scientifically important fossil approval.
specimens and associated geological data.
Indirect impact including increased access
opportunities and unauthorized collection of
fossil materials.

Executive Summary

Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Cultural Resources. Cause a Significant CUL-1: Construction and operation of the proposed project shall avoid Less than
substantial adverse change in the significance of Wharton Ranch. If avoidance is not possible, Phase II testing and significant
an archaeological or historical resource. evaluation of potential archaeological deposits within the Wharton
Ranch areas shall be conducted prior to any surface disturbance in the
vicinity of the ranch. Provisions must also be made for consultation
with the County for approval of reporting of the findings of the Phase II
testing, and, if need be, follow-on Phase III data recovery. Provision
must also be made for curation of artifacts collected.
CUL-2: Due to the poor visibility over much of the survey area and
the lack of final construction plans such as depth of excavation and
extent of maintenance activities, a full time archeological monitor
shall be on-site during all brush clearance and disturbance of the first
one foot of soil in areas that have not previously been disturbed.
In the event that potentially significant archaeological materials are
encountered during project-related ground disturbance, all work must
be halted within the vicinity of the discovery until an assessment of
the significance by a qualified archaeologist is completed. If
significant resources are determined to be present, sufficient time
must be allotted for implementation of avoidance measures or
appropriate mitigations measures such as Phase II testing and/or
Phase III Data Recovery of significant archaeological deposits.
Treatment plans must be developed in consultation with the County
and local Native Americans. Provisions must also be made for
reporting of the findings of any testing/data recovery effort and
curation of any significant artifact collections made.
CUL-3: Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA 15064.5(e) and
Public Resources Code 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed
in the unlikely event of an unanticipated discovery of any human
remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. If human
remains are found at the proposed project site, the following measures
shall be implemented per the California Office of Historic
Preservation Technical Assistance Bulletin 10 (46):
…ground-disturbing activities in the area of the discovery shall
immediately be halted or redirected. A temporary construction
exclusion zone will be established surrounding the site to allow for
further examination and treatment of the find. A project representative
shall immediately notify the Ventura County Coroner’s office by
telephone. By law, the Coroner will determine within two working
days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her
authority. If the coroner recognizes the remains to be Native
American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission who will appoint the Most Likely Descendent (MLD).
Additionally, if the bones are determined to be Native American, a
plan will be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and
associated burial objects and the plan will be implemented under the
direction of the MLD [California 2001].

Executive Summary

Hazards
Impact HAZ-1: Fire Hazards. Projects Less than None necessary. Less than
located within a high fire hazard area. significant significant
Impact HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials. Less than None necessary. Less than
Result in significant hazard to the public or significant significant
environment through the routine transport, use
or disposal of hazardous materials.
Impact HAZ-3: Hazardous Wastes. Result in Less than None necessary. Less than
significant hazard to the public or environment significant significant
associated with the storage, handling, or
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Impact HAZ-4: Petroleum Wastes. Exposure Significant HAZ-1: Compliance with California Department of Conservation Less than
of soils (or associated soil gas) containing toxic Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) significant
substances and petroleum hydrocarbons, Standards. Grading associated with landfill expansion shall include
associated with prior oil field operations, would the following requirement:
be deleterious to humans, based on regulatory • All on-site oil wells shall be abandoned pursuant to current
standards established by the lead agency for the abandonment/re-abandonment requirements, and all grading shall
site. be completed, in accordance with DOGGR Construction Project
Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedures, as well as site-
specific instructions from the DOGGR.
HAZ-2: Locate and Mark Abandoned Wells. On-site abandoned
wells shall be accurately located through surveying and marked with a
post visible to equipment operators.
HAZ-3: Grading/Excavation Monitor. A qualified environmental
engineer or environmental geologist shall be present during
grading/excavations in the vicinity of on-site oil wells, to direct
proper excavation and characterization of potentially contaminated
materials. The qualified environmental engineer shall observe
excavations for potential signs of contaminated soil, such as
discoloration, unusual odors, and/or positive readings with a photo-
ionization detector (PID) or organic vapor analyzer (OVA). The
environmental engineer or environmental geologist shall be 40-hour
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) -trained with
respect to handling of hazardous substances.
Contaminated soil shall be excavated and disposed off-site at a
facility permitted for disposal of such waste. Alternatively, the
contaminated soil may be remediated in-situ (i.e., in-place) by
bioremediation or other methods acceptable to the Ventura County
Environmental Health Division.
Impact HAZ 5: Valley Fever. Project Less than None necessary. Less than
construction or operation must not cause significant significant
adverse impacts to public health.

Executive Summary

Noise and Vibration
Impact NOI-1: Construction Noise. Project Less than None necessary. Less than
construction related must not exceed established significant significant
noise limits.
Impact NOI-2: Operational Noise. Project Less than None necessary. Less than
operation related noise must not exceed significant significant
established noise limits.
Impact NOI-3: Operational Vibration. The Less than None necessary. Less than
Project would have a significant vibration significant significant
impact if it would result in detectable vibration
at sensitive land uses.
Transportation and Circulation Transportation and Circulation
Impact TR-1: Freeway or Roadway Less than None necessary. Less than
Segments. Project related traffic must not cause significant significant
the LOS of the study freeway or roadway
segment to fall below LOS C, or, if already
below C, to fall to a lower LOS.
Impact TR-2: Intersections. Project related Less than None necessary. Less than
traffic must not cause the LOS of a study significant significant
intersection to fall below LOS C and the project
trips to exceed 50 percent of the remaining
capacity at the study intersection.
Impact TR-3: Somis Road and SR-118 Less than None necessary. Less than
Intersection. Project related traffic must not significant significant
add one future PHT to the intersection of Somis
Road and SR-118 unless there is a commitment
to road improvements that ensure that the
impact will be reduced to an acceptable LOS in
a reasonable period of time.
Water Supply
Impact WS-1: Water Supply-Quality. The Less than None necessary. Less than
quality of domestic water available to significant significant
development must be in compliance with the
applicable State Drinking Water Standards, as
described in Title 22 of the CCR, §65521 et eq.
Impact WS-2. Water Supply-Quantity. Does Less than None necessary. Less than
not provide a permanent supply of water. A significant significant
permanent supply of water is defined as at least
a 60 year supply. A spring does not meet the
requirement for a permanent source of water
supply.

Executive Summary

Waste Treatment and Disposal
Impact WT-1: Individual Sewage Disposal Less than None necessary. Less than
System. A project is not in compliance with significant significant
applicable sections of the following documents:
Ventura County Building Code, Ventura County
Sewer Policy, Ventura County Ordinance Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code, Environmental Health
Division Individual Sewage Disposal System
Technical Information Manual, and Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin
Plan.
Impact WT-2: Solid Waste Facility. Fails to Less than None necessary. Less than
comply with statues, regulations, ordinances, significant significant
and policies for solid waste facilities; or if it
would impact the demand for solid waste
disposal capacity in Ventura County such that
there would be less than 15 years of disposal
capacity available for county disposal.
Recreational Facilities
Impact REC-1: Local Parks/Facilities. Cause Significant REC-1: The applicant shall pay in lieu fees for local parks/facilities Less than
an increase in the demand for recreation when that would ensure that the applicant would offset costs of developing significant
measured against the following standard: five and/or making improvements to local recreation amenities associated
acres of developable land (less than 15 percent with increased recreational demands from the proposed project. These
slope) per 1,000 population. fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Impact REC-2: Regional Parks/Facilities. Significant REC-2: The applicant shall pay in lieu fees for regional Less than
Cause an increase in the demand for recreation parks/facilities that would offset costs of developing and/or making significant
when measured against the following standard: improvements to regional recreation amenities associated with
five acres of developable land per 1,000 increased recreational demands from the proposed project. These fees
population. shall be paid prior to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Impact REC-3: Regional Trails/Corridors. Significant REC-3: The applicant shall dedicate public easements for the Alamos Less than
Cause an increase in the demand for recreation Canyon Trail that would link the trail with the proposed trail network significant
when measured against the following standard: for Simi Valley. New trail easements shall be aligned with existing dirt
two-and-a-half miles per 1,000 population. roads/trails to the greatest extent feasible. Development adjacent to the
Alamos Canyon Trail shall include, where appropriate, the construction
and assurance of the fitness of designated trails for two years, at which
time the agency(ies) being dedicated the public easements would
assume maintenance responsibility. Where immediate construction is
not required, a construction bond shall be required. If dedication of the
trail link easement comprises less than the project related-demand, the
applicant shall pay in lieu fees to offset the remainder of the increased
demand for trail miles. Any in lie fees shall be paid prior to the issuance
of a Conditional Use Permit.

Executive Summary

Recreational Facilities (continued)
Impact REC-4: Future Development. Cause Significant See REC-1 through REC-3. Less than
an increase in the demand for recreation when significant
measured against the following standard:
impede future development of Recreation
Parks/Facilities and/or Regional
Trails/Corridors.

Executive Summary to Recirculated Portions of EIR
1 ESR.1 Recirculation of Draft EIR

2 In accordance with Section 15088.5 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
3 the County, as lead agency for the proposed project, is required to recirculate an Environmental Impact
4 Report (EIR) “….when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the
5 availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 [Public Review of Draft EIR] but before
6 certification.” There have been a number of changes to the Project Description for the Simi Valley Landfill
7 and Recycling Center Expansion Project as well as changes to CEQA Guidelines since the distribution of the
8 Public Draft EIR on September 28, 2009. This document contains the relevant revisions to the Draft EIR
9 related to those changes that represent significant new information. Readers are advised that this document is
10 not intended to stand alone or to provide a complete overview of the full EIR. To obtain a full
11 understanding of the project and its environmental effects, it will be necessary to refer to the DEIR as well
12 as the recirculated portions presented herein.
13 As defined by CEQA, “…the term ‘information’ can include changes in the project or environmental setting
14 as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless
15 the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a
16 substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an affect
17 (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.” If the
18 revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters
19 or portions that have been modified (CEQA Guidelines Section 150088.5).
20 As directed by Senate Bill (SB) 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA
21 Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions effective on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office
22 of Administrative Law approved the amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in
23 the California Code of Regulations. The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. These
24 amendments, among other things, added a new category, greenhouse gases (GHGs), to the CEQA Guidelines
25 Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist. The new guidelines for GHGs require lead agencies to analyze and
26 determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions in CEQA documents (CEQA Guidelines Section
27 15064.4). The Draft EIR for the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project (SCH No.
28 2007121148) was prepared and circulated for a 90-day public review on September 28, 2009, prior to the
29 amendments to the CEQA Guidelines becoming final. While the Draft EIR addressed the project’s individual
30 and cumulative GHG impacts, it did not determine the significance of GHG emissions or define significance
31 thresholds as would be necessary to be consistent with the March 2010 CEQA Guidelines amendment. While
32 Section 15007 of CEQA Guidelines provides that a document need not be revised “[i]f the document meets
33 the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review,” the County determined
34 that it would be prudent to revise the portion of the Draft EIR evaluating GHGs to meet the current content
35 requirements.
36 In addition to the revised requirements in CEQA Guidelines regarding GHG emissions discussed above, the
37 applicant modified the design of the proposed landfill gas to liquefied natural gas (LFGTLNG) processing
38 facility following circulation of the Public Draft EIR. The new design has a higher capacity and will process
39 more landfill gas to LNG, thereby reducing flare emissions and affecting the air quality impact analysis
40 prepared for the Public Draft EIR. Therefore, the Air Quality Impact analysis has been revised to reflect both
41 the revised emissions due to the change in LNG facility design as well as to address the significance of GHG
42 emissions. Table ESR-1 provides a summary of the key differences between proposed LNG facilities.

Executive Summary
Table ESR-1. Comparison of Draft EIR and Current LFGTLNG Facility Parameters
Parameter Draft EIR Proposed Size/Capacity Current proposed Size/Capacity

Throughput (gallons per day) 13,000 18,000
Storage Tanks 2 each 25,000 gallon 4 each 15,000 gallon
Multi-stage Integrated
Process (activated carbon, multi-stage (pressure swing absorption, CO2 and N2
compression and cooling) removal, liquefaction)
1 A hazards analysis was also prepared for the revised LFGTLNG facility design to assess the potential threat to
2 the public from the operation of the facility and storage of LNG on site. This hazards analysis is integrated
3 into the revised Hazards analysis in Section 3.9 of this document.
4 In addition, the Draft EIR contained mitigation measures for impacts in two issue areas (Housing and
5 Recreation) that relied on the payment of fees to mitigate the impacts to housing of additional employees and
6 impacts to recreation related to increases in demand for recreation facilities also brought about by the
7 increased employment of the project. However, there are no formal programs established in Ventura County
8 to collect or disburse such mitigation fees to ensure that the impacts would be fully mitigated. Therefore, upon
9 further research into the legality and enforceability of the proposed mitigation measures, it has been
10 determined that they would be neither legal nor enforceable. On that basis, these mitigation measures have
11 been removed from the Draft EIR and the impacts, formerly considered less than significant after mitigation,
12 are now considered significant and unavoidable based on there being no feasible mitigation available.
13 The revisions included in this Recirculated Draft EIR are limited to changes in the following
14 chapters/sections: Executive Summary, Project Description (Chapter 2), the revised Land Use Section
15 (Section 3.1), revised Air Quality Section (Section 3.2), revised Hazards Section (Section 3.9), revised
16 Recreation Section (Section 3.14), and Cumulative Impacts Analysis for Land Use, Air Quality, Hazards, and
17 Recreation. In accordance with Section 15088.5(g) of the CEQA Guidelines, the revisions made to the
18 originally circulated Draft EIR are summarized in this Executive Summary. Consistent with Section 15150 of
19 the CEQA Guidelines, documents, reports, maps, and other material cited in the DEIR are hereby
20 incorporated by reference. Readers are again advised that this document supplements the DEIR. It is not
21 intended to stand alone or to provide a complete overview of the full EIR. To obtain a full understanding of
22 the project and its environmental effects, it will be necessary to refer to the DEIR as well as the
23 recirculated portions presented herein.
24 Because only specific sections of the Draft EIR are revised in this recirculated document, the section numbers
25 herein are not sequential. The section numbering from the Draft EIR is retained for consistency with the
26 Public Draft EIR as well as to facilitate integrating the Draft EIR and the recirculated sections into a Final
27 EIR. Therefore, gaps in section numbers represent those sections that did not require recirculation. The Final
28 EIR will contain both the recirculated sections and any revisions to the Draft EIR resulting from public
29 comments that did not lead to recirculation. This Executive Summary addresses only the issue areas and
30 project data relevant to the recirculated portions of the Draft EIR.
31 ESR.2 Project Purpose and Need and Project Objectives

32 CEQA requires that an EIR state the objectives of a proposed project to explain the reasons for project
33 development, and why this particular solution is currently being recommended. Additionally, the project
34 objectives are instrumental in determining which alternatives should be considered in the document.

Executive Summary
15 ESR.3 Description of Project and Relevant Changes

16 The following sections summarize key factors related to the proposed project with emphasis on those aspects
17 of the project that have changed since circulation of the DEIR.
18 Project Location
19 The Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center (SVLRC) is located in an unincorporated area of southeast
20 Ventura County within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute Simi Valley West
21 topographic quadrangle (Figure 2.1-1). The site is north of State Route (SR)-118 and west of the Madera
22 Road overcrossing. The site entrance is approximately 2,800 feet west of Madera Road. The facility address is
23 2801 Madera Road, Simi Valley, California 93065.
24 Project Overview
26 receive 3,000 tons per day (tpd) of MSW. In addition to waste disposal, SVLRC recycles materials such as
27 green waste, wood waste, asphalt/concrete, white goods, and scrap metal. The SVLRC is located near the City
28 of Simi Valley and is owned and operated by Waste Management of California, Inc. (WMC) under
29 Conditional Use Permit (CUP)-3142-7.
31 of the existing SVLRC. The proposed expansion is comprised of five main components: (1) expanding the
32 physical limits of the landfill (CUP boundary, landfill footprint, and elevation); (2) extending the operating
33 limits and life of the site (increasing the waste disposal capacity); (3) constructing support/ancillary facility
34 area; (4) expanding existing and constructing new recycling and resources recovery facilities; and (5)
35 expanding existing and constructing new energy conversion facilities.
36 The SVLRC’s CUP boundary is proposed to be expanded to encompass 887 acres within which the waste
37 disposal area would be expanded north and west from its current permitted location to encompass 186 acres of
38 additional waste disposal area and to increase the total capacity of the landfill from 43.5 to 123.1 million
39 cubic yards. The amount of MSW received per day is proposed to increase from 3,000 tons to 6,000 tons and
40 the amount of recyclables to be reduced from 6,250 tpd to 3,250 tpd. The total daily tonnage (i.e., combined

Final EIR - November 2010
Executive Summary
1 MSW and recyclables) permitted for the facility would not change. Additionally, several existing ancillary
2 facilities (defined facilities ancillary to the active landfill such as the waste receiving and recycling facilities
3 for the purpose of this project) and support facilities (defined as facilities that support the landfill operation
4 such as administrative offices and maintenance facilities for the purpose of this project) would be expanded
5 and new facilities constructed within the landfill CUP boundary including: office building; heavy equipment
6 and vehicle maintenance facility; waste hauling yard; material recovery facility/recyclable transfer facility
7 (MRF/RTF); public household hazardous waste collection facility; new entrance road, scales, and scale house;
8 expanded construction and demolition (C&D) debris recycling processing area; expanded green waste
9 processing facility; expanded landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) facility; and landfill gas-to-liquefied natural gas
10 (LFGTLNG) facility. The proposed project would require a major modification to the existing SVLRC CUP
11 (CUP 3142-7) issued by the County of Ventura.
12 Construction
15 support/ancillary facilities area (including the MRF/RTF, Simi Valley Environmental Collection Center
16 (SVECC), waste hauling yard, office facilities, heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance facility, and new
17 scales and scalehouse). This initial construction would also include expansion of the existing LFGTE facility
18 and construction of a LFGTLNG facility. The C&D debris recycling activities and green waste processing
19 operations would occur on the landfill footprint in an area not receiving waste and would migrate from place
20 to place within the landfill as portions are filled to capacity. Construction of additional waste depository space
21 within the waste disposal area would also occur during Phase I. Subsequent construction activities would
22 involve the sequential excavation of Phases II through IV of the waste footprint and would include clearing,
23 compacting, and preparing the phase(s) for landfilling.
24 Until December 2009, the LARWQCB had approved the use of both prescriptive and alternative liner designs
25 for use at SVLRC. The floor (bottom) and side slope liners allowed are described as follows:
26 • Floor Liner (prescriptive). The prescriptive floor liner system consists of (from the bottom up) a 24-
27 inch compacted clay liner, a 60-mil HDPE liner, a geotextile, a 12-inch leachate collection and
28 removal system (LCRS) drainage layer, a geotextile, and a 24-inch protective soil layer.
29 • Floor Liner (alternate). The alternative liner design consists of a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) and
30 80-mil HDPE liner. The rest of the liner system (e.g. leachate collection layer) is the same as the
31 prescriptive design.
32 • Side Slope Liner (prescriptive). The proposed side slope liner system consists of (from the bottom
33 up) a GCL, a 60-mil HDPE liner, a geotextile, and a 24-inch protective soil layer.
34 • Side Slope Liner (alternate). The alternative side slope liner design consists of an 80-mil HDPE liner.
35 In many cases, GCLs have become an accepted alternative to the 24-inch compacted clay liner. GCLs
36 generally provide lower hydraulic conductivity than compacted clay liners and are less susceptible to
37 desiccation cracking than compacted clay. GCLs are comprised of a granular sodium bentonite (clay) layer
38 encapsulated between two woven or non-woven geotextiles depending on needed strength. However, the
39 LARWQCB recently concluded that GCL “would not afford the same protections to groundwater as the
40 prescriptive liner system” (two feet of clay overlaid by HDPE) due to “recently observed deficiencies on GCL at
41 several landfills … and the concerns that certain mechanical and chemical properties of GCL may not be as reliable
42 as a compacted clay liner” (LARWQCB 2009). Therefore, unless the LARWQCB approves an alternative, a
43 prescriptive liner would be necessary in future expansions of the existing landfill. Note that the alternate side slope
44 liner continues to be approved. To comply with the requirements for a prescriptive liner, soils suitable for
45 compacting to a permeability of less than 1 X 10-7 cm/sec would need to be excavated and stockpiled
Executive Summary
1 separately. Therefore, Waste Management will need to excavate an additional two feet of soils under the
2 landfill footprint to provide for the same landfill capacity. In addition, WM will need to ensure that soils of
3 the appropriate permeability for constructing a prescriptive liner are available.
4 A report by Geosyntec [Geosyntec 2010] to assess the clay resources on site concluded that “adequate soil
5 resources exist within the expansion area to use as low permeability (clay) liner material…” provided that it is
6 selectively graded, screened, and/or processed or admixed with bentonite or another suitable material. The
7 report concludes that about 2.5 percent of the planned excavation volume would need to be suitable material
8 to provide a sufficient quantity for a prescriptive liner. A minor number of truckloads may be required to
9 deliver bentonite or another material to augment native soils to meet the permeability standards. The exact
10 number of trips is not known, but expected to average less than one trip per day.
12 months of project approval. Phase I of the waste footprint would include additional filling of the existing
13 landfill area. Construction of Phase II would begin as Phase I approaches its design capacity. The construction
14 of each subsequent phase would begin as the previous phase reaches capacity (estimated to take between 12 to
15 14 years).
19 personnel including 18 equipment operators, 9 construction personnel, and 2 managers. Phase II would be
20 comprised of four cells and would require 116 construction personnel. Phases III and IV would each contain
21 three cells and require 87 personnel. Wastes generated from construction would either be hauled within the
22 landfill for disposal or recycling or off-site to local recycling centers.
23 Operations
26 additional excavation would begin in new phases, and other heavy equipment operations would occur on the
27 surface of areas surrounding the refuse columns.
29 trucks for disposal in the landfill for processing in the MRF/RTF. Each truck would be weighed and specific
35 bins. Each truck would be weighed and specific information about its origin documented at the weigh station.
36 The trucks would dispose of their contents at the tipping areas based on the type of commodity they are
37 carrying. To the maximum extent possible, trucks bringing material in would be reloaded and sent outbound
38 with material from the MRF/RTF and resource recovery facility areas. The trucks would be weighed upon
39 leaving the facility.
40 The expanded SVLRC would continue to comply with the currently permitted hours of operation: 6:00 AM to
41 8:00 PM, 7 days per week, 365 days per year. However, SVLRC is typically closed on New Year’s Day,
42 Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. The hauling vehicle fleet
43 would operate between the hours of 4:00 AM and 8:00 PM, 7 days per week, 365 days per year with the
44 exception of the holidays listed above. However, current operations occur six days a week plus one Sunday
Executive Summary
1 per month. Other activities such as LFG and leachate collection/disposal, equipment and vehicle maintenance,
2 MRF/RTF operations, and compliance tasks would not be limited by this condition.
3 Revised Landfill Gas to Liquefied Natural Gas (LFGTLNG) Plant
4 The SVLRC Expansion Project includes the construction and operation of a LFGTLNG facility located just
5 north of the existing LFG flare station (Figure 2.4-3). This facility would treat landfill gas to remove
6 impurities, condense the gas to liquid phase by chilling, separate out the natural gas component, and store the
7 gas in cryogenic tanks for use as a transportation fuel to power heavy-duty landfill vehicles including
8 sanitation trucks. The LFGTLNG facility would produce up to 18,000 gallons of LNG per day, as compared
9 to 13,000 gallons per day for the facility proposed in the Draft EIR. Note that the increase in throughput will
10 directly reduce the amount of landfill gas that is diverted to the flare, thereby reducing flare emissions.
11 The proposed system would use a multiple bed pressure swing adsorption (PSA) system to remove hydrogen
12 sulfide and other impurities from the methane after the compression step. Following contaminant removal, the
13 process would consist of CO2 polishing and removal of nitrogen (N2) and then liquefaction. Liquid carbon
14 dioxide separated from the LFG may be further purified to provide a high grade, commercially marketable
15 product (dry ice), which would be exported off-site. The final LNG product would be stored in four 15,000
16 gallon cryogenic tanks (as opposed to two 25,000 gallon tans proposed in the Draft EIR).
17 An LNG fueling station would be installed at SVLRC to fuel the existing fleet of disposal trucks using LNG.
18 The remainder of the LNG produced would be exported by tanker truck (typically 10,000-gallon capacity
19 trucks) for use off-site. The LNG production plant is designed to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week,
20 52 weeks per year. The LFGTLNG facility would be equipped with advanced data monitoring, tracking, and
21 recording hardware and software.
22 ESR.4 Recirculated Draft EIR Environmental Issues

23 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
24 The land use analysis evaluates consistency or compliance of the proposed project with adopted plans and
25 policies governing land use and development in the County of Ventura including the Ventura County General
26 Plan, the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable plans. Those aspects affected by the change
27 in mitigation measures are discussed below.
28 During proposed project operations, the workforce would increase by 150 permanent employees. The
29 increased demand for housing would exceed 30 workers, thereby triggering a significant impact associated
30 with the need for additional affordable housing. However, the County does not have a policy or ordinance in
31 place requiring an applicant to pay a housing impact fee nor does it have a Housing Demand Impact Fee
32 Program to collect and allocate such fees. Therefore, lacking the legal authority to impose a fee and a
33 mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts to housing, there is no feasible mitigation for
34 project impacts to housing demand created by additional project employees. Thus, this impact is considered
35 significant and unavoidable.
36 In all other Land Use respects, impacts would be the same as those evaluated in the Draft EIR and less than
37 significant.
38 Air Quality
39 Based on revisions to the project description (in particular, the revised LFGTLNG facility design) the entire
40 air quality impact analysis was revised. In addition, an expanded and updated analysis of the potential
41 greenhouse gas impacts was included. The main conclusions of the analysis are discussed below.
Executive Summary
1 Emissions from proposed project construction and operation would exceed the VCAPCD daily operational
2 nitrogen oxide (NOx) and reactive organic compounds (ROC) emission thresholds. Implementation of
3 Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce emissions of ROC and NOx from construction. Implementation of
4 Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would reduce combustive emissions from project operations; however, impacts
5 would remain significant.
6 Project construction and operation would result in offsite ambient air pollutant concentrations that would
7 contribute to or exacerbate exceedances of the following standards: (1) 1-hour California Ambient Air Quality
8 Standard (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2); (2) 24-
9 hour CAAQS and NAAQS for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10); (3) annual CAAQS
10 for PM10; (4) the 24-hour NAAQS for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5); and (5)
11 annual CAAQS for PM2.5. All other pollutant impacts would remain below significance levels.
12 Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 and AQ-4 would reduce combustive and fugitive
13 dust emissions from construction and operations. These mitigation measures would reduce proposed impacts
14 to below the NAAQS for 24-hour PM10. However, all other construction and operational impacts identified
15 above would remain significant. Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would further reduce operations related impacts.
16 However, it is uncertain the extent to which the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Emissions
17 Reduction Program would offset overall project-related vehicular emissions and thus it is not possible to
18 calculate their associated emission reductions.
19 A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) estimated cancer and non-cancer effects to several population subgroups
20 (receptors), including residential, offsite occupational, and sensitive receptors. Project construction and
21 operations would not expose the public to significant levels of toxic air contaminants (TACs). Thus,
22 associated health risks to the public would be less than significant.
28 measures that are designed to bring the County into attainment of the ambient air quality standards. The
29 attainment strategies in this plan include mobile source control measures and clean fuel programs that are
30 enforced at the state and federal level on engine manufacturers and petroleum refiners and retailers and as a
31 result, project construction would have to comply with these control measures. The 2007 AQMP includes
32 projections of future emissions from construction activities. Project construction emissions would fit into
33 these future emission growth projections. The 2007 AQMP also assumes source compliance with adopted
34 VCAPCD rules. Project construction would comply with all applicable VCAPCD rules and regulations, such
35 as Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust). Lastly, this EIR analysis requires mitigations to minimize emission from project
36 construction (Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2). Therefore, compliance with these requirements would
37 ensure that project construction would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
38 quality plans.
39 The combined ambient impact of both construction and operational emissions would not generate significant
40 levels of fugitive dust. Project construction and operation would comply with VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive
41 Dust. The air quality analysis estimates that the proposed project, prior to mitigation, would reduce PM10
42 emissions from uncontrolled levels by 50 percent, depending on the source type. Mitigation Measures AQ-2
43 and AQ-4, Additional Fugitive Dust Controls for Construction and Operations, respectively, would further
44 reduce fugitive dust emissions from these sources to 90 percent from uncontrolled levels. As a result,
45 implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-4 would further lower the ambient fugitive dust,
46 ensuring a less than significant impact.

Executive Summary
1 Project construction would increase air pollutants due to the combustion of diesel fuel. The mobile and
2 intermittent nature of most emission sources would help to adequately disperse combustive emissions from
3 project construction. Additionally, since there are no sensitive receptors in close proximity to the project site,
4 project construction and operations would not expose the public to significant levels of odors. Project
5 operations would generate odorous emissions due to: (1) the combustion of diesel fuel in mobile equipment;
6 (2) the presence of municipal refuse and green waste; and (3) the decomposition of refuse and green waste.
7 Historically, the green waste operations have been the main source of odor emissions from the SVLRC. With
8 the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-6, effective use of the odor control system and implementation
9 of the Odor Control Plan in the future, project operations would not expose the public to significant levels of
10 odors.
11 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by project construction and operations would incrementally
12 contribute to global climate change. Measures that reduce fossil fuel consumption of proposed equipment
13 would also reduce GHG emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-3 would have this
14 effect as use of equipment that complies with the newest emission standards would have more fuel-efficient
15 engines compared to older equipment. Minimizing equipment idling time and using alternatively-fueled
16 equipment also would reduce fossil fuel consumption and resulting GHG emissions compared to unmitigated
17 construction activities. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-4, AQ-7, and AQ-8 would
18 reduce GHGs from proposed operations. However, the increase in GHGs emissions from proposed operations
19 for each development year would still exceed 10,000 metric tons per year of CO2e after implementation of
20 these measures. Therefore, GHG emissions from proposed operations would result in a significant impact on
21 the environment.
22 Hazards
23 Hazards impacts were evaluated assessing the potential for fires, the release of hazardous materials/wastes,
24 and/or exposure to petroleum contaminated soil and associated soil gas from abandoned oil wells during
25 project construction and operation. In addition, a hazards analysis was completed for the newly proposed
26 18,000 gallon per day LFGTLNG facility. Only the new analysis related to the LFGTLNG facility is
27 summarized below.
28 LNG is natural gas that has been condensed into a liquid by cooling to approximately -260°F. With a methane
29 content of approximately 95%, LNG and LNG vapors have essentially the same properties as methane. LNG
30 vapors are colorless, odorless, non-toxic, and non-corrosive. In order to burn, the LNG vapors must be
31 mixed with air within the flammable mixture limits which are a 5% lower flammability limit (LFL) and
32 a 15% upper flammability limit (UFL). Outside of this range the vapors will not burn. The primary hazards
33 associated with LNG are the dispersion of potentially flammable vapors resulting from an LNG release and
34 radiant heat intensity from a fire resulting from an LNG release.
35 Flammable Vapor Release: LNG evaporates very rapidly on warm surfaces and will evaporate completely
36 such that the flammable vapor generation is essentially the same as the release rate, and an accumulation of
37 liquid does not occur. However, if the release is large or quick enough it could have a release rate and
38 duration adequate to cool the ground surface such that immediate evaporation does not occur and liquid can
39 accumulate. If a liquid release does occur, drainage to a sump would provide for safe containment. An
40 unignited vapor cloud is not injurious and can only be ignited when the concentration of LNG is between 5%
41 (LFL) and 15% (UFL). As the vapors are dispersed in the air, the mixing with air decreases the concentration
42 with increasing distance from the source until the concentration is below the LFL of 5% and it will no longer
43 be capable of igniting. Modeling of vapor dispersion was based on a release rate of 330 gallons per minute
44 and both a large and small concrete lined sumps. The LFL and ½ LFL isopleths are shown in Figures 3.9-2
45 and 3.9-3 respectively. The ½ LFL isopleth is considered the limit of the hazard footprint. At this
46 concentration, the vapors will not burn. Based on the modeled sump dimensions, the distance to the ½ LFL
47 isopleth from the source is calculated at 175 feet for the small sump and 210 feet for the large sump. These
Executive Summary
1 distances are well within the project boundary. Therefore, impacts from flammable vapors are considered less
2 than significant.
3 Radiant Heat: If an LNG release is immediately ignited, a stable fire will develop at the point of release. If
4 the ignition is delayed, the LNG will drain to the spill collection sump. If it is then ignited, a stable fire will
5 develop over the sump which creates radiant heat near the sump. This fire will be fed by vapors off the
6 surface of the liquid in the sump. Radiant heat calculations based on the proposed sump design result in the
7 radiant distances of 37 feet for public exposure, 25 feet for public buildings, and 20 feet for the property line.
8 These distances are well within the project boundary. The radiant heat analysis indicates that the radiant heat
9 hazard distance of the LNG facility is entirely within the project boundary and less than half the distance of
10 the flammable vapor footprints. The public would not be exposed. Therefore, radiant heat impacts are
12 Catastrophic Tank Failure: A survey of available data regarding catastrophic failure of individual LNG
13 tanks was conducted to document potential failure rates (see addendum to Appendix N). The survey found no
14 recorded incidents of catastrophic LNG tank failure. Therefore, an estimate was made to establish a
15 reasonable cause/vulnerability probability that would provide insight into the order of magnitude probability
16 for a catastrophic failure rate. The estimate was based on the number of storage, process, transport and
17 portable LNG vessels in service for the last 20 years. This estimate results in an experience base of 1.2 x 105
18 vessel years. A conservative assumption can be made that there is a probability of 100% that a failure could
19 occur in double that time period, resulting in a probability of occurrence of 2.4 x 10-5 per year. Considering
20 the degree of conservatism in the assumptions, a reasonable conclusion is that the failure rate is in the range
21 of 2.4 x 10-5 to 1 x 10-6 per year or between once in about 42,000 years to once in 1,000,000 years. This is a
22 very low event probability. Even for low probability events, if the consequences are sufficiently adverse, the
23 effect may be considered potentially significant. However, from a risk assessment basis, even a catastrophic
24 LNG tank release would be contained within the property lines and no members of the public would likely be
25 adversely affected. Therefore, the hazard of a catastrophic LNG tank release is less than significant.
26 Secondary Hazards: The low temperature of LNG can pose a hazard for contact with the skin and to the
27 respiratory system. The rate of cooling of tissue would be slow and obvious and direct contact with skin can
28 cause discomfort but rarely causes frostbite. In theory, injury could occur from direct skin contact with a very
29 cold surface, but a cold surface in an LNG facility would be covered with frost and probably ice in which case
30 the surface would be a non-hazardous 32oF. Explosion hazards were analyzed in the Hazards Study for four
31 categories of explosions: sudden mechanical failure, internal chemical reaction, Boiling Liquid Expanding
32 Vapor Explosion (BLEVE), and vapor cloud explosion. The results indicate that an explosion related to LNG
33 is unlikely. Sudden mechanical failure is unlikely because LNG vessels are protected by redundant pressure
34 relief valves and the pressure vessel materials are stronger at low temperatures. An internal chemical reaction
35 is extremely unlikely because the LNG vessels are always kept above atmospheric pressure which precludes
36 any entry of air or consequent chemical reaction. The BLEVE is prevented by the steel vacuum insulating
37 jacket of the vessels. A vapor cloud explosion will not occur with LNG because it has a low energy release
38 density and high ignition temperature which will only produce a slow flame that does not accelerate. None of
39 these events poses a hazard to the public. The secondary hazards impacts are considered less than significant.
40 Transport: LNG is typically transported using a standard 10,000- to 12,000-gallon LNG highway trailer,
41 which is a subclass of cryogenic trailers used to transport low temperature liquefied industrial gases including
42 liquid nitrogen, argon, and oxygen which are colder than LNG. Cryogenic transporters have a 60-year history
43 of use and the fleet of cryogenic trailers in the US is now more than 3,200 units of which approximately 250 –
44 300 are LNG trailers. The trailers are double walled, which provides low heat transfer and a strong structure
45 resistant to mechanical damage like penetration or rollover and direct flame impingement from an external
46 fire. There has not been an LNG trailer containment failure in over 40 years of LNG trailer transport in the
47 US. LNG trailers are designed according to strict safety standards and LNG transport by highway trailer has

Executive Summary
1 an excellent safety record established over 45 years. There have been no incidents involving the public.
2 Impacts related to LNG transport are considered less than significant.
3 In all other respects related to Hazards, impacts would be the same as those evaluated in the Draft EIR and
4 less than significant. The discussion of Valley Fever has been moved to the Air Quality Section.
5 Recreation
6 The analysis of potential impacts to recreational facilities identified and evaluated the type and quantity of
7 recreational facilities within the project’s area of influence to determine if the needs of the proposed project
8 could be adequately served by existing resources, or if the proposed project would result in an increase in
9 demand for recreational facilities. No local or regional parks/facilities or regional trails/corridors are located
10 within the proposed project area thus, no existing facilities would be directly impacted by the proposed
11 project. However, because project-related employees and worker households would increase the demand for
12 local and regional parks/facilities and trails/corridors, and no ordinance is in place to require payment of fees
13 or dedication of land, the proposed project would create a significant impact on local and regional
14 parks/facilities and trials/corridors. The discussion of impacts in the DEIR remains valid.
15 However, the DEIR proposed Mitigation Measures REC-1 (payment of in lieu fees for local parks/facilities),
16 REC-2 (payment of in lieu fees for regional parks/facilities), and REC-3 (dedication of public easements for
17 future trails) to reduce impacts on local and regional parks/facilities and trail corridors. These measures would
18 need to be legally implementable and enforceable. Because the County does not have a policy or ordinance in
19 place requiring an applicant to pay a recreation impact fee or dedicate public easements or a program for
20 collecting and allocating such fees, it therefore lacks the legal authority to impose a fee and a mechanism to
21 ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts to recreation. There is therefore no feasible mitigation for
22 the recreation demand created by additional project employees. Mitigations Measures REC-1 and REC-2 are
23 infeasible and Measure REC-3 cannot legally be imposed. Nevertheless, REC-3 could be implemented
24 voluntarily by the applicant, although it could not otherwise be required as a condition of approval. Because
25 there is no assurance that additional recreational facilities would be provided, the impact is considered
26 significant and unavoidable.
27 In all other respects, impacts on Recreational Facilities would be the same as those evaluated in the Draft EIR
28 and less than significant.
29 ESR.5 Cumulative Impacts

30 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
31 Over the years, the County has developed consistency with the General Plan and site zoning regulations,
32 ensuring consistency with land use/density designations to minimize impacts on surrounding areas. Similarly,
33 existing facilities within the project vicinity have been modified as necessary to ensure proposed land
34 use/density designations are consistent with their respective land use plan and site zoning designations. As the
35 proposed project would be consistent with zoning and General Plan land use policies, and would be
36 compatible with surrounding land uses, impacts on community character would be less than significant.
37 Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative contribution to cumulative
38 impacts on land use.
39 Proposed project construction activities would generate employment opportunities that could create a demand
40 for additional housing (Section 3.1.2.3.3, Impact LU-3). However, due to the temporary nature of construction
41 activities and the sufficient number of construction workers available within Ventura County and the Los
42 Angeles Metropolitan region, impacts on housing related to an influx of construction workers during project
43 construction would be less than cumulatively significant.
Executive Summary
1 As there is not an adequate vacancy rate or available housing for lower-income families in the County, and
2 because the project would employ more than 30 new full-time employees, impacts on housing during project
3 operations would be significant. Ventura County does not have a housing impact mitigation fee policy.
4 Therefore, lacking the legal authority to impose a fee and a mechanism to ensure that fees collected would
5 mitigate impacts to housing, there is no feasible mitigation for the housing demand created by additional
6 project employees. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant cumulative contribution to
7 cumulative impacts on housing.
8 Air Quality
9 The region of analysis for cumulative effects on air quality is the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB).
10 However, the most severe impacts under the proposed project in the context of past, present, and reasonably
11 foreseeable projects would occur within the areas adjacent to the proposed project, including unincorporated
12 portions of Ventura County, the City of Simi Valley, and the City of Moorpark.
13 The Ventura County region does not attain the national and state ambient air quality standards for ozone (O3),
14 respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). These pollutant nonattainment
15 conditions within the project region are considered to be cumulatively significant. Foreseeable future projects
16 in the vicinity of SVLRC with overlapping construction schedules with the proposed project may add to the
17 emission levels and ambient concentrations around the landfill. Impacts of multiple construction projects,
18 along with the proposed project, could be cumulatively considerable. In addition, project construction and
19 operations would produce emissions that would exceed the VCAPCD daily ROC and NOx emission
20 thresholds for each modeled year. Additionally, emissions from project construction and operation would
21 contribute to exceedances of the following standards: (1) 1-hour CAAQS and NAAQS for NO2; (2) 24-hour
22 CAAQS and NAAQS for PM10; (3) annual CAAQS for PM10; (4) 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5, and (5) annual
23 CAAQS for PM2.5. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce proposed
24 impacts to below the NAAQS for 24-hour PM10. However, all other criteria pollutant impacts identified above
25 would remain significant and unavoidable. Existing and future project construction and operational activities
26 would add additional air emission burdens to these significant levels of project emissions. Thus, the proposed
27 project with mitigation would produce cumulatively considerable and unavoidable contributions to O3, NO2,
28 PM10, and PM2.5 levels.
29 With regard to ambient levels of TACs due to the relatively rural setting of the area of influence, impacts
30 from cumulative projects adjacent to the project site are cumulatively less than significant. Emissions of
31 TACs from project construction and operation would marginally increase cancer risks and non-cancer effects
32 in proximity to the project site. Existing and future project construction and operational activities would
33 nominally combine with these project impacts at low levels, due to their relatively long distance from the
34 project site. As a result, the project construction and operational activities would produce less than
36 Fugitive dust from project construction and operations would exceed the 24-hour PM10 CAAQS. However,
37 this maximum impact is predicted to occur on the SVLRC property line and proposed ambient PM10 impacts
38 would quickly decrease in magnitude with distance from the SVLRC facility. Therefore, project construction
39 and operation would not generate a cumulatively considerable impact to levels of fugitive dust.
45 Measure AQ-6 would ensure that the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact from
Executive Summary
1 Scientific evidence indicates a correlation between increasing global temperatures/climate change over the
2 past century and human induced GHG emissions. These and other environmental changes have potentially
3 negative environmental, economic, and social consequences around the globe. Climate change, as it relates to
4 man-made GHG emissions, is by nature a global impact. Thus, the issue of global climate change is a
5 cumulative impact and an appreciable impact on global climate change would occur when GHG emissions
6 from a project combine with GHG emissions from other man-made activities on a global scale. The proposed
7 project would produce GHG emissions that would exceed levels of GHG emissions produced from the
8 existing SVLRC by more than 10,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalents. These project increases of GHG
9 emissions would incrementally contribute to global climate change. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
10 AQ-1, AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-7 and AQ-8 would reduce the project’s contribution to global climate change. While
11 these measures would reduce GHG emissions below levels that would otherwise occur, the contribution of the
12 proposed project to global climate change would remain cumulatively considerable.
16 earthquake) is required to release a large number of spores over a wide area wide enough for a significant
17 outbreak of Valley Fever to occur. Expanded landfill operations, as well as cumulative projects, would result
18 in less than significant impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution
19 of the proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.
20 Hazards
21 Past projects may have been impacted by hazards, including fire, hazardous materials/waste spills, and soil
22 contamination/soil gas associated with former oil wells. Past development has also had the effect of
23 increasing the potential for hazards to result in damage to property and injury to people. Similarly, present and
24 reasonably foreseeable future projects, including the existing SVLRC, may be impacted by fire, hazardous
25 materials/waste, and oil field hazards. With regard to LNG facility hazards, the potential impact of the
26 proposed project in this regard was less than significant for all contributing factors. Therefore, the cumulative
27 impact associated with the proposed project would also be less than cumulatively considerable.
28 Recreational Facilities
32 surrounding areas has resulted in a deficit of developed parkland within the region. The majority of present
33 and reasonably foreseeable projects are residential developments that would result in a substantial demand for
34 recreational facilities in the region. Additionally, the Colton Lee Manufactured Housing Community (#8) has
35 the potential to impede future development of the RSRPD Trail #15 (Las Llajas to Black Canyon).
36 The contributions of present and reasonably foreseeable subdivision projects to cumulative recreation impacts
37 in the area would not be cumulatively considerable. This is because Quimby fees (provisions for the
38 dedication of fees and/or parkland) are currently required for proposed subdivision developments to mitigate
39 project impacts to recreational resources, However, Quimby fees do not apply to commercial or industrial
40 projects and no legally established mechanism exists to collect comparable fees from commercial or industrial
41 developers or to ensure that funds collected would mitigate the recreational facility impacts associated with
42 population affected by industrial projects. As such, cumulative impacts associated with commercial and
43 industrial cumulative projects within the region of influence have the potential to be cumulatively
44 considerable.

Executive Summary
1 The proposed project would result in a net increase of 150 employees, thereby creating the potential for an
2 increase in population and a corresponding increase in the demand for local and regional parks/facilities. The
3 County does not have a policy or ordinance in place requiring an applicant to pay a recreation impact fee or
4 dedicate public easements for commercial or industrial project. As such, there is no legal authority to impose
5 a fee or a mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts to recreation. There is therefore no
6 feasible mitigation for project impacts to the recreation demand created by additional project employees.
7 Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant cumulative contribution to cumulative impacts on
8 local and regional parks/facilities.
9 One planned multi-purpose trail (Alamos Canyon Trail) and a 20-acre community park site is located within
10 the proposed CUP boundary. Thus, the proposed project would impede future development of recreation
11 parks/facilities and regional trails and impacts to these future facilities would be significant. Mitigation
12 Measure REC-3 (which would not be compulsory) could offset increased demands on existing recreational
13 facilities and the loss of a planned facility by providing additional public open space. However, there being no
14 legal authority to implement such a measure, there can be no assurance that a dedication of open space of
15 adequate size would occur. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant cumulative
16 contribution to cumulative impacts on local and regional parks/facilities.
17 ESR.6 Public Involvement

18 The County issued a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study (NOP/IS) for SVLRC CUP-3142-8 on December
19 20, 2007. The NOP/IS described the project and the environmental review process and solicited public input
20 on environmental issues two be addressed in the EIR. Copies of the NOP/IS were distributed to various
21 movement agencies, organizations and individuals during the 30-day review period. The NOP and IS was also
22 made available for review at various libraries and online at the County Planning Department website. During
23 the public review period, 21 comment letters were received.
24 The County conducted a public scoping meeting on June 2, 2008 at the City of Simi Valley Council Chamber.
25 The County issued a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR for the SVLRC CUP-3142-8 on September 28,
26 2009. Copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to various state and local agencies, organizations and
27 individuals during the 90-day review period. The NOC and Draft EIR were also made available for review at
28 various libraries and online at the County Planning Department website.
29 The Recirculated Draft EIR will be distributed to various state and local agencies, organizations and
30 individuals for a 45-day review period starting July 27, 2010 and ending September 9, 2010. Comments on
31 the recirculated sections of the document must be received no later than September 9th. In accordance with
32 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(2), comments are limited to the revised chapters and portions of
33 the EIR provided in this Recirculated Draft EIR. Comments on portions of the Draft EIR not contained in this
34 document will not be accepted during this public review period.
35 The contents of the Recirculated Draft EIR, along with the previous Draft EIR and ensuing Final EIR
36 documents, will comprise the whole of the Final EIR to be considered by the County for certification of
37 adequacy under CEQA.
38 ESR.7 Revised Impact Summary Table

39 Table ESR.7-1 contains a summary of those mitigation measures involved in the above issue areas that have
40 been changed or added during the reevaluation of impacts associated with this recirculation of portions of the
41 DEIR on the SVLRC Expansion Project. Only those measures that were changed or are new are included in
42 Table ESR.7-1.
43

Table ESR.7-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Recirculated Draft EIR
Significance Significance After

Impact Before Mitigation
Mitigation Mitigation
Impact LU-3: Demand for Housing. Increase Significant LU-1: The applicant shall pay a one-time fee (as determined by the Less than significant
the demand for housing due to construction or decision-making body) to a County-approved low-income-housing
operation. entity or an established housing trust fund to assist in providing for
construction of affordable housing within the vicinity of Simi Valley.
No feasible mitigation as the County lacks the legal authority or an Significant and
enforceable mechanism to impose fees and allocate them to projects unavoidable
that would mitigate housing demand impacts.
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1c: VCAPCD Daily Emission Significant AQ-1: The construction contractor shall implement following Less than significant
significance Criteria. Project construction measures to mitigate ozone precursor emissions from on-site off-road
would produce emissions that exceed construction equipment:
VCAPCD daily ROC and NOx emission 6.1. All construction equipment shall meet the EPA Tier 3
significance thresholds. nonroad equivalent standards. The construction contractor shall be
exempt from this requirement if he provides proof that a given
piece of equipment is unavailable within the California that meets
Tier 3 standards.
7.2. Minimize equipment idling time.
8.3. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in
proper tune as per manufacturers’ specifications.
9.4. Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May
10.5. Encourage the use of alternatively fueled construction
equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied
natural gas (LNG), or electricity, if feasible.
AQ-7c. Potential incremental contributions Less than See AQ-1. Less than
from the project to global climate change. significantIncrem significantIncrement
entally contribute ally contribute to
to global climate global climate
change. change.

Executive Summary

Impact AQ-1o: Project operations would Significant AQ-3: To reduce peak daily emissions of ROC and NOx from Significant
produce emissions that exceed VCAPCD daily Project operations, the landfill operator shall implement the
ROC and NOx emission significance following measures to mitigate ozone precursor emissions from on-
thresholds. site off-road mobile equipment:
1. Beginning in 2009, convert equipment to engines with EPA
nonroad Tier 3 standards, where feasible.
3. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune
as per manufacturers’ specifications.
4. Encourage the uUse of alternatively fueled equipment, such as
CNG, LNG, or electricity, if feasible.
AQ-4: [Formerly AQ-5] Simi Valley Landfill Emissions Reduction
Program Agreement.
In instances, when air quality impacts from mobile sources due to

project operations cannot be mitigated to insignificant levels with the
available air pollution control measures recommended for the
project, the VCAPCD, in its Air Quality Assessment Guidelines,
recommends implementing an Emissions Reduction Program to
ensure additional mitigation of air quality impacts by requiring the
project proponent to contribute funds for programs that reduce air
pollutant emissions from non-project sources. However, while
several municipal jurisdictions in the county have enacted air
emissions mitigation programs in the form of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) programs, Ventura County has not
established a Government Code section 66000 et seq. fee rule or
made a Board of Supervisors commitment to adopt such a fee rule to
assess, collect, and spend such fees on mitigation programs.
Therefore, to accomplish the purposes of an Emissions Reduction

Program, some other legally enforceable, feasible mechanism to
achieve the same result is required. In this instance, a legally
enforceable agreement between the County of Ventura, VCAPCD,
and the applicant (WMI) could be executed such that funding would
be provided by the applicant via the agreement to the VCAPCD for
the purpose of funding emission reduction programs in Ventura
County, based on estimated mobile source emissions from operations
in excess of standards.

Executive Summary

Impact AQ-1o (continued) Significant Such an agreement would, at a minimum, have the following Significant
features:
• A binding agreement would be executed by the County of
Ventura, the VCAPCD, and the applicant wherein the applicant
commits:
o To the payment of fees, calculated based on the amount of
project operational emissions from mobile sources in excess
of standards, into a fund administered by the VCAPCD.
Fees would be determined based on the project’s mobile
source emissions in excess of standards and the cost-
effectiveness of projects funded by the VCAPCD’s Carl
Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment
Program.
o Pay the assessed fees over a time period mutually agreeable
to all parties.
• The VCAPCD would be entitled to recover all cost of
administrating the expenditure of the funds so collected.
• The fees would be used by the VCAPCD to fund emission
reduction projects in Ventura County. Projects that could be
funded include, but would not necessarily be limited to, project
types eligible for funding under the VCAPCD’s emission
reduction incentive programs such as:
o The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards
Attainment Program,
o Clean Air Fund,
Emission reduction programs such as the one described above
emissions (buses, trucks, etc.) and emissions from other devices and
equipment powered by internal combustion engines through the use
of more efficient engines, less polluting fuels, or electric or hybrid
power sources. It is uncertain the extent to which the Simi Valley
Landfill and Recycling Center Emissions Reduction Program would
offset overall project-related vehicular emissions and it is not
possible to calculate what those reductions might be because the
specific emission mitigation projects are unknown at this time.
However, implementing an Emissions Reduction Program
Agreement for the proposed Simi Valley Landfill expansion project
is considered an effective emission reduction measure.

Executive Summary

Impact AQ-2o: Project construction and Significant See AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3., and Significant for (1) 1-
operation would result in offsite ambient air AQ-4: The calculation of unmitigated fugitive dust emissions from hour CAAQS for
pollutant concentrations that would contribute proposed construction and operational activities is based upon NO2; (2) 24-hour
to an exceedance of an ambient air quality compliance with VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust, which is assumed CAAQS for PM10;
standard. to produce a 50 to 75 percent reduction in PM10 emissions from (3) annual CAAQS
uncontrolled levels, depending on the source type. This would occur for PM10;(4) 24-hour
with the use of rigorous watering of the site and other control NAAQS for PM2.5;
measures, such as a limitation of vehicle speeds to 15 mph on-site. and (5) annual
CAAQS and
The project landfill operator shall develop and implement dust control NAAQS for PM2.5.
methods to achieve a 90 percent reduction of fugitive dust emissions
from uncontrolled levels. Additional control measures to reduce
fugitive dust shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Designate personnel to monitor the dust control program
and order increased watering, as necessary, to ensure a 90
percent control level. Their duties shall include holiday and
weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
2. Apply approved non-toxic chemical soil stabilizers
according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive
construction and operational areas or replace groundcover in
disturbed areas.
3. Provide temporary wind fencing around sites being graded
or worked.
4. Cover truck loads that haul dirt, sand, or gravel or maintain
at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with Section
23114 of the California Vehicle Code.
5. Ensure dust is not tracked onto paved roads in compliance
with APCD Rule 55. Install wheel washers where vehicles
enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off
tires of vehicles and any equipment leaving the site.
6.5. Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed
25 mph as instantaneous gusts or when visible dust plumes
emanate from the site and stabilize all disturbed areas.
7.6. Sweep all streets at least once a day if visible soil materials
are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers
with reclaimed water).
8.7. Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers
according to manufacturers’ specifications, to all unpaved
parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces.
9.8. Pave road and road shoulders.

Executive Summary

Previous AQ-5 Moved to AQ-4].
Agreement. In instances, when air quality impacts from mobile
sources due to project operations cannot be mitigated to insignificant
levels with the available air pollution control measures recommended
requiring the project proponent to contribute funds for programs that
reduce air pollutant emissions from non-project sources. However,
while several municipal jurisdictions in the county have enacted air
emissions mitigation programs in the form of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) programs, Ventura County has not
established a Government Code section 66000 et seq. fee rule or
made a Board of Supervisors commitment to adopt such a fee rule to
assess, collect, and spend such fees on mitigation programs.
Impact AQ-7o: Proposed operational Significant See AQ-3. Significant
emissions of GHGs would cause a significant Incrementally AQ-7. Additional Alternative Fuels Collection Trucks. The landfill Incrementally
impact on the environment.Potential contribute to operator shall operate a collection truck fleet that is powered by at contribute to global
incremental contributions from the project to global climate least 50 percent alternative fuels. The definition of alternative fuels climate change.
global climate change. change. includes LNG, LPG, compressed natural gas (CNG), or electric
power. The landfill operator shall achieve this level of operation by
January 1, 2020.
AQ-8. Use Biodiesel Blends in Diesel-Powered Off-Road Equipment
and Collection Trucks. The applicant shall maximize the use of
biodiesel in off-road equipment and diesel-powered collection trucks.
The CO2e emission factor for 100 percent biodiesel is about 7
percent lower than ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD). The most readily
available form of biodiesel is a blend of 20/80 percent
biodiesel/ULSD by weight (B20), the use of which would result in an
approximately 2 percent reduction in GHG emissions relative to
ULSD. Use of fuel with a higher biodiesel/ULSD ratio would result
in higher GHG reductions. However, higher bio-diesel percentages
than B20 may result in reduced power and/or require engine
modifications.

Executive Summary

Impact REC-1: Local Parks/Facilities. Cause Significant REC-1: The applicant shall pay in lieu fees for local parks/facilities Less than significant
an increase in the demand for recreation when that would ensure that the applicant would offset costs of developing Significant and
measured against the following standard: five and/or making improvements to local recreation amenities associated unavoidable
acres of developable land (less than 15 percent with increased recreational demands from the proposed project.
slope) per 1,000 population. These fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a Conditional Use
Permit.
Because the County does not have a policy or ordinance in place
requiring an applicant to pay a recreation impact fee or dedicate
public easements, there is no legal authority to impose a fee or a
mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts to
recreation. There is therefore no feasible mitigation for the recreation
demand created by additional project employees.
Impact REC-2: Regional Parks/Facilities. Significant REC-2: The applicant shall pay in lieu fees for regional Less than significant
Cause an increase in the demand for recreation parks/facilities that would offset costs of developing and/or making Significant and
when measured against the following standard: improvements to regional recreation amenities associated with unavoidable
five acres of developable land per 1,000 increased recreational demands from the proposed project. These
population. fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Impact REC-3: Regional Trails/Corridors. Significant REC-3: The applicant shall dedicate public easements for the Alamos
Cause an increase in the demand for recreation Canyon Trail that would link the trail with the proposed trail network
when measured against the following standard: for Simi Valley. New trail easements shall be aligned with existing dirt
two-and-a-half miles per 1,000 population. roads/trails to the greatest extent feasible. Development adjacent to the
Alamos Canyon Trail shall include, where appropriate, the
construction and assurance of the fitness of designated trails for two
years, at which time the agency(ies) being dedicated the public
easements would assume maintenance responsibility. Where
immediate construction is not required, a construction bond shall be Less than significant
required. If dedication of the trail link easement comprises less than the Significant and
project related-demand, the applicant shall pay in lieu fees to offset the unavoidable
remainder of the increased demand for trail miles. Any in lie fees shall
be paid prior to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.

Executive Summary

Recreational Facilities (continued)
Impact REC-4: Future Development. Cause Significant See REC-1 through REC-3. Less than significant
an increase in the demand for recreation when Significant and
measured against the following standard: Because the County does not have a policy or ordinance in place unavoidable
impede future development of Recreation requiring an applicant to pay a recreation impact fee or dedicate
Parks/Facilities and/or Regional public easements, there is no legal authority to impose a fee or a
Trails/Corridors. mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts to

1 Introduction
1 The County of Ventura Planning Division has prepared this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to identify
2 and evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with permit approval for the proposed Simi
3 Valley Landfill and Recycling Center (SVLRC) Expansion Project (hereinafter project or proposed project).
4 The County Planning Division is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
5 and is responsible for preparation of the EIR. The purpose of this document is to inform the public and the
6 permitting agencies about the potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of the proposed project
7 and its alternatives, and to recommend all feasible mitigation measures.
8 This EIR fulfills the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.) and
9 CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 15000 et seq.). According to CEQA
10 Guidelines Section 15121(a) (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), the purpose of an EIR is to serve as an
11 informational document that will:
12 (1) Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental
13 effects of proposed activities;
14 (2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced;
15 (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through
16 the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be
17 feasible; and
18 (4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the
19 agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
20 This EIR evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project in accordance with the
21 provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. It will be used to address potentially significant environmental
22 issues and to recommend adequate and feasible mitigation measures that, where possible, could reduce or
23 eliminate significant environmental impacts.
24 Other state and local agencies that have jurisdiction or regulatory responsibility over components of the
25 project would also rely on this EIR for CEQA compliance as part of their permitting and decision-making
26 processes.
27 1.1 Background
29 receive 3,000 tons per day (tpd) of MSW. In addition to waste disposal, SVLRC engages in recycling,
30 including materials such as green waste, wood waste, asphalt/concrete, white goods, and scrap metal.
31 SVLRC, which is located in southeast Ventura County, California near the City of Simi Valley, is owned and
32 operated by Waste Management of California, Inc. (WMC) under Conditional Use Permit (CUP)-3142-7.
33 1.2 Project Purpose and Need

34 The purpose of the proposed project is to provide long term waste management capability within the Ventura
35 County. Communities within the counties of Ventura and Los Angeles that comprise the major customers of
36 the SVLRC are expected to experience population increases during the planning period of the proposed
37 project (to 2054). According to the California Department of Finance, Ventura County could grow by
38 approximately 44 percent between 2010 and 2050. In the same time period, Los Angeles County is expected
39 to expand by up to 24 percent (California Department of Finance [DOF] 2007).
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project 1-1
1 Introduction
1 The SVLRC currently serves the residential, commercial, and industrial MSW needs of much of the
2 population of Ventura County, including portions of the cities of Oxnard, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks,
3 Moorpark, Camarillo, Ventura, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, Ojai, Fillmore, and other unincorporated areas of
4 Ventura County. The SVLRC also receives waste from the Calabasas and San Fernando Valley areas of Los
5 Angeles County as well as Santa Barbara County and occasionally from more distant counties. Waste
6 collection areas change as market conditions change (e.g., other landfills open or close). Under the current
7 CUP-3142-7 limits, the SVLRC will close in 2034. Consequently, WMC seeks, via this proposed project, to
8 extend the site life and to continue providing a solid waste disposal facility that would adequately serve the
9 area beyond 2050.
10 1.3 Project Objectives
11 CEQA Section 15124 requires that an EIR shall contain “…[a] statement of the objectives sought by the
12 proposed project”. The purpose of the statement of objectives is to provide the reasons for project
13 development and the basis for why this particular solution is being recommended. The project objectives are
14 also instrumental in determining the alternatives considered in the EIR. CEQA Section 15126(d) states that
15 alternatives should be selected “which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but
16 would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects….”.
34 The main project objective is to provide waste disposal capacity within Ventura County to meet the County’s
35 current and projected waste diversion and disposal needs consistent with the goals and policies of the Ventura
36 County General Plan, Ventura County Integrated Waste Management Plan, the requirements of Assembly Bill
37 (AB) 939, and other California waste management laws and regulations. The specific objectives of the
38 proposed project include the following:
39 Provide a minimum of 15 years of waste diversion and disposal capacity to meet the County’s
40 projected disposal needs state-mandated waste diversion goals;
41 • Provide solid waste diversion operations consistent with the state-mandated waste diversion goals;
42 • Provide an environmentally safe waste disposal and diversion operation that complies with local,
43 state, and federal regulations and plans;
1-2 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

1 Introduction
1 • Minimize adverse impacts of the facility and its operations on environmental resources; and
2 • Maintain consistency between the project and adjacent land uses.
3 1.4 Regulatory Requirements

4 CEQA of 1970, as amended, (PRC §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15000 et seq.),
5 require the consideration of environmental impacts when approving projects and prior to the issuance of
6 governmental agency permits or approvals. The Ventura County Planning Division is the lead agency for
7 evaluating potential impacts and proposing mitigation measures under CEQA. Responsible agencies, state and
8 local agencies other than the lead agency that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect
9 of the project, would also rely on this EIR for CEQA compliance as part of their permitting and decision-
10 making processes. Table 1-1 lists the lead and responsible agencies and the discretionary permit(s) required
11 for the proposed project. Major permits and approvals for the SVLRC Expansion Project will be required
12 from a number of agencies as summarized in Table 1-1 and discussed below. Regulations related to specific
13 resource areas (e.g., water quality and air quality) are discussed within their respective sections of Chapter
14 3.0.
Table 1-1. Permits/Approvals Required

Agency(ies) Permit/Approval
Federal
United States Army Corps of Engineers The proposed project may require a 404 Permit because a portion of
(USACE) the project would discharge fill in a potential Waters of the U.S.
State
California Integrated Waste Responsible Agency for the proposed project. The proposed project
would require approval of a revision to the existing Solid Waste
Management (CIWMB) Facility Permit from CIWMB.
Responsible Agency for the proposed project. The proposed project
would require approval of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. CDFG
California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) must rely on the environmental document prepared by the Lead
Agency to make a finding and decide whether or not to issue an
incidental take permit.
Regional/Local
Lead agency or principal responsibility for approving the proposed
project and for implementation of CEQA. Responsible for reviewing
Ventura County Planning Division CUP major modification applications and proposals to modify the
existing facility pursuant to such conditional permit to implement
County policies.
Responsible agency for the proposed project. EHD acts as the Local
Enforcement Agency (LEA) on behalf of the CIWMB. As the LEA,
Ventura County Environmental Health
Division (EHD) the EHD issues the Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP). The
proposed project would require approval of a revision to the existing
Solid Waste Facility Permit from EHD.
Responsible agency for the proposed project. The SVLRC operates
under WDR Order No. R4-2003-0152 issued by the LARWQCB on
December 4, 2003. The proposed project would require approval of a
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board (LARWQCB) revision to the existing Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) or a new
WDR from LARWQCB. The proposed project may require a Clean
Water Act 401 water quality certification because a portion of the
project would discharge fill in a potential Waters of the U.S.
Responsible agency for the proposed project. The proposed project
Ventura County Watershed Protection would require a VCWPD Watercourse Permit because a portion of
District (VCWPD) the project would impact a VCWPD red-line stream that is not in a
VCWPD right-of-way or facility.

1 Introduction
Table 1-1. Permits/Approvals Required

Agency(ies) Permit/Approval
The SVLRC operates under Operating Permit issued by the VCAPCD
dated June 7, 2007. The proposed project would require approval of
Ventura County Air Pollution Control a modification to the existing Operating Permit from VCAPCD. In
District (VCAPCD) addition, the project would require approval of an application for an
Authority to Construct and Operating Permit for the new portions of
the facility.
Responsible agency for the proposed project. The proposed project
would require an amendment to the City of Simi Valley General Plan
City of Simi Valley to remove the unbuilt Alamos Canyon Road from the Plan’s
Circulation Element.
1 Major permits required for the proposed SVLRC Expansion Project include:
2 • Conditional Use Permit (CUP-3142-7). CUP-3142-7 establishes conditions that govern all aspects of
3 the use of the site. CUP-3142-7 Condition No. 19 requires the Planning Director to conduct a
4 condition compliance review approximately every 5 years. In order to expand the landfill operations
5 and extend the time of operations, a major modification of the existing CUP-3142-7 is required.
6 Compliance with CUP-3142-7 dictates that operations at the SVLRC must comply with all regulatory
7 standards for waste handling and disposal. WMC has applied for Major Modification No. 8 of CUP-
8 3142 (CUP-3142-7) to expand the CUP boundary, expand the waste disposal capacity, and extend the
9 operating life of the SVLRC.
10 • Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP). The SVLRC operates under SWFP 56-AA-0007, issued on May
11 16, 2003, by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). In Ventura County, the
12 Resource Management Agency’s Environmental Health Division (EHD) acts as the Local
13 Enforcement Agency (LEA) on behalf of the CIWMB. As the LEA, the EHD issues the SWFP. A
14 revised SWFP will be necessary for the proposed SVLRC expansion project. In order to receive a
15 revised SWFP, the landfill operator must submit an application to the EHD.
16 • Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR). The SVLRC operates under WDR Order No. R4-2003-0152
17 issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB or Los Angeles
18 RWQCB) on December 4, 2003. This order supersedes and rescinds all previous requirements and
19 orders adopted by the Board for this facility. The main intent of this permit is to: 1) preserve the
20 quality of receiving waters suitable for domestic and irrigation uses; 2) prevent creation of a nuisance
21 as a result of the disposal of wastes at this site; and 3) implement monitoring and reporting programs.
22 WDRs contain lists of acceptable restricted materials that can be disposed at the facility, groundwater
23 monitoring and protection methods, and site closure requirements.
24 In addition to these major permits, various other permits would be required from Ventura County Building
25 and Safety, Environmental Health, and Fire Department.
26 1.5 Scope of the EIR

27 The County of Ventura prepared an Initial Study (IS) to identify any potentially significant impacts resulting
28 from the SVLRC Expansion Project implementation. The completed IS was circulated as part of the Notice of
29 Preparation (NOP) of this EIR. The NOP/IS is provided as Appendix M of this EIR. This EIR addresses
30 potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from the proposed project, as identified in the
31 NOP/ IS and comments received in response to the NOP at the scoping meeting conducted for the proposed
32 project (as discussed below). More specifically, this EIR analyzes potentially significant impacts relating to
33 the following resources, hazards, and public facilities:

1 Introduction
• Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and • Paleontological Resources

Programs
• Cultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Hazards
• Water Resources
• Noise
• Biological Resources
• Transportation/Circulation
• Agricultural Resources
• Water Supply
• Visual Resources/Glare
• Waste Treatment/Disposal
• Geology and Seismic Hazards
• Recreational Facilities
• Mineral Resources
1 1.6 Public Involvement

2 The County issued a NOP/IS for SVLRC CUP-3142-8 on December 20, 2007. The NOP/IS described the
3 project and the environmental review process and solicited public input on environmental issues to be
4 addressed in the EIR. Copies of the NOP/IS were distributed to various governmental agencies, interested
5 groups and individuals during the 30-day review period. The NOP and IS were also made available for review
6 at various libraries and online at the County Planning Department website. During the public review period,
7 21 comment letters were received.
8 The County conducted a public scoping meeting on June 2, 2008, at the City of Simi Valley Council
9 Chamber. During this meeting the County presented information on the project and solicited public input on
10 topics to be addressed in the EIR. During the Scoping meeting 11 individuals provided comments.
11 Table 1-2 summarizes the environmental issues that were identified during the NOP/IS public review period
12 and the public scoping process and indicates the EIR sections in which these issues were addressed.
Table 1-2. Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process

Date Commenter Comment Summary Addressed in EIR
Section
Public Comment Letters on NOP/IS
State Government
01/08/08 Katy Sanchez, Program Recommends conducting a records search to Section 3.8
Analyst, Native determine if the project site has been previously (Cultural Resources)
American Heritage surveyed, and if not, preparing a professional
Commission report detailing the findings of the records search
and field survey.
Recommends contacting the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a Sacred
Lands File Check.
Recommends contacting Native American
Contacts for consultation regarding the project
site and to assist in mitigation measures.
The EIR should include a mitigation plan for the
accidental discovery of archeological resources,
recovered artifacts, and human remains.
01/10/08 Cheryl J. Powell, Recommends preparing a traffic study to analyze Section 3.11
IGR/CEQA Branch the project impacts on the State transportation (Transportation/
Chief, Department of system according to the Department’s Traffic Circulation);
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. The traffic study Appendix I (Traffic
should include: Study)
• Presentations of assumptions and methods used
to develop trip generation, trip distribution,
1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
Date Commenter Comment Summary Section
travel mode, and trip assignments.
• Consistency of project travel modeling with
other regional and local modeling forecasts and
with travel data.
• Analysis of ADT, AM, and PM peak-hour
volumes for both existing and future conditions
in the affected area for freeways, interchanges,
intersections, and all HOV facilities.
• All appropriate traffic volumes, including for
existing, project, other project, and other
growth conditions.
• Mitigation discussion including descriptions of
transportation infrastructure improvements;
financial costs, funding sources, and financing;
sequence and scheduling considerations;
implementation responsibilities, controls, and
monitoring.
• Specification of developer’s percent share of
the cost, as well as a plan of realistic mitigation
measures under the control of the developer.
Percent share should be determined by:
additional traffic volume due to project
implementation is divided by the total increase
in the traffic volume.
01/25/08 Betty Courtney, Senior The EIR should include the following: Section 3.4
Environmental • A complete, recent assessment of flora and (Biological Resources)
Scientist, Department of fauna within and adjacent to the project area,
Fish and Game with particular emphasis upon identifying
endangered, threatened, and locally unique
species and sensitive habitats.
• A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and Section 3.4
cumulative impacts expected to adversely (Biological Resources)
affect biological resources, with specific
measures to offset such impacts. This
discussion should focus on maximizing
avoidance, and minimizing impacts.
• A range of alternatives should be analyzed to Chapter 5
ensure that alternatives to the proposed project (Alternatives)
are fully considered and evaluated. A range of
alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize
impacts to sensitive biological resources such
as wetlands/riparian habitats, and coastal sage
scrub should be included. Specific alternative
locations should also be evaluated in areas with
lower resource sensitivity where appropriate.
• A California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Section 3.4
Permit must be obtained, if the project has the (Biological Resources)
potential to result in “take” of species of plants
or animals listed under CESA, either during
construction or the overall life of the project.
• Opposes the elimination of watercourses
(including concrete channels) and/or the
canalization of natural and manmade drainages
or conversion to subsurface drains. All
wetlands and watercourses must be retained
and provided with substantial setbacks. A
minimum natural buffer of 100 feet from the
outside edge of the riparian zone on each side
of the drainage should be maintained.

1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
Regional Government
02/19/08 Vin Kumar, IGR/ The EIR should include a traffic study to evaluate Section 3.11
CEQA Program the project’s impact on the State transportation (Transportation/Circula
Manager, Department system, including the SR-118 Ronald Reagan tion); Appendix I
of Transportation Freeway and all affected freeway ramps. The (Traffic Study)
traffic study should include:
• Trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice,
trip assignment, and passenger car equivalence
where needed;
• Traffic volumes and level-of-service
calculation for major intersections and freeway
on/off-ramps, including under existing, project,
cumulative, and project plus cumulative traffic
conditions; and
• Freeway operational analysis and queue length
analysis.
Recommends the implementation of a fair-share
funding program on a pro rata basis to be used for
traffic improvement projects.
Stormwater compliance and best management Section 3.3
practices will need to be implemented in (Water Resources)
controlling of stormwater runoff.
States that the transport of over-size or over- Section 3.11
weight vehicles on State highways will need a (Transportation/Circula
Caltrans Transportation Permit. tion)
Recommends that construction related truck trips
be limited to off-peak commute periods.
01/17/08 Kim Uhlich, Executive Regarding connecting to the City of Simi Section 3.13 (Waste
Officer, Local Agency Valley’s sanitary sewer system, stated that Treatment/Disposal)
Formation Commission annexation of the project site into the City of
(LAFCO) Simi Valley is preferred to extraterritorial service
agreements.
Clarified that the City will need to adopt a pre-zoning
designation prior to or concurrent with the City’s
adoption of a resolution to initiate annexation. If a
General Plan amendment is necessary, this would
need to be covered in the EIR.
Local Government
01/07/08 Melinda Talent, County Correction requested to the Initial Study prepared Section 3.9 (Hazards)
of Ventura, Resource for the project; the heading on page 59 for
Management Agency Number 18, Hazardous Materials/Waste, Item B,
should read “Hazardous Materials.”
Clarified that Ventura County Service Area No. Section 3.13 (Waste
32 is a district for septic system maintenance and Treatment/Disposal)
monitoring. City of Simi Valley would supply
sewer service to the project.
01/11/08 Nazir Lalani, Deputy Stated that the NOP accurately described Section 3.11
Director, County of transportation impacts and agrees with the (Transportation and
Ventura, Traffic, assessment of what needs to be addressed in the Circulation) and
Advance Planning & EIR. Appendix I (Traffic
Permits Division Study)
01/16/08 Glen Luscombe, County Stated that the NOP accurately described water Section 3.3
of Ventura, Watershed related impacts as less than significant, and that (Water Resources)
Protection District, no further assessment is required.
Groundwater Section
01/17/08 Frank Kiesler, Assistant The EIR should address impacts to the 2050 Chapter 2
Manager, County of projected life span of the SVLRC with the (Project Description);
Ventura, IWMD prospective importation of out-of-County tons. Chapter 5
The EIR should describe the mitigating effects to (Alternatives)
the landfill’s projected useful lifespan if:
• All out-of-County solid waste tons were

1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
restricted;
• A flat rate surcharge fee was applied to all solid
waste tonnage originating from beyond County
lines; or
• Graduated surcharge fees were applied to all
solid waste tonnage originating from beyond
County lines.
01/24/08 Brian J. Trushinski, Stated that no other issues need to be addressed Comment noted.
County of Ventura, in the EIR beyond what is discussed in the NOP
Development & for their area of responsibility.
Inspection Services
Division
01/28/08 Elizabeth A. Cheadle, The EIR should clearly show and describe how Chapter 2
Chairperson, Santa the project applicant owns, and/or controls, a (Project Description)
Monica Mountains much larger, contiguous area than the 887-acre
Conservancy project area in the NOP.
The project should result in the permanent Section 3.4
protection of: the Alamos Canyon habitat linkage (Biological Resources)
using the broad, open air connection under the
118 Freeway (former interchange location) and
all lands associated with the applicant south of
the freeway; all core habitat located west and
north of the proposed landfill expansion
footprint; and all portions of Alamos Canyon
drainage outside of the proposed expansion
disturbance footprint.
01/28/08 Elizabeth A. Cheadle The EIR should address how the project could Section 3.4
(continued) have an adverse effect on surrounding habitat and (Biological Resources);
viewsheds. Section 3.6
(Visual
Resources/Glare)
02/04/08 Alicia Stratton, Ventura The air quality analysis should address potential Section 3.2 (Air
County Air Pollution impacts from Valley Fever. Quality)
Control District Stated that the VCAPCD has reviewed the
project and analyzed greenhouse gas emissions,
but that they do not yet have thresholds of
significance for greenhouse emissions.
01/04/08 Al Boughey, Director, Requested that the NOP review period be Comment pertained to
Department of extended until February 15, 2008. Initial Study and does
Environmental not apply to EIR.
Services, City of Simi
Valley
01/18/08 David A. Bobardt, The EIR should use actual current truck trips as a Section 3.11
Planning Director, City baseline and it should analyze impacts for the (Transportation/Circula
of Moorpark entire distance of the generated truck trips. A tion);
realistic passenger car equivalency (PCE) value Appendix I (Traffic
should also be used for the trucks in the analysis. Study)
Cumulative impact analysis should consider the Chapter 4.0
traffic, noise, and air pollution (including odor) (Cumulative Impacts)
increases from the trucks associated with other
proposed projects that would also increase truck
traffic through Moorpark.
01/25/08 Larry Peterson, General Clarifies that the District is called the Rancho Section 3.14
Manager, Rancho Simi Simi Recreation and Park District (RSRPD), and (Recreational
Recreation and Park not Ranch Simi Recreation and Parks District as Facilities)
District referred to in the IS.
Clarifies that the closest park to the project site is
Tierra Rejada Park, and not Strathearn Historical
Park as referred to in the IS.
The EIR should address project impacts on two
trail corridors (Trail #3, Alamos Canyon and
Trail #4, Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop) as

1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
included in the 1986 General Plan for Parks,
Recreation and Open Space. Requested that the
trails be dedicated, constructed, and opened to the
public if the project is approved.
The EIR should address project impacts on the Section 3.14
future parksite that is located within the project (Recreational
area, as described in the RSRPD General Plan. Facilities)
The EIR should analyze if active or passive
public recreation facilities could be included
within the project buffer area.
The EIR should discuss why there is a proposed Chapter 1.0
reduction in the allocation of recyclable (Introduction);
materials, and if any efforts are being taken to Chapter 2.0
encourage increased recycling. (Project Description)
The EIR should include more information on the Chapter 2.0 (Project
environmental education center. Description)
02/15/08 Paul Miller, Mayor, The City Council requests that the following Section 3.13
City of Simi Valley issues/questions be addressed in the EIR: (Waste
• The EIR must address the potential impacts of Treatment/Disposal)
annexation of the office portion of the site to
the City of Simi Valley, including the potential
impacts of the extension of sewer lines and
other City services to the site.
• The EIR must consider the environmental Chapter 5.0
impact of establishing a Landfill Wasteshed (Alternatives)
Boundary for Ventura County.
• In the Waste Management presentation there Chapter 2.0
was a reference to future needs. Which (Project Description)
communities' future needs will the proposed
expansion accommodate? Will this include
communities outside of Ventura County?
• What are the environmental impacts of Chapter 5.0
redistributing the permitted capacity from (Alternatives)
recycling to waste tonnage?
• What impact will the proposal have on the Chapter 2.0
number of vehicles, carbon dioxide, waste, (Project Description);
noise, traffic, and air quality? Section 3.11
(Traffic/Circulation);
Section 3.2 (Air
Quality); and 3.10
(Noise)
• Are recycling efforts expanding? Chapter 2.0
• How is this proposal helping from a global (Project Description)
perspective?
• Will hazardous waste be accepted at the
landfill?
• How are we safeguarding the community from Section 3.9 (Hazards)
the increased potential for contamination
related to the increase in hazardous waste in the
landfill in the short-term?
• Explain what plan safeguards will be required Chapter 2.0
to protect the community from long-term (Project Description);
effects of the proposed hazardous waste Section 3.9 (Hazards)
facility.
• How much hazardous waste from other
counties will be accepted?
• What are the environmental impacts of the Chapters 3.0
proposed programs? (Environmental Setting
and Impact Analysis);
Chapter 4.0
(Cumulative Impacts)

1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
• What are the environmental impacts of Chapters 3.0
processing methane gas? (Environmental Setting
Chapter 4.0
• How large of a service area will the proposed Chapter 2.0
expansion accommodate? (Project Description)
• What impacts will the proposal have on the line Section 3.6
of sight? (Visual Resources)
• What population will be served by the Chapter 2.0
expansion? (Project Description)
• What is the impact of the reallocation of Chapters 3.0
tonnage from recycling to waste? (Environmental Setting
Chapter 4.0
• How high will the landfill be filled? Chapter 2.0 (Project
Description)
• Will the proposal result in an increased number Chapter 2.0 (Project
of trucks on the road? Description); Section
3.11 (Traffic/
Circulation)
• How will an increased number of trucks impact Section 3.11 (Traffic/
traffic on and around SR-118? Circulation) and
Appendix I (Traffic
Study)
reallocating tonnage from recycling to waste? (Environmental Setting
Chapter 4.0
• What are the environmental impacts of the Section 3.3
proposal's drainage plan? (Water Resources)
• Where is the plume in relation to the
groundwater station?
• What are the impacts of the proposal on the
groundwater?
proposed green energy programs? (Environmental Setting
Chapter 4.0
• If there is an intake liner from prior hazardous Chapter 2.0
dumps does it have any existing leaks? (Project Description)
• Will the proposed expansion include a liner?
• Will there be a plume?
• Will new waste (Class III) be placed on top of
prior waste (Class 1)?
• Is the buffer area sufficient for any potential Chapters 3.0
environmental impacts? (Environmental Setting
• What is the project baseline date? and Impact Analysis);
Chapter 4.0
• What new alternatives to the project must he Chapter 5
considered in the EIR? (Alternatives)
• What are the environmental impacts of Section 3.7 (Geology
developing/expanding a landfill over an oil and Seismic Hazards);
field? Section 3.9 (Hazards)
• What are the environmental impacts of Section 3.1 (General
expanding the landfill into, and adjacent to Plans and
undeveloped land identified by the City of Simi Policies/Land Use)
1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
Valley's General Plan as industrial?
• What are the environmental impacts of Section 3.7 (Geology
expanding the Class III landfill over and upon a and Seismic Hazards);
previously unclosed Class I landfill? Section 3.9 (Hazards)
• What are the environmental impacts of Chapter 5.0
expanding the landfill with domestic and other (Alternatives)
waste from jurisdictions outside Ventura
County?
• What environmental impact will the odor have Section 3.2
on the community and are there adverse health (Air Quality)
risks associated with the chemical odorant
currently being used by the landfill?
• What environmental impacts will the additional Chapters 3.0
landfill height being requested have on the (Environmental Setting
community? Will it impact spread of odor and and Impact Analysis);
or chemical odorant? Section 3.2
(Air Quality)
• What are the environments impacts on Simi Chapter 5.0
Valley and the County of Ventura with respect (Alternatives)
to the "No project" option?
• Does the "buffer area" defined in the project Chapter 2.0
application include the engineered berms and (Project Description)
slopes?
• What is the purpose of the proposed buffer
area?
• What is the definition of "buffer area" as it
pertains to this project?
• What are the environmental impacts from the Chapters 3.0
construction and debris operation? (Environmental Setting
and Impact Analysis)
• Will collected construction material and debris Chapter 2.0
waste be used for alterative daily cover? If so, (Project Description)
what is the projected tonnage?
proposed heavy equipment and vehicle (Environmental Setting
maintenance facility? and Impact Analysis)
• What are the environmental impacts from the
proposed processing of up to 500 tons per day
of recyclables?
• How many trips per day of recyclable material Chapter 2.0
will be delivered to the site? Please include off (Project Description)
site delivery post processing as well.
• Where will these materials be transferred to and
how much material will remain at the landfill
as waste and included in the landfill waste
matrix?
• Will medical waste be disposed in the subject
landfill?
• What are the environmental impacts from Section 3.2 (Air
Green House Gases? Quality)
• What are the environmental impacts from Section 3.2 (Air

diesel emissions and particulate associated with Quality)
the subject project?
• What are the environmental impacts of not
using current technology to reduce diesel
emissions?
• What are the environmental impacts from
proposed gas flares and the emissions?

1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
• What are the environmental impacts from the Section 3.4
proposed removal of native and nonnative trees (Biological Resources)
in proposed project area?
• What are the environmental impacts on state Section 3.3
water resources? (Water Resources)
• What are the closure procedures for a class III Chapter 2.0 (Project
landfill and what impacts will it have on the Description); Chapters
environment, land uses and infrastructure in 3.0 (Environmental
and around the City of Simi Valley? Setting and Impact
Analysis); Section 3.1
(General Plans and
Policies/Land Use)
• What new alternatives to the project must be Chapter 5
considered in the EIR? (Alternatives)
• What "Green" technologies will be Chapter 2.0 (Project
incorporated into the proposed expansion of the Description)
landfill?
• Will the proposed administrative offices be
LEED certified?
• What are the fiscal impacts on the residents of Outside of the scope of
Simi Valley? the EIR.
• Are there educational alternatives to decrease Chapter 2.0 (Project
the need for increasing the landfill capacity? Description); Chapter
5.0 (Alternatives)
• What are the impacts of increasing recycling Chapter 5.0
efforts beyond the levels included in the (Alternatives)
proposal?
• What more can be done that is not currently Outside of the scope of
being done to decrease the need for additional this EIR.
waste capacity'?
• What is the plan for the regional Southern
California Waste management system in
relationship to the project?
• Why aren't Zero waste goals and policies of the Section 1.3
California Integrated Waste Management (Project Objectives)
Board incorporated in the project discussion?
• What are the existing and proposed disposal This information is
rates for all haulers and users of the landfill and outside of the scope of
an associated equity analysis? the EIR. Individual
waste haulers could
provide this
information.
• Will new technologies impact maintenance of Chapter 2.0
the landfill operations under current permits (Project Description)
through 2020?
• What is the long-term impact of E-waste Section 3.9 (Hazards)
generation?
• What are the quantities, material, depth and Chapter 2.0
source of the alternative daily cover required by (Project Description)
the CIWMB for the proposed expansion?
The Simi Valley Neighborhoods Council held a Outside of the scope of
meeting on February 7, 2008, at which the this EIR.
residents requested that the EIR address the
following questions:
• What are the fiscal impacts on the residents of
Simi Valley?
• What are the costs and benefits to Simi Valley? Chapters 3.0
(Environmental Setting
Chapter 4.0

1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
• What are the impacts of the proposed Section 3.1 (General
expansion area on adjacent land within Simi Plans
Valley currently zoned for an industrial use? and Policies/Land Use)
• What are the long-term impacts on the
economic growth and expansion of the
community if land currently zoned industrial is
used for the landfill expansion?
• Are there educational alternatives to decrease Chapter 5.0
the need for increasing the landfill capacity'? (Alternatives)
• Can a greater amount of waste be recycled than Chapter 2.0 (Project
what is currently being recycled? Description)
• What are the impacts of increasing recycling Chapter 5.0
efforts beyond the levels included in the (Alternatives)
proposal?
• What more can be done that is not currently
being done to decrease the need for additional
waste capacity?
The Simi Valley Neighborhoods Council held a Chapter 1.0
meeting on January 8, 2008, at which the (Introduction);
Executive Board requested that the EIR address Chapter 2.0
the following questions: (Project Description)
• In the Waste Management presentation there
was a reference to future needs. Which
communities' future needs will the proposed
expansion accommodate? Will this include
communities outside of Ventura' County?
redistributing the permitted capacity from (Environmental Setting
recycling to waste tonnage? and Impact Analysis);
Chapter 4.0
• What impact will the proposal have on the Section 3.11
number of vehicles, carbon dioxide, waste, (Transportation and
noise, traffic, and air quality? Circulation); Section
3.2 (Air Quality);
Section 3.10 (Noise)
• Are recycling efforts expanding? Chapter 2.0 (Project
Description)
• How is this proposal helping from a global Chapter 1.0
perspective? (Introduction); Chapter
2.0 (Project
Description)
• Will hazardous waste be accepted at the Chapter 2.0 (Project
landfill? Description)
• How are we safeguarding the community from Chapter 2.0 (Project
the increased potential for contamination Description); Section
related to the increase in hazardous waste in the 3.9 (Hazards)
landfill in the short-term?
• Explain what kind of safeguards will be
required to protect the community from long-
term effects of the proposed hazardous waste
facility.
• How much hazardous waste from other Chapter 2.0 (Project
counties will be accepted? Description)
proposed programs? (Environmental Setting
Chapter 4.0
• What are the environmental impacts of Section 3.2 (Air
processing methane gas? Quality)

1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
• How large of a service area will the proposed Chapter 2.0 (Project
expansion accommodate? Description)
• What impacts will the proposal have on the line Section 3.6 (Visual
of sight? Resources/Glare)
meeting on January 10, 2008, at which the (Introduction); Chapter
residents requested that the EIR address the 2.0 (Project
following questions: Description)
• What population will be served by the
expansion?
• What is the impact of the reallocation of Chapters 3.0
tonnage from recycling to waste? (Environmental Setting
Chapter 4.0
• How high will the landfill be filled? Chapter 2.0
• Will the proposal result in an increased number (Project Description)
of trucks on the road?
• How will an increased number of trucks impact Section 3. 11
traffic on and around SR-118? (Transportation/Circula
tion)
The Simi Valley Neighborhoods Council held a Chapters 3.0
meeting on January 10, 2008, at which the (Environmental Setting
Executive Board requested that the EIR address and Impact Analysis);
the following questions: Chapter 4.0
• What are the environmental impacts of the (Cumulative Impacts)
proposed green energy programs?
• What are the environmental impacts of
reallocating tonnage from recycling to waste?
The Simi Valley Neighborhoods Council held a Chapters 3.0
meeting on January 15, 2008, at which the (Environmental Setting
residents requested that the EIR address the and Impact Analysis);
following questions: Chapter 4.0
• What are the environmental impacts of the (Cumulative Impacts);
proposal's drainage plan? Section 3.3 (Water
Resources)
• Where is the plume in relation to the Section 3.3
groundwater station? (Water Resources)
• What are the impacts of the proposal on the Section 3.3
groundwater? (Water Resources)
meeting on January 15, 2008, at which the (Introduction); Chapter
residents requested that the EIR address the 2.0 (Project
following questions: Description); Section
• If there is an intake liner from prior hazardous 3.3 (Water Resources);
dumps, does it have any existing leaks? Section 3.7 (Geology);
Section 3.9 (Hazards)
• Will the proposed expansion include a liner? Chapter 2.0
(Project Description)
• Will there be a plume? Chapter 2.0 (Project
Description); Section
3.3 (Water Resources);
Section 3.7 (Geology);
Section 3.9 (Hazards)
• Will new waste (Class Ill) be placed on top of Chapter 2.0
prior waste (Class I)? (Project Description)
• Is the buffer area sufficient for any potential
environmental impacts?
The Simi Valley Landfill Expansion Task Force
requested that a number of issues be addressed in
the EIR. These are detailed under “Community

1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
Groups.”
03/14/08 Al Boughey, Director, The EIR should be revised to address the Chapter 1.0
Department of following concerns: (Introduction); Chapter
Environmental • As other landfills in the region close, what 2.0 (Project
Services, City of Simi geographic area and corresponding population Description)
Valley would eventually be served by the expanded
landfill?
• How many new jobs would be created by the Chapter 2.0
expanded landfill? (Project Description)
• How will the expansion increase traffic trips Chapter 2.0 (Project
and what is the exact breakdown of those trips Description); Section 3.
as they relate to different components of the 11
project? (Transportation/Circula
tion)
• Will the Material Recycling Facility handle Chapter 2.0
unsorted loads of refuse? (Project Description)
• How much will the construction and demolition
recycling operation contribute to the tonnage of
recyclables?
• Is there a plan to use storm water runoff
collected in the detention basins for dust
control?
• Soil borings should be done around the existing Section 3.3 (Water
landfill and possible oil seeps should be located Resources); Section 3.7
to determine if there is existing soil (Geology and Seismic
contamination that might be exposed or Hazards, Mineral
exacerbated by the landfill expansion? Resources, and
Paleontological
Resources); Section 3.9
(Hazards)
• The EIR should discuss existing and future Chapter 5.0
technologies for converting trash to energy as (Alternatives)
potential mitigation or alternatives to the
project?
• How will the existing and future liner hold up Section 3.7 (Geology
to the impact of a maximum credible and Seismic Hazards,
earthquake? Mineral Resources, and
Paleontological
Resources)
• What will the final elevation of the landfill be? Chapter 2.0 (Project
Description)
• What mitigation would be proposed to Section 3.4
compensate for the loss of natural open space? (Biological Resources)
Community Groups
06/02/08 Simi Valley Landfill Regarding state and regional environmental Outside of the scope of
Expansion Task Force impacts, the following questions were raised: this EIR.
• What is the plan for the regional southern
California waste management system in
relationship to the project?
expanding the landfill with domestic and other (Environmental Setting
waste from jurisdictions outside Ventura and Impact Analysis);
County? Chapter 4.0
(Cumulative Impacts);
Chapter 5.0
(Alternatives)
• Why aren’t zero waste goals and policies of the Section 1.3 (Project
California Integrated Waste Management Objectives)
Board incorporated in the project discussion?
• What are the projected refuse needs of Ventura Chapter 5.0
County relative to the project (“No Project” (Alternatives)
1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
option)?
• What are the environmental impacts on Simi
Valley and on the County of Ventura with
respect to the “No Project” option?
• Why isn’t a landfill wasteshed boundary
proposed and included as a project alternative
(“No Project” option)?
Regarding impacts to the City of Simi Valley, the Section 3.1 (General
following questions were raised: Plan and Policies/Land
• What are the environmental impacts of Use)
expanding the landfill into, and adjacent to,
undeveloped lands identified by the City of
Simi Valley’s General Plan as Industrial?
• What are the impacts on Simi Valley if the Not applicable.
project is annexed to the City of Simi Valley? Annexation is not
proposed as part of this
project.
• What are the benefits to the City of Simi Chapters 3.0
Valley? (Environmental Setting
Chapter 4.0
• What are the existing and proposed disposal This information is
rates for all haulers and users of the landfill and outside of the scope of
an associated equity analysis? the EIR. Individual
waste haulers could
provide this
information.
Regarding alternatives and technological Chapter 5.0
advancements, the following questions were (Alternatives)
raised:
• How does the project address advances in
waste-to-fuel generation and clean technology?
• Will new technologies impact maintenance of
the landfill operations under current permits
through 2020 (“No Project” option)?
Regarding air quality and greenhouse gas Section 3.2 (Air
emissions, the following questions were raised: Quality)
• What are the air quality and greenhouse gas
impacts of the project from mobile sources?
• What are the environmental impacts of not
using current technology to reduce diesel
emissions?
• What are the air quality and greenhouse gas
impacts of the project from stationary sources?
• What are the environmental impacts from
proposed gas flares and their emissions?
Regarding health risks, hazards, and toxins, the Section 3.3 (Water
following questions were raised: Resources); Section 3.7
• What are the environmental impacts of (Geology and Seismic
developing a landfill over an oil field and in Hazards, Mineral
close proximity to a seismically active area? Resources, and
Paleontological
Resources); Section 3.9
(Hazards)
• What are the environmental impacts and health
risks of expanding the Class III landfill over
and upon a previously unclosed Class I
landfill?
• What are the environmental impacts and health Section 3.2 (Air
risks associated with daily exposure to the foul Quality)

1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
odors and chemical odorants emanating from
the requested increased landfill operations?
• What are the environmental impacts from a Chapters 3.0
proposed heavy equipment and vehicle (Environmental Setting
maintenance facility? and Impact Analysis);
Chapter 4.0
• Will medical waste be disposed of in the Chapter 2.0 (Project
subject landfill? Description)
• What is the long-term impact on the Chapters 3.0
environment of E-Waste generation? (Environmental Setting
Chapter 4.0
Regarding landfill operations, the following Chapter 5.0
questions were raised: (Alternatives)
• Why don’t the landfill operations include a
description of the wasteshed boundary?
proposed processing of up to 500 tons per day (Environmental Setting
of recyclables? How many tons of this material and Impact Analysis);
will remain on-site as waste and included in the Chapter 4.0
landfill waste matrix? (Cumulative Impacts);
• What are the quantity, materials, depth, and Chapter 2.0 (Project
source of the alternative daily cover required by Description)
the CIWMB for the proposed expansion?
• What are the environmental impacts from Chapters 3.0
construction and debris operations? Will (Environmental Setting
construction and debris waste be used for and Impact Analysis);
alternative daily cover? If so, what is the Chapter 4.0
projected tonnage? (Cumulative Impacts);
• What is the preliminary closure plan for the Chapter 2.0 (Project
landfill, including the detailed end use of the Description)
site? What are the closure procedures and what
can the community of Simi Valley anticipate as
it may impact future environmental concerns,
land uses, and infrastructure?
Regarding traffic impacts, the following Section 3.11
questions were raised: (Transportation and
• What are the project’s traffic impacts? Circulation)
• How many traffic trips per day are projected
for the delivery of recyclable materials and off-
site processing?
Regarding biological resources and landscaping, Section 3.4 (Biological
the following questions were raised: Resources)
• What are the environmental impacts from the
proposed removal of native and non-native
trees?
• Does the “buffer area” defined in the project Chapter 2.0 (Project
application include the artificially engineered Description)
berms and slopes? What is the purpose of this
buffer area? What is the definition of “buffer”
area as it pertains to the project?
Regarding water resources and landscaping, the Section 3.3 (Water
following question was raised: Resources); Section
• What are the environmental impacts on state 3.12 (Water Supply)
water resources?
Regarding existing contracts, the following Section 3.13 (Waste
question was raised: Treatment/Disposal)
• What are the impacts on the consideration of
annexation and utility connections by and from

1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
the City of Simi Valley, as they relate to the
proposed expansion and associated impacts on
Simi Valley traffic, air quality, odor, and other
environmental matters, with respect to the
contract between waste management and the
City of Simi Valley?
Individuals
03/01/08 Lynne M. Holder, LHR Consider impacts of increased birds and bird Comment noted.
Properties, LLC excrement on nearby buildings and roofs.
06/12/08 Nick Hoogoian Concerned about increased traffic due to Section 3.11
increased landfill use. (Transportation and
Circulation);
States that out of County trash should not be Comment noted.
brought to Simi Valley for Waste Management’s
financial gain. Asks if Simi Valley will also
benefit financially, and asks what the project
study is costing the County out of tax money.
Requests that the project be better publicized Comment noted.
because the community is unaware of what is
happening with the project.
Requests that the landfill should work two shifts Comment noted.
and be open to the public on all Sundays.
Public Scoping Meeting Speakers
06/02/08 Paul Miller, Mayor, States that City Council established Comment noted.
City of Simi Valley extraterritorial committee to review project, and
that all concerns are addressed in the NOP.
06/02/08 Desiree Nelson Requests additional clarification on whether the Chapter 2.0 (Project
expansion is necessary and on the potential Description); Chapters
effects of expansion. 3.0 (Environmental
Setting and Impact
Analysis); Chapter 4.0
06/02/08 Linda Nelson, Simi Residents living near the landfill were not Comment noted.
Valley Resident adequately notified of the public scoping
meeting.
Consider converting trash to energy, which she Chapter 5.0
stated has a 14 percent return rate. (Alternatives)
06/02/08 Nick Hoogoian Indicated that he has toured the landfill in the Comment noted.
past.
06/02/08 Patricia Kolbeck, Simi Concerned that expanding the landfill with Comment noted.
Valley Resident increase pollution.
Consider road repairs and maintenance due to Comment noted.
heavy trucks.
06/02/08 Hannah Beth Jackson Concerned about the impacts the project will Comment noted.
have on the willingness of people to move to and
invest in the City of Simi Valley in the future.
Encouraged increased publicity and public input. Comment noted.
New technology should be analyzed that would Chapter 5.0
reduce the size of the landfill and the amount of (Alternatives)
trash sent to the landfill, meanwhile creating
energy and electricity.
Diversion and conversion of out of county waste
should be insisted upon.
06/02/08 Barbara Williamson, Deferred to questions submitted by Louis Comment noted.
Simi Valley Landfill Pandolfi.
Expansion Task Force
06/02/08 Alice Sterling, Simi The cumulative analysis should address how Section 3.2 (Air
Valley Landfill impacts relate to AB 32. Quality)
Expansion Task Force The EIR should include a technical study on the
impacts of the proposed project on greenhouse
gases.
1 Introduction

Addressed in EIR
Data should be explained in layman’s terms and Comment noted.
the total tonnage taken on and off the site should
be clarified.
The EIR should reflect the CIWMB zero waste Section 1.3
policy. (Project Objectives)
06/02/08 Louis Pandolfi, Simi Submitted a report containing 33 issues and Comment noted.
Valley Landfill questions. See Simi Valley Landfill Expansion
Expansion Task Force Task Force letter under Community Groups for
details.
Stated that per capita waste will increase per year. Comment noted.
The No Project Alternative should take into Chapter 5.0
account conversion and diversion activities. (Alternatives)
The EIR should contain an alternative including
conversion technology with no increase to
landfill capacity.
Concerned about safety due to LNG use. Section 3.9 (Hazards)
06/02/08 Tom Mulle, Simi Requests additional clarification of the impacts of Section 3.9 (Hazards)
Valley Resident accepting radioactive and biohazards materials at
the landfill.
06/02/08 Jennifer Leone, Simi Concerned about increased fire risk associated
Valley Resident with the landfill, and the impacts to nearby
housing tracks.
1 1.7 EIR Organization

2 This EIR is organized into chapters that present the information required under CEQA as follows:
3 Executive Summary. Provides a summary of the findings of the EIR, including overviews of the proposed
4 project, the alternatives, and the environmental impacts.
5 Chapter 1.0: Introduction. Discusses the purpose and need, objectives, regulatory requirements, and scope
6 of the EIR. Additionally, provides information on the public involvement during the NOP/IS public review
7 period and the public scoping process.
8 Chapter 2.0: Project Description. Provides a brief history of the SVLRC and describes the proposed
9 SVLRC Expansion Project and design features, operational procedures, environmental control measures, and
10 site closure information.
11 Chatter 3.0: Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis. This section is organized by resource area. Each
12 resource area provides a description of the environmental setting, the impacts associated with the proposed
13 project, and mitigation measures that would be implemented to avoid, minimize, reduce, or compensate for
14 those impacts.
15 Chapter 4.0: Cumulative Analysis. Evaluates each environmental issue are and assesses if the project’s
16 incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.
17 Chapter 5.0: Alternatives. Provides descriptions for a full range of potential alternatives, describes the
18 screening analysis that occurred to select the alternatives for more detailed and analysis and evaluates the
19 environmental effects of alternatives to the proposed project relative to the impacts associated with the
20 project. Five alternatives were considered fully including the No Project Alternative.
21 Chapter 6.0: Other Required Sections. Defines and identifies short-term uses of the environment and long-
22 term productivity, significant irreversible changes to the environment, and growth-inducing impacts.

1 Introduction
1 Chapter 7.0: Persons and Agencies Contacted. Lists persons and agencies contacted during the preparation
2 of this document.
3 Chapter 8.0: List of Preparers. Lists the preparers of this document.
4 Chapter 9.0: References. Lists references used in the preparation of this document.
5 In addition, two separately bound volumes of appendices contains detailed documentation related to various
6 technical analyses presented in the EIR, including the following:
7 Appendix A: Material Safety Data Sheet for Benzaco
8 Appendix B: Air Quality Technical Appendix
9 Appendix C: Groundwater Sampling Results
10 Appendix D: Hydraulic Evaluation
11 Appendix E: Alamos Canyon Floodplain Study
12 Appendix F: Biological Resources Technical Appendix
13 Appendix G: Simi Valley Cultural Resources Survey Report
14 Appendix H: Noise Technical Appendix
15 Appendix I: Traffic Study
16 Appendix J: Water & Sewer Study
17 Appendix K: Capacity Study
18 Appendix L: Surface Water Quality Reports
19 Appendix M: Initial Study for the SVLRC Expansion Project
20 Appendix N: Hazards Study for Bio-LNG Facility
21 Appendix O: Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Letter of May 4, 2010

2 Project Description
2 of the existing SVLRC. The SVLRC’s CUP boundary is proposed to be expanded to encompass 887 acres
3 within which the waste disposal area would be expanded north and west from its current permitted location to
4 encompass 186 acres of additional waste disposal area and to increase the total capacity of the landfill from
5 43.5 to 123.1 million cubic yards. The amount of MSW that could be received per day is proposed to increase
6 from 3,000 tons to 6,000 tons and the amount of recycling to be reduced from 6,250 tpd to 3,250 tpd. The
7 total daily tonnage (i.e., combined MSW and recyclables) permitted for the facility would not change.
8 Additionally, several existing ancillary facilities (defined for the purpose of this project as facilities ancillary
9 to the active landfill such as the waste receiving and recycling facilities) and support facilities (defined for the
10 purpose of this project as facilities that support the landfill operation such as administrative offices and
11 maintenance facilities) would be expanded and new facilities constructed within the landfill CUP boundary
12 including: office building; heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance facility; waste hauling yard; material
13 recovery facility/recyclable transfer facility (MRF/RTF); public household hazardous waste collection facility
14 (SVECC); new entrance road, scales, and scale house; expanded construction and demolition (C&D) debris
15 recycling processing area; expanded green waste processing facility; expanded landfill gas-to-energy
16 (LFGTE) facility; and landfill gas-to-liquefied natural gas (LFGTLNG) facility. The proposed project would
17 require a major modification to the existing SVLRC CUP (CUP-3142-7) issued by the County of Ventura.
18 2.1 Project Location

19 The SVLRC is located in an unincorporated area of southeast Ventura County within the United States
20 Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute Simi Valley West topographic quadrangle (Figure 2.1-1). The site is
21 north of the State Route (SR)-118 and west of the Madera Road overcrossing. The site entrance is
22 approximately 2,800 feet west of Madera Road. The facility address is 2801 Madera Road, Simi Valley,
23 California 93065.
24 The proposed 887-acre CUP boundary would encompass all or portions of 11 parcels (nine current and two
25 additional parcels) situated on two lots with a combined size of approximately 1,487.47 acres. The Assessor’s
26 Parcel Numbers (APNs) are noted in Table 2.1-1. Figure 2.1-2 shows the parcels and associated acres within
27 the existing CUP boundary. The General Plan Land Use Designations are “Open Space” and “Open Space-
28 Urban Reserve”. The property is zoned as “OS-160 acres” (Open Space, 160 acres minimum lot size) and
29 “AE-40 acres” (Agricultural Exclusive, 40 acres minimum lot size).
Table 2.1-1. Existing and Proposed CUP Expansion Parcels

Acres Within Existing CUP Acres Within Proposed CUP
Assessors Parcel Number Boundary Boundary
615-0-160-01 0.0 2.7
615-0-150-32 9.4 163.0
615-0-160-13 32.0 403.4
615-0-160-46 17.9 16.4
615-0-150-29 91.8 91.8
615-0-150-33 19.0 19.0
615-0-150-24 58.7 58.7
615-0-150-25 60.9 60.9
615-0-160-44 4.1 60.7
615-0-160-28 0.0 8.6
615-0-150-30 1.4 1.4
TOTAL 295.2 887.1

Kern County
Ventura
Proposed Waste County
Project Location
Disposal Area
Existing CUP
Los Angeles
Boundary County
Proposed CUP BIG

BIG
MOORPARK Boundary SKY
SKY
RANCH
RANCH
118
Regional Location
Existing Waste 118

Disposal Area
SIMI VALLEY
23 Expansion Area
Existing Landfill
Ronald
Reagan
Library
THOUSAND Aerial View (Looking NE)

OAKS
Wood
Ranch
Reservoir
N
Scale
0 2
Miles
Source: Psomas 2008
Figure 2.1-1. Project Location

N
Source: Psomas 2008
Figure 2.1-2. Parcel Map

1 The existing SVLRC (i.e., area within the existing CUP boundary) is bound, generally, by Alamos Canyon to
2 the west, Brea Canyon to the east, an unnamed tributary drainage to Alamos Canyon to the north, and SR-118
3 to the south (Figure 2.1-1). Land immediately to the east, north and west of the site is undeveloped and
4 currently zoned open space as designated by Ventura County. SR-118 runs in an east/west direction directly
5 south of the site. There is an area of light industrial and business parks to the south-southeast of the SVLRC.
6 The nearest business is 700 feet from the southern CUP boundary and the nearest residence is approximately
7 one mile from the southeast CUP boundary.
8 2.2 Site History

9 2.2.1 Ownership and Permitting History
10 In May 1970, the Simi Valley Landfill opened under the ownership of Moreland Investment Company. The
11 site was operated by the Ventura County Public Works Agency (VCPWA) under CUP 3142 initially issued
12 by the County of Ventura Planning Division for a period of five years. This CUP, as periodically revised, is
13 currently in effect for the site. The site also operated under WDRs (Order No. 70-36) issued by the
14 LARWQCB. Order No. 70-36 prescribed WDRs for disposal of non-hazardous wastes (formerly referred to
15 as Group 2 and Group 3 wastes, now referred to as MSW and inert materials, respectively). Order No. 70-36
16 also authorized disposal of hazardous materials (formerly Group l wastes, now hazardous wastes and
17 designated wastes) in an approximately 75-acre area near the north end of the site.
18 In July 1972, VCPWA transferred its landfill operations to the Ventura Regional County Sanitation District
19 (later renamed Ventura Regional Sanitation District [VRSD]), which assumed operation of all publicly
20 operated sanitary landfill facilities in Ventura County. The Ventura County Planning Commission issued a
21 modified CUP to VRSD on June 5, 1975 for continued use of the Simi Valley Sanitary Landfill until the
22 designated fill elevations (which ranged from 925 to 1,020 feet) were attained. The modified CUP extended
23 the projected site life of the landfill by approximately 13 years to 1988.
24 In 1980, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) amended the regulations for land disposal of
25 non-sewerable and hazardous wastes by setting additional standards and guidelines for classification of waste
26 disposal sites. Also in 1980, federal regulations for landfill design and operation were released pursuant to the
27 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As a result, geologic and hydrogeologic
28 investigations were conducted in 1980, and an inventory of wastes disposed at the site was compiled in terms
29 of types of wastes, types of disposal, and disposal locations. Based on the resulting information, on November
30 13, 1980, Moreland Investment Company (owner of the site) requested an immediate suspension of the
31 disposal of hazardous wastes at the site. After consultation with the Regional Board Executive Officer, VRSD
32 suspended receipt of hazardous wastes, effective November 18, 1980.
33 On January 8, 1983, the Simi Valley Landfill was acquired by Chemical Waste Management, Inc., a wholly
34 owned subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. (WMI). Waste Management of North America, Inc., another
35 wholly owned WMI subsidiary, is WMI's operating group and includes several divisions nationwide. One of
36 these divisions is WMC. Because the SVLRC accepted only non-hazardous waste, WMI transferred
37 ownership of the landfill from their hazardous waste subsidiary, Chemical Waste Management, Inc., to their
38 solid waste subsidiary, WMC.
39 In May 1983, the LARWQCB adopted Order No. 83-026 prescribing revised WDRs for the landfill and
40 prohibiting disposal of liquids and hazardous wastes. On October 21, 1983, the site obtained a SWFP (No. 56-
41 AA-0007) as a MSW disposal site. The permit allowed overfill of the hazardous waste area (i.e., the former
42 Class I area) with designated wastes and MSW up to the 980-foot elevation contour.

1 In 1989, the current owner (WMC) was granted a major modification of the CUP to expand the site’s CUP
2 boundaries to 271.6 acres, expand the footprint of the refuse column to 135.2 acres, and expand the site capacity
3 to 23.7 million cubic yards. These new limits were approved with a site closure date of 2004.
4 On June 14, 1989, the Ventura County Planning Director approved minor Modification No. 1 (CUP-3142-1)
5 to incorporate various accessory structures not authorized under the original CUP entitlement. On June 15,
6 1989, the Planning Commission approved Major Modification No. 2 for various uses and operations
7 described in Condition No. 4 of the CUP, including excavation of cover material, acceptance and disposal of
8 sewage sludge, completion of cut slopes, construction of major landfill access roads, and construction of a
9 new entrance facility complex.
10 On February 26, 1990, the LARWQCB adopted Order No. 90-034, prescribing WDRs for disposal of inert
11 (e.g., clean soils, petroleum-contaminated soils, and concrete) and non-hazardous solid wastes, including
12 dewatered sewage sludge or water treatment sludge. Pursuant to Order No. 90-034, a clay cap was constructed
13 during 1990-91 over all parts of the former Class I area that had received waste.
14 On November 20, 1990, the Planning Director approved Minor Modification No. 3 for the addition and
15 operation of a Resource Recovery Area located within the existing permit boundary. This involved provision
16 of a separate tipping area for concrete/asphalt, wood/green waste, white goods (e.g., refrigerators and stoves),
17 scrap metal, and tires for the purpose of diverting these materials from the landfill for recycling.
18 On September 16, 1993, Minor Modification No. 4 was approved by the Planning Director to change the
19 language of various conditions.
20 In May 1995, Major Modification No. 5 was submitted requesting a permit for a co-composting facility. The
21 proposed modification was later withdrawn by WMC.
22 In December 1995, the CIWMB issued modification of SWFP 56-AA-0007, limiting disposal to 3,000 tpd of
23 municipal solid waste and 3,600 tons per month of acceptable sludges from water and wastewater treatment
24 plants. No limits were placed on acceptance of recyclable materials (Ventura County EHD 1995).
25 On June 29, 2000, the LARWQCB adopted Order No. 00-092, prescribing WDRs for acceptable and
26 unacceptable materials and other requirements for disposal site operations, including the requirements for
27 Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 5643 (LARWQCB 2000).
28 On November 26, 2002, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors approved Major Modification No. 6 for an
29 expansion of the landfill and a time extension to CUP 3142. This included expanding the CUP boundary by
30 25.85 acres, expanding the landfill capacity by 19.8 million cubic yards, expanding the landfill footprint by
31 50.41 acres, and extending the site life of the landfill by 30 years from 2004 to 2034.
32 On August 10, 2003, Minor Modification No. 7 for the addition of a LFGTE facility was approved by the
33 Planning Director.
34 A 2007 addendum to the 2002 Final Supplemental EIR for Major Modification No. 6 of CUP-3142 allowed
35 for Construction and Demolition (C&D) sorting and recycling with the option of grinding (i.e. further
36 processing), the residual to be used for ADC at the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center (SVLRC). A
37 revised Joint Technical Document (JTD) was reviewed by Ventura County Environmental Health Department
38 (EHD) for this additional process and on October 9, 2007 the JTD was accepted and filed with the EHD. EHD
39 submitted the JTD package to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) (now known as
40 the Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery, or CalRecycle) on October 9, 2007.
41 CIWMB responded back to EHD in a letter dated October 17, 2007 that the JTD application and amendment
42 was received.
1 In addition to the CUP modifications, to date the County Planning Division has approved 25 Permit
2 Adjustments (PAJs). Some of the recent PAJs include:
3 • February 1995. PAJ 19: Expansion of greenwaste asphalt pad.

4 • July 1995. PAJ 20: Instituted Sunday closures (except third Sunday of each month).
5 • July 1995. PAJ 21: Revised Phase 1 north landscape plan.
6 • July 1995. PAJ 23: Revised wind monitoring program.
7 • October 1995. PAJ 22: Constructed new internal haul road.
8 • February 1996. PAJ 24: Installed above ground gas collection system.
9 • October 1996. PAJ 25: Installed revegetation/riparian offset areas for detention/sedimentation basin.
10 • August 2000. PAJ 27. Installed Reclaimed Water and Odor Control Systems.
11 • November 2000. PAJ 28. Revisions to CUP Conditions.
12 • January 2001. PAJ 29. Installation of Gas Flare No. 2.
13 2.2.2 Historic Hazardous Waste Disposal
14 As described above, while operated by the VRSD, the Simi Valley Landfill accepted hazardous wastes from
15 1971 until mid-1982 in an approximately 75-acre area near the north end of the site. In practice, only about 25
16 acres was available for disposal since the designated area included slopes and inaccessible ridge tops. Within
17 the former Class I area, approximately nine acres received only hazardous wastes and liquids and 16 acres
18 received both hazardous wastes and municipal refuse.
19 Specific sections of the former Class I area were set aside for the disposal of different waste types. A 100-foot
20 by 100-foot grid system was laid over the Class I area by VRSD to record the location of hazardous wastes
21 disposed within the landfill. Each grid, or cell, was numbered and their locations were marked with stakes on
22 the landfill surface. This system was in use by 1973. Disposal locations for the approximately 1,000 tons of
23 hazardous wastes received in 1971 and 1972 prior to the adoption of this system were not recorded on the
24 load slips (SCS Engineers 1980).
25 From 1971 until 1982, the landfill received approximately 29,000 tons of solid, liquid, and containerized
26 hazardous wastes (LARWQCB 2000). The types of wastes handled included alcohols, solvents, asbestos,
27 caustics, ethylene dichloride, fireworks, grease/oil, drilling muds, contaminated paper and rags, pesticides and
28 pesticide containers, petrochemicals, resins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), miscellaneous chemicals,
29 hospital wastes, cyanides, industrial and plating sludges, tank bottom sediments, and others.
30 On March 22, 1982, the LARWQCB issued an administrative order to the VRSD prohibiting additional
31 disposal of hazardous wastes and liquid wastes and limiting disposal to MSW. On October 21, 1983, the site
32 obtained a SWFP as an MSW disposal site. The permit allowed overfill of the former Class I area with
33 designated wastes and MSW up to the 980-foot elevation contour.
34 At the onset of this disposal activity in 1971, it was generally not required by permit nor was it within the
35 state of the art to place a liner or leachate collector below the waste. Such was the case at the Simi Valley
36 Landfill, where it has been reported that neither a liner nor a leachate collector were installed beneath the
37 Class I area (Converse Ward Davis Dixon 1980).
38 In 1986, a leachate barrier/collection system was installed at the southerly toe of the landfill in the canyon
39 base to collect alluvial flow potentially impacted by the older unlined areas of the landfill. The system
1 consists of the following elements: 1) a subsurface compacted clay barrier keyed into competent bedrock
2 extending across the canyon mouth immediately downslope of the landfill toe; 2) a leachate collection
3 drainage layer, subdrain, and sump installed on the landfill side of the barrier; and 3) a pump, discharge
4 piping, and storage tank to remove and store leachate collected at the toe barrier. The system collects
5 approximately 1,000 to 4,500 gallons of leachate per day, which is treated and used for dust control.
6 In 1990, pursuant to LARWQCB Order Number 90-034, a clay cap was constructed over all parts of the
7 former Class I area that had received waste. A one-foot thick clay cap with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x
8 10-6 centimeters per second (cm/sec) was placed over previously placed cover material throughout the area. A
9 thicker cap was placed in the northern-most part of the former Class I area, consisting of 4 to 5 feet of
10 material with a permeability of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec or less1 which was the regulatory standard at the time. An area
11 of 1.5 acres within the designated Class I disposal area that had not received any waste was lined with a two-
12 foot thick clay liner with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec prior to the placement of Class III waste
13 in that location. Prior to the placement of Class III waste over the former Class I area, the clay cap over the
14 former Class I area was covered with an additional clay liner material and drainage system to collect and
15 remove leachate from under Class III waste placed above the former Class I disposal area. Leachate from
16 these areas drains to a perforated pipe which drains into an approximately four acre area (Cell A). Cell A is
17 lined with a 60-mil high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane over a one-foot thick- composite (clay
18 and geosynthetic) clay base liner material with a permeability of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec. Additionally, Cell A
19 contains a leachate collection and removal system. This provides for leachate collection from MSW placed
20 above the former Class I area (LARWQCB 2000).
21 2.3 Existing Landfill Design and Operation

22 The SVLRC is an existing permitted Class III, non-hazardous MSW landfill owned and operated by WMC.
23 The boundary of the SVLRC, as defined by the CUP-3142-7 issued by the County of Ventura, encompasses
24 297 acres of which 185 acres are used for waste disposal and 112 acres are allocated for buffer area (Figure
25 2.3-1).
26 SVLRC is currently permitted to accept a combined permitted limit of 9,250 tpd which includes a maximum
27 of 3,000 tpd of disposal material and 6,250 tpd of recyclable material. Recycling operations include tipping
28 areas for materials such as green waste, asphalt/concrete, white goods (e.g., refrigerators and stoves), tires,
29 and scrap metal.
30 The existing facilities at the site include an operation and maintenance facility with fuel stations; a scale house
31 and scales; a landfill gas (LFG) flare station; a LFGTE facility; three portable office structures; and a
32 condensate knockout and leachate treatment facility. The site generally operates 7 AM to 4 PM, 312 days per
33 year, but is permitted to operate from 6 AM to 8 PM, 365 days per year. Under the terms of the current CUP-
34 3142-7, the facility is authorized to operate to a fill elevation of 1,118 feet above mean sea level (msl) and to
35 continue to receive waste until the designated fill elevations have been reached or until June 2034, whichever
36 comes first.
1
On June 17, 1993, the SWRCB adopted Resolution No. 93-62, directing each RWQCB to revise the WDRs of each MSW landfill in its
respective region to comply with the federal MSW regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 258 that are more stringent than
California State regulations. To comply with the Resolution, the LARWQCB adopted Order No. 93-062 on September 27, 1993 (LARWQCB
1993).
o n
a ny
C
s
ek
o
Cre
m
ea
la
Br
A
118
n
LEGEND
yo
T:\AI R- PLAN -C ULT UR AL\A PC_ SimiVa lley \Pr oje cts \APC_ Sim i- Fig ur e 2.3 - 1.m x d
an
Existing CUP Boundary

C
ea
Existing Waste Disposal Area

Br
Existing Support/
.
Rd
Ancillary Facilities Area

era
Scale N
d
Ma
0 2000
Feet
Figure 2.3-1. Site Boundaries

1 2.3.1 Phased Fill Plan
2 The waste disposal area at SVLRC is constructed by sequentially excavating areas called cells. A liner system
3 is installed in each new cell to separate waste from the underlying native soil. The liner system, discussed in
4 detail in Section 2.3.4.1, is comprised of seven layers. Waste is accumulated on top of the liner and then
5 compacted with heavy equipment. At the end of each day, bulldozers spread a cover layer of compacted soils
6 or alternative daily cover (ADC) over that day’s waste. As the active cell nears capacity, a new cell is
7 excavated and lined. Once the existing cell reaches capacity it is capped with intermediate cover (Section
8 2.3.2) and the new cell begins receiving waste. The process continues until the permitted disposal area is
9 filled to capacity at which point the entire waste disposal area is brought to final grade and covered with final
10 cover (Sections 2.3.12.1 and 2.3.12.2).
11 As currently permitted, the waste disposal area within SVLRC would be filled in four phases, starting at the
12 north end of the site and finishing at the south end. Each phase would consist of filling excavated cells and
13 excavating and lining subsequent cells as follows:
14 • Phase 1: Fill Cells B1 and B2 and excavate and line Cell B3;
15 • Phase 2: Complete fill, achieve final grade, and landscape Cells B1 through B3. Excavate and line
16 Cell D;
17 • Phase 3: Fill and achieve final grade for Cell D. Excavate and line Cell C; and
18 • Phase 4: Fill and achieve final grade for Cell C.
19 At present, Cells A through B have been completed. Cell D has been excavated, lined, and is being filled. Cell
20 C will be excavated and lined once Cell D nears capacity.
21 2.3.2 Daily and Intermediate Cover
22 Regulations specify that the active face of the landfill (i.e., the working surface of a landfill upon which solid
23 wastes are deposited during the landfill operation) be covered at the end of each working day with at least six
24 inches of compacted soil (daily cover) or equivalent (i.e., ADC). In addition, if a face is to be left for more
25 than 180 days, a layer of intermediate cover at least 12 inches deep, or equivalent, must be placed over the
26 area. At the SVLRC, the active face receives a daily cover of compacted soil or an approved ADC. Various
27 types of ADC materials are approved for use at SVLRC, including geosynthetic tarps, processed green waste,
28 ground C&D, and treated auto shredder waste. Use of approved ADC materials minimizes the amount of soil
29 consumed for daily cover. Daily placement of soil cover or ADC is applied to control vectors (rodents, birds,
30 insects, etc.), prevent nuisance conditions (odors and blowing waste materials), and prevent landfill fires.
31 When no additional waste is scheduled to be placed on an advancing lift within 180 days or some other period
32 prescribed in the WDRs issued by the LARWQCB, the top and side slopes of the lift receive an intermediate
33 cover of 12 inches of compacted soil. The primary goal of the intermediate cover is soil stabilization and
34 visual buffering. In accordance with CUP 3142-7 Condition 102, non-native, non-invasive species (such as
35 barley) can be used for short-term erosion control on temporarily exposed slopes.
36 2.3.3 Drainage and Erosion Control
37 Runoff (rainwater from the landfill surface to surrounding areas) and run-on (rainwater flow to the landfill
38 surface or toe from the surrounding areas) is controlled by various design features. Run-on from areas
39 upgradient of landfilled waste is diverted from the landfill via a perimeter concrete-lined ditch. The perimeter
40 collection system drains to collection points near the landfill toe. Surface runoff from completed landfill
41 surfaces is captured on benches along the face of the landfill and diverted to various collection pipes located
1 below the toe of the site. These collection points in turn discharge into the perimeter collection system on the
2 southern perimeter of the landfill proper. From this collection system, surface water flows through a 78-inch
3 corrugated metal pipe (CMP) under the access roadway. From there, the water is directed under SR-118 in an
4 84-inch CMP and into the Arroyo Simi. Three other small flow discharge points are located in the northeast,
5 southeast, and west portions of the landfill. Drainage to these discharge points accumulates within the CUP
6 boundary, but outside the waste footprint. Permanent landfill drainage facilities are designed to carry 100-year
7 storm runoff volumes as required by Title 27 California Code of Regulations (27 CCR) §20365.
8 A detention/sedimentation basin is located on the property north of SR-118 and south of the SVLRC entrance
9 road. The detention/sedimentation basin was designed to accommodate surface water flows from the facility
10 and allow sediments to settle out prior to off-site discharge. The detention/sedimentation basin is maintained
11 for adequate desilting capacity. During landfill operations, temporary berms and V ditches are placed near
12 active refuse fill areas to control surface water runoff. The temporary berms and V ditches direct surface
13 water around exposed refuse and prevent it from ponding on the refuse fill. Surface water runoff is carried
14 over temporary refuse fill slopes via oversized drains comprised of metal flumes, corrugated metal pipe, ABS
15 plastic pipe, or plastic-lined trenches. Best Management Practices (BMPs) based on the "California
16 Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook" (March 1993) are followed to control temporary drainage.
17 The BMPs used on an as-needed basis include, but are not limited to the following: earth dikes, straw bale
18 dikes, silt fences, temporary swales and culverts, sediment traps and basins, sand bag barriers, riprap drainage
19 swales, and fabric erosion stops.
20 As the phased fill sequence progresses, the landfill surface is contoured to drain runoff to perimeter ditches in
21 order to minimize ponding on the landfill. Permanent drainage structures include, but are not limited to:
22 diversion berms, grass/concrete waterways, concrete perimeter channel, lined waterways and outlets, rock
23 outlet protection, subsurface drains/culverts, permanent detention/sedimentation basin, vegetation
24 management practices, paved parking area, and landscaping. All petroleum tanks that have potential to impact
25 stormwater are inside bermed areas. The bermed areas are designed to contain all of the liquid volume of the
26 largest tank, plus rainfall for a 10-year, 24-hour storm.
27 Vegetation management is used to minimize erosion when possible. As discussed in Section 2.3.2, interim
28 slopes that will not be disturbed for extended periods are planted with temporary non-invasive cover crops such
29 as barley or other suitable species. In accordance with standards and local practices, grass and native shrubbery
30 is planted and maintained to protect finished slopes and the final landfill cover from erosion and soil loss.
31 2.3.4 Leachate Control Provisions
32 The term “leachate” refers to liquids that collect within the landfill. Leachate results from precipitation
33 entering the landfill and from moisture that exists in the waste when it is disposed. Liquid within the waste
34 mass comes into contact with a wide variety of waste materials, some of which may dissolve or diffuse into
35 the liquid as it percolates through the waste. Some of these materials may be toxic or otherwise potentially
36 hazardous even though they are usually present in small concentrations. Leachate escaping from the base of
37 the landfill could eventually contact groundwater and potentially cause contamination. Therefore, leachate
38 control is an essential operating requirement.
39 The composition of leachate varies from landfill to landfill depending on various factors including: local
40 precipitation; age of landfill; types of wastes accepted; degree of decomposition that has occurred; and
41 physical modification of the waste (e.g., shredding). State regulations (27 CCR §20330) require that landfills
42 control leachate migration. Generally, this is accomplished by installing a leachate barrier/collection system.
43 This typically involves a barrier liner system under a leachate collection system. A liner system is generally
44 made from low-permeability soils (e.g., clays) or synthetic materials (e.g., plastic geomembranes). Leachate
45 collection systems are installed above the liner and typically consist of a porous layer of gravel within which a
46 piping system sloped to drain to a central collection point is installed. From the collection point, the leachate
1 is typically withdrawn and treated or otherwise used. Subsequent to treatment, leachate may be sent off-site
2 for disposal at a wastewater treatment plant, used on-site for dust control, or applied back to the landfill.
3 At the SVLRC, leachate is recirculated back to the active landfill areas that are over an engineered HDPE
4 liner. Recirculating leachate maintains a higher moisture content in the waste layers which promotes more
5 rapid decomposition and increases landfill gas generation. The additional gas generated is captured for use in
6 the existing LFGTE generators which provide virtually all of the electric power the facility requires.
7 2.3.4.1 Landfill Liner
8 In accordance with 27 CCR §20330, a new landfill unit must have a liner designed and constructed to contain
9 landfill gas, waste, and leachate. The regulations specify a minimum liner design (prescriptive liner) for a Class
10 III landfill consisting of a composite liner with a lower component of compacted soil and an upper component of
11 a synthetic flexible membrane. (Exceptions are allowed for steep side slopes and for alternative designs
12 approved by the LARWQCB.) The lower compacted soil liner component must be at least two feet thick and
13 have a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec (0.1 foot per year). The upper synthetic flexible
14 membrane component must be at least 40-mils (1/1,000 inch) thick (or at least 60-mils thick if it consists of
15 HDPE and installed in direct and uniform contact with the underlying compacted soil component) .
16 Until December 2009, the LARWQCB had approved the use of both prescriptive and alternative liner designs
17 for use at SVLRC. The floor (bottom) and side slope liners allowed are described as follows:
18 • Floor Liner (prescriptive). The prescriptive floor liner system consists of (from the bottom up) a 24-
19 inch compacted clay liner, a 60-mil HDPE liner, a geotextile, a 12-inch leachate collection and
20 removal system (LCRS) drainage layer, a geotextile, and a 24-inch protective soil layer.
21 • Floor Liner (alternate). The alternative liner design consists of a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) and
22 80-mil HDPE liner. The rest of the liner system (e.g. leachate collection layer) is the same as the
23 prescriptive design.
24 • Side Slope Liner (prescriptive). The proposed side slope liner system consists of (from the bottom
25 up) a GCL, a 60-mil HDPE liner, a geotextile, and a 24-inch protective soil layer.
26 • Side Slope Liner (alternate). The alternative side slope liner design consists of an 80-mil HDPE liner.
27 In many cases, GCLs have become an accepted alternative to the 24-inch compacted clay liner. GCLs
28 generally provide lower hydraulic conductivity than compacted clay liners and are less susceptible to
29 desiccation cracking than compacted clay. GCLs are comprised of a granular sodium bentonite (clay) layer
30 encapsulated between two woven or non-woven geotextiles depending on needed strength. The geotextiles are
31 bonded by either glue or a process called needle punching. In the field, GCL is placed dehydrated (moisture
32 content of approximately 20 percent) and covered with the HDPE layer the same day the GCL is deployed.
33 The bentonite swells as it hydrates (absorbs moisture) from the underlying soils. The confining pressure
34 created by the HDPE layer causes the GCL to create a barrier with very low hydraulic conductivity.
35 Typically, GCLs have a permeability less than 1x10-9 cm/sec and are equal to 2.8 feet of compacted clay with
36 permeability 1x10-7 cm/sec.
37 However, the LARWQCB recently concluded that GCL “would not afford the same protections to groundwater as
38 the prescriptive liner system” (two feet of clay overlaid by HDPE) due to “recently observed deficiencies on GCL
39 at several landfills … and the concerns that certain mechanical and chemical properties of GCL may not be as
40 reliable as a compacted clay liner” (LARWQCB 2009). Therefore, unless the LARWQCB approves an alternative,
41 a prescriptive liner would be necessary in future expansions of the existing landfill. Note that the alternate side
42 slope liner continues to be approved. The currently approved liner design is depicted in Figure 2.3-2.

Source: Golder Associates 2010
Figure 2.3-2. Liner and Leachate Collection & Removal System

1 As noted in Section 2.2.2, portions of the landfill that operated prior to the promulgation of regulations
2 specifying liner designs were unlined. In 1990-91, pursuant to LARWQCB Order No. 90-034, a clay cap was
3 constructed over all parts of the former Class I area that had received waste. MSW may be placed over this
4 area, but only in areas under which a compliant liner system has been installed to ensure that leachate is
5 confined within the landfill.
6 2.3.4.2 Leachate Barrier/Collection and Removal System
7 Leachate is collected in two ways at SVLRC, through a toe barrier system and the LCRS. Leachate collected
8 from the toe barrier system is treated and used as dust control while leachate collected from the LCRS is re-
9 circulated into the landfill. Each of these systems is described in detail below.
10 2.3.4.2.1 Toe Barrier System
11 In 1986, a leachate barrier/collection system was installed at the southerly toe of the landfill in the canyon
12 base to intercept and extract leachate from the canyon alluvium underlying the landfill, thereby preventing
13 potential off-site migration of leachate. The canyon alluvium is considered to be the primary groundwater
14 migration pathway for constituents should a release occur from the landfill. The system consists of the
15 following elements:
16 • A 12-foot thick, subsurface compacted clay barrier keyed a minimum of five feet into bedrock
17 extended across the canyon mouth immediately downslope of the landfill toe;
18 • A leachate collection drainage layer, subdrain, and sump installed on the landfill side of the barrier;
19 and
20 • A pump, discharge piping, and storage tank to remove and store leachate for disposal or treatment for
21 dust control through an activated carbon system.
22 Leachate that flows down-canyon in the alluvium beneath the landfill is intercepted by a 12-inch layer of
23 drain rock placed on the up-canyon side of the barrier. Filter fabric placed beneath and on top of the drainage
24 blanket prevents fine clay and silt particles from filtering into and plugging the drain rock. Fluids intercepted
25 by the drainage blanket are conveyed to a leachate collection trench that contains a four-inch perforated
26 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, surrounded with drain rock and encapsulated with filter fabric. The leachate
27 collection drain carries leachate to a six-foot-diameter precast manhole constructed with a concrete base
28 poured in place. The manhole has a storage capacity of 1,200 gallons below the leachate collection trench
29 discharge flow line.
30 A 12-foot-thick subsurface compacted clay liner, which is keyed at least five feet into the competent bedrock,
31 provides a barrier to down-canyon migration of leachate. A submersible pump is positioned in the manhole
32 with electrical controls set to activate or shut down the pump in accordance with the fluid elevation in the
33 manhole. The pump discharges through a force main to a 500-gallon storage tank positioned adjacent to the
34 manhole. From this tank, the liquids are treated through a series of granulated carbon filters (three units) into
35 two, 5,000-gallon holding tanks. Sampling ports are located at the entrance to the first filter, between each
36 filter, and at the exit location of the third filter. These ports are used to monitor the treated liquid contaminant
37 levels and to evaluate whether organic compounds have broken through the carbon filters. The treated liquid
38 is pumped from the larger tank into a water truck for use as dust control. Use of the treated leachate for dust
39 suppression is authorized by the site’s WDR Order No. 00-092. Prior to use, the liquid must meet all
40 conditions of Provision F of the WDR, which references Maximum Contaminant Levels (22 CCR §64435 and
41 64473).

1 2.3.4.2.2 Leachate Collection and Removal System
2 In 2002, an expansion of SVLRC was approved under CUP-3142 Modification Number 6. The design of this
3 expansion area included a LCRS that would collect leachate in accordance with prescriptive and alternative
4 designs allowed under 27 CCR §20330 (Figures 2.3-2).
5 The prescriptive LCRS is placed over the bottom liner. The design consists of the following elements from
6 bottom to top:
7 • A geotextile (filter fabric) placed over the liner;

8 • A 12-inch drainage layer of permeable material having a (high) hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-2
9 cm/sec, or greater;
10 • A geotextile fabric placed over the drainage layer, designed to prevent overlying material from
11 entering the drainage layer voids; and
12 • A 12-inch layer of soil to separate and protect the drainage layer from displacement by the waste fill;
13 waste is placed over the protective soil.
14 A system of perforated PVC or HDPE pipe is installed within the drainage layer to expedite the collection of
15 leachate that drains from the landfill. Leachate collection sumps are underlain by a composite liner consisting
16 of 60-mil HDPE over a 24-inch clay layer (hydraulic conductivity of 1 X 10-7 cm/sec, or less). This composite
17 liner system provides extra containment protection in areas where leachate would pond. Positioned within and
18 on the perimeter of the landfill, each sump is equipped with a riser pipe extending from the sump to the
19 ground surface. The riser pipes are installed in shallow, lined trenches excavated into the perimeter 2:1 slope
20 or placed directly on the lined 2:1 slope.
21 Leachate collected from the sumps is re-circulated into the landfill at designated liquid injection points (LIPs).
22 These LIPs are located over lined portions of the landfill with a LCRS. Recirculation of leachate for current
23 landfill operations was approved by the LARWQCB in a letter dated December 21, 2001.
24 2.3.5 Waste Delivery and Processing
25 The different types of waste, methods of delivery, processing, and disposal and or reuse of MSW and
26 recyclable materials are discussed below. Table 2.3-1 provides an overview of the tpd of MSW and
27 recyclables received at SVLRC. In each case the waste received is weighed and specific information about its
28 origin documented at the weigh station. In some cases the trucks bringing material in are reloaded and sent
29 outbound with material. For example, some transfer trucks leave the landfill empty after disposing of their
30 waste and then go to the off-site GI Rubbish hauling yard and pick up recyclables. Additionally, some of the
31 trucks picking up processed green waste or commodities from C&D from SVLRC may have brought trash or
32 C&D to SVLRC as an inbound load. However, this only applies to a small percentage of the material
33 currently removed from the site.
Table 2.3-1. Average Tons per Day of MSW and Recyclables Received at SVLRC
Waste Type Tons per Day (tpd) Percent of Total
Municipal Solid Waste 2,521 70.19
Recyclables 1,070 29.81
C&D debris 213 5.94
Greenwaste 233 6.47
Treated Auto Shredder Waste 551 15.35
Inert (concrete, soil, etc.) 73 2.04
Total 3,592 100.00
Source: Derived from WMC 2008a

1 FIGURES REPLACED
2 (Revised liner consists of 2 feet of clay under HDPE base liner – see new Figure 3.3.2)
3 2.3.5.1 Municipal Solid Waste
4 Municipal solid waste is received at SVLRC via four methods: packer trucks, roll-off bins and Instabins
5 (three, four, 10, 25, and 40 yard containers), transfer trucks (20 ton loads), and individual residential or
6 commercial vehicles (passenger cars/trucks). The majority of the MSW is received in packer trucks, which
7 collect from residential, institutional, and commercial generators. Packer trucks hold eight to 10 tons of waste.
8 Transfer stations are a consolidation point for multiple origins of waste. Typically, the transfer stations
9 receive material, sort out the recyclables, and send the residual MSW to SVLRC in a transfer truck.
10 Each load of waste is weighed and specific information about its origin is documented at the weigh station. The
11 waste is then placed into the active disposal area where heavy equipment crushes and compacts the wastes into
12 the disposal cell (Section 2.3.1). This process forms a tightly-packed layer of waste. At the end of each day, a
13 cover layer of compacted soils, tarps, or ADC is placed over that day’s waste. The daily covering keeps the
14 waste in place and discourages scavengers. Currently, SVLRC receives approximately 2,521 tpd of MSW on
15 average (Table 2.3-1).
16 2.3.5.2 Recyclable Material
17 The SVLRC engages in recycling operations that include C&D debris, green wastes, treated auto shredder
18 waste, tires, white goods (e.g., refrigerators and stoves), and scrap metal. These recycling areas include
19 separate tipping areas for each recycled commodity. Currently, SVLRC receives approximately 1,070 tpd of
20 recyclable materials (Table 2.3-1).
21 2.3.5.2.1 C&D Debris
22 The existing C&D recycling facility accepts co-mingled C&D waste. Items accepted include non-hazardous
23 materials such as cardboard, drywall, flooring, roofing materials, tile and windows, dirt, concrete, asphalt and
24 wood/green waste. Bulk loads are weighted, and origin information is documented upon entry to the landfill.
25 Any trash mixed in with the loads is removed, loaded into trucks, weighed, and disposed of in the landfill. Any
26 wood mixed in with the loads is removed, loaded into trucks, weighed, and sent off-site with the green waste
27 discussed in Section 2.3.5.2.2. The remaining C&D material is then processed on-site. Processed C&D material
28 is sent off-site and/or reused on-site.as ADC, which is weighed and accounted for as cover in the landfill.
29 2.3.5.2.2 Green Waste
30 Green waste accepted at SVLRC includes clean wood, dimensional lumber (no painted or treated wood), tree
31 trimmings, grass, and other plant matter. These materials are weighed, and origin information documented
32 upon entry to the landfill. Trucks unload the material in the green waste area. Any trash mixed in with the
33 loads is removed, loaded into trucks, weighed, and disposed of in the landfill. The remaining green waste is
34 processed in a tub grinder. A portion of the processed green waste is used on-site as mulch and/or as ADC.
35 The green waste used as ADC is weighed and accounted for as cover in the landfill. The remaining green
36 waste is transported off-site to local farms and composting facilities or to the Central Valley where it is used
37 as fuel.

1 2.3.5.2.3 Treated Auto Shredder Waste
2 SVLRC accepts treated auto shredder waste which is stockpiled within the active waste disposal area and
3 used as ADC. Treated auto shredder waste is the waste produced at metal shredding facilities large enough to
4 shred an automobile. Treated auto shredder waste consists of glass, fiber, rubber, automobile fluids, dirt, and
5 plastics. These materials are treated to nonhazardous levels using metal fixation treatment technologies prior
6 to delivery to the landfill.
7 2.3.5.2.4 Tires
8 SVLRC typically receives approximately two to three tires per day from local residents. Approximately four
9 roll-off bins per year of tires are sent off-site to Los Angeles County for recycling and/or disposal. Per CUP-
10 3142 condition 64, tires may be stored onsite for up to 120 days. All tires stored for periods exceeding 30
11 days must be stored in covered trailers near the active disposal area. All tires stored for 30 days or less are
12 stored in open roll-off bins. No more than 499 tires are stored at the facility at a given time.
13 2.3.5.2.5 White Goods/Scrap Metal
14 SVLRC typically receives approximately five to seven appliances per week from local residents, all are
15 recycled offsite. A small number of loads of white goods (approximately 12 loads per year) are sent to Los
16 Angeles for recycling.
17 2.3.5.2.6 Inert Material
18 SVLRC received approximately 73 tpd of “inerts” (e.g., clean dirt and clean asphalt/concrete) (Table 2.3-1).
19 The clean dirt can be used as daily cover. In addition, the clean dirt and clean asphalt/concrete are reused to
20 build roads within SVLRC.
21 2.3.6 Utilities
22 2.3.6.1 Water Supply
23 The SVLRC is served by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (which is managed by the City of Simi
24 Valley). District No. 8 is a member of the Calleguas Municipal Water Distric (CMWD). The main source of
25 water for District No. 8 is supplied by CMWD from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
26 (MWD) and the State Water Project (City of Simi Valley 2008). The CMWD is considered a permanent
27 source of water by the County of Ventura (Ventura County 2006).
28 In current operations, approximately 16.3 million gallons of potable water and 11 million gallons of reclaimed
29 water are supplied to SVLRC by CMWD annually. The amount can vary considerably from year to year.
30 Approximately 4 million gallons of potable water is supplied to the off-site GI Rubbish hauling facility
31 annually by CMWD. While this is currently an off-site use, the GI Rubbish operation is proposed to be moved
32 to the SVLRC site as part of the proposed project and this water use would be discontinued at the current GI
33 Rubbish location.
34 2.3.6.2 Domestic Wastewater
35 The SVLRC is not currently connected to a public sewer system. Outdoor portable toilets, which are cleaned
36 out weekly by a sanitary services vendor, are provided for public use. Employees use sanitary facilities in the
37 maintenance building, scale house, and office trailer. An employee shower is also available in the
38 maintenance building. Domestic wastewater generated by the employee sanitary facilities is disposed via an
39 individual sewage disposal system (septic tank) located behind the maintenance facility. The system is
1 operated in compliance with applicable sections of the Ventura County Building Code as enforced by the
2 EHD. In addition, there is a permitted leach field located north of the gas flare station.
3 2.3.6.3 Electricity and Natural Gas
4 SVLRC has no natural gas line connections. The SVLRC currently generates a portion of its own electricity
5 using an on-site LFGTE facility. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides additional electricity when
6 needed via an overhead 16-kilovolt (kV) transmission line to power distribution panels located in the existing
7 maintenance facilities. The facility is part of the SVLRC landfill gas control system and includes two pre-
8 packaged 1.35-megawatt (MW) electrical generation systems. The LFGTE facility maintains the SVLRC on-
9 site load requirement and excess electricity is delivered to SCE when available. Currently, the landfill
10 produces LFG in excess of what can be processed in the existing LFGTE system. This excess landfill gas is
11 incinerated in an on-site flare. In 2009, the facility generated 12.6 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity
12 and consumed 2.6 million kWh.
13 2.3.6.3.1 Landfill Gas to Energy Operation
14 Landfill gas is a by-product of the decomposition processes that occur following burial of organic waste
15 materials. LFG typically contains 30 to 60 percent methane (by volume), up to 45 percent carbon dioxide, and
16 trace amounts of other organic compounds. Rather than allow landfill gas to migrate to the atmosphere, a LFG
17 recovery system is installed in the landfill. In addition to minimizing atmospheric release, collection and
18 utilization of LFG also has the added benefits of limiting subsurface LFG migration from the landfill to off-
19 site areas and being a fuel source for the LFGTE operation.
20 Construction of a LFG recovery collection system was initiated in 1988 and has been expanded periodically
21 as the waste fill was placedwas disposed. The system consists of a network of vertical gas extraction wells,
22 horizontal extraction trenches, collection header pipes, and two flare stations. Gas collected in both the
23 vertical wells and horizontal trenches is extracted using two blowers, one primary and one back up. The LFG
24 is transported to the recovery facility via a common collection header pipe. Moisture accumulating in the
25 header pipe (condensate) is collected at the low point of the collection header piping system and is disposed
26 of through a condensate collection and disposal system in accordance with provisions contained in the WDRs.
27 The gas-recovery equipment was permitted, installed, and operated in accordance with applicable air pollution
28 and noise control requirements. Prior to installation of the LFGTE units, all of the LFG collected in the LFG
29 recovery collection system was burned in the two flares.
30 In 2004 the existing LFGTE facility was constructed at SVLRC. The LFGTE facility uses the energy of LFG
31 that is otherwise lost through flaring to generate electricity and, thereby, reduce reliance on external electricity
32 suppliers as well as to produce excess electricity that can be sold to electricity suppliers for off-site use. LFG
33 in excess of the generating capacity of the LFGTE facility is diverted through the two flares.
34 Incoming gas from the LFG recovery collection system passes through the gas treatment unit to remove
35 practically all moisture and create as dry a fuel as possible. Condensate (liquid that drops out of the gas
36 stream) is collected and conveyed to the condensate collection and disposal system that supports the flare
37 station. This system includes a 1,000 gallon three-phase separator tank, a 1,500 gallon hydrocarbon
38 condensate storage tank, and a 10,000 gallon wastewater storage tank. The treated LFG fuels an internal
39 combustion engine that drives a generator, producing electricity. Electricity (at 4,160 kV) is routed through a
40 switchgear that either: 1) directs it to support on-site loads (stepped down to 480 volt to power blowers,
41 absorption chillers, nearby offices, and other on-site uses); or 2) directs it through a step-up transformer to a
42 power distribution line to a connection with the electrical utility grid.
43 The LFGTE facility operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Each LFGTE generator is
44 removed from service for approximately six to eight hours per year for maintenance. The generators and
1 ancillary equipment is contained within an approximately 90 feet wide by 175 feet long six-foot-high chain
2 link fence with gates to allow personnel and equipment access for maintenance.
3 2.3.7 Environmental Control Measures
4 The SVLRC is required to comply with a variety of plans and programs to reduce the impacts of operation on
5 both the work area and surrounding area as conditions of CUP-3142-7. Programs include, but are not limited
6 to a: groundwater and leachate monitoring program; gas emissions control and monitoring program; wind
7 monitoring program; noise abatement plan; visual impact mitigation program; fire protection program;
8 seismic design; clay and cover availability study; site sign program; noise abatement plan; hazardous waste
9 exclusion program; radioactive waste exclusion program; emergency procedures program; on-site drainage
10 control plan; and stockpile plans. Several of these programs are outlined below.
11 As a part of the routine daily activities, the site supervisor periodically inspects the facility to ensure the
12 operation is in compliance with applicable regulations, especially 27 CCR §20005-20890, and standard
13 operating policies.
14 2.3.7.1 Odors
15 An Odor Control Plan for the SVLRC was approved in May 2003. The Plan contains a description of
16 landfilling procedures used to minimize odor generation, such as daily covering of refuse with ADC, as
17 approved by the EHD and the Planning Division, minimizing the area of the active face, and collection and
18 flaring of landfill gas. The Plan also identifies steps to be taken to mitigate odors in the event of a complaint.
19 In 2000, WMC installed an odor control system in an area along the east CUP boundary perimeter where the
20 topography includes two low points (saddles) in the ridgeline confining the landfill. The odor control system
21 consists of a series of flexible hose lines equipped with fogging/misting nozzles deployed on utility poles up
22 to 30 feet above ground. An odor control product mixed with water is emitted from the nozzles when
23 warranted by landfill operations and wind conditions. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for this
24 product is provided in Appendix A.
25 2.3.7.2 Litter
26 Litter is controlled by compacting and covering the waste daily. Additional preventative measures to
27 minimize litter include the following:
28 • Temporary and permanent fencing to trap windblown materials;

29 • Periodic inspection and cleanup of the site and surrounding area to ensure the ongoing cleanup
30 program is effective in collecting any litter that may have escaped; and
31 • Portable windscreens near the active face during windy weather.
32 2.3.7.3 Dust
33 A Dust Suppression Plan (DSP) was approved by the Planning Division in 2003. The Plan contains a
34 description of procedures used to minimize dust generation including:
35 • All unpaved areas would be watered (or treated with environmentally safe dust control agents) as
36 often as necessary to minimize the amount of fugitive dust that blows off-site.

1 • All inactive areas, including all intermediate slopes, would be covered with processed green waste, or
2 hydroseed, or both, or treated with environmentally safe dust suppressing agents, to minimize dust
3 and erosion.
4 • All but essential site activities and operations would cease during high wind events (i.e., wind speed
5 sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties).
6 • Vehicle speed on all unpaved areas would be limited to no more than 15 miles per hour.
7 Currently, a water truck is used within the SVLRC to wet down internal roads, including temporary
8 unsurfaced disposal cell access routes. This would be continued under the proposed project. Water trucks are
9 filled at one of three existing fill pipes. Two of these fill pipes are connected to the potable water supply
10 system and one fill pipe is connected to the reclaimed wastewater delivery system operated by the City of
11 Simi Valley. SVLRC also uses treated leachate for dust suppression in accordance with State requirements.
12 Leachate is presently collected at the base of SVLRC at an annualized daily average of approximately 2,222
13 gallons per day (Psomas 2007a, b).
14 2.3.7.4 Vectors
15 Vector control is undertaken to prevent propagation, harborage, or attraction of vectors such as flies, rats,
16 field rodents, mosquitoes, wasps, cockroaches, and birds. A vector control program is currently in place as
17 required by the landfill’s existing SWFP. This is accomplished by a combination of methods including
18 placement of daily cover (i.e., compacted soil) and/or ADC (i.e., geosynthetic tarps, processed green waste,
19 ground C&D, and treated auto shredder waste) over the active landfill face at the end of each day. In addition,
20 periodic inspections are conducted to determine levels of various vectors. Uncovered waste can be an
21 attraction for birds, such as crows and gulls. This can become a nuisance because large birds such as these can
22 carry off waste then drop it, causing a litter problem. In addition, nuisance birds are controlled by a variety of
23 noise-making devices and other harassment methods including falcons and owls whose presence discourages
24 other birds.
25 2.3.7.5 Visual
26 A Visual Impact Mitigation Program (VIMP) was approved by the Planning Division in May 2003. The Plan
27 provides a description of how the landfill operations will be effectively screened from the view as seen from
28 SR-118 and surrounding properties. Additionally, it outlines measures to mitigate visual impacts of the refuse
29 column including landscaping on specified refuse column elements throughout the site and the rounding of
30 slopes on the refuse column at changes in slope angles.
31 2.3.8 Administrative Record Keeping
32 Current record keeping procedures are expected to continue throughout the life of the proposed landfill
33 expansion. Detailed records of vehicles accessing the site are maintained and made available for inspection by
34 the Ventura County Resource Management Agency (VCRMA) upon request. This daily log for all incoming
35 vehicles includes the following information: number and type of vehicles; time and date vehicle arrived at
36 facility; load ticket number; load weight; minimum fee vehicles; and vehicles refused entry with loads
37 containing hazardous materials.
38 A report of disposal site records is submitted monthly to the VCRMA in accordance with the requirements of
39 27 CCR §20510. This report, which contains information on waste types and volumes received, is used to
40 forecast the rate of site filling.
41 Similarly, a report containing information on quarterly waste volumes received and results of groundwater
42 quality testing is submitted regularly to the LARWQCB.
1 2.3.9 Staff Training Program
2 Employee-training is required for the personnel involved in the Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program. The
3 training program includes information on the identification, safety measures, and reporting procedures for
4 hazardous material. Retraining occurs on a schedule approved by the Ventura County Planning Director for
5 all new and existing landfill employees.
6 2.3.10 Site Security
7 To prevent unauthorized entry, site control personnel screen customers as they arrive at the site. Only those
8 individuals with legitimate business at the facility are allowed entry. Verbal instructions from the site control
9 personnel, coupled with a series of signs, direct customers to the appropriate disposal area.
10 The site perimeter is fenced in its entirety except where natural barriers preclude access. Gates are provided
11 where necessary. In addition, video cameras monitor the scale, office, and maintenance areas 24 hours per day.
12 2.3.11 Environmental Monitoring
13 The SVLRC is subject to various state and local regulations pertaining to environmental monitoring at the
14 site. Specific monitoring requirements include water quality, landfill gas migration, and air quality.
15 2.3.12 Site Closure
16 The final closure of the SVLRC would be conducted in accordance with federal and state regulatory
17 requirements and in accordance with the facility’s Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan.
18 2.3.12.1 Final Grade
19 The top surface of the SVLRC would have a minimum grade of three percent to provide positive drainage of
20 surface water runoff. The SVLRC final cover side slopes would be constructed at inclinations of no greater
21 than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) and would incorporate 15-foot wide benches every 50 vertical feet. The
22 maximum final cover elevation is proposed to be 1,118 feet above msl.
23 Surface water control features in the form of lined and unlined drainage diversion ditches (V-ditches) would
24 be installed along the benches to intercept surface runoff from native and developed landfill slopes. The
25 diversion ditch would convey surface water runoff to designated low points along each bench where
26 downchute inlet structures would be located. Drainage would be directed from the downchutes to the
27 permanent perimeter channels for conveyance around the landfill footprint to one of the
28 detention/sedimentation basins. The V-ditches could be unlined or lined with erosion control fabric or
29 concrete.
30 2.3.12.2 Final Cover
31 Once the SVLRC reaches final grade, as described in Section 2.3.12.1, a final cover system would be installed
32 in accordance with 27 CCR §21090. The prescriptive standards (minimum requirements) for the final cover
33 are as follows:
34 • Soil Foundation Layer: Two feet of appropriate materials compacted to the maximum density
35 obtainable at optimum moisture content in accordance with accepted civil engineering practice.
36 • Low-Hydraulic-Conductivity Layer: One foot of soil containing no waste or leachate, which is
37 placed on top of the foundation layer and compacted to attain an hydraulic conductivity of either

1 1x10-6 cm/sec (i.e., one foot per year) or less, or equal to the hydraulic conductivity of any bottom
2 liner system or underlying natural geologic materials, whichever is less permeable.
3 • Erosion-Resistant Layer: A vegetative layer consisting of one foot of soil capable of sustaining
4 native, or other suitable, plant growth.
5 State regulations allow engineered alternatives to the Title 27 prescriptive final cover provided that it is
6 consistent with the performance goal of the prescriptive standard and affords equivalent protection against water
7 quality impairment. For the SVLRC, an alternative evapotranspirative final cover has been approved by the
8 LARWQCB under 27 CCR §21090. An evapotranspirative cover (also called a monolithic or an alternative
9 earthen cover) is one in which the cover soil is of sufficient thickness that the annual evaporation of naturally
10 occurring moisture from the cover layer is at least equal to the annual percolation of rainfall through the cover
11 soil. In this way, evapotranspiration (the combination of evaporation from the soil surface and transpiration of
12 moisture to the air by plants growing on the surface) balances rainfall and water does not enter the waste mass
13 beneath the cover. The alternative final cover details are depicted conceptually in Figure 2.3-3.
14 The evapotranspirative final cover would consist (from the waste layer up to the surface) of four to five feet of
15 soil vegetated with native plants. The design of the evapotranspirative cover involves a soil layer sufficiently
16 deep that the percolation of rainwater through the layer would be less than the annual evapotranspiration loss
17 of water to the atmosphere, thereby preventing water from entering the waste mass. An additional one foot of
18 topsoil may be added in certain locations to provide more suitable conditions for plant growth.
19 As outlined in the landfill’s Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan, the final cover must be planted with
20 drought tolerant native vegetation that sustain native wildlife habitats. However, the cover soil layer does not
21 provide adequate soil depth to establish large shrubs and trees. Thus, vegetation would consist predominantly
22 of shallow rooting plants. Deep rooted plants would only be used on the 2:1 fill slopes. Vegetation would be
23 irrigated with a permanent, low-precipitation rate irrigation system during the establishment period (i.e., up to
24 five years after installation). The south- and west-facing slopes may require supplemental irrigation during the
25 summer months because of greater sun exposure.
26 2.3.12.3 Post-Closure Maintenance and Monitoring
27 WMC has an existing Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan to ensure protection of the surrounding
28 environment during the closure period (a minimum of 30 years after the last wastes have been deposited). The
29 Closure Post-Closure Maintenance Plan is part of the landfill’s Joint Technical Document (JTD) prepared in
30 accordance with 27 CCR in support of obtaining a SFWP from the CIWMB and a WDR from the
31 LARWQCB (GeoSyntec Consultants 2002). In general, the inspection program consists of routinely checking
32 for the following:
33 • Evidence of ponded water at any point on the disposal site;

34 • Evidence of erosion and day-lighted (exposed) waste;
35 • Evidence of leachate or water entering or leaving the disposal site;
36 • Evidence of the site facilities needing maintenance, including drainage structures and final cover; and
37 • Corrections of deficiencies found during inspections will be made promptly, in accordance with
38 applicable regulations.
39 Water quality monitoring during the post-closure period would be continued in accordance with the
40 provisions of 27 CCR §20380(d), as formulated by the LARWQCB in the WDRs. Likewise, air quality and
41 subsurface LFG migration monitoring would be performed according to the mandates of the Ventura County
42 Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) and EHD, respectively.

No Scale
Source: Carter, Romanek Landscape Architects, Inc. 2008
Figure 2.3-3. Evapotranspirative Alternative Final Cover Design

1 The front face of the landfill would be landscaped in progressive stages with native vegetation, thus blending
2 with the surrounding countryside. The top of the landfill would be seeded in accordance with the requirements
3 of the updated Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (as part of the JTD) to be submitted to the LEA,
4 the Ventura County EHD. The revegetation requirements must be consistent with CUP-3142-7 Condition 43
5 (VIMP) subject to review and approval by the Planning Director.
6 The closed landfill site will provide 235 acres of open space. WMC would consider various open space uses
7 in coordination with the County, the City of Simi Valley, and other local and regional agencies as appropriate,
8 but retains the right to specify the prospective ultimate use of the site, subject to appropriate entitlements.
9 2.3.12.4 Closure and Post-Closure Fund
10 WMC is required (by Condition 24 of CUP-3142-47) to establish and fund a and site closure letter of credit,
11 pursuant to Ventura County Ordinance No. 3783provide the State of California with a site closure surety
12 bond, to ensure that funds are available to perform landfill closure and post-closure maintenance. WMC
13 established a line of credit surety bond reviewed and monitored by the Ventura County Integrated Waste
14 Management DivisionannuallyPlanning Division.
15 2.3.12.5 Post-Closure Use of the Site
16 After closure, the areas of the SVLRC that contained waste would become vegetated, non-irrigated open
17 space. The site would be revegetated with native drought-tolerant vegetation to stabilize final cover, prevent
18 erosion, and protect public health and safety. The vegetation would be consistent with the evapotranspirative
19 final cover and would blend in with the surrounding landscape. Site structures such as the existing office
20 building, maintenance building, fueling facility, flare station, and parking lot would remain in place following
21 closure to help assist with post-closure maintenance activities.
22 As required by 27 CCR §21190(c), all proposed post-closure land uses of SVLRC, other than non-irrigated
23 open space, shall be submitted to the LEA, LARWQCB, VCAPCD, and local land use agency for review. The
24 LEA must review and approve proposed post-closure land uses if the proposed use involves structures within
25 1,000 feet of the waste disposal area, structures on top of waste, modification of the low permeability layer, or
26 irrigation over waste.
27 2.4 Proposed Project – SVLRC Expansion Project

37 cannot be reduce, recycled, or composted to meet the County’s current and projected waste disposal
39 • Provide a waste disposal and diversion operation that is designed and conducted in a manner that
40 complies with local, state, and federal regulations and plans; protects the natural environment;
41 ensures protection of the public’s health, safety and welfare; and is compatible with the surrounding
42 land uses [General Plan Goal 4.4.1-2 and 4.4.2-5].

3 The proposed project is to expand the SVLRC and is comprised of five main components: 1) expanding the
4 physical limits of the landfill (CUP boundary, landfill footprint, and elevation); 2) extending the operating
5 limits and life of the site (increasing the waste disposal capacity); 3) constructing a support/ancillary facility
6 area; 4) expanding existing and constructing new recycling and resource recovery facilities; and 5) expanding
7 existing and constructing new energy conversion facilities. Each of these project components is discussed in
8 detail in Section 2.4.1.1 through Section 2.4.1.5, respectively.
9 The locations of the proposed CUP and waste footprint boundaries, in relation to the existing boundaries and
10 the layout of the proposed facilities, are provided on Figure 2.4-1. Table 2.4-1 provides an overview of the
11 amount and types of materials proposed to be received. The five project components are discussed in the
12 following sections.
Table 2.4-1. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Landfill Expansion Project
Project Feature Existing Proposed
Total CUP Area - including easements (acres) 297 887
Waste Disposal Footprint (acres) 185 371
Landfill Volume (cubic yards) 43.5 million 123.1 million
Waste Capacity (tons) 29.6 million1 98.5 million2
Permitted Daily Disposal (tons) 3,000 6,0003
Permitted Daily Recyclables (tons) 6,250 3,2503
Total Permitted Daily Volume (tons Disposal & Recyclables) 9,250 9,2503
Site Closure Date per existing CUP 2034 Not Applicable
Est. Closure Date @3,000 tpd Disposal Tonnage 2024 Not Applicable
Est. Site Closure Date @6,000 tpd Not Applicable 2051
Elevation Limit 1,118 1,270 +/- 5ft
Hours of Operation 6:00AM- 8:00PM 6:00AM – 8:00PM
LFG to Energy Generators 2 5
LFG to LNG Facility 0 1
Numbers of Employees 25 400 (incl. GI Rubbish)
127,000
Square Footage of Building Improvements 20,000 (w/consolidated offices
& maint. shop)
Permitted Maximum Daily Vehicle Trips (Roundtrip) 822 1,2974
Source: Psomas 2007a
Notes:
1. From existing SWFP.
2. Capacity derived utilizing 1,600 pounds per cubic yard (0.8 tons per cubic yard) density.
3. Combined disposal of MSW and recyclables would not exceed 9,250 tpd.
4. Includes relocation of GI Waste Hauling Facility to SVLRC from off-site.
13 2.4.1 Expansion Plan Components
14 2.4.1.1 Expansion of the CUP Boundary and Waste Disposal Footprint
15 The SVLRC Expansion Project would enlarge the current CUP boundary by approximately 590 acres to a
16 total of 887 acres (Figure 2.4-1). This expansion would include increasing the existing disposal footprint from
17 185 acres to 371 acres for a net increase of 186 acres. The buffer area around the disposal footprint would be
18 expanded from 112 acres to 516 acres, for a net increase of 404 acres (Table 2.4-2). The buffer area
19 surrounding the disposal footprint would primarily consist of open space area, but may also include access
20 roads, material and equipment storage yards, mitigation areas, recycling facilities and equipment, and
21 drainage structures.
22

LEGEND
Proposed CUP Boundary
Proposed Waste Disposal Area

Grading Limits of
Proposed Expansion
Buffer Area
Proposed Support/
Ancillary Facilities Area )
"
2
)5
"
1
n
n yo )
"
2
a
osC
am
Al )4
"
1
)3
"
1
)
"
2
Brea Creek
1 Entrance
2 Stormwater Detention Basin
"
)
2 )
"
15
3 Proposed Maintenance Shop
)2
"
1 4 Waste Haulyard
T:\AIR - PL A N -C U L TU R A L\A P C _ Si m iVa l le y \P ro j e cts \AP C _ Si m i- Fig u re 2 .4 -2 .m xd
5 Proposed Administrative and

Engineering Offices
6 Proposed Scalehouse and Scales
)0
"
1 )8
" 7 Employee Parking
)1
"
1
8 Proposed Material Recovery Facility/
"
)7 )
"
4
)
"
2 Transfer Facility, SBVCC
)
"
9 )5
" 9 Existing Treated Leachate Storage Tank
118 )
"
6
"
)
3 10 Existing and Proposed LNG
and Cogeneration Facility
)
"
2 11 Gas Recovery Facility and Flare Station
.
Rd
on
12 Existing and Proposed Green Waste

ny
Recycling Facility
er
Ca
Scale )
"
1
N
ad
13 Future Outdoor Learning Area

M
Brea
0 2000 14 Riparian Area

Feet 15 Proposed Leachate Holding Tanks
Figure 2.4-1. Proposed and Existing Site Boundaries and Proposed Site Layout
Table 2.4-2 Current and Proposed Physical Limits of the SVLRC

Physical Limits of the Landfill Existing Proposed Net Increase
Waste Disposal Footprint (acres) 185 371 186
Buffer Area (acres) 112 516 404
Total CUP Area (acres) 297 887 590
1 Under the proposed project the permitted fill elevation would increase from 1,118 feet above msl to
2 approximately 1,270 feet above msl, for a net increase of 152 feet.
3 The expanded area of the landfill would be completed in four phases as shown in Figure 2.4-2. Phase I would
4 include additional fill on the existing landfill area. Phase I would be filled towards the north end of the site
5 and finished at the south/southeast end. Phases II through IV would include filling the remaining area within
6 the expanded waste disposal footprint. Phase II would consist of four cells while Phases III and IV would
7 each consist of three cells.
8 The proposed increase in elevation would be applied gradually as each phase of the landfill is developed. The
9 project would leave the existing natural ridgelines intact from most viewpoints and blend the proposed
10 elevation of the landfill with the adjacent hilltops and ridges, which vary from approximately 1,000 to1,350
11 feet above msl.
12 2.4.1.2 Extension of the Operational Limits and Site Life
13 2.4.1.2.1 Increased Waste Disposal Capacity

14 The proposed project would result in an increased waste disposal capacity for the SVLRC. A summary of the
15 currently permitted capacity, the proposed increased capacity, and the proposed final total capacity that would
16 result from the proposed project is presented in Table 2.4-3. As shown in the table, the proposed fill plan
17 would increase the capacity of SVLRC from its currently permitted 43.5 million cubic yards (cy) of air space
18 and 34.8 million tons of waste, to 123.1 million cy of airspace (an increase of 79.6 million cy) and 98.5
19 million tons of waste (an increase of 63.7 million tons).
20 The proposed project would result in a change in the allocation of material accepted at SVLRC. Currently,
21 SVLRC is permitted to accept a combined limit of 9,250 tpd which includes a maximum of 3,000 tpd of
22 disposal material and 6,250 tpd of recyclable material. The proposed change would allow for an increase in
23 the facility’s receipts of waste for disposal, thereby increasing the number of deliveries that would occur per
24 day. Assuming the additional disposal tonnage is delivered exclusively by transfer trucks averaging 20 tons
25 apiece, there would be an increase of 150 deliveries per day if the full 6,000 tpd of disposal tonnage is
26 received.
Table. 2.4-3. SVLRC Waste Disposal Capacity Summary
Total Airspace Estimated Waste Capacity
Scenario (million cubic yards) (million tons)1
Existing Condition
Current (Used to Date) 23.02 18.4
Remaining Under Current Permit 20.53 16.4
Currently Permitted Totals 43.54 34.8
Proposed Project
Increase Due to Proposed Project 79.6 63.7
Proposed Permitted Totals 123.1 98.5
Sources: Psomas 2007a; Derived from Final Cover Grading Plan, Figure 3.1 of Appendix B (WMC 2007b) and RWQCB Quarterly
Report (WMC 2008)
Notes:
1. Conversion of cubic yards of air space to tons of waste capacity is based on the assumption that waste has a density of 1,600
pounds per cubic yard (0.8 tons per cubic yard) at placement on the active working face.
2. For purposes of this table, the current (used to date) airspace is as of December 31, 2007.
3. Remaining airspace under current SWFP is as of December 31, 2007 as reported by WMC in the Waste Disposal Report for
1st Quarter 2008.
4. Currently permitted total airspace is based on the on the airspace permitted by the existing SWFP.
PHASE II
on
Can
y PHASE III
os
am
Al
Brea Creek
PHASE IV
PHASE I
118 LEGEND
.
Rd
on
Landfill Cell Phases

ny
a
er
Ca
ad
Grading Limits
M
Brea
Scale N
0 2000
Feet
Figure 2.4-2. Phased Development of Waste Footprint within Proposed SVLRC Expansion Project
1 The SVLRC has not generally received as much MSW and recyclable material as it is permitted to receive.
2 SVLRC currently received an average of 2,521 tpd of disposable material and 1,070 tpd of recyclable material
3 (Table 2.3-4). These numbers are considered the baseline conditions for the purpose of estimating changes
4 that would occur with implementation of the project.
5 A summary of the currently permitted and baseline daily waste disposal and recyclables limits and the
6 proposed changes to the permitted limits that would result from the proposed project is presented in Table
7 2.4-4.
Table. 2.4-4. Summary of Current and Proposed Permit Limits for Materials
Received at SVLRC
Currently Permitted Baseline Conditions Proposed Permitted1
(Tons per Day) (Tons Per Day) (Tons per Day)
Disposal 3,000 2,521 6,000
Recyclables 6,250 1,070 3,250
C&D - 213 500
Greenwaste - 233 500
Clean Dirt 73 -
Auto Shredder Waste 551 -
SVECC - - 0.1
MRF/RTF - - 500
Total Volume
(Disposal & Recyclables) 9,250 3,444 9,250
Notes:
1. Combined receipt of disposal and recyclable materials would not exceed 9,250 tpd.
8 Table 2.4-5 provides an overview of the estimated baseline, currently permitted, and proposed site closure
9 dates (end year) for the SVLRC. Under the terms of the existing CUP-3142-7 ,SVLRC is permitted to operate
10 until 2034 or until the facility’s waste capacity of 43.5 million cubic yards of total airspace, as permitted
11 under the facility’s SWFP, has been reached, whichever occurs first. Of that permitted airspace, 20.5 million
12 cubic yards (16.4 million tons) was available when the application for modification of the existing CUP-3142
13 was submitted in 2007 (Waste Management of California (WMC) 2007a).
14 Current average daily receipts (baseline), based on the first quarter of 2008, are 2,521 tons per day. At that
15 rate under the existing permit, the facility would reach its currently permitted capacity in 2027. If receipts
16 were consistently at the fully permitted 3,000 tons per day under the existing permit, the facility would reach
17 its permitted capacity in 2024, consistent with the estimate provided in the CUP modification application. The
18 proposed project is now expected to commence in 2011. From 2007 to 2011, receipts have been limited to no
19 more than 3,000 tons per day. After 2011, permitted receipts would rise to 6,000 tons per day, as indicated for
20 the proposed project in Table 2.4-5. Under that assumption, the facility would reach its permitted capacity in
21 2053. This is two years later than stated in the application which can be attributed to the difference between
22 the originally estimated start date (2009) and the current estimate (2011). Note that it is very unlikely that the
23 facility will begin to receive 6,000 tons per day of waste immediately upon issuance of the CUP modification,
24 especially since it does not typically receive the full permitted 3,000 tons per day currently. Therefore, the
25 actual landfill life under the above assumptions would likely be somewhat longer..

Table 2.4-5 Estimated Operating Life Under Current and Proposed Operations
Available mm Years of
Capacity Rate Tons Start End
Description Comment (million (tpd) per Year2 Operation Year4
3
tons) Year1
Currently Permitted Operations
Current Baseline5 Current average daily 16.4 2,521 0.79 2007 20.9 2027
receipts
Permitted Maximum Permitted
Receipts6 daily receipts 16.4 3,000 0.94 2007 17.5 2024
Proposed Operations
During Prior to new permit 83.0 3,000 0.94 2007 4.0 2011
Permitting7 issuance
8
Start up 2011 After permit issuance 79.3 6,000 1.87 2011 42.3 20539
Notes:
1. At 312 days per year
2. Year in which receipts commence at the receiving rate – the starting year (2007) is the year proposed in the CUP
modification application for consistency with the application materials
3. Years for which receipts would occur at the receiving rate
4. Last year of available capacity at receiving rate and available capacity
5. Assumes receipts continue at current average daily rate (2,521 tpd)
6. Assumes receipts at the fully permitted daily rate (3,000 tpd)
7. Years during which receipts would be limited by the current permit to 3,000 tpd
8. Available capacity after four years of receipts at 3,000 tons per day
9. Note that the original CUP modification application computed the end year as 2051. However, that was based on the
assumption that the full 6,000 tons per day would be received from 2009, which did not occur.
1 2.4.1.3 Support/Ancillary Facilities Area
2 The SVLRC Expansion Project includes the construction and use of several ancillary and support facilities
3 including: a MRF/RTF; a public household hazardous waste collection facility (i.e., the Simi Valley
4 Environmental Collection Center [SVECC]); a waste hauling yard; office facilities; a heavy equipment and
5 vehicle maintenance facility; and new scales and a scalehouse. These facilities would be located on approximately
6 30 acres (designated as the support/ancillary facilities area) within the existing CUP boundary (Figure 2.4-1 and
7 Figure 2.4-3). The buildings associated with these facilities would be constructed to meet at a minimum of the
8 Silver Level under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Green Building Rating
9 System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council. Since the proposed project does not include future post-
10 closure uses of the site, it is assumed that, with the exception of support facilities for closure and post-closure
11 maintenance, these facilities would be removed upon cessation of the landfill and/or transfer operations. These
12 facilities would be constructed on an area of the site that is currently permitted to receive waste.
13 2.4.1.3.1 Material Recovery Facility (MRF)/Recyclables Transfer Facility (RTF)
14 The facilities area would include a MRF/RTF to enhance recycling capabilities for the community. The
15 MRF/RTF would be located on approximately two acres and would be comprised of a 50,000 square foot, 35
16 foot tall building for recycling activities (Figure 2.4-5 and Table 2.4-6). The facility would accommodate the
17 front-end processing of up to 500 tpd of source separated recyclables and/or the transfer of recyclables to off-
18 site locations for further processing. Build-out of the facility to the maximum capacity of 500 tpd would be
19 completed in phases based on the volume of recyclable materials received. The facility would be a partially
20 enclosed structure with concrete tipping floor for initial receipt of recyclable material. Light and heavy
21 equipment including loaders, grapples, and sweepers would be used within the MRF/RTF. Processing of
22 recyclables may include hand and/or mechanized sorting (using conveyor-sort lines, trammels, screens,
23 bailers, etc.) and shipping of processed material for off-site advanced processing/sale. Some pre-sorted
24 recyclables could be immediately reloaded into transfer vehicles without on-site processing, for marketing at
25 off-site facilities. The MRF/RTF would be permitted to operate 365 days per year between 6 AM to 8 PM, but
26 would generally operate from 7 AM to 4 PM 312 days per year.

Table 2.4-6 Dimensions of MRF/RTF

Site Acreage 2
Square footage of building 50,000
Height/Number of Floors 35 feet/ 1 floor
Front end processing of up to 500 tpd of source separated recyclables and/or
Purpose
transfer of recyclables to off-site locations for further processing.
Estimated TPD 500
1 2.4.1.3.2 Waste Hauling Yard Relocation

2 The GI Rubbish refuse hauling operation currently located at 195 West Los Angeles Avenue in Simi Valley
3 1.5 miles from the landfill would be relocated to the SVLRC. Operation of the waste hauling yard would
4 involve 250 refuse vehicles as well as support vehicles and equipment. Relocation of the waste hauling yard
5 would entail construction of new facilities to be shared by hauling and landfill operations including a main
6 office facility and employee parking (Section 2.4.1.3.3) and vehicle maintenance facility (Section 2.4.1.3.4).
7 These facilities would be located on approximately 15 acres within the proposed 30-acre support/ancillary
8 facilities area (Figure 2.4-3 and Table 2.4-7).
Table 2.4-7. Waste Hauling Yard

Site Acreage 15
Square footage of building Share office building and heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance facility.
See description of Office Building (Section 2.4.3.3) and Heavy Equipment and
Height/Number of Floors
Vehicle Maintenance Area (Section 2.4.3.4) for details.
Purpose Operation of waste hauling yard.
9 2.4.1.3.3 Office Building
10 The SVLRC Expansion Project includes the construction of an approximately 25,000 square foot, 32 foot tall,
11 two story, main office building located within the proposed 30-acre facilities area (Figure 2.4-3, Figure 2.4-6,
12 and Table 2.4-8). The main office would accommodate up to approximately 150 staff for the landfill,
13 MRF/RTF, and GI Rubbish. This office building would include staff/management offices, a conference room,
14 a dispatch location, a driver locker/bathroom/shower facility, a customer service area, a break
15 room/lunchroom, and a visitor/environmental education center. The environmental education center would be
16 used for tours and site visits to educate visitors about the landfill, hauling operations, recycling, and
17 renewable energy.
Table 2.4-8. Dimensions of Office Building

Height/number of floors 32 feet/2 floors
Purpose Accommodate up to 150 staff for the SVLRC, the MRF/RTF, and GI Rubbish.
18 2.4.1.3.4 Heavy Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance Facility
19 A heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance facility would be constructed within the proposed 30-acre
20 support/ancillary facilities area (Figure 2.4-3). The heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance building would
21 be approximately 30,000 square feet and 39 feet tall and would consist of enclosed bays, a parts/supplies
22 room, maintenance offices, employee restrooms, and a break room (Figure 2.4-7 and Table 2.4-9). This
23 facility would be used for routine maintenance and repair of the hauling vehicle fleet and heavy equipment
24 associated with operation of the MRF/RTF and the landfill. The heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance
25 facility area would be equipped with a vehicle and equipment wash rack, a paint booth for containers and
26 vehicles, and fueling facilities.

FUTURE
LFG-TO-ENERGY
PLANT AND FUTURE
COGENERATION FUTURE LNG
FACILITIES FACILITY
COMMINGLED
RELOAD TIPPING ENV. COLLECTION CTR
FLOOR
PHASE 1
LEACHATE &
CONDENSATE TIPPING FLOOR
TREATMENT EMPLOYEE FACILITIES
MMRF
(PHASE 2) MRF EMPLOYEE
FACILITIES (PHASE 2)
FLEET PARKING STORMWATER
TREATED 235 SPACES DETENTION
LEACHATE/ MRF EMPLOYEE PARKING BASIN
AREA 2
141 SPACES INCL. 2 ADA
RECYCLED
WATER FUELING AREA
STORAGE FUELING FOR 4
VEHICLES
PROPOSED PROPOSED VEHICLE
EXISTING SCALE HOUSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY
LFG FLARE EXIT INBOUND
& SCALES BYPASS
STATION OUTBOUND
BYPASS
FLEET
ENTRANCE PROPOSED
W/M UTILITY TWO-STORY OFFICE
VEHICLES
EMPLOYEE/VISITOR
PARKING 465 SPACES
INCL. 9 ADA
EMPLOYEE/
VISITOR
ENTRANCE EMPLOYEE
OPEN
SPACE
PACKAGED
LEGEND TREATMENT STORMWATER
PLANT DETENTION
Sewer Manhole BASIN
AREA 1
Sewer
Recycled Water Pipeline Scale
N
Packaged Treatment Plant 0 300
Feet
Effluent Pump Station Source: Psomas 2008
Figure 2.4-3. Site Plan for the Proposed Support/Auxiliary Facilities Area
Table 2.4-9. Dimensions of the Heavy Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance Facility
Height/number of floors 39/2 floors
Routine maintenance and repair of the hauling vehicle fleet and heavy equipment
Purpose
associated with operations of the MRF/RTF and the landfill.
1 2.4.1.3.5 New Entrance Road, Scales, and Scalehouse
2 The existing entrance road would be expanded to accommodate three in-bound queue lanes and one bypass
3 lane within the gates of the SVLRC (Figure 2.4-3). Three in-bound scales and one out bound scale would be
4 constructed as well as a new scale house facility (Figure 2.4-8).
5 2.4.1.3.6 Simi Valley Environmental Collection Center (SVECC)
6 The SVECC facility would provide a location for residents to drop off their household paints, solvents,
7 antifreeze, flammables, and electronic waste. An approximately 750 square foot building adjacent to the
8 MRF/RTF will house the SVECC and contain 2-4 skid-mounted units specified for storage of materials
9 collected from the public (Figure 2.4-3 and 2.4-5). The SVECC would be operated by personnel licensed to
10 properly handle the discarded wastes and insure proper transport to off-site permitted facilities for recycling
11 or disposal of all materials. The operating schedule for this facility is to be determined pending cooperative
12 agreements and funding from involved State and local agencies supporting the SVECC.
13 2.4.1.4 Recycling and Resource Recovery Facilities
14 2.4.1.4.1 Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Recycling
15 The proposed project would include processing of up to 500 tpd for C&D debris recycling. This area would
16 migrate within the waste disposal footprint depending on operational considerations as each phase of the
17 landfill is developed. Vehicles containing construction and demolition materials as defined by Title 14, CCR,
18 §17381(e) would be routed to the C&D debris sorting operation. Recyclable material would be removed by
19 hand or machine for further processing on- or off-site. Residual material meeting the definition of C&D ADC
20 would be ground for use on the active face. Dust control measures would be implemented to manage fugitive
21 dust. Refuse removed from the C&D loads would be disposed of within the landfill working face. Permitted
22 hours of operation would be 6 AM to 8 PM, daily, but the facility would generally operate from 7 AM to 4 PM
23 312 days per year.
24 2.4.1.4.2 Expanded Green Waste Processing Facility
25 The SVLRC Expansion Project would include a 10-acre green waste processing facility (Figure 2.4-3). This
26 facility would receive up to 500 tpd of green material. Most of the processed materials would be removed off-
27 site after chipping. The material that remains on-site would be used for mulch (erosion control) and/or ADC.
28 Dust control would be applied during green waste processing to control fugitive dust. Permitted hours of
29 operation would be 6 AM to 8 PM, daily, but the facility would generally operate from 7 AM to 4 PM. 312 days
30 per year.
31 2.4.1.5 Energy Conversion Facilities
32 2.4.1.5.1 Expanded Landfill Gas-to-Energy (LFGTE) Operations
33 The proposed project includes the installation of up to three additional LFGTE generation systems similar to
34 those currently located at the SVLRC (Figure 2.4-1 and Figure 2.4-3). These systems would use excess
35 landfill gas generated by expanded operations that would otherwise be lost through flaring to generate
1 additional electricity. Electricity generated from these additional systems would be used internally to power
2 new and expanded buildings and facilities with the excess sold to the local utility grid and/or to support a
3 LFGTLNG facility at the SVLRC (Section 2.4.1.5.2). The expanded LFGTE systems would be located
4 adjacent to the existing LFGTE operation and flare station in the southwest portion of the landfill CUP
5 boundary (Figure 2.4-3).
6 The electrical generation systems would operate continuously 24 hours a day, seven days a week with the
7 exception of maintenance activities. Annual maintenance, including cleaning burner tips and flame arrestors,
8 as well as inspecting the refractory and calibrations, would require the flares to be down for a total of six to
9 eight hours throughout the year. The flares (and engines) would also be taken offline periodically
10 (approximately one to 1.5-percent of the time annually).
11 2.4.1.5.2 Landfill Gas to Liquefied Natural Gas (LFGTLNG) Facility
12 The SVLRC Expansion Project includes the construction and operation of a LFGTLNG facility located just
13 north of the existing LFG flare station (Figure 2.4-3). This facility would treat landfill gas to remove impurities,
14 condense the gas to liquid phase by chilling, separate out the natural gas component, and store the gas in
15 cryogenic tanks for use as a transportation fuel to power heavy-duty landfill vehicles including sanitation trucks.
16 FigureThe LFGTLNG facility would produce up to 18,000 gallons of LNG per day. The process is discussed
17 below.
18 Figure 2.4-4 provides a diagram of how LFG is processed to produce energy as well as the relationship
19 between the LFGTE equipment to the flare and to the proposed LFGTLNG facility.
2.4-4 LFG Purification Process Flow
20 Landfill gas typically contains 30 to 60 percent methane (by volume), up to 45 percent carbon dioxide as well
21 as nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, hydrogen sulfides and minor amounts of sulfur and hydrocarbon
22 compounds. Gas compression and cooling processes would be employed to liquefy and separate most of the
23 carbon dioxide gas from the methane gas. The proposed system would use a multiple bed pressure swing
24 adsorption (PSA) system to remove hydrogen sulfide and other impurities from the methane after the
25 compression step. Following contaminant removal, the process would consist of CO2 polishing and removal
26 of nitrogen (N2) and then liquefaction. For use as fuel, LNG generally contains a minimum of 95 percent
27 methane and with not more than 0.5 percent carbon dioxide. Liquid carbon dioxide separated from the LFG
28 may be further purified to provide a high grade, commercially marketable product (dry ice), which would be
29 exported off-site. No more than approximately six truckloads per day would export these by-products off-site.

MRF/RTF SVECC
Source: Psomas 2008
Figure 2.4-5. Rendering of the Material Recovery Facility/Recyclables Transfer Facility

Source: Psomas 2007
Figure 2.4-6. Rendering of Proposed Office Building/Recycling and Resource Recovery Facilities
Source: Psomas 2007
Figure 2.4-7. Rendering of Heavy Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance Facility

Source: Psomas 2007
Figure 2.4-8. Rendering of New Entrance Road, Scales, and Scalehouse

1 LNG would be produced by cooling and condensing the methane gas to approximately -260 degrees
2 Fahrenheit (° F) by exchanging heat with a cryogenic gas. The cryogenic cooling effect would liquefy more
3 than 80 percent of the compressed methane gas. The uncondensed methane contaminated with oxygen and
4 nitrogen gases would be removed. The final LNG product would be stored in four 15,000 gallon cryogenic
5 tanks.
6 An LNG fueling station would be installed at SVLRC to fuel the existing fleet of disposal trucks using LNG.
7 The remainder of the LNG produced would be exported by tanker truck (typically 10,000 gallon capacity
8 trucks) for use off-site. It is anticipated that no more than two truckloads would be exported daily.
9 The LNG production plant is designed to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 52 weeks per year.
10 The LFGTLNG facility would be equipped with advanced data monitoring, tracking, and recording hardware
11 and software.
12 2.4.2 Project Design Features
13 Design parameters described in this section are based on existing designs for the currently permitted operation
14 and conceptual plans for the proposed expansion. Final plans for all aspects of the expansion would be
15 prepared in accordance with applicable permit processes.
16 2.4.2.1 Cover Slopes
17 Fill conditions at SVLRC are dynamic. However, the excavation of native soil would not exceed a 1.5:1
18 (horizontal to vertical) gradient. The base of cell excavations at the perimeter of the landfill footprint would
19 be sloped to ensure proper drainage of surface waters.
20 State Regulations require that once each phase of a landfill reaches final grade it must receive final cover. As
21 required by 27 CCR §21090, final cover slopes shall not be steeper than a horizontal to vertical ratio of
22 1.75:1, and shall have a minimum of one 15-foot-wide bench for every 50 feet of vertical height to minimize
23 erosion potential. As currently proposed, the steepest parts of the final cover slope would be 3:1 with 15-foot-
24 wide benches for every 50 feet of vertical height.
25 2.4.2.2 Stockpiling of Soil for Cover Material
26 The landfill phases and construction sequence have been designed to balance soil excavation and cover soil
27 use to reduce double handling of soil material. Surplus excavated soils would be stockpiled on or near the
28 active landfill face for later use as cover. In addition, a varying amount of cover material would be surplus dirt
29 delivered to the landfill by contractors from local construction projects. With these available sources of soil,
30 no need is anticipated for additional soil to be imported from outside the site.
31 To comply with the requirements for a prescriptive liner, soils suitable for compacting to a permeability of
32 less than 1 X 10-7 cm/sec would need to be excavated and stockpiled separately. A report by Geosyntec
33 [Geosyntec 2010] to assess the clay resources on site concluded that “adequate soil resources exist within the
34 expansion area to use as low permeability (clay) liner material…” provided that it is selectively graded,
35 screened, and/or processed or admixed with bentonite or another suitable material. The report concludes that
36 about 2.5 percent of the planned excavation volume would need to be suitable material to provide a sufficient
37 quantity for a prescriptive liner. A minor number of truckloads may be required to deliver bentonite or
38 another material to augment native soils to meet the permeability standards. The exact number of trips is not
39 known, but expected to average less than one trip per day.

1 FIGURE REPLACED
2 (see renumbered Figure 2.4-4)
3 2.4.2.3 Daily and Intermediate Cover
4 Daily and intermediate cover would remain consistent with existing operations at SVLRC, as discussed in
5 Section 2.3.2. At the close of each day, the working face would receive a daily cover of a minimum of six
6 inches of compacted soil or an approved ADC. When no additional waste is scheduled to be placed on an
7 advancing lift within 180 days or some other period prescribed by the LARWQCB, the top and side slopes of
8 the lift would receive an intermediate cover of 12 inches of compacted soil.
9 2.4.2.4 Drainage and Erosion Control
10 Drainage facilities and erosion control would be implemented consistent with existing operations. No areas
11 outside the proposed CUP boundary would drain onto the site. Run-on from CUP areas upgradient of the
12 landfilled wastes would be diverted from the landfill via the existing perimeter concrete-lined trapezoidal
13 ditch that would be extended to include the proposed expansion area.
14 Surface runoff from completed landfill surfaces would be controlled through the use of stormwater channels
15 and detention/sedimentation basins. Six stormwater detention/sedimentation basins (Figure 2.4-1) would be
16 constructed throughout the SVLRC to handle increased runoff. As required by 27 CCR §20365, the
17 stormwater detention/sedimentation basins would be designed to carry runoff volume generated by a 100-
18 year, 24-hour event. A drainage study would be required for the detailed design of the
19 detention/sedimentation basins. The detention/sedimentation basins would be required to meet the standards
20 of the Watershed Protection District, which is that there must be no increase in peak runoff rate in any storm
21 frequency. The basins must be designed in accordance with the Ventura County Watershed Protection District
22 Hydrology Manual.
23 Stormwater would be carried through a combination of ditches, sediment traps, and slope benches along the face
24 of the landfill to various collection pipes, which in turn would discharge into the perimeter collection system. As
25 discussed in Section 2.3.3, during landfill operations, temporary berms and V ditches would be placed near
26 active refuse fill areas to control surface water runoff. The temporary berms and V ditches would direct surface
27 water around exposed refuse and prevent it from ponding on the refuse fill. Surface water runoff would be
28 carried over temporary refuse fill slopes via oversized drains comprised of metal flumes, corrugated metal pipe,
29 ABS plastic pipe, or plastic-lined trenches. As the phased fill sequence plan progresses, the landfill surface
30 would be contoured to drain runoff to perimeter ditches and minimize ponding on the landfill. The final surface
31 of the landfill would be blanketed with a soil cover system to further minimize stormwater infiltration.
32 Permanent drainage practices would include, but are not limited to: diversion berms; grass/concrete waterways;
33 concrete perimeter channel; lined waterways and outlets; rock outlet protection; subsurface drains/culverts;
34 vegetation management practices; paved parking area; and landscaping.
35 Vegetation management practices would be used to minimize erosion when possible. As discussed in Section
36 2.3.2, intermediate cover would be placed on temporary slopes that would not be disturbed for extended periods.
37 2.4.2.5 Leachate Control Provisions
38 2.4.2.5.1 Landfill Liner

39 New landfill areas must be equipped with liners. Waste disposal areas within the expansion would be
40 designed and constructed in accordance with 27 CCR §20330.
41 The proposed floor (bottom) and side slope liners for the proposed new excavation areas would be as follows:
1 • FigureFloor Liner (prescriptive). The prescriptive floor liner system consists of (from the bottom up)
2 a 24-inch compacted clay liner, a 60-mil HDPE liner, a geotextile, a 12-inch leachate collection and
3 removal system (LCRS) drainage layer, a geotextile, and a 24-inch protective soil layer (Figure 2.3-
4 2).
5 • Side Slope Liner. The proposed side slope liner system, an alternative design approved by the
6 LARWQCB, consists of (from the bottom up) a GCL, an 80-mil HDPE liner, a geotextile, and a 24-
7 inch protective soil layer (Figure 2.3-2). This alternative design has demonstrated equivalency under
8 27 CCR §20080(c) and has been approved by the LARWQCB for use within the existing portions of
9 the SVLRC.
10 2.4.2.5.2 Leachate Collection and Removal

11 New landfill areas must be equipped with a LCRS installed over a base liner. The LCRS design would be
12 consistent with the alternative LCRS design already approved for use at SVLRC. The LCRS consists of the
13 following elements (from bottom to top):
14 • Geotextile: A geotextile (filter fabric) placed over the liner;
15 • Drainage Layer: A 12-inch drainage layer of permeable material having a hydraulic conductivity of 1
16 x 10-2 cm/sec, or greater (usually sorted coarse gravel);
17 • Geotextile: A geotextile fabric placed over the drainage layer, designed to prevent overlying material
18 from entering the drainage layer voids; and
19 • Operations Layer: A minimum 24-inch layer of soil to separate and protect the drainage layer from
20 displacement by the waste fill; waste would be placed over the protective soil.
21 A system of perforated PVC or HDPE pipe would be installed within the drainage layer to facilitate the
22 collection and discharge to sumps of any leachate that drains from the landfill. The sumps would be underlain
23 by a liner as described in Section 2.4.2.5.1. Positioned on the perimeter of the landfill, each sump would be
24 equipped with a riser pipe extending from the sump to the ground surface. The riser pipes would be installed
25 in shallow, lined trenches excavated into the perimeter at a 2:1 slope or placed directly on the lined 2:1 slope.
26 Final sump design parameters would be approved by the LARWQCB.
27 Leachate would be managed in accordance with current methodologies employed at SVLRC. Leachate
28 collected from the sumps would be re-circulated into the landfill at designated LIPs. Subsurface liquids
29 collected from the toe barrier system would be treated using granular activated carbon adsorbing filters prior
30 to use for dust suppression purposes. Two 5,000-gallon leachate holding tanks, in addition to the existing
31 tanks, would be constructed over the life of the project (one associated with Phase II and the other with Phase
32 III). The tanks would be located in the southern and western portions of the expansion area as shown on
33 Figure 2.4-3. The existing WDR would be revised or a new WDR obtained to allow for the use of the treated
34 leachate for dust suppression within the expansion areas. Prior to use, the liquid would meet all conditions of
35 Provision F of the WDR, which references Maximum Contaminant Levels (22 CCR §64435 and §64473).
36 2.4.2.6 Utilities
37 2.4.2.6.1 Water Supply
38 The proposed project is estimated to require an annual water supply of 174 acre feet (AF) (Psomas 2007a)
39 that would be provided by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8. On-site and off-site water distribution
40 facilities would be upgraded to provide required fire flow at a maximum velocity of eight cubic feet per
41 second. The proposed on-site water facilities are illustrated on Figure 2.4-9 and off-site facilities on Figure
42 2.4-10. The off-site facilities would connect to an existing 16-inch pipeline near the SVLRC. Approximately
43 3,000 linear feet of 12-inch pipeline would be installed along View Line Drive. The proposed pipeline would
1 cross Brea Canyon, a Ventura County Watershed Protection District and potential California Department of
2 Fish and Game (CDFG) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional channel, and a
3 permit may be required from the these agencies as well as the LARWQCB for the construction of the
4 improvements.
5 2.4.2.6.2 Domestic Wastewater
6 As part of the proposed SVLRC Expansion Project the existing septic system would be removed and an on-
7 site, self-contained packaged wastewater treatment plant is proposed within the ancillary/support facilities
8 area (Figure 2.4-3). Processing of wastewater at the treatment plant would include: physical separation
9 (primary treatment); biological (secondary treatment); and coagulation, filtration, and disinfection (tertiary
10 treatment). The facility would be permitted by the LARWQCB and would meet the operation and
11 maintenance guidelines required by the California Department of Public Health.
12 Package-type wastewater treatment equipment would be contained in a common rectangle metal tank. Other
13 mechanical and electrical equipment would be located outside the equipment vessel. The plant would be
14 housed either in a building or installed underground. It would be located near the stormwater
15 detention/sedimentation basin or in the employee/visitor parking lot to allow gravity flow from the proposed
16 building facilities to the treatment plant (Figure 2.4-11). Such a wastewater treatment plant is designed to be
17 fully automated, but would be maintained by qualified personnel who would perform required periodic
18 inspection, provide preventative maintenance, and maintain operating records of the plant.
19 The treated effluent from the wastewater treatment plant would be pumped to the leachate storage tanks where
20 it would commingle with treated leachate. The treated effluent would be used for irrigation and/or dust
21 control. There would be no leach field or off-site discharge of domestic waste.
22 2.4.2.6.3 Electricity and Natural Gas
23 SVLRC has no natural gas line connections. Under the proposed project SVLRC would receive natural gas
24 from the LFGTLNG facility. Electricity would continue to be provided either from SCE and/or by the existing
25 and expanded LFGTE facilities as described in Section 2.3.6.3.
26 2.4.3 Construction
29 support/ancillary facilities area (including the MRF/RTF, SVECC, waste hauling yard, office facilities, heavy
30 equipment and vehicle maintenance facility, and new scales and scalehouse). Construction would also include
31 expansion of the existing LFGTE facility and construction of a LFGTLNG facility. The LFGTE units and
32 LFGTLNG plant would be constructed on an as needed basis at a later time. The C&D debris recycling
33 activities and green waste processing operations would occur on the landfill footprint in an area not receiving
34 waste and would migrate from place to place within the landfill as portions are filled to capacity. Construction
35 of additional waste depository space within the landfill proper would also occur within Phase I. Subsequent
36 construction activities would involve the sequential excavation of Phases II through IV of the waste footprint
37 and would include clearing, compacting, and preparing the phase(s) for landfilling.
38 2.4.3.1 Construction Schedule
40 months of project approval (Table 2.4-10).

COMMINGLED
RELOAD TIPPING ENV. COLLECTION CTR
FLOOR
PHASE 1
TIPPING FLOOR
EMPLOYEE FACILITIES
MMRF
STORMWATER
DETENTION
MRF EMPLOYEE PARKING BASIN
141 SPACES INCL. 2 ADA AREA 2

SCALE HOUSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY
& SCALES
PROPOSED
TWO-STORY OFFICE
EMPLOYEE/VISITOR
PARKING 465 SPACES
INCL. 9 ADA
EMPLOYEE/
CONNECT TO PROPOSED VISITOR
ENTRANCE EMPLOYEE
OFF-SITE WATER OPEN
SPACE
PACKAGED
TREATMENT STORMWATER
PLANT DETENTION
BASIN
AREA 1
LEGEND Scale
Water N
0 300
Feet
Fire Hydrant Source: Psomas 2008
Figure 2.4-9. Proposed On-Site Water System

SIMI
VALLEY
LANDFILL
CP
”A
CONNECT TO
16
ON-SITE WATER 10”
PV
d
C
R
12”
ra
de
1190 ZONE TANK
Ma
10” PVC 1.5 MG
CP
”A
16
CP
”A
16
ALTERNATIVE 2
12 1090 ZONE
”
CONNECT TO EXISTING
16-INCH WATER
SR
IN MADERA RD
P
11
CP
8F 12”
16” AC
”A
WY Flower Glen St.
20
20” ACP
16” ACP
12”
W 8” 12” PVC
12 DI ALTERNATIVE 1
P
P
DI
”A
es
1031 ZONE
P Dr
8”
th i
CP
AC er
CONNECT
ll s
Enchanted Way
8” ent
TO EXISTING 1031 ZONE TANK

C
Ct
P
20-INCH WATER
Park
8” ACP
Coc 16” ACP 2.5 MG
AC
P
hran IN MADERA RD
AC
St 20” ACP
20”
16”
12”
CP
12” 1 ACP
FIR 2” AC ay
”A
nted W
EL P Encha 16” ACP
20
INE
P
AC
12 SR 1
”F Rd 18 FW
8”
IRE ra P Y
LIN 12” AC e
d C
P
E Ma 0” A
2
LEGEND
Proposed Water N Scale
Existing Water 0 300
Feet
Water Tank
Source: Psomas 2008
Figure 2.4-10. Proposed Off-Site Water System

ZENON MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY
Z-MOD -S TM
5,000 to 100,000 gpd*
Fully integrated system with biological
processes, membranes, and ancillary
equipment in a single tank
A complete “plug-and-play” design
Maximum capacit for a buried tank
is 40,000 gpd
Can be buried or installed above ground
Compact design minimized construction
costs and plant footprint
Highly automated PLC-controlled operation and cleaning
POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC.

Wastewater Flow
Treatment Process Flow Chart
Backwash
Air
Equalization Tank Aeration Tank Clarifier Tertiary Filter Disinfection
Return Activated Sludge

Discharge
Decant
Sludge Waste Activated Sludge
Sludge to Disposal Holding Tank
INLET BAR SCREEN CONTROL PANEL

SERVICE GRATING
SUPERNATANT
RETURN PIPE SLUDGE DIVERSION
VALVES BLOWER MOTOR
SLUDGE UNITS
HOLDING
ZONE SCUM AIRLIFT
PUMP
SLUDGE AIRLIFT
PUMP
MIXING
BAFFLES
SCUM RETURN LINE
DISINFECTION
AERATION ZONE CONTACT ZONE
DIFFUSER
DROP PIPE
INTERNAL STIFFENERS
CLARIFIER ZONE
Source: Psomas 2008
Figure 2.4-11. On-Site Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plant

1 Phase I of the waste footprint would include additional filling of the existing landfill area. Construction of
2 Phase II would begin as Phase I approaches its design capacity, which has been estimated to take
3 approximately seven to eight years. The construction of each subsequent phase would begin as the previous
4 phase reaches capacity (estimated to take between 12 to 14 years).
Table 2.4-10 Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Estimated Duration (months) Estimated Timeline
Support/Ancillary Facilities Area 18 January 2012 – June 2013
Earthmoving 6 January 2012 – June 2012
Structural Excavation/Backfill 2 July – August 2012
Sitework 5 June – October 2012
Utilities 3 June – September 2012
Concrete 4 September – December 2012
Buildings 4 January – April 2013
Finishes 4 April – June 2013
Mechanical, Electrical, and Plant 4 March – June 2013
Phase I Waste Disposal Area 21 2012
Phase II Waste Disposal Area 82 ~2016 - 20305
Phase III Waste Disposal Area 63 ~2028 - 20446
Phase IV Waste Disposal Area 64 ~2040 - 20516
Notes:
1. Assumes that one cell would be constructed during Phase I.
2. Assumes that four cells would be constructed during Phase II; each cell requiring 60 days for construction.
3. Assumes that three cells would be constructed during Phase III; each cell requiring 60 days for construction.
4. Assumes that three cells would be constructed during Phase IV; each cell requiring 60 days for construction.
5. Assumes that Phase I would reach capacity in seven to eight years
6. Assumes that Phases II through IV would reach capacity in approximately 12 to 14 years.
5 2.4.3.2 Construction Workforce
9 personnel including 18 equipment operators, nine construction personnel, and two managers. Phase II would
10 be comprised of four cells and would require 116 construction personnel. Phases III and IV would each
11 contain three cells and require 87 personnel.
12 2.4.3.3 Construction Equipment
13 Table 2.4-11 identifies the equipment anticipated for construction activities. Equipment would be delivered to
14 and removed from the site for each construction period. A majority of the heavy construction equipment and
15 material would be delivered to the construction site from local contractors’ yards on lowboy trucks or trailers
16 using modern trucks that would be required by WM to be Tier 3 compliant (i.e. to use ultra-low-sulfur fuel).
17 Most construction equipment would require either gasoline or diesel fuel.

Table 2.4-11. Construction Equipment and Estimated Daily Hours of Use

Equipment Type Number Engine Type Horsepower Associated Construction Activity
Support/Ancillary Facilities Area
631 Scrapers 6 Diesel 500 Earthmoving
D-10 Dozer 6 Diesel 700 Earthmoving
D-6 dozer 1 Diesel 140 Earthmoving
Motor Graders 2 Diesel 180 Earthmoving
Compactors 2 Diesel 300 Earthmoving
Water Trucks 1 Diesel 200 Earthmoving
Water Wagon 2 Diesel 330 Earthmoving; structural excavation/backfill; sitework;
site utilities; concrete; metal buildings; finishes
Excavator 2 Diesel 168 Structural excavation/backfill; sitework; site utilities
Support/Ancillary Facilities Area
End-dump Trucks 3 Diesel 370 Structural excavation/backfill; sitework; site utilities
(10 cubic yards)
Compactors 2 Diesel 100 Structural excavation/backfill; sitework; site utilities
Concrete Pump 1 Diesel 350 concrete
Concrete Paving
Machine 1 Diesel 100 Finishes; MEP
Asphalt paving 1 Diesel 75 Concrete
Machine
Concrete Truck 9 Diesel 350 Finishes; MEP
Delivery
Asphalt Truck
Delivery 5 Diesel 350 Concrete
Cranes 2 Diesel 335 Metal buildings; finishes
Personnel Lifts 4 Diesel 30 Metal buildings; finishes
Boom Truck 2 Diesel 215 Site work; site utilities; metal buildings; finishes, MEP
Flat Bed Trucks 5 Diesel 200 Earthmoving; structural excavation/backfill; site work;
site utilities; concrete; metal buildings
Waste Disposal Area Cell1
Scraper Fleet 9 Diesel 500 Cell excavation
Dozers 4 Diesel 700 Cell excavation
Motograders 2 Diesel 180 Cell excavation
Water trucks 2 Diesel 200 Cell excavation
Compactor 1 Diesel 300 Cell excavation
Source: WMC 2008
Note:
1. No cells would be constructed as part of Phase I. Phase II would require construction of four cells. Phase III and Phase
IV would each require three cells. Each cell would require approximately 60 days for construction.
1 2.4.3.4 Construction Traffic
2 A majority of the heavy construction equipment and material would be delivered to SVLRC from local
3 contractors’ yards on lowboy trucks or trailers. Mobile cranes and dump trucks would be driven in as well.
4 Wastes generated from construction would either be hauled within the landfill for disposal or recycling or off-
5 site to local recycling centers. Table 2.4-12 provides an overview of the construction-related vehicle
6 roundtrips anticipated as part of the proposed project.
Table 2.4-12. Construction-Related Total Vehicle Round Trips

Construction of Support/ Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill Total
Ancillary Facilities Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV
Equipment Delivery 57 0 72 54 54 237
Material Delivery 400 0 300 300 300 1,300
Construction Related
Debris1 100 0 100 100 100 400
Source: WMC 2008
Note:
1. These trips are assumed to occur within the landfill.

1 2.4.4 Operation Description
4 additional excavation would begin to occur in new phases, and other heavy equipment operations would occur
5 on the surface of areas surrounding the refuse columns.
6 2.4.4.1 Waste Quantities and Truck Traffic
7 Currently, the SVLRC is permitted for a maximum limit of 822 vehicles per day. Future truck traffic
8 associated with landfill receipts was estimated based on actual trucks recorded at the landfill in the first
9 quarter of 2008 (January through March). Actual total truck trips for the quarter were allocated to an average
10 day by observing that Saturdays typically received 60 percent of the average volume on weekdays. The one
11 Sunday a month the facility is open to the public was ignored as being unrepresentative of actual truck trip
12 generation since virtually all Sunday trips are much smaller household loads and do not occur during weekday
13 traffic periods.
14 Based on the average tons per day received during the first quarter of 2008 and the numbers of trucks
15 associated with each type of waste (municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris, clean dirt,
16 greenwaste, and auto shredder waste representing alternative daily cover) and total tonnage by type, an
17 average truck load was calculated for each waste type for wastes from within Ventura County and wastes
18 from outside the County. The average tons per load differ for waste originating in Ventura County versus
19 waste from outside the County with the average load associated with in-county waste being smaller than those
20 from out-of-county. This can readily be explained by the fact that in-county hauls involve more smaller waste
21 packer trucks delivering waste directly to the landfill whereas out-of-county hauls involve a larger fraction of
22 transfer trucks which have roughly twice or more the capacity of the smaller packer trucks.
23 Using California Department of Finance (CDF) population projections for Ventura County, actual average
24 daily receipts for the first quarter 2008 were projected forward to future years. Based on CDF data, Ventura
25 County waste receipts in all waste types were inflated at a growth rate of 1.7 percent per year to the year 2020
26 and by 1.05 percent per year thereafter based on a projected flattening of the population growth curve in the
27 CDF projections. In the first quarter of 2008, average Ventura County waste represented 1,276 tons per day
28 out of average total receipts of 3,681 tons per day. For future years, the projected Ventura County waste
29 tonnage was deducted from the proposed project’s assumed 9,250 tpd permitted level (6,000 tpd of MSW and
30 3,250 tpd of recyclable or beneficially used materials) to determine the tonnages received from out-of-county
31 sources. Assuming that the maximum tons per day would be received in the future, the balance of the
32 available receipts that would not be used by the projected Ventura County tonnages was allocated to all other
33 sources. Total truck trips were then calculated based on the average tonnage per truck, by waste type and
34 source location (i.e. in-county vs. out-of-county), received in the first quarter of 2008.
35 Average daily truck trips for the first quarter of 2008 were 501vehicles per day. Based on the above projection
36 methodology, future daily trips related solely to landfill operations (that is, not to commuter trips) were
37 calculated to be 1,128 trips per day in 2020 and 1,173 trips per day in 2050. This is larger than the 892
38 vehicles per day projected in Waste Management’s application for modification of the existing CUP-3142 for
39 the proposed project and, therefore, considerably more conservative. The reason for the difference appears to
40 be that the projections in the application assumed a higher tonnage per truck for future truck trips than the
41 above methodology used. However, for the purposes of estimating potential future impacts, the more
42 conservative methodology described above which results in a larger number of truck trips is considered
43 appropriate for a reasonable worst case analysis and is therefore the basis for the following analyses.

Table 2.4-13. Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Permitted,

Baseline and Proposed Vehicle Trips
Land Use TPD or Employees Maximum Daily Round Trips
Vehicle Trips Based on Currently Permitted Daily Tonnage
Waste Material 3,000 425
Recyclable Material 6,250 375
Employees 22 22
Total: 8221
Baseline Vehicle Trips2
Employees 22 22
Total: 523
Estimated Peak Daily Vehicle Trips Based on the Proposed Project Description for 2020
Employees 400 405
Total: 1,533
Net Vehicle Trip Increase from Currently Permitted Vehicle Round Trips: +711
Net Vehicle Trip Increase from Baseline Vehicle Round Trips: +1,010
Notes:
1. Current permit limit for vehicles under CUP-3142-7.
2. Baseline based on data from the 1st Quarter 2008, scaled to annual operations, and divided by actual days of operation.
1 2.4.4.2 Hours of Operation
2 The expanded SVLRC would continue to comply with the currently permitted hours of operation: 6 AM and 8
3 PM, seven days per week, 365 days per year. However, SVLRC is typically closed on New Year’s Day, Easter
4 Sunday, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. The hauling vehicle fleet would be
5 permitted to operate between the hours of 4 AM and 8 PM, seven days per week, 365 days per year with the
6 exception of the holidays listed above. However, current operations occur six days a week plus one Sunday
7 per month effectively totaling 312 days per year. Other activities such as LFG and leachate
8 collection/disposal, equipment and vehicle maintenance, MRF/RTF operations, and compliance tasks would
9 normally occur over a 24 hour period except for periodic maintenance and other downtime.
10 2.4.4.3 Landfill Personnel
11 The proposed project would result in an overall increase of 150 employees. Currently, SVLRC and GI Rubbish
12 employ 250 personnel of which 25 are located at SVLRC and 225 (135 drivers and 90 customer service, shop,
13 support, and management personnel) are located off-site at the existing GI Rubbish hauling facility. Under the
14 proposed project the existing hauling facility would be relocated to the SVLRC and the hauling facility
15 personnel would increase to 350 (225 drivers and 125 customer service/billing staff, shop, support, and
16 management personnel) over the life of the project. Additionally, the landfill personnel would increase to 50
17 personnel. Table 2.4-154 provides an overview of the changes in personnel under the proposed project.
Table 2.4-14. Current and Proposed Landfill Personnel

Current Employees Proposed Employees Total Net Increase of Employees
Landfill Personnel 25 50 +25
Hauling Facility - Drivers 1351 2252 +90
Hauling Facility- Office Personnel 901 1252 +35
Total 250 400 150
Notes:
1. The hauling facility is currently located off-site of the SVLRC. Thus, associated personnel are not currently located at the SVLRC.
2. The hauling facility is proposed to be relocated to the SVLRC. Thus, associated personnel would be relocated to the SVLRC.

1 2.4.4.4 Waste Delivery and Processing
3 trucks for disposal in the landfill and for processing in the MRF/RTF. Each truck would be weighed and
9 bins. Each truck would be weighed and information about its origin documented at the weigh station. The
10 trucks would dispose of their contents at the tipping areas based on the type of commodity they are carrying.
11 To the maximum extent possible, trucks bringing material in would be reloaded and sent outbound with
12 material from the MRF/RTF and resource recovery facility areas. The trucks would be weighed upon leaving
13 the facility.
14 2.4.5 Site Closure
15 The SVLRC expansion area would be closed once the landfill reaches capacity or the facility’s permitted
16 closure date is reached, whichever occurs first. An updated closure plan would be prepared to take into
17 account the revised fill plan, the increased waste disposal capacity, and the extended site life. The closure plan
18 would be submitted to the EHD, the LEA for solid waste disposal facilities in Ventura County, along with the
19 application for revision of the SWFP.
20 2.4.5.1 Final Cover
21 The SVLRC would be filled sequentially in four phases. Once the landfill reaches capacity it would be
22 brought to final grade and the final alternative evapotranspirative cover currently approved under the
23 SVLRC’s Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan would be installed (Geosyntec 2002).
24 2.4.5.2 Post-Closure Maintenance and Monitoring
25 WMC has an existing Post-Closure Maintenance and Monitoring Agreement to ensure protection of the
26 surrounding environment during the closure period (a minimum of 30 years after the last wastes have been
27 deposited). This agreement would be extended to include the proposed project area.
28 2.4.5.3 Closure and Post-Closure Fund
29 In order to ensure that funds are available to perform landfill closure and post-closure maintenance, WMC is
30 required (by Condition 24 of CUP-3142-4) to establish and fund a site closure trust fund aand a line of credit
31 to ensure site closure letter of credit, pursuant to Ventura County Ordinance No. 3783. WMC has established
32 a line of credit reviewed and monitored by the LEA annually.
33 2.4.5.4 Post-Closure Use of the Site
34 As required by 27 CCR §21190(c), all proposed post-closure land uses, other than non-irrigated open space,
35 shall be submitted to the LEA, LARWQCB, VCAPCD, and local land use agency for review. The LEA must
36 review and approve proposed post-closure land uses if the proposed use involves structures within 1,000 feet of
37 the disposal area, structures on top of waste, modification of the low permeability layer, or irrigation over waste.

1 2.5 Measures to Minimize Environmental Impacts

2 The measures presented in Table 2.5-1 are included as part of CUP-3142-7 for the existing SVLRC. Only
3 those measures from CUP-3142-7 that address environmental impact minimization are listed in Table 2.5-1.
4 Note also that CUP-3142-7 contains some duplicate or near-duplicate measures from prior permit
5 modifications. Only the most recently imposed conditions are retained if they are essentially the same as
6 previously imposed conditions. Administrative measures from CUP-3142-7 are not included in the table.
7 Therefore, the numbers are not sequential. These measures are also applicable to the proposed expanded
8 landfill operations. Because WMC is already complying with these measures, the environmental impact
9 assessments in this EIR assume that they would be implemented by WMC for the proposed new project, as
10 well. This has the effect of reducing the number of impacts identified herein that would require mitigation.
11 Each measure in Table 2.5-1, or a modification thereof at the County’s discretion, would be included in the
12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure that these measures, as well as newly required
13 mitigation measures based on the current project proposal, are fully implemented if the project is approved.
Table 2.5-1 Measures to Minimize Environmental Effects
Condition Description
Number
Previous Conditions Superseded:
The conditions that follow shall supersede all previous conditions pertaining to CUP-3142, commencing on
1 the date that Zoning Clearance for Use inauguration of the Landfill Gas-To-Energy Facility is issued pursuant
to Condition No. 2 for Major Modification No. 7 to CUP-3142. The conditions for Modification 7 are a blend
of conditions previously approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 26, 2002 for CUP-3142-6 and
ones that replace or are revised or new additional conditions for Mod. 7.
Commencement and Time Limits of Uses (Revised):
Rights allowed by this permit modification No.7 shall be deemed commenced with the issuance of the Zoning
Clearance for Use Inauguration of The Landfill Gas-To-Energy Facility. Acceptance of wastes, as defined by
Condition 4, Item (a), shall continued to be permitted until:
a. The designated fill elevations in Attachment "A" have been reached; or
b. Thirty (30) years from June 27, 2004 (the 1989 approved permit ending date), whichever comes first.
c. Modification No. 7 is granted until final expiration of June 27, 2034 or until the landfill no longer
produces methane gas for beneficial use for co-generation of electricity.
Permit Modification No. 7 shall automatically expire if any of the following circumstances occur:
5 (1) A Zoning Clearance for Construction of CUP-3142 Modification No. 7 has not been issued within six (6)
months of permit approval. The Planning Director may grant a six (6) month extension during the initial
year period based on a written request by the applicant.
(2) If the use for which it was granted is discontinued for a period of 365 days or more.
All other site maintenance activities, post-closure activities, and their attendant structures, may continue for
thirty (30) -years after the site is deemed "closed" by the Planning Director. "Closure" shall mean that all
closure requirements of the Local Enforcement Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and these
conditions have been met (see Condition 24).
The Planning Director may extend the acceptance of refuse for up to eighteen (18) months beyond the thirty
(30) year limit described above in order to prepare the site for closure, to comply with environmental
protection requirements, or to further the public health, safety or welfare.
CUP Permit Expiration/Renewal:
If the designated fill elevations have not been exceeded but the 30-year refuse acceptance time limit in
Condition 5 is due to expire, the permittee may file a modification to extend this thirty (30) year time limit.
During processing of this extension request, the permittee may continue landfilling activities until this
modification request is acted on and appeals heard, provided:
6 a. The designated fill contours are not exceeded; and
b. A "complete" application and fee, as determined by the Planning Director, has been submitted and
accepted at least 12 months prior to the expiration of the thirty (30) -year landfill time limit of June 27,
2034, providing that full compliance with all conditions has been accomplished and the use authorized by
this permit will remain compatible to the properties in the general area.
c. Failure of the County to notify the permittee of the above dates shall not constitute grounds for
continuance of this Permit after expiration.


Number
Master Development Plan (Revised):
The permittee shall continue to abide by and implement the Master Development Plan (MDP) as submitted by
Waste Management of California, Inc May of 2003 and approved by the Planning Division under
Modification No. 6. The purpose of the MDP is to provide a detailed description of the project as approved,
including construction features, ancillary facilities, and various operational plans and programs necessary to
operate the facility in an environmentally safe and nuisance free manner and mitigate any significant
avoidable environmental impacts identified in the Final Supplemental EIR. The MDP shall be consistent with
the project as approved in this permit, the SWFP, the WDRs, and the County Contract required pursuant to
Ventura County Ordinance No. 4155.
Denial or the imposition of conditions of approval must be based on one or more of the following findings:
A. The MDP as submitted is inconsistent with the above mentioned permit and approvals; or
B. The MDP does not provide for an environmentally safe and nuisance free operation; or
C. The MDP does not feasibly mitigate or avoid the potentially significant environmental impacts identified
in the FSEIR.
At a minimum, the following plans and operational programs shall be included in the MDP:
a. Plan sheets, cross-sections and details depicting typical engineering features of the landfill including the
liner and leachate collection and treatment systems, gas control systems, surface water control structures,
construction phasing, soil stockpile areas and final cover as approved by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and/or the Local Enforcement Agency.
b. Plan sheets showing other on-site ancillary facilities such as entrance facilities, maintenance facilities,
roads, water supply and waste disposal facilities and site access control.
c. Plan sheets showing off-site improvements necessary to the landfill operation, such as transportation,
drainage, water supply, etc.
d. An updated water supply plan describing the improvements to be made to assure adequate potable and
non-potable water for landfill operations, dust control, fire protection, landscaping, human consumption
and hygiene.
e. An updated on-site drainage plan meeting the requirements of the Ventura County Public Works Agency
and the Environmental Health Division. (See Conditions 56 and 57.
f. An updated off-site drainage plan meeting the requirements of the Ventura County Watershed Protection
District. (See Condition 58)
14 g. An updated erosion control plan to minimize erosion and sediment transport associated with excavation
and filling operations.
h. An updated visual impact mitigation program designed to minimize the visual impacts of the site and its
operations on surrounding property owners and to travelers on Route 118. (See Condition 43)
i. An updated fire protection program describing measures to be taken to prevent and fight fires as approved
by the Fire Department. (see Conditions 47, 48 and 72-89)
j. An updated litter and illegal dumping control program. (See Condition 45)
k. An updated hazardous waste exclusion program designed to minimize or prevent the illegal disposal of
hazardous wastes at the site. (See Condition 54)
l. An updated radioactive waste exclusion program designed to minimize or prevent the illegal disposal of
radioactive wastes at the site. (See Condition 55)
m. An updated groundwater and leachate monitoring program which at a minimum meets the requirements of
CCR Title 27, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15 and Condition 37. (See Condition 37).
n. An updated gas emissions control and monitoring programs designed to monitor and mitigate the impacts
of off-site migration of gas emissions from the landfill and its associated facilities. (see Condition 38).
o. An updated wind monitoring program to monitor and record wind speed and direction. (See Condition 42).
p. An updated odor control plan to prevent odors from drifting off-site. (See Condition 42).
q. An updated clay and cover availability study to help assure the on-site availability of an adequate quantity
and quality of suitable materials for use in the liner, cap and as cover. (See Condition 51)
r. An updated site sign plan that establishes the type and location of signs for the landfill. (See Condition
52).
s. An updated noise abatement plan to minimize on-site and off-site impacts from noise. (See Condition 53).
t. An updated emergency procedures program to assure that plans are in place and personnel are trained to
respond to on-site emergencies. (See Condition 56).
u. An updated dust suppression program. (See Condition 44).
v. An updated paleontological mitigation program. (See Condition 50).
w. An updated seismic design report documenting that the landfill elements have been designed to withstand
the maximum probable earthquake. (See Condition 49).


Number
Annual Status Report:
By September 1st of each year beginning in 2003, or other date as approved by the Planning Director, the
permittee shall submit for review and approval to the Planning Director a report in written and graphic form
describing the status of activities at the site. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the following
activities/events, which occurred over the previous year or are expected to occur in the forthcoming year,
unless otherwise specified by the Planning Director:
a. A summary of special occurrences that took place at the site, including but not limited to, those events
listed in California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Section 20510(c). At a minimum, this summary shall
include discovery of hazardous wastes, accidents, complaints, and natural disasters. Detailed Special
Occurrence Logs shall be kept on-site and available for agency inspection and shall include the nature of
the occurrence, the action taken by landfill personnel, the results of the occurrence, if any, and future
corrective/preventative measures.
b. A description of the hazardous waste inspection program for the previous year. Complete documentation
of all such inspections shall be kept on-site and available for agency inspection and shall contain the
information listed in Condition 55, Item (b).
c. A log of the vehicles turned away at the scales. Said log shall include the date of each event, which the
15 vehicle was turned away, the vehicle license number, the owner of the vehicle, and the driver's name.
d. Total number of vehicles, which brought waste to the landfill within the last year.
e. Total tonnage or cubic yards of material deposited at the site.
f. Type and numbers of equipment in use or located at the site.
g. Logs for new water, leachate, and gas wells.
h. Number of employees regularly working at the site.
i. Identification of condition or other permit violations or deficiencies noted by various regulatory authorities
and how they have been, are being, or will be, remedied.
j. A facilities map showing all existing and planned (over the next year) buildings, roads, pipelines,
pumping/processing facilities, etc.
k. A current topographic map showing fill, excavation and natural contours within the permit limits. This
should include an estimate of remaining site life and capacity at the site.
l. Clay/cover availability report with projections of clay use and daily cover needs for the next year and the
resulting change in supply.
m. Landscaping plan showing existing and planned (over the next year) plantings, irrigation systems, etc.
n. A reference master chart or report showing schedules and results of preparation operation, monitoring, and
reporting in all major phases of the facilities, with an emphasis on the activities for the upcoming year.
Permitted Traffic Volume:
23 The amount of traffic generated by the landfill operations approved under Major Modification No. 6 is limited
to a maximum of 822 round trips per day, except for the “free days” as directed by the Agreement for the
Operation and Closure of the Simi Valley Landfill pursuant to County Ordinance 4760.
Compliance with County Ordinance No. 4155 (Revised):
31 The permittee shall at all times comply with the requirements of Ventura County Ordinance 4155 regarding
the operation of solid waste disposal and processing facilities as determined by the Environmental and Energy
Resources Department (EERD now Integrated Waste Management Department [IWMD]).
Days of Operation:
The landfill shall be open for receipt of refuse for at least six hours of every day of the year, except that the
landfill may close for the following days: New Year's, Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day,
33 Thanksgiving, and Christmas except as amended by Permit Adjustment No. 20 – Sunday Closures, which
allows the landfill to close every Sunday, except the third Sunday of each month. Any modifications to this
schedule shall be proposed by the permittee and approved in writing by the Planning Director prior to any
change occurring, except as otherwise provided as part of the Emergency Procedures Plan. (See
Condition 56).
Hours of Operation:
Operations at the landfill shall only occur between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM. For this condition, "operations"
shall include but not be limited to: waste receipt and/or disposal, waste handling and/or cover operations, site
grading and/or excavation, or any other heavy equipment operations on the surface or areas surrounding the
refuse column. Any operations at the landfill site as defined above may occur outside the above hours only
34 upon written approval by the Planning Director. Other activities such as gas and leachate collection/disposal,
equipment maintenance, etc., shall not be limited by this condition, but may be regulated by other conditions
or permits.
In the event that other permits required by the project impose other restrictions on the types of operations or
the hours of operations, the more restrictive requirements shall take precedence.
In the event the landfill is closed unexpectedly for any reason, the permittee shall notify commercial haulers
to the landfill by telephone of said closure as soon after site closure as possible.

Number
Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring Program (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the updated/expanded Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring
Program (GWLMP) as approved by the LARWQCB and kept on file by the Planning Division, which
incorporates the project as approved under Modification No. 6. The purpose of the GWLMP shall be to:
a. Monitor groundwater and leachate quality and movement within the permit boundaries and, if necessary,
outside the permit boundaries.
b. Conduct special studies to explain unexpected results of routine monitoring and/or fill in gaps in the
existing geology/hydrology/groundwater database, if necessary to adequately characterize the site or
monitor impacts of leachate on groundwater quality.
The GWLMP shall include all routine monitoring required in the WDR as issued and periodically updated by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as any additional monitoring required by the Planning
Director. This monitoring program shall monitor groundwater and leachate quality and movement within the
permit boundaries and, if necessary, outside the permit boundaries.
The GWLMP shall include sampling locations, frequency, chemical parameters, and sampling and quality
37 assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. Sampling and analytical procedures shall be designed and
implemented to assure that results obtained are representative of actual water quality conditions at the
sampling location.
The GWLMP shall include protocols for determining under what circumstances additional verification
monitoring or remedial action investigations are warranted. Such additional monitoring or actions may
include resampling, revision of sampling or analytical procedures, revised QA/QC, or use of additional wells
or laboratories.
The GWLMP shall include "points of compliance" wells immediately adjacent to the refuse column on fee
property owned by the permittee. Said "points of compliance" wells shall mean wells at which State
groundwater standards must be met.
The GWLMP shall require at least quarterly reporting of analytical results and an annual summary report.
Deadlines for report submittal shall be the same as those required in the WDRs.
The GWLMP shall contain a provision that within any 12-month period the Planning Director may conduct
tests of up to four samples drawn from groundwater or leachate monitoring wells. Said tests shall be
conducted by a consultant and laboratory selected by the Planning Director and paid for by the permittee. The
specific tests to be conducted shall be determined by the Planning Director.
Gas Emissions Control and Monitoring Program (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the updated/expanded VCAPCD Gas Emissions Program as
submitted by Waste Management, Inc. dated April 2003, which incorporates the project as approved under
Modification No. 6. The purpose of the gas emissions program shall be to reduce landfill gas emissions to, or
close to, the minimum total emissions reasonably possible as determined by the Planning Director in
consultation with the VCAPCD and the permittee. Total emissions shall include emissions from any gas
38 recovery system as well as fugitive emissions from the landfill.
The gas program shall consist of a collection system and a low emissions flare as the primary gas
consumption technology, or other system(s) with comparable emissions rates. Consistent with reasonable
safety considerations, the total system shall be designed and operated so as to collect and consume the
maximum amounts of gas generated at any one time within the viable limits of technology then available as
determined by the Planning Director. (Planning, VCAPCD)
Air Pollution Control District Condition Compliance:
39 The landfill operator shall comply with conditions established by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District in its Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate entitlements. (VCAPCD)
Compliance With County Ordinance 4258 (Revised):
The permittee shall at all times comply with the requirements of Ventura County Ordinance Number 4258
40 regarding the operation of solid waste disposal facilities, commencing with Section 4700 et al 4730 of Article
1 of Chapter 7 of Division 4 of the Ventura County Ordinance Code. (EHD)
Odor Control Plan (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the updated/expanded Odor Control Plan as submitted by Waste
41 Management, Inc. dated May 2003 and approved by the Planning Division, which incorporates the project as
approved under Modification No. 6. The purpose of said plan shall be to prevent odors associated with the
landfill from drifting off-site in concentrations such that they lead to odor complaints from adjacent areas.


Number
Wind Monitoring Program:
The VCAPCD’s Surface Weather Monitoring System at the Atmospheric Profiler Station located at the
landfill will provide ongoing surface meteorological data, wind speed and direction, temperature, and
42 humidity (precipitation measurements may be added as well) to the operator of the landfill as a reciprocal
service for the VCAPCD project being located at the landfill.
Upon revocation or termination of VCAPCD’s weather station at the landfill, the operator of the landfill shall
resume the responsibility of running the wind monitoring program under this condition. Said Program shall
run for as long as landfilling occurs.
Visual Impact Mitigation Program (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the updated/expanded Visual Impact Mitigation Plan (VIMP) as
submitted by Waste Management, Inc. dated May 2003 and approved by the Planning Division, which
incorporates the project as approved under Modification No.6. The VIMP shall have as its purpose to
effectively screen the landfill operations from the view as seen from Route 118 and the surrounding
properties, as well as to mitigate the visual impacts of the refuse column. This program shall be consistent
with the requirements of other appropriate permits and/or regulatory agencies. The mitigation of the visual
impacts of the refuse column shall consider landscaping on specified refuse column elements throughout the
site, and the rounding of slopes on the refuse column at changes in slope angles and consistent with Biology
impacts described under Mitigation Bio-2 – Revegetation Plan.
Landscaping plans of the updated VIMP shall be completed at two levels of detail as follows:
I. Master Concept Plan:
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the updated/expanded) Master Concept Plan (MCP) as submitted
by Waste Management, Inc. dated April 2003 and approved by the Planning Division, which lays out in
general terms the types of plant species, design techniques (i.e., clusters of variable height species planted
across straight lines in the refuse column, etc.) and other considerations to be used with the updated Specific
Landscape Plans (SLP) (Section II below). The MCP should provide typical examples of how the design
techniques will be applied, as well as generalized maps of the landfill showing the areas to be covered by
specific design techniques as well as the individual SLPs. At a minimum, the updated MCP shall include:
a. The mitigation features included in Final SEIR Section 3.8.4 (Visual Mitigation Measures).
b. A phasing schedule for the updated Specific Landscape Plans (Section II below). This phasing shall
include the early planting of fast growing screening vegetation in the areas within the permit boundaries
which are not planned for refuse fill or as excavation areas for cover material, and which would screen the
landfill from surrounding visually sensitive areas. The Planning Director, in consultation with the City of
Simi Valley, shall specify which visually sensitive areas will require screening. Such areas may include,
but are not limited to, the six "visual access locations" shown on Page 3.8-5 of the Final SEIR.
43 c. An evaluation of what specific species of trees and shrubs can grow on top and/or on the slopes of a
landfill column, using only the minimum State requirements for final cover material and thickness
consistent with the requirements of planting for Mitigation under Bio-2 – Revegetation Plan. This
evaluation shall discuss and incorporate any regulatory constraints (i.e., limitations on irrigation, etc.),
which other agencies may place on landscaping planted on the refuse column.
d. Identification of refuse column areas, landscape designs, and planting schedule for portions of the refuse
which will not be disturbed for at least 180 consecutive days. Areas to be shown include slopes that have
reached their final grades (except perhaps for final cover), even if the top of the slope is still to be raised
with refuse fill. The landscaping shall be reasonably considerate of ongoing landfill operations.
e. Policies that those areas which will not be disturbed for at least 180 consecutive days, but which are not at
their final contours (except perhaps for final cover) shall be planted with temporary landscaping, such as a
wildflower and/or grass hydroseed mix, on a planting schedule as approved by the Planning Director.
f. Policies that those areas, including slopes, which are at their final contours (except perhaps for final cover)
at least one year prior to site closure, shall have final cover and permanent, approved landscaping installed
within 180 days of cessation of filling activities in that immediate area.
g. A statement that said the updated MCP shall comply with the Ventura County Guide to Landscape Plans,
as may be updated from time to time, except for those portions of the Guide waived, in writing, by the
Planning Director. Grounds for waiver are limited to those areas of the Guide which would conflict with:
1) the provisions or closure requirements of this or other permits issued for the landfill; and/or 2) any other
policy or technical requirements which may make the Guide requirements incompatible with a landfill.
h. A refuse fill phasing schedule which specifies: 1) filling the north area of the landfill as soon as possible,
consistent with the provisions of this and/or other permits; and 2) when filling the northwest corner, first
create a berm of refuse and/or fill to shield any occupied development from Area E (see FSEIR page 3.8-
5) from the view of the remainder of the fill activities. The purpose of this requirement is to mitigate the
nuisance impacts (visual, noise, odor, etc.) of the landfill operation on potential land uses in Area E.


Number
i. A policy and implementation schedule demonstrating that only non-potable water shall be used for
landscaping and other non-potable uses (i.e., equipment wash down, etc.). This policy may be modified or
waived by the Planning Director upon his written finding that non-potable water is not appropriate on
economic or technical grounds.
II. Specific Landscape Plans
a. Updated Specific Landscape Plans (SLP) shall be developed which specify, at the level of detail required
by the Ventura County Guide to Landscape Plans, the planting details for specific areas within the permit
boundary.
b. Within 120 days of approval of the MDP, SLPs shall be done for the following areas: 1) areas around the
periphery which will not be covered with refuse, or graded for cover; 2) areas which have received their
final amounts of refuse, but which may or may not have received final cover.
Continued landscape maintenance consistent with approved SLPs shall be subject to periodic inspection by
the Planning Director. The permittee shall be required to remedy any defects within a reasonable time period
as specified in writing by the Planning Director.
Additional policies of the VIMP shall state that buildings, outside storage areas, and operation yards shall be
screened from any public street by walls, fences, earth mounds, or landscaping.
All buildings and other structures shall be painted or surfaced as appropriate for the site, subject to approval
by the Planning Director. Said approval shall be through issuance of a Zoning Clearance prior to issuance of
building or other permits for the new entrance facilities. See also Condition 46 for Fire Department
requirements regarding landscaping.
Dust Suppression (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the updated/expanded Dust Suppression Plan (DSP) as submitted
by Waste Management, Inc. dated May 2003 and approved by the Planning Division, which incorporates the
project as approved under Modification No. 6. Said program shall include vegetative ground cover for all
areas of the landfill covered with an intermediate cover layer and shall include the following:
44 1. All unpaved areas will be watered (or treated with environmentally safe dust control agents) as often as
necessary to minimize the amount of fugitive dust that blows off-site.
2. All inactive areas, including all intermediate slopes, will be covered with processed green waste, or
hydroseed, or both, or treated with environmentally safe dust agents, to minimize dust and erosion.
3. All but essential site activities and operations shall cease during high wind events.
4. Vehicle speed on all unpaved areas shall be limited to no more than 15 miles per hour.
Litter/Illegal Dumping Control Program:
At least twice every day the landfill is open to receive refuse, the permittee shall inspect for, and clean up, all
litter and illegal dumping which occurs in, or adjacent to, the landfill access road and Madera Road. Said
litter/illegal dumping program shall be limited to a distance .75 miles from the landfill access road to the east
bound Madera Road off-ramp, starting from the point where the access road crosses the permit boundary.
The permittee shall clean up all wind-blown litter outside the permit boundary as determined to be necessary
by the Planning Director. In order to comply with this paragraph, the permittee shall make all reasonable
efforts to obtain permission from the affected property owners to gain access to their property for purposes of
litter clean up. This paragraph does not apply to any properties to which the permittee is unable to gain such
access. The permittee shall continue to implement a Covered Vehicle Program, which shall impose a fee or
other requirement on every vehicle billed to a commercial account entering the landfill, which does not cover
open loads of refuse. In the event that a fee or other charges is assessed, the disposition of the received funds
shall be subject to the approval of the EERD (now IWMD).
The permittee shall continue the existing approved Covered Vehicle Program as follows:
Covered Vehicle Program:
45 1. Upon the third occurrence, for a particular person or business, of an untarped load coming to the site, the
load shall be turned away.
2. At the discretion of the landfill, uncovered loads not subject to this program will include loads which
contain material too heavy to blow out of a vehicle during conditions which affect the vehicle on the day it
comes to the landfill (i.e., concrete, asphalt, heavy furniture, appliances, material, which is appropriately
bagged or in closed containers and not laying loose in the open vehicle, etc.). Anything obviously loose
such as, but not limited to miscellaneous trash or green waste shall be affected by the Covered Vehicle
Program.
3. The landfill shall maintain a record of loads turned away in the “Loads Turned Away” log book which is
located in the scalehouse. This log shall include the following information: date, customer name, vehicle
type, vehicle license plate number, and type of material. This log will be available for the LEA and
Planning Division review during normal business hours.
4. A notice for tarping shall be posted along the right of the haul road leading to the scalehouse (before the
turnout where the port-o-let is presently located) to make customers aware of the requirement to cover
open refuse loads.

Number
The landfill shall include notice of this program in their annual newspaper advertisement, which runs between
September and October each year. A copy is sent to the Planning Division. (Also see CUP Condition 52. -
Site Sign Program)
Fire Protection Program (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the updated/expanded Fire Protection Program as submitted by
Waste Management, Inc. dated May 2003 and approved by the Fire Department, which incorporates the
project as approved under Modification No. 6. The Fire Protection Program shall describe measures to be
taken to prevent and fight fires.
At a minimum, said fire protection plan shall include the following specific policies and designs:
a. The landfill shall be maintained with a clearance of flammable material for a minimum distance of 150
feet from the periphery of any exposed flammable solid waste.
b. Any structure, building or part of any structure or building located within 150 feet of the periphery of any
exposed flammable solid waste shall also be maintained with a clearance of flammable material for a
minimum of 150 feet from the periphery of the structure or building.
c. The eight-foot-wide firebreak around the CUP boundary shall be regraded at least annually.
d. Sound and living trees may be left standing within the areas required to be cleared of flammable material,
provided the following requirements are met:
1. Wildfire cannot travel into the canopy of any tree left standing.
2. Any tree left standing does not pose a fire safety threat or prevent fire equipment access to and near the
exposed flammable solid waste.
46 3. All dead limbs and all limbs within 10 feet of the ground are removed from any trees left standing.
e. Selected and isolated shrubs may remain within the areas required to be cleared of flammable material is
all dead material is removed and each shrub is trimmed up so that fire cannot travel through the shrub
canopy or pose a fire safety threat.
f. Fire extinguishers shall be installed in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Pamphlet
#10. Time timing of installation and location of the extinguishers shall be subject to the review of the Fire
Chief.
g. Uniform Fire Code Permits shall be obtained for fuel storage and any other process as may require such
permits.
h. All internal combustion engines used in the operation of the dumpsite shall be equipped with approved
spark arrestors.
Said fire protection plan shall also evaluate the need to implement the recommendations in FSEIR
Sections 3.7.2, 3.7.3 and 3.7.4 Impact Analysis, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures.
i. That smoking by permittee’s employees or the public shall be prohibited within the permit boundaries
except in designated areas as approved in writing by the Fire Department and the Planning Director.
j. That prior to issuance of a Building Permit for any combustible construction the permittee shall:
1. Obtain from the water purveyor proof of its ability to supply 500 gallons per minute for two (2) hours;
2. Install one or more approved fire hydrants in locations approved by the Fire Department.
Smoking Prohibited:
Smoking by permittee's employees or the public shall be prohibited within the permit boundaries except in
47 designated areas as approved in writing by the Fire Department and the Planning Director. Smoking is
prohibited within the refuse footprint, on-site structures, and enclosed cab industrial vehicles. (Planning, Fire
Department)
Adequate Fire Flow:
The minimum fire flow required shall be determined as specified by the current adopted edition of the
48 Uniform Fire Code Appendix III-A and adopted Amendments. Given the present plans and information, the
required fire flow is approximately 2,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for a minimum 2
hour duration. The applicant shall verify that the water purveyor can provide the required volume and
duration at the project prior to obtaining a building permit. (Fire Department)
Seismic Design (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the updated seismic design study as submitted by Waste
Management, Inc. dated May 2003 and approved by the Planning Division, which incorporates which
49 incorporates the project as approved under Modification No. 6. The study shall demonstrate that the landfill
refuse column, its drainage features, and operating components and appurtenances (permanent stockpiles, new
buildings, etc.) will withstand a Maximum Probable Earthquake (design earthquake). Design plans shall
include a static and dynamic stability analysis.
Paleontological Mitigation Program (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the updated/expanded Paleontological Mitigation Program as
50 submitted by Waste Management, Inc. dated May 2003 and approved by the Planning Division, which
incorporates the project as approved under Modification No. 6.


Number
Noise Abatement Plan (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the updated/expanded) Noise Abatement Plan as submitted by
Waste Management, Inc. dated May 2003 and approved by the Planning Division, which incorporates the
project as approved under Modification No. 6. Said plan shall include:
a. Landfill Facility Design - Design and operate the landfill facility so as not to exceed County of Ventura or
City of Simi Valley noise standards.
b. Landfill Vehicles - Provide landfill equipment with noise suppressing equipment to minimize noise
generation to the extent necessary to comply with the criteria as set above.
53 c. Worker Protection - Workers at the site shall be required to wear protective equipment that reduces their
noise exposure to levels within OSHA standards.
d. Gas Flare Muffling - Any on-site flares shall be contained in noise-reducing housing which meets the
standards established in Item (a) above.
e. Off-Site Noise Monitoring - The permittee shall conduct off-site noise monitoring as requested by the
Planning Director.
Said plan shall be consistent with the stricter requirements of either; (1) the County of Ventura, or (2) the City
of Simi Valley.
Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the updated/expanded) Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program as
incorporates the project as approved under Modification No. 6. At a minimum, said hazardous waste
exclusion program shall consist of the following:
a. At least one full time employee specifically trained in hazardous materials identification. Said employee
shall be responsible for inspection of incoming refuse loads for hazardous wastes. Said employee shall be
located at the refuse working face and shall inspect all loads as they are delivered. If hazardous wastes are
found, they are to be removed and disposed in accordance with State regulations.
b. When average daily refuse tonnages are less than 2,000 tons per day, the hazardous waste trained
employee shall randomly select at least five trucks per week for detailed inspection of the contents for
54 hazardous material. When the average daily tonnage exceeds 2,000 tons per day, then ten trucks per week
shall be randomly inspected. Logs of these inspections shall be made available as requested by the
Planning Director, which show the time and date of each inspection, the license number and company
name of the truck inspected, and the results of each inspection.
c. A procedure shall be developed of record keeping, warnings, and notification of appropriate agencies
and/or prohibition of access to the landfill for hauling companies or individuals, which bring in hazardous
wastes to the site.
d. At least twice a year the permittee shall send to all commercial accounts at the landfill a description of the
landfill hazardous waste monitoring program as well as a description of the penalties, if any, associated
with the program.
e. The formal employee-training program shall include information on the identification, safety measures,
and reporting procedures for hazardous material. This information should be re-emphasized on a schedule
approved by the Planning Director for all new and existing landfill employees.
Radioactive Waste Exclusion Program (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the (updated/expanded) Radioactive Waste Exclusion Program as
55 incorporates the project as approved under Modification No. 6. Said program shall have as its purpose the
prevention of significant quantities of radioactive materials from being buried at the landfill, as well as the
identification of the people and/or companies attempting to enter the landfill with such material.
Emergency Procedures Program (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the (updated/expanded) Emergency Procedures Program as
submitted by Waste Management, Inc. dated April 2003 and approved by the Environmental Health
56 Department of the County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency, which incorporates the project as
approved under Modification No. 6. At a minimum, said Emergency Procedures Program shall evaluate the
need to include those measures specified in FSEIR Sections 3.7.2, 3.7.3 and 3.7.4 (Public Safety Mitigation
Measures). (Environmental Health, Fire)
On-Site Drainage Plan (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the (updated/expanded) On-site Drainage Plan as submitted by
Waste Management, Inc. dated April 2003 and approved by the Environmental Health Department of the
County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency, which incorporates the project as approved under
57 Modification No. 6. The plan is to be submitted no later than June 30 of each year.
The plan shall include, but need not be limited to:
1. Map of site (of appropriate scale).
2. Water run-on control systems.

Number
3. Water run-off control systems.
4. Locations and sizes of berms, detention/sedimentation basins, ditches, lined and unlined channels,
culverts, sediment barriers, and control fences.
5. Section drawings of typical berms, ditches, channels, etc.
6. Direction of water sheet flow.
7. Designated location of wet weather area and wet weather cover stockpile. (Environmental Health)
Public Works Drainage Program:
Within 120 days of issuance of Zoning Clearance No. 1, the permittee shall submit for review and approval to
theVCPWA an updated or expanded landfill drainage program to incorporate the project as approved under
Modification No. 6. At a minimum, said drainage program shall include: a) existing and projected peak
runoff calculations as may be required by the PWA; and b) the design, timing of installation, and maintenance
58 of all the facilities as shown on the plan. Said program shall address the need for, and feasibility of, potential
facilities including those listed in FSEIR Section 3.4.4 (Drainage Mitigation Measures) and other facilities as
may be specified by the VCPWA. In said drainage plan the overall design of streets, storm drainage and other
works shall not allow inundation of building pads and shall provide freedom from flood damage to structures
in a 100-year storm. In addition, interim drainage facilities (pending completion of downstream facilities)
shall result in no increase in peak runoff from a 10-year storm. (Public Works)
Internal Access Roads:
All access roads to the refuse working face shall:
a. Provide safe and continuous access to the working face.
b. Provide a minimum of 30 feet of graded width.
c. Provide dust control as specified in these conditions.
d. Support all refuse and emergency vehicles.
The permanent peripheral access road system shall be at least 24 feet wide, paved with asphalt, and contain at
59 least four foot shoulders.
Both the access roads and the peripheral road shall have the following characteristics:
a. Shall have not less than 13' 6" of vertical clearance.
b. Shall have not less than 10' of horizontal clearance from each edge of the road travelway.
c. Shall not exceed a 10 percent grade.
d. Shall have a minimum centerline turning radius of 30 feet.
The specific design parameters, materials, and cross-sections of the roads shall be approved by the Planning
Director and the Public Works Agency prior to construction of the roads. (Planning, Public Works)
Stockpile Plans:
Upon approval by the Planning Director, temporary stockpiles can be placed above final refuse fill contours
provided that the temporary stockpiles do not exceed the highest permitted fill elevation by more than ten feet.
60 Stockpiles in excess of 50,000 cubic yards shall require a stockpile plan, which would take into consideration
drainage, erosion, and visual impacts and shall be approved by the Planning Director. The Planning Director
shall review and approve the locations, contours, and timing of soil or clay stockpiles over 50,000 cubic yards
prior to their construction.
Cultural Resources:
61 In the event that human remains or other cultural resources are found, all work in the immediate vicinity shall
cease and the Planning Director shall be notified.
Limitations on Specific Materials to be Received and Stockpiled at the RRA:
All incoming and outgoing green waste stored at the Resource Recovery Area (RRA) shall be chipped and
stored on the 200 by 250 foot asphalt pad shown in Exhibit "A-1" dated January 24, 1995. This exhibit
supersedes all previous maps of the RRA.
All drainage from the RRA area, including the asphalt pad, shall drain into the existing detention/
sedimentation basin shown on Exhibit "A-1". The total amount of materials to be received and stockpiled
at the RRA at any one time shall be limited to the following:
63 Material Quantity
a. Concrete/asphalt 40,000 cu. yd.
b. Wood waste/green waste and
shredded wood 50,000 sq. ft.
c. White goods, scrap metal (see Condition 80)
d. Tires (see Condition 80)
Pursuant to the above Permit Adjustment No. 19, the above changes apply to Condition 63.
Nuisance Prohibited (Revised):
No noise, dust or odors from the operations approved by Modification No. 6 shall escape beyond the boundaries
65 of CUP-3142 such that they cause a nuisance to nearby land uses. Compliance with this condition shall be
determined by the Planning Director. Any such compliance determination shall in no way affect any similar
compliance determinations made by other agencies or divisions, including the VCAPCD and/or the LEA.

Number
Compliance with Facility Permit:
67 The design and operation of the resource recovery area program shall be in compliance with the Solid Waste
Facility Permit as issued by the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). (EHD)
Required Reports
Required reports, which are deemed necessary to comply with County ordinance, the California Integrated
Waste Management Act, or any applicable laws and regulations, or subsequent laws, and regulations, shall be
electronically submitted to the Ventura County Integrated Waste Management Division (IWMD) unless
68 another form of submission is requested. Required reports shall be delivered to the IWMD according to the
following schedule:
1. Monthly reports are due within 15 days of the close of the previous month.
2. Quarterly reports are due no more than 45 days after the close of the previous quarter.
3. Annual reports are due by February 1st of each calendar year.
Requirements to Obtain VCAPCD Permits (Revised):
69 The permittee shall obtain APCD permits, including Authority to Construct permits, Permits to Operate, and
Part 70 Permits, for facility equipment as necessary. Required permits shall be obtained prior to the
installation or operation of the subject equipment. (VCAPCD)
VCAPCD Rules and Regulations (Revised):
70 The permittee shall comply with any and all applicable Rules and Regulations of the VCAPCD. Such rules
shall include, but not be limited to, Solid Waste Disposal Sites; Rule 74.17.1 – Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills; Rule 33- Part 70 Permits; Rule 50 – Opacity; and Rule 51 – Nuisance.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan/Notice of Intent (Revised):
The permittee shall abide by and adhere to the Notice of Intent (NOI) and the required Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as submitted by Waste Management, Inc. dated June 2002, to the Ventura County
71 Watershed Protection District, Water Quality Section and the Planning Division for review, which
incorporates. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of the subject business is required to file under the
SWRCB Water Quality Order No 97-03-DWQ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit No. CA000001. (Public Works Agency, Watershed Protection District)
MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-2 DIESEL RETROFIT:
All existing diesel-fueled engines and vehicles used at the landfill shall be evaluated, and wherever feasible,
retrofitted with state-of-the-art catalyzed diesel particulate filters. Vehicles and engines so retrofitted shall be
required to use very low-sulfur fuel to prevent fouling of the catalyst and clogging of the filters. (Note:
94 “Feasible” means “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors” [California Code of
Regulations §15364]. As lead agency, the VCAPCD would be responsible for determining the feasibility of
this mitigation measure.)
MITIGATION MEASURE PH-1 REMEDIATION OF SOIL CONTAMINATION:
In the event that contaminated soil or underground piping or other oil field infrastructure is uncovered during
grading or excavation, all work must cease until appropriate site assessment and remediation efforts are
completed. Typically, soil contamination associated with a former producing oil field is assessed and
remediated by completing the following, which would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with
on-site oilfield waste to less than significant:
a. Conduct a modified Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA), which would consist of a historical
review of oil field operations on the site to determine the locations of former potential sumps, tanks,
pipelines, and processing equipment;
b. Conduct a Phase II ESA, which would consist of subsurface sampling in areas of potential contamination,
97 as identified in the Phase I ESA; and
c. Excavate the contaminated soil in applicable areas identified in the Phase II ESA, and dispose the soil at a
facility permitted for disposal of such waste. Alternatively, the contaminated soil may be remediated in-
situ (i.e., in-place) through various methods.
d. Implement the following actions to protect the abandoned oil well in the northeast corner of the site:
e. Accurately locate the abandoned oil well through surveying, and post a well marker visible to equipment
operators.
Complete grading and excavations in the vicinity of the abandoned oil well in accordance with the California
Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Construction Project
Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedures, which includes providing future access to the well for
possible reabandonment activities. In accordance with these procedures, the DOGGR would decide whether
the well requires additional abandonment work.


Number
MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2 REVEGETATION PLAN:
A Revegetation Plan shall be developed and implemented to address losses of native habitats through
revegetation efforts that emphasize native species. The plan, which shall be subject to review and approval by
the Ventura County Planning Division prior to its implementation, shall include the following:
• The plan shall address seeding and planting of intermediate slopes, permanent slopes, and closed portions
of the landfill. Intermediate slopes may be seeded or planted with non-native, non-invasive species.
Permanent slopes and closed portions of the landfill shall be seeded and planted with native species with
the goal of recreating viable native habitats over time.
• Native plants and seed stock shall be locally collected (from the Simi Valley area) to maintain the genetic
integrity of the local flora. An attempt shall be made to restore some of the existing native plant diversity
102 by specifically including some of the less common native species (such as Catalina mariposa lily)
currently found on the site.
• Non-native, non-invasive species may be used for short-term erosion control (such as barley on
temporarily denuded slopes) or for long-term visual mitigation as specified in the Visual Impact
Mitigation Program (CUP Condition 51). Where invasive species have been used in the past, they will be
maintained. If planted invasive species die or are removed, replacement plantings will be of non-invasive
species. The plan shall address maintenance and reduction of non-native invasive plant species. The non-
native plants/escaped exotics listed in the Ventura County Landscape Design Criteria (Ventura County
RMA 1992) shall be targeted as undesirable plants. The goal is not to achieve complete eradication, but
rather to reduce the likelihood that non-native invasive species will escape into adjacent areas and to
reduce their presence at the landfill site.
Compliance with Simi Valley Landfill Gas Royalties Agreement (EERD [now IWMD])
At all times the permittee shall comply with provisions set forth in the Simi Valley Landfill Gas Royalties
115 Agreement as approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003, and may be amended from time to
time. Any non-compliance of the Simi Valley Landfill Gas Royalties Agreement shall be deemed to be a
violation of the Conditional Use Permit.
116 Access Road Width--An on-site access road width of 25 feet and off-street parking shall be provided.
Turnarounds--Approved turnaround areas for fire apparatus shall be provided when dead-end Fire
117 Department access roads / driveways exceed 150 feet. Turnaround areas shall not exceed a five percent cross
slope in any direction and shall be located within 150 feet on the end of the access road / driveway.
Hydrant Location Markers--Prior to occupancy of any structure, blue reflective hydrant location markers
118 shall be placed on the access roads in accordance with Fire District standards. If the final asphalt cap is not in
place at time of occupancy, hydrant location markers shall still be installed and shall be replaced when the
final asphalt cap is completed.
Hazard Abatement--All grass or brush exposing any structure(s) to fire hazards shall be cleared for a
119 distance of 100 feet prior to construction of any structure and shall be maintained in accordance with VCFPD
Ordinance.
120 Spark Arrester--Spark arresters shall be installed and maintained on all internal combustion engines.
Prior to installation, an Authority to Construct must be issued by the VCAPCD. Additionally, prior to
operation, a temporary Permit to Operate must be issued by VCAPCD. Demonstration of compliance with the
121 following VCAPCD rules shall be required during the Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate
application process: Rule 26 (New Source Review), Rule 74.9 (Stationary Internal Combustion Engines),
74.17.1 (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) and Rule 51 (Nuisance).
122 The applicant shall submit an application to VCAPCD to modify their Part 70 permit to include the landfill
gas to energy facility (See VCAPCD Rule 33 for details).
1 2.6 Intended Uses
2 The EIR and other studies related to the proposed project will provide information necessary for the County
3 of Ventura to consider approval of the project. In accordance with CEQA, the purpose of this EIR is to inform
4 the County, which is serving as lead agency, of the potentially significant environmental impacts resulting
5 from implementation of the proposed project, alternatives to the project, and mitigation measures that may
6 reduce or avoid any identified significant environmental effects. This EIR would also be used as an
7 informational document by public agencies in connection with any approval or permit necessary for the
8 construction or operation of the project.

1 The following are the lead and responsible agencies that are expected to exercise decisionmaking authority
2 over the project and the necessary and the discretionary permit(s), or other approvals, required for the
3 proposed project.
4 • Ventura County— Ventura County Planning Division Lead is the lead agency, and has principal
5 responsibility for approving the proposed project and for implementation of CEQA. It is responsible
6 for reviewing CUP major modification applications and proposals to modify the existing facility
7 pursuant to such conditional permit to implement County policies.
8 o Conditional Use Permit (CUP-3142-7) establishes conditions that govern all aspects of the use of
9 the site. CUP-3142-7 Condition No. 19 requires the Planning Director to conduct a condition
10 compliance review approximately every 5 years. In order to expand the landfill operations and
11 extend the duration of operations, a major modification of the existing CUP-3142-7 is required.
12 Compliance with CUP-3142-7 dictates that operations at the SVLRC must comply with all
13 regulatory standards for waste handling and disposal.
14 o Ventura County Environmental Health Division (EHD)—EHD acts as the Local Enforcement
15 Agency (LEA) on behalf of the Cal Recycle (formerly CIWMB). As the LEA, the EHD issues
16 the Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP). The proposed project would require approval of a
17 revision to the existing Solid Waste Facility Permit from EHD.
18 The SVLRC operates under SWFP 56-AA-0007, issued on May 16, 2003, by the California
19 Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). In Ventura County, the Resource
20 Management Agency’s Environmental Health Division (EHD) acts as the Local Enforcement
21 Agency (LEA) on behalf of Cal Recycle (formerly CIWMB). As the LEA, the EHD issues
22 the SWFP. A revised SWFP will be necessary for the proposed SVLRC expansion project.
23 In order to receive a revised SWFP, the landfill operator must submit an application to the
24 EHD.
25 o Additionally, approvals may be required from Ventura County Building and Safety,
26 Environmental Health, and Fire Department.
27 • CalRecycle—The proposed project would require approval of a revision to the existing Solid Waste
28 Facility Permit from Cal Recyle, which assumed the duties of the California Integrated Waste
29 Management (CIWMB), when that agency was eliminated.
30 • California Department of Fish and Game—The proposed project would require approval of a
31 Streambed Alteration Agreement and possibly an incidental take permit.
32 • Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB)—The SVLRC operates under
33 WDR Order No. R4-2003-0152 issued by the LARWQCB on December 4, 2003. The proposed
34 project would require approval of a revision to the existing Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) or
35 a new WDR from LARWQCB. WDR Order No. R4-2003-0152 supersedes and rescinds all previous
36 requirements and orders adopted by the Board for this facility. The main intent of this permit is to: 1)
37 preserve the quality of receiving waters suitable for domestic and irrigation uses; 2) prevent creation
38 of a nuisance as a result of the disposal of wastes at this site; and 3) implement monitoring and
39 reporting programs. WDRs contain lists of acceptable restricted materials that can be disposed at the
40 facility, groundwater monitoring and protection methods, and site closure requirements.
41 • Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD)—The proposed project would require a
42 VCWPD Watercourse Permit because a portion of the project would impact a VCWPD red-line
43 stream that is not in a VCWPD right-of-way or facility.
44 • Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)—The SVLRC operates under
45 Operating Permit issued by the VCAPCD dated June 7, 2007. The proposed project would require
46 approval of a modification to the existing Operating Permit from VCAPCD. In addition, the project
1 would require approval of an application for an Authority to Construct and Operating Permit for the
2 new portions of the facility.
3 • City of Simi Valley—The proposed project may require an amendment to the City of Simi Valley
4 General Plan to remove the unbuilt Alamos Canyon Road from the Plan’s Circulation Element.
5 • United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)—The proposed project may require an approval
6 from the USACE if jurisdictional wetlands are found on site and if those wetlands will be subject to
7 fill.
8 • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)—The proposed project may require that the
9 USACE consult with the FWS pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act if protected
10 species are found to be on site and if those species may be affected by the project.

3 Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis
1 This EIR discusses all environmental resources potentially impacted by the proposed project as required by
2 CEQA. The County of Ventura issued a NOP/IS for the SVLRC Expansion Project on December 20, 2007.
3 The NOP/IS described the proposed project and the environmental review process and identified the
4 environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR. Ventura County determined that impacts on the following
5 environmental issue areas warrant detailed evaluation in this EIR:
6 • Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs;

7 • Air Quality;
8 • Biological Resources;
9 • Agricultural Resources;
10 • Visual Resources and Glare;
11 • Paleontological Resources;
12 • Cultural Resources;
13 • Noise;
14 • Transportation and Circulation; and
15 • Waste Treatment/Disposal.
16 In addition to these primary environmental concerns, the EIR addresses those potential impacts to
17 environmental issue areas considered to be adverse, but less than significant, as required under State CEQA
18 Guidelines Section 15128. These issues are:
19 • Water Resources;
20 • Seismic Hazards;
21 • Geological Hazards;
22 • Hydraulic Hazards;
23 • Fire Hazards;
24 • Water Supply; and
25 • Recreation.
26 These environmental resource impact assessments are discussed in the following sections. In cases where
27 potentially significant adverse environmental effects are identified, mitigation measures are proposed to
28 avoid, minimize, and/or provide compensatory replacement of the resources that would be negatively
29 impacted.

3 Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis

1 3.1 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
2 This section discusses existing land uses at and adjacent to the proposed project site and determines project
3 compatibility with existing and surrounding land uses. Additionally, this section provides a preliminary
4 analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable Ventura County General Plan goals, policies,
5 and programs.
6 3.1.1 Environmental Setting
7 3.1.1.1 Area of Influence
8 The area of influence for evaluating potential impacts on land use includes the proposed project site and
9 extends to adjacent properties that would be assessed in terms of their compatibility with the SVLRC
10 functions on-site.
11 3.1.1.2 Setting
12 3.1.1.2.1 On-Site Land Uses
13 The proposed project site is located in an unincorporated area of southeast Ventura County. The site is north
14 of the SR-118 and west of the Madera Road overcrossing (Figure 2.1-1). The project site is bound, generally,
15 by Alamos Canyon to the west, Brea Canyon to the east, an unnamed tributary drainage to Alamos Canyon to
16 the north, and the SR-118 to the south. The project site (CUP boundary) is located on approximately 887
17 acres of open space area that is partially developed with the SVLRC. The Ventura County General Plan Land
18 Use Designations in the proposed project site are Open Space-Urban Reserve (Figure 3.1-1). The zoning
19 designations are either OS-160 acres (160 acres minimum lot size) or AE-40 acres (40 acres minimum lot
20 size).
21 3.1.1.2.2 Surrounding Land Uses
22 Land immediately to the east, north and west of the site is undeveloped and currently zoned open space as
23 designated by Ventura County (Figure 3.1-1). Historically, grazing activities have occurred north of the
24 project site within a valley that is an eastward extension of Alamos Canyon. The Simi Valley city limit and
25 SR-118 are located adjacent to the site’s southern boundary. Businesses are located south of the project site,
26 and the Simi Valley wastewater treatment plant is located approximately 2,500 feet southeast of the project
27 site. Lands to the east include open space, a ranch/caretaker facility, the Countrywide Home Loans business
28 park, and the Simi Valley Town Center (a regional mall). Surrounding lands to the west include open space,
29 Moorpark College, and the City of Moorpark. The nearest business is 700 feet from the southern property line
30 and the nearest residence is approximately one mile from the southeast property boundary.
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project 3.1-1

Proposed Waste
Disposal Area
Existing Waste
Disposal Area
118
LEGEND
Open Space (10 Ac. Min.)
Open Space - Urban Reserve (10 Ac. Min.)
Rural (2 Ac. Min.)
Rural - Urban Reserve (2 Ac. Min.)
Existing Community - Urban Reserve
Urban N
Source: Scale
Ventura County 2005 0 Mile 1
Figure 3.1-1. Land Use Designations

3.1 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
1 3.1.1.3 Regulatory Setting
2 3.1.1.3.1 Local Regulations
3 3.1.1.3.1.1 Ventura County General Plan
4 The Ventura County General Plan (General Plan) sets forth the goals, policies, and programs the County will
5 implement to manage future growth and land uses. The General Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors,
6 embodies the vision for the future of unincorporated Ventura County. The General Plan was developed
7 pursuant to Section 65300 et seq. of the California Government Code, requiring all planning jurisdictions to
8 prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term, general plan for the physical development of the County
9 (Ventura County 2008c). The County’s General Plan consists of a Goals, Policies, and Programs document
10 that contains four chapters: Resources, Hazards, Land Use, and Public Facilities and Services. The General
11 Plan also includes four appendices that contain background information and data in support of the Goals,
12 Policies, and Programs document. General Plan environmental goals and policies serve to protect the
13 environment through preservation or conservation of resources, avoidance of hazards, preservation of existing
14 land use, or preservation of adequate public facility service levels.
15 3.1.2 Impact Analysis
16 This section analyzed land use to ensure consistent and complete assessment of project related impacts to
17 community character, housing, and growth inducement. Additionally, this section assessed the project’s
18 consistency with Ventura County Zoning and General Plan designations and policies.
19 3.1.2.1 Threshold Criteria
20 Based on the criteria identified in the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines and Administrative
21 Supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines, the threshold criteria for evaluating land use impacts and
22 consistency with the General Plan environmental goals and policies state:
23 LU-1: Community Character. Any project that is consistent with both the zoning and the General Plan can
24 be determined to have a less than significant impact on the land use of an area, so long as its
25 design/architectural style is compatible with the surrounding community. The significance of an
26 impact is a function of surrounding land uses, buildings, General Plan designations, zoning, and
27 parcel sizes.
28 LU-2: Existing Housing. Any project that would remove existing housing would have an impact. Removal
29 of owner-occupied housing is not considered significant if the property owner(s) is/are electing to
30 remove the house(s). Forced removal of four or more dwellings that are currently or were formerly
31 owner-occupied, or the removal of four or more dwellings that are currently or were formerly renter-
32 occupied, that are affordable to families of either moderate-income located within the coastal zone
33 and/or lower-income located within the County is considered to have a significant adverse impact on
34 existing housing. Removal of housing not meeting the above criteria is considered as not having a
35 significant impact.
36 LU-3: Demand for Housing. Any project that would involve construction would have a potential impact on
37 the demand for additional housing. However, construction worker demand can be generally regarded
38 as less than significant because construction work is short-term and there is a sufficient pool of
39 construction workers within Ventura County and the Los Angeles Metropolitan region. A project that
40 employs 30 or more full-time employees is regarded as potentially significant unless: 1) 32 percent
41 of the County wide average or more of the area’s total housing is affordable to lower-income families
42 and; 2) the housing vacancy rate is three percent or greater.
1 LU-4: Growth Inducement. Significance of growth inducing impacts of a project depends on how much
2 added growth would be accommodated by removing the impediment and setting a precedent for
3 similar actions in the future and whether that growth is consistent with the planned land use of an
4 area, and the physical impacts of said growth.
5 3.1.2.2 Methodology
6 3.1.2.2.1 LU-1: Community Character
7 The proposed project was compared to the existing community character, the surrounding zoning, and land
8 use policies of the General Plan.
9 3.1.2.2.2 LU-2: Existing Housing
10 The project was evaluated to determine the number of existing housing units, if any, that would be destroyed
11 due to construction of the proposed project. If three or less units are to be destroyed then the project’s impact
12 is considered de minimus. If four or more units are to be destroyed it must be determined if the units are
13 owner-occupied, renter-occupied, or vacant.
14 If the units are owner-occupied, or were last occupied by the owners, then the owners’ current family income
15 level must be determined and compared to the Housing and Community Development Department’s (HCD)
16 most recent Annual Income Limits for moderate-income (Coastal zone only) or lower-income, based on
17 County median family income (adjusted for household size). If the owners’ family income does not exceed
18 these categories, the project is considered as having a significant impact on existing housing.
19 If the units are renter-occupied, or were last occupied by a renter, then the average monthly rent paid for the
20 unit for the last three years must be compared to HCD’s criteria for moderate-income (Coastal zone only) or
21 lower-income based on County median family income (adjusted for household size). If the average monthly
22 rental rate for four or more units does not exceed these categories, the project is considered as having a
23 significant impact on existing housing.
24 3.1.2.2.3 LU-3: Demand for Housing
25 If the project would employ 30 or more new full-time employees (excluding construction workers), the
26 percentage of total housing that is affordable to lower-income families and the current vacancy rate must be
27 determined for the area in which the project is located. The area should represent the community in which
28 the project is located or within a 15-minute commute distance of the project, whichever is more appropriate.
29 For the purposes of this housing analysis, the project area consists of Ventura County as a whole, including
30 both incorporated and unincorporated areas, which is considered to be the area in which most project
31 employees would live. Vacancy data for Simi Valley and Oxnard are also provided. Unless it can be
32 determined that there is sufficient existing and approved residential development within the area to increase
33 the percentage of total housing affordable to lower-income families to 32 percent or more, and the vacancy
34 rate to three percent or more, the project would have a significant impact. The housing demand impact
35 analysis included the following tasks and data collection:
36 • Identify increase in project personnel and develop wage estimates for operations personnel. Based on
37 Table 2.4-14, Current and Proposed Landfill Personnel, the total net increase in proposed project
38 operations personnel would be 25 landfill personnel, 90 hauling facility-drivers, and 35 hauling
39 facility-office personnel. For the purposes of this analysis it is conservatively assumed that the 150
40 permanent project personnel would be new residents of the County. It is, however, possible that a
41 number of these workers would already live in the County because they are employed by other firms
42 or are unemployed. In addition, some workers may commute from other counties. Although the
3.1-4 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project
1 number of new hires in any one year is not specified and may be considerably less than the maximum
2 number, hiring in any one year could reach more than 30 workers.
3 The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Occupational Employment Statistics (USBLS 2008)
4 identifies mean annual wage estimates for different types of occupations within specific industries.
5 Note that these wage estimates reflect national reporting as opposed to local area or project-specific
6 wages. For North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 562900-Remediation and Other
7 Waste Management Services, examples of mean annual wage estimates are listed below:
8 o Truck Drivers, Heavy and Tractor-Trailer-$36,610; Transportation and Material Moving

9 Occupations as a whole, $33,330
10 o Office and Administrative Support Occupations as a whole (including more than 15
11 individual occupations) $32,510
12 • Determine Ventura County vacancy rates. Based on the most recent 2008 population and housing
13 estimates (DOF 2008), the vacancy rate within the City of Simi Valley is 2.28 percent, which is lower
14 than the three percent vacancy threshold. Other communities within a 15-minute commute distance of
15 the project include Moorpark, which has an even lower vacancy rate of 1.10 percent. Rental property
16 vacancy rates for Ventura County for the months of January and February, from 2001 through
17 January 2007 were as low as 1.7 percent (in February, 2002 and February, 2003) and as high as 3.8
18 percent (in January, 2007) (Ventura County 2008c). Based on recent volatility in the housing market
19 (i.e., 2008 and 2009) utilization of historical data for the last several years may provide a better
20 indicator of longer term future trends.
21 • Identify Ventura County definition of low household income. The term “lower-income,” when applied
22 to household income, includes both “low-income” and “very-low-income” categories. Low-income
23 households earn 50 percent or less of the County median household income and very-low- income
24 households earn 80 percent or less, but greater than 50 percent, of County median household income.
25 Based on these criteria, a household with an annual income of $38,700 to $61,920 would be
26 considered low-income. A household with an annual income of up to $38,700 would be considered
27 very-low-income (Ventura County 2008c).
28 • Review housing need allocation for jurisdictions in Ventura County. Including both incorporated and
29 unincorporated areas of Ventura County, there is a need for 4,660 low-income housing units and
30 5,682 very-low-income housing units through 2014. Also, based on the number of housing
31 completions for the period 2006 through 2008, additional lower-income housing units will be needed
32 before the end of the 2014 planning period. In addition, there is not an adequate inventory of land
33 zoned for lower income housing units (Sussman, personal communication 2009).
34 • Review in-lieu fee policies. Ventura County does not have a standard fee and/or in-lieu fee protocol
35 for housing fees. Data on in-lieu fees used by other selected California jurisdictions was reviewed
36 (Ventura County 2008c). Fees for industrial and warehouse development were considered to be most
37 similar to the landfill use and are provided as examples below; other types of development with in-
38 lieu fees included commercial, manufacturing, research and development, and winery uses.
39 o Industrial development in-lieu fees - A median per square foot in-lieu fee of $2.47 and a
40 mean of $5.06, based on nine cities and one county in northern California (e.g., Napa
41 County in-lieu fee is $1.00).
42 o Warehouse development in-lieu fees - A median per square foot in-lieu fee of $0.60 per
43 square foot and a mean of $1.53, based on eight cites and one county in northern California
44 (e.g., two different Sacramento City and County in-lieu fees are listed, $0.27 and $0.36).

1 3.1.2.2.4 LU-4: Growth Inducement
2 The project was evaluated to determine if it would: (1) result in or necessitate the expansion of critical public
3 facilities (e.g., roads, water supply, sewers, or flood control facilities), or (2) be counter to or substantially
4 amend an adopted policy of the County, thereby setting a precedent or an accommodation for further growth.
5 If either of these results occur, then the amount of growth that could be accommodated must be estimated and
6 compared to the land use assumptions and policies of the General Plan. If the potentially induced growth is
7 inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use assumptions/policies, then the environmental impacts of this
8 induced growth must be evaluated.
9 3.1.2.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
10 3.1.2.3.1 Impact LU-1: Community Character
11 The proposed project would expand the existing SVLRC CUP boundary and waste disposal area, construct a
12 non-disposal support/ancillary facility area, expand and construct new recycling and resources recovery and
13 energy conversion facilities. In addition, since the proposed project does not include future uses of the site, it is
14 assumed that, with the exception of support facilities for closure and post-closure maintenance, these facilities
15 would be removed upon cessation of the landfill and/or transfer operations. The proposed support/ancillary
16 facilities would be located on 30 acres in the southwestern portion of the proposed project site.
17 Waste handling, waste disposal, and recycling facilities are a permitted use in the “OS-160 ac” (160 acres
18 minimum lot size) zone by the means of a CUP (Ventura County 2008b, §8105-4). Moreover, the project is
19 consistent with all land use policies of the General Plan (Ventura County 2008c, §3.1.2), including Land Use
20 Policy 3.1.2-11, requiring all discretionary development be consistent with the Guidelines for Orderly
21 Development. As stated in Section 3.1.2.9, the Guidelines for Orderly Development state that urban
22 development, including development that would result in a significant expansion of existing community
23 sewer systems, should occur, whenever and wherever practical, within incorporated cities which exist to
24 provide a full range of municipal services and are responsible for urban land use planning (Ventura County
25 1996). The proposed project would not result in an expansion of existing community sewer lines because the
26 project includes construction of a self-contained a wastewater treatment package plant (i.e., individual sewage
27 disposal system) that would only serve the SVLRC. The construction of this facility would require aan
28 exemption from the Ventura County Sewer Policy. As discussed in Section 3.13, the proposed project would
29 be expected to meet the three Ventura County Sewer Policy exception criteria and would not be required to
30 connect to a public sewer system. Ventura County Environmental Health Division would determine
31 compliance with these criteria during the Individual Sewage Disposal System permitting process. As the
32 project would not require a connection to the City of Simi Valley sanitary sewer system, it is not required that
33 the project be annexed into the City, ensuring consistency with this policy.
34 The project site is surrounded by the City of Simi Valley to the south and existing development to the east
35 (Countrywide Home Loans Business Park and the Simi Valley Town Center) and west (City of Moorpark). SR-
36 118 serves as a physical barrier that separates the project site from the City of Simi Valley, and the existing
37 topography (i.e., hillsides and ridgeline) physically separates the project site from the existing development to
38 the east and west. Due to the open space, rural character of the proposed landfill expansion area, the project site
39 is most closely associated with the rural and open space areas of Alamos Canyon and Brea Canyon, which have
40 a rural, open space, and agricultural (i.e., cattle grazing) community character. The proposed buildings and
41 structures associated with the project (i.e., office and maintenance buildings, MRF/RTF, SVECC, environmental
42 education center, C&D processing area, LNG facility, and expansions to the existing landfill gas to energy
43 program and green waste recycling area) would be potentially incompatible with the rural, open space character
44 of the area. However, upon closure of the landfill, all of the buildings and structures would be removed, with the
45 exception of support facilities for closure and post-closure maintenance. These facilities would be screened from
46 surrounding areas due to topographic features (e.g., existing hillsides and ridgelines), thus eliminating the
1 incompatibility. Furthermore, the landfill closure area would be revegetated with native drought-tolerant
2 vegetation that would be compatible with surrounding vegetation.
3 As the proposed project would be consistent with zoning and land use policies of the General Plan, and would
4 be compatible with surrounding land uses, impacts to community character would be less than significant.
5 Mitigation Measures
6 As impacts to community character would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
7 Significance of Impact After Mitigation
8 Impacts to community character would be less than significant.
9 3.1.2.3.2 Impact LU-2: Existing Housing
10 The proposed project would result in the expansion of the existing SVLRC by 186 acres over open space land.
11 As no housing units are located on this land, the proposed project would not remove any existing housing
12 units. Therefore, no impacts to existing housing would occur.
14 As no impacts on existing housing would occur, no mitigation is required.
16 No impacts on existing housing would occur.
17 3.1.2.3.3 Impact LU-3: Demand for Housing
19 for additional housing. During peak construction, the construction workforce would include approximately 45
20 personnel for the 30-acre support/ancillary facilities area. The waste disposal areas would be constructed in
21 four consecutive phases. Phase I would require 29 personnel, Phase II would require 116 personnel, and
22 Phases III and IV would each require 87 personnel. However, it is reasonable to assume that due to the
23 temporary nature of construction activities and the sufficient number of construction workers available within
24 Ventura County and the Los Angeles Metropolitan region, impacts on housing demands during project
25 construction would be less than significant. During project operations, the workforce would increase by a total
26 of 150 permanent employees. This increase will not occur all at once, but more than 30 new employees could
27 be added in any given year. Because the project would could employ more than 30 new full-time employees
28 in a year, the percentage of total housing that is affordable to lower-income families and the current vacancy
29 rate must be determined. Recent vacancy data for cities within the project area and longer term vacancy data
30 for Ventura County, as a whole, show vacancy rates below three percent.
31 The following impact analysis is based on data in Section 3.1.2.2.3, LU-3: Demand for Housing. Assuming
32 for the purposes of this analysis that estimated wages of project operations personnel comprise the sole
33 income for worker households, many workers would potentially qualify for either low-income or very-low-
34 income housing based on applicable income requirements (i.e., below $61,920 to $38,700 or below $38,700,
35 respectively). Additionally, the existing and projected need for housing affordable to lower income
36 households in Ventura County through 2014 indicates an unmet need for such housing. Anticipated housing
37 completions are unlikely to offset this need, in part due to a limited inventory of suitably zoned land. Because
38 there is not an adequate vacancy rate, nor available housing for lower-income families, and based on

1 anticipated wages of project operations personnel, and the fact that the project would employ more than 30
2 new full-time employees, the impact on housing demand would be significant.
4 In February 2005, the Planning Division presented a report to the Board of Supervisors suggesting that a
5 Housing Demand Impact Fee Program be pursued. This program has yet to be implemented or funded or
6 implemented (Ventura County 2008d). Ventura County does not have a housing impact mitigation fee policy.
7 Potential factors to consider in establishing the fee would be fees from other jurisdictions and comparability
8 of development types to the landfill (e.g., square footage of proposed building improvements). For planning
9 purposes, the County uses an estimate of one employee per 1,000 square feet for light industrial land uses and
10 two employees per 1,000 square feet for general industrial. The proposed project would result in 150 new
11 employees or one employee per 846 square feet of building improvements. This assumes 127,000 square feet
12 of proposed building improvements with the consolidated offices and maintenance shop (Table 2.4-1).
13 Therefore, lacking the legal authority to impose a fee and a mechanism to ensure that fees collected would
14 mitigate impacts to housing, there is no feasible mitigation for the housing demand created by additional
15 project employees. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
16 Mitigation Measure LU-1: The applicant shall pay a one-time fee (as determined by the decision-making
17 body) to a County-approved low-income-housing entity or an established housing trust fund to assist in
18 providing for construction of affordable housing within the vicinity of Simi Valley.
20 Implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1 would reduce impacts on housing demand, to less than
21 significant. The impact to housing cannot feasibly be mitigated and the impact is significant and unavoidable.
22 3.1.2.3.4 Impact LU-4: Growth Inducement
23 A project would cause growth inducement if it would either result or necessitate the expansion of critical
24 public facilities, or be counter to or substantially amend an adopted policy of the County to set a precedent or
25 accommodation for further growth. The project does not include and would not necessitate the expansion of
26 critical public facilities, including roads, water supply, sewers, or flood control facilities. No new roads or
27 Watershed Protection District facilities would be constructed as part of the project. Water services would
28 continue to be provided by the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8, and sewage treatment would occur
29 onsite with a self-contained wastewater treatment package plant (i.e., individual sewage disposal system).
30 This sewage treatment facility would only be for the treatment of wastewater produced on the SVLRC and
31 would not result in a potential for growth inducement. Additionally, the proposed project does not include an
32 amendment to an adopted policy of the County that could establish a precedent or an accommodation for
33 further growth. As the project would not result in the expansion of public facilities or an amendment to a
34 County policy, impacts to growth inducement would be less than significant.
36 As impacts on growth inducement would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
38 Impacts on growth inducement would be less than significant.

1 3.1.2.3.5 Ventura County General Plan Consistency Analysis
2 This section provides a preliminary analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable Ventura
3 County General Plan goals, policies, and programs.
4 Air Quality
5 Policy 1.2.2-1: Discretionary development that is inconsistent with the Air Quality Management Plan
6 (AQMP) shall be prohibited, unless overriding considerations are cited by the decision-making body.
7 Comment: Consistent. As stated in Impact AQ-4c (construction) and AQ-4o (operations), project
8 construction and operations would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality
9 Management Plan, ensuring consistency with this policy.
10 Policy 1.2.2-3: Discretionary development that would have a significant adverse air quality impact shall only
11 be approved if it is conditioned with all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate
12 (offset) for the air quality impact. Developers shall be encouraged to employ innovative methods and
13 technologies to minimize air pollution impacts.
14 Comment: Consistent. Project construction and operations would result in offsite ambient air
15 pollutant concentrations that would contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard
16 (Impacts AQ-2c and AQ-2o). All feasible mitigation measures have been implemented to avoid,
17 minimize, or compensate for the air quality impact (Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5).
18 Although impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, the implementation of all reasonable
19 mitigation measures ensures consistency with this policy.
20 Policy 1.2.2-5: Development subject to APCD permit authority shall comply with all applicable APCD rules
21 and permit requirements, including the use of best available control technology (BACT) as determined by the
22 APCD.
23 Comment: Consistent. The project would comply with all applicable VCAPCD rules and permit
24 requirements, including Rule 12 – Authority to Construct, Rule 26 – New Source Review, Rule 36 –
25 Hazardous Air Pollutants, Rule 51 – Nuisance, Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust, Rule 62.7 – Asbestos
26 Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, Rule 72 – New Source Performance Standards,
27 Rule 74.17.1 – Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, and Rule 74.9 – Stationary Internal Combustion
28 Engines. For example, any proposed emission sources subject to the requirements of VCAPCD Rule
29 26, such as flares or cogeneration units, would have to implement BACT.
30 Water Resources
31 Policy 1.3.2-1: Discretionary development which is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the County's
32 WMP shall be prohibited, unless overriding considerations are cited by the decision-making body.
33 Comment: Consistent. The proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the
34 Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Ventura
35 County has prepared the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 UWMP, to describe how water
36 resources are used and to present strategies that will be used to meet the current and future water
37 needs of the County. To meet the objectives of the California Urban Water Management Planning
38 Act, the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 UWMP focuses primarily on reliability of the
39 water supply and efficiency measures for water use. The project would be served by the CMWD,
40 which is considered by Ventura County to be a permanent source of water.

1 Policy 1.3.2-2: Discretionary development shall comply with all applicable County and State water
2 regulations.
3 Comment: Consistent. The project is in compliance with all applicable County and State water
4 regulations, including the State Drinking Water Standards, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control
5 Act, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Plan, and the Ventura County Waterworks District
6 No. 8 UWMP.
8 Policy 1.5.2-4: Discretionary development shall be sited a minimum of 100 feet from significant wetland
9 habitats to mitigate the potential impacts on said habitats. Buffer areas may be increased or decreased upon
10 evaluation and recommendation by a qualified biologist and approval by the decision-making body. Factors to
11 be used in determining adjustment of the 100 foot buffer include soil type, slope stability, drainage patterns,
12 presence or absence of endangered, threatened or rare plants or animals, and compatibility of the proposed
13 development with the wildlife use of the wetland habitat area. The requirement of a buffer (setback) shall not
14 preclude the use of replacement as a mitigation when there is no other feasible alternative to allowing a
15 permitted use, and if the replacement results in no net loss of wetland habitat. Such replacement shall be "in
16 kind" (i.e. same type and acreage), and provide wetland habitat of comparable biological value. On-site
17 replacement shall be preferred wherever possible. The replacement plan shall be developed in consultation
18 with California Department of Fish and Game.
19 Comment: Consistent. The proposed project would result in the removal of approximately 2,125
20 square feet (0.05 acre) of wetland habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 requires that the project
21 applicant prepare a wetlands mitigation plan acceptable to the County of Ventura prior to initiation
22 of grading activity in the vicinity of the known seeps. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 specifies eleven
23 individual requirements of the mitigation plan. Appropriate mitigation would include, for example,
24 enhancing or expanding wetlands, creating new wetlands, or permanently protecting wetlands in the
25 proposed project vicinity.
26 Policy 1.5.2-5: The CDFG, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Audubon Society and the
27 California Native Plant Society (CNPS) shall be consulted when discretionary development may affect
28 significant biological resources. The National Park Service shall also be consulted regarding discretionary
29 development within the Santa Monica Mountains or Oak Park Area.
30 Comment: Consistent. All required agencies listed in this policy are on the distribution list and will
31 be included in the public review process for the Public Draft EIR.
32 Farmland Resources
33 Policy 1.6.2-6: Discretionary development adjacent to Agricultural-designated lands shall not conflict with
34 agricultural use of those lands.
35 Comment: InconsistentConsistent. The proposed project would convert approximately 165 acres of open
36 space/rural designated farmland of local importance to industrial/commercial uses for the landfill (Impact
37 AG-1). Although proposed project soils are considered locally important, the site does not currently support
38 agricultural operations and the agricultural viability of on-site soils is dependent upon irrigation. However, the
39 conversion and loss of locally important agricultural soils to industrial/commercial uses would be a significant
40 impact on agricultural resources. No feasible mitigation measures would reduce or avoid While the proposed
41 project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to farmaland resources resulting from the
42 conversion of locally important farmland on-site the project would not conflict with the agricultural uses of
43 adjacent agricultural-designated lands.
1 while meeting the proposed project objectives. The project is therefore inconsistent with the intent of this
2 policy to protect agricultural-designated lands.
3 Scenic Resources
4 Policy 1.7.2-5: The Planning Division shall continue to implement the landscaping requirements of the
5 Zoning Ordinance and the "Guide to Landscape Plans" to enhance the appearance of discretionary
6 development.
7 Comment: Consistent. Mitigation Measure VIS-1 requires that all landscaping plans follow the
8 Ventura County Guide to Landscape Plans. The Plans specify the minimum landscape and irrigation
9 coverage, minimum plant survival rates, and suggested drought tolerant species. Implementation of
10 Mitigation Measure VIS-1 would ensure consistency with this policy.
11 Paleontological and Cultural Resources
12 Policy 1.8.2-3: Mitigation of significant impacts on cultural or paleontological resources shall follow the
13 Guidelines of the State Office of Historic Preservation, the State Native American Heritage Commission, and
14 shall be performed in consultation with professionals in their respective areas of expertise.
15 Comment: Consistent. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 (Section 3.8) would all be
16 conducted in conformance with the State Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines and the State
17 Native American Heritage Commission. Additionally, each mitigation required consultation with
18 County, and local Native Americans.
19 Policy 1.8.2-5: During environmental review of discretionary development the reviewing agency shall be
20 responsible for identifying sites having potential archaeological, architectural or historical significance and
21 this information shall be provided to the County Cultural Heritage Board for evaluation.
22 Comment: Consistent. The Cultural Resources Site-Specific Setting discussion (Section 3.8.1.2.4)
23 summarizes the studies and surveys that have been conducted within the project site and identifies
24 any sites with the potential to contain significant cultural, archaeological, and historical resources.
25 Hazards
26 Fault Rupture
27 Policy 2.2.2-4: Land in Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones and potentially active fault areas should, where
28 feasible, be designated Open Space or Agriculture on the General Land Use Maps.
29 Comment: Consistent. The proposed project site, including both the existing and proposed CUP
30 boundaries, is located on land that is designated Open Space and Open Space-Urban Reserve in the
31 Ventura County General Plan.
32 Policy 2.2.2-6: No new essential facilities, special occupancy structures, or hazardous materials storage
33 facilities shall be located within active fault zones unless it can be adequately demonstrated that the facilities
34 are not subject to fault rupture hazard.
35 Comment: Consistent. Three potentially active faults traverse the landfill property which may
36 experience sympathetic (i.e., triggered) slip during large earthquakes on nearby faults. This
37 sympathetic slip, if it occurs, likely would be minor (i.e., on the order of several centimeters) such
38 that the facility would not be subject to fault rupture hazard.

1 Liquefaction
2 Policy 2.4.2-1: Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for essential facilities, special occupancy
3 structures, two-story single family residences, or hazardous materials storage facilities located within areas
4 prone to liquefaction, a geotechnical report that includes a seismic analysis and evaluation of liquefaction in
5 accordance with the State of California Guidelines shall be prepared in order to assess the liquefaction
6 potential and provide recommendations for mitigation.
7 Comment: Consistent. The alluvial areas in canyon bottoms near the proposed project would be
8 subject to liquefaction in the event of severe seismically induced ground movement. As part of the
9 proposed project, an updated seismic design study would be submitted by Waste Management, Inc. to
10 the EHD, demonstrating that the landfill refuse column, its drainage features, and operating
11 components would withstand a maximum probable earthquake (design earthquake).
12 Expansive Soils
13 Policy 2.8.2-3: No habitable structures or individual sewage disposal systems shall be placed on or in
14 expansive soils unless suitable mitigation measures to prevent the adverse effect of these conditions are
15 incorporated into the project.
16 Comment: Consistent. The proposed project would be located on clay soils that could be expansive.
17 However, development of the project site will be subject to the requirements of the Ventura County
18 Building Code, which is adopted from the California Building Code, Chapter 18, §1804.4 (ICC 1997)
19 and which requires mitigation of potential adverse effects of expansive soils for the proposed
20 structures. Compliance with these requirements would prevent the adverse effect of expansive soils.
21 Flood Hazards
22 Policy 2.10.2-1: Land use in the floodway should be limited to open space, agriculture, or passive to low
23 intensity recreational uses, subject to the approval of the County Watershed Protection District. The
24 floodway’s principal use is for safely conveying floodwater away from people and property.
25 Comment: Consistent. The proposed landfill would be constructed partially within a designated
26 floodway. However, because drainage would be controlled to County of Ventura Watershed
27 Protection District standards within the landfill footprint, including construction of a
28 detention/sedimentation basin at the base of the floodway, the floodway would predominantly be
29 eliminated. Only the toe of slope of the detention/sedimentation basin would be within the floodway.
30 The toe of slope would be armored (see Mitigation Measure WR-3) to prevent erosive undercutting
31 and failure of the basin slope. Floodwaters would not impact the safety of people or property;
32 therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.
33 Policy 2.10.2-2: Within areas subject to flooding, the County shall require the recordation of a Notice of
34 Flood Hazard or dedication of a flowage easement with the County Recorder for all divisions of land and
35 discretionary permits.
36 Comment: Consistent. Because drainage would be controlled to County of Ventura Watershed

37 Protection District standards within the landfill footprint, including construction of a
38 detention/sedimentation basin at the base of the floodway, the existing floodway within the landfill
39 footprint would be predominantly eliminated. Only the toe of slope of the detention/sedimentation
40 basin would be within the floodway. However, a Notice of Flood Hazard would recorded by the
41 applicant, resulting in consistency with this policy.

1 Policy 2.10.2-3: Development shall be protected from a 100-year flood if built in the flood plain areas.
2 Comment: Consistent. Mitigation Measure WR-3 requires that the proposed detention/sedimentation
3 basin in the northwest portion of Phase III, at the confluence of Alamos Canyon Creek and the
4 tributary creek to the northeast, be armored sufficiently to withstand erosive flow associated with a
5 100-year storm event along Alamos Canyon Creek.
6 Policy 2.10.2-4: The design of any structures which are constructed in flood plain areas as depicted on the
7 Hazards Protection Maps, shall be governed by Federal regulations as well as the County Flood Plain
8 Management Ordinance and shall incorporate measures to reduce flood damage to the structure and to
9 eliminate any increased potential flood hazard in the general area due to such construction.
10 Comment: Consistent. A portion of the project site is located in a flood hazard area (Figure 3.3-2)
11 (FEMA 2008). The west end of the northern expansion area is located within a 100-year flood plain,
12 as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the VCWPD. This flood
13 plain merges westward with the flood plain of upper Alamos Canyon Creek. Surface runoff within the
14 tributary canyon to Alamos Canyon Creek would be controlled by project-related drainage features,
15 including a detention/sedimentation basin; therefore, flooding would not occur within the landfill
16 expansion area during landfill operations (Section 3.3.3.3.5). In addition, because 100-year storm
17 flow rates would be reduced to existing flood conditions, as a result of the detention/sedimentation
18 basin, beneficial impacts would occur with respect to contributing flood flow to Alamos Canyon
19 Creek. However, the structural integrity of the detention/sedimentation basin could be undermined by
20 erosive floodwaters along Alamos Canyon Creek. Implementation of Mitigation Measure WR-3,
21 requiring that the detention/sedimentation basin be armored sufficiently to withstand a 100-year
22 storm event along Alamos Canyon Creek, would ensure consistency with this policy.
23 In addition, construction of the detention/sedimentation basin within the floodplain would likely
24 increase runoff velocities at the toe of slope of the basin, over existing conditions, potentially
25 resulting in downstream erosion. As previously discussed, the floodplain within the lower portion of
26 the tributary creek derives largely from water in the tributary creek watershed, rather than overflow
27 from Alamos Canyon Creek. Elimination of the tributary portion of the flood plain, by construction
28 of the landfill, would result in the detention basin slope only slightly encroaching on the floodplain.
29 However, downstream erosion impacts would be potentially significant, as the toe of slope of the
30 basin would encroach on the floodplain over a cumulative distance of approximately 300 feet.
31 Implementation of Mitigation Measure WR-4, requiring that the applicant coordinate with the
32 VCWPD, Advanced Planning Section, Floodplain Management Division, in developing erosion
33 control features within Alamos Canyon Creek, downstream of the proposed detention/sedimentation
34 basin, or alternatively, redesign the detention/sedimentation basin such that it does not encroach on
35 the designated floodplain, would ensure consistency with this policy.
36 Hazardous Materials and Waste
37 Policy 2.15.2-3: Any business that handles a hazardous material shall establish a plan for emergency response
38 to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. The County Fire Protection District is designated as
39 the agency responsible for implementation of this policy.
40 Comment: Consistent. The proposed SVLRC expansion includes the use of hazardous materials,
41 specifically in the LFGTLNG facility and heavy equipment and the vehicle maintenance facility. The
42 Ventura County Fire Protection District has one Hazardous Materials Incident Response Team on-
43 duty at all times and multi-aid response is available locally from surrounding cities. This response
44 team is trained to contain spills, conduct rescue operations, and perform emergency mitigation
45 procedures. They are also equipped with portable decontamination units to accommodate any
1 personnel contaminated with hazardous/toxic materials. The fire department has available an
2 extensive library of hazardous materials, toxicology, and other references covering the materials
3 present at the SVLRC, to be used as needed. In addition, information and assistance can be obtained
4 through the EHD. In the event of a hazardous materials incident, an Environmental Specialist is also
5 available to the SVLRC General Manager, through Waste Management, Inc. In accordance with
6 Policy 2.15.2-3 Waste Management has an Emergency Management Plan for the existing facility
7 (which is contained in Appendix L of the JTD (GeoSyntec Consultants Inc. 2002). This plan would be
8 updated, as appropriate, for the proposed SVLRC expansion project.
9 Policy 2.15.2-4: Applicants shall provide a statement indicating the presence of any hazardous wastes on a
10 site, prior to development. The applicant must demonstrate that the waste site is properly closed, or will be
11 closed before the project is inaugurated.
12 Comment: Consistent. Section 2.2.1 identifies that from 1971 through mid-1982, the Simi Valley
13 Landfill accepted hazardous wastes. Approximately 29,000 tons of hazardous wastes were received.
14 The types of hazardous waste included toxics, flammable/ignitable wastes, corrosive wastes, highly
15 reactive wastes, and explosive wastes. The former Class I area has since been capped with a clay
16 layer and covered with MSW.
17 Policy 2.15.2-5: Commercial or industrial uses which generate, store or handle hazardous waste and/or
18 hazardous materials shall be located in compliance with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan's
19 siting criteria.
20 Comment: Consistent. The proposed project would be implemented in accordance with the
21 Hazardous Material Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires businesses to
22 develop a Hazardous Material Management Plan or a “business plan” for hazardous materials
23 emergencies if they handle more than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet of hazardous
24 materials. In addition, the business plan includes an inventory of all hazardous materials stored or
25 handled at the facility above these thresholds. This law is designed to reduce the occurrence and
26 severity of hazardous materials releases. The Hazardous Materials Management Plan or business
27 plan must be submitted to the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), which is, in this case, the
28 Ventura County Environmental Health Department. Hazardous materials would be stored, handled,
29 and disposed in accordance with the Ventura County Uniform Fire Code, as well as all other
30 relevant County, State, and Federal regulations.
31 In addition, the Landfill Expansion Project includes the construction and operation of a LFGTLNG
32 facility. A large array of laws, regulations, standards, and guidelines are currently in place to assure
33 the safety of LNG facility design, construction, operation, and maintenance. The LNG system and
34 associated storage tanks and piping would be designed and constructed in accordance with the
35 requirements of the National Fire Protection Association, California Occupational Safety and Health
36 Administration, and Uniform Building Code. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this
37 policy.
38 Noise
39 Policy 2.16.2-1: Discretionary development shall be reviewed for noise compatibility with surrounding uses.
40 Comment: Consistent. A noise analysis was conducted for the proposed project which indicated that
41 noise resulting from the proposed project would not exceed the criteria outlined under this policy.
42 Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy.

1 Land Use
2 General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
3 Policy 3.1.2-11: Guidelines for Orderly Development: Discretionary development shall be consistent with the
4 Guidelines for Orderly Development.
5 Comment: Consistent. The Guidelines for Orderly Development state that urban development,
6 including development that would result in a significant expansion of existing community sewer
7 systems, should occur, whenever and wherever practical, within incorporated cities which exist to
8 provide a full range of municipal services and are responsible for urban land use planning. The
9 proposed project would not result in an expansion of existing community sewer lines because the
10 project includes construction of a self-contained wastewater treatment package plant (i.e., individual
11 sewage disposal system) that would only serve the SVLRC. As the project would not require
12 connection to City of Simi Valley sanitary sewer system, it is not required that the project be annexed
13 into the City, ensuring consistency with this policy.
14 Employment and Commerce/Industry
15 Policy 3.4.2-2: All applications for commercial and industrial development located within a city's Sphere of
16 Influence shall be referred to the city for possible annexation.
17 Comment: Consistent. The proposed project site is within the City of Simi Valley’s Sphere of Influence
18 and annexation was considered. However, the proposed project would be exempt from the County
19 Sewer Policy.
20 Policy 3.4.2-3: Commercial and industrial developments shall be designed to be generally compact, grouped
21 and consolidated into functional units providing for sufficient off-street parking and loading facilities,
22 maximizing pedestrian and vehicle safety and minimizing the impacts on traffic congestion.
23 Comment: Consistent. Sufficient on-site parking would be provided to meet employee parking and
24 other operational needs.
25 Policy 3.4.2-4: Commercial and industrial developments shall be designed to provide adequate buffering
26 (e.g., walls, landscaping, setbacks), and on-site activities (e.g., hours of operation, scheduling of deliveries)
27 shall be regulated to minimize adverse impacts (e.g., noise, glare, odors) on adjoining residential areas.
28 Comment: Consistent. The proposed project would include a 516-acre buffer area surrounding the
29 waste disposal area footprint. The buffer area would primarily consist of open space area, but may
30 also include access roads, material and equipment storage yards, mitigation areas, recycling
31 facilities and equipment, and drainage structures. Hours of operation at the expanded landfill would
32 be the same as the existing landfill, 6 AM to 8 PM. Mitigation Measures VIS-2 and VIS-3 include
33 preparation of a Lighting Plan that meets specified requirements and would address illumination and
34 glare. The mobile and intermittent nature of most emission sources would help to adequately disperse
35 combustive emissions from project construction. Additionally, since there are no sensitive receptors
36 in close proximity to the project site, project construction would not expose the public to significant
37 levels of odors.
38 Policy 3.4.2-6: Industrial development shall be located within city or existing unincorporated area industrial
39 parks that have the necessary public facilities and services to support most industrial development.

1 Comment: Consistent. The SVLRC is located in an unincorporated area of southeast Ventura County.
2 The SVLRC is served by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (which is managed by the City of
3 Simi Valley). On-site and off-site water distribution facilities would be upgraded to provide required
4 fire flow at a maximum velocity of eight feet per second. SVLRC has no natural gas line connections.
5 Under the proposed project SVLRC would receive natural gas from the LFGTLNG facility.
6 Electricity would continue to be provided either from SCE and/or by the LFGTE facility. The project
7 also includes construction of a self-contained a wastewater treatment package plant (i.e., individual
8 sewage disposal system) that would only serve the SVLRC. As the project is located in an
9 unincorporated area that has the necessary public facilities to support industrial development, the
10 project would be consistent with this policy.
11 Policy 3.4.2-8: As Area Plans are prepared or updated, or applications for employment-generating developments
12 of 30 or more full-time employees are received, planned industrial and commercial areas/developments shall be
13 evaluated to assess the impact on jobs/housing balance within the community and region.
14 Comment: IncConsistent. Based on the number of project employees, vacancy rates, estimated wages,
15 low-income housing needs and the current and future availability of such housing in Ventura County,
16 the project would result in a significant impact on housing demand (Section 3.1.2.5, Impact LU-3
17 Demand for Housing). It should be noted that in February 2005, the Planning Division presented a
18 report to the Board of Supervisors and suggested proposing that a Housing Demand Fee program be
19 pursued along with a General Plan Amendment to eliminate this policy (Ventura County 2008d).
20 This program has yet to be implemented or funded or implemented. However, Thus, the County does
21 not currently have a Housing Demand Impact Fee program or any other mechanism to feasibly
22 mitigate housing demand. this impactMitigation Measure LU-1, requiring that the applicant pay an
23 in-lieu fee to the County of Ventura to fund housing development, would reduce this impact to less
24 than significant. The project would therefore be inconsistent with this policy.
25 Public Facilities and Services
26 Policy 4.1.2-4: Within a City’s Sphere of Influence, annexation to the City is preferable to formation of new
27 or expansion of existing County Services Areas.
28 Comment: Consistent. The proposed project site is within the City of Simi Valley’s Sphere of Influence
29 and annexation was considered. However, the proposed project would be exempt from the County
30 Sewer Policy.
32 Policy 4.2.2-3: The minimum acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for road segments and intersections within
33 the Regional Road Network and Local Road Network shall be as follows:
34 (a) LOS-'D' for all County thoroughfares and Federal highways and State highways in the
35 unincorporated area of the County, except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (b);
36 (b) LOS-'E' for State Route 33 between the northerly end of the Ojai Freeway and the City of Ojai, Santa
37 Rosa Road, Moorpark Road north of Santa Rosa Road, and State Route 34 north of the City of
38 Camarillo;
39 (c) LOS-'C' for all County-maintained local roads; and
40 (d) The LOS prescribed by the applicable city for all Federal highways, State highways, city
41 thoroughfares and city-maintained local roads located within that city, if the city has formally
42 adopted General Plan policies, ordinances, or a reciprocal agreement with the County (similar to

1 Policies 4.2.2-3 through 4.2.2-6) respecting development in the city that would individually or
2 cumulatively affect the LOS of Federal highways, State highways, County thoroughfares and
3 County-maintained local roads in the unincorporated area of the County.
4 At any intersection between two roads, each of which has a prescribed minimum acceptable LOS, the lower
5 LOS of the two shall be the minimum acceptable LOS for that intersection.
6 Comment: Consistent. All of the intersections affected by the project are projected to operate at an
7 acceptable LOS under the Existing With Project scenario for both the AM and PM peak hours.
8 Policy 4.2.2-5: Except as otherwise provided in the Ojai Area Plan and below, County General Plan land use
9 designation changes and zone changes that would cumulatively cause any of the impacts identified in
10 subparagraphs (a) through (c) of Policy 4.2.2-4 shall be prohibited unless the Board of Supervisors adopts a
11 Statement of Overriding Considerations. County General Plan land use designation changes, zone changes,
12 zone changes and discretionary development that would individually cause any of the impacts identified in
13 subparagraphs (a) through (c) of Policy 4.2.2-4 shall be prohibited unless feasible mitigation measures are
14 adopted that would ensure that the impact does not occur or unless a project completion schedule and full
15 funding commitment for road improvements are adopted which ensure that the impact will be eliminated
16 within a reasonable time period. The policy does not apply to city thoroughfares, city-maintained local roads,
17 or Federal or State highways located within a city unless the applicable city has formally adopted General
18 Plan policies, ordinances, or a reciprocal agreement with the County (similar to Policies 4.2.2-3 through 4.2.2-
19 6) respecting development in the city that would affect the LOS of County thoroughfares, County-maintained
20 local roads, and Federal and State highways located within the unincorporated area of the County. If a
21 Specific Plan for a project has been determined to be consistent with this policy, any subsequent development
22 that is consistent with the Specific Plan will also be determined to be consistent with this policy. Exceptions
23 to the prohibitions of this policy include the following:
24 (a) Farmworker Housing complexes, Affordable Housing development per Article 16 of the Non-Coastal
25 Zoning Ordinance, and other housing exclusively for lower-income households, where such
26 developments are served by roads that are currently operating at LOS “E” or better.
27 (b) Additional dwellings and lots on Cultural Heritage Sites are permitted in the Non-Coastal Zoning
28 Ordinance.
29 (c) Agriculture and Agricultural Operations as permitted in the Coastal and Non-Coastal Zoning
30 Ordinances, where such developments are served by roads that are currently operating at LOS “E” or
31 better.
32 Comment: Consistent. The County of Ventura has historically interpreted the prohibition in Policy
33 4.2.2-5 to say “any project which generate or contributes one peak hour vehicle trip through an
34 intersection or road segment that has been determined to be operating at an unacceptable LOS, (as
35 specified in the General Plan), shall be prohibited”. However, several recent developments have lead
36 the County to conclude that there is a project completion schedule and full funding commitment for
37 road improvements that ensure that the impact will be reduced to an acceptable LOS at this
38 intersection within a reasonable period of time. First, Caltrans is currently in the process of
39 environmental review for a project to improve mobility, achieve an acceptable level of traffic
40 operations, and improve safety conditions along SR 118 at the intersections with SR 34 and Donlon
41 Road. Second, the County of Ventura Public Works Agency, Transportation Department has
42 developed a separate project for realignment of Donlon Road. The effect of the State project is
43 anticipated to improve the LOS of this intersection to LOS ‘D.’ If the State project is delayed, the
44 effect of the County project alone should improve the LOS of this intersection to a satisfactory level.
45 Accordingly, the Transportation Department will no longer determined that a project that generates
46 or contributes one peak hour trip through the intersections of SRs 118 and 34 are not consistent with

1 County General Plan Policy 4.2.2-5 until or unless the situation changes. Given the previously noted
2 commitment to road improvements that ensure that the impact will be reduced to an acceptable LOS
3 in a reasonable period of time, all of the intersections affected by the project are projected to operate
4 at an acceptable LOS under the Existing With Project scenario for both the AM and PM peak hours.
5 Policy 4.2.2-6: Development that would generate additional traffic shall pay its pro rata share of the costs of
6 necessary improvements to the Regional Road Network per the County’s Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee
7 Ordinance as amended time to time.
8 Comment: Consistent. The proposed project would generate additional traffic beyond existing
9 conditions. Thus, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for new construction or a Zoning
10 Clearance to increase an existing use, and pursuant to the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF)
11 Ordinance and pursuant to the Reciprocal Traffic Mitigation Agreement between the City of Simi
12 Valley and the County of Ventura, the application shall pay a TIMF based on the net vehicle increase
13 to the County of Ventura. The fee would be collected prior to the issuance of a Building Permit or
14 Zoning Clearance.
15 Policy 4.2.2-7: The County shall oppose discretionary development within cities, and annexation to cities for
16 the purposes of development, where such development would individually or cumulatively cause:
17 (a) Any existing road within the Regional Road Network, or any existing County-maintained local road,
18 that is currently functioning at an acceptable LOS to function below an acceptable LOS;
19 (b) Any existing road within the Regional Road Network, or any existing County-maintained local road,
20 that is currently operating below an acceptable LOS to have a worsening of traffic conditions; or
21 (c) Any future road planned for addition to the Regional Road Network, or any planned future County-
22 maintained local road, to function below an acceptable LOS.
23 This policy does not apply to those cities which have formally adopted General Plan policies, ordinances, or a
24 reciprocal agreement with the County similar to Policies 4.2.2-3 through 4.2.2-6.
25 Comment: Consistent. The project would not include development within cities or annexation to
26 cities. Increased traffic on existing and future planned roads within the Regional Road Network, and
27 existing and future County-maintained local roads would operate at an acceptable LOS.
28 Water Supply Facilities
29 Policy 4.3.2-1: Development that requires potable water shall be provided a permanent potable water supply
30 of adequate quantity and quality that complies with applicable County and State water regulations. Water
31 systems operated by or receiving water from Casitas Municipal Water District, the Calleguas Municipal
32 Water District or the United Water Conservation District will be considered permanent supplies unless an
33 Urban Water Management Plan (prepared pursuant to Part 2.6 of Division 6 of the Water Code) or a water
34 supply and demand assessment (prepared pursuant to Part 2.10 of Division 6 of the Water Code) demonstrates
35 that there is insufficient water supply to serve cumulative development within the district’s service area.
36 When the proposed water supply is to be drawn exclusively from wells in areas where groundwater supplies
37 have been determined by the Environmental Health Division or the Public Works Agency to be questionable
38 or inadequate, the developer shall be required to demonstrate the availability of a permanent potable water
39 supply for the life of the project.
40 Comment: Consistent. The SVLRC is served by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 (which is
41 managed by the City of Simi Valley). District No. 8 is a member of the CMWD. The main source of
42 water for District No. 8 is supplied by CMWD from the MWD and the State Water Project (City of

1 Simi Valley 2008). The CMWD is considered a permanent source by the County of Ventura (Ventura
2 County 2006).
3 Policy 4.3.2-2: Discretionary development as defined in section 10912 of the Water Code shall comply with
4 the water supply and demand assessment requirements of Part 2.10 of Division 6 of the Water Code.
5 Comment: Consistent. The project would be served by the CMWD, which is considered by Ventura
6 County to be a permanent source of water. A water availability letter would be submitted by CMWD
7 with the project application, verifying that adequate water supplies are available. In addition,
8 similar to Condition #14 (Master Development Plan) of CUP-3142-7, imposed by Ventura County for
9 the current phase of landfill expansion, an updated water supply plan would be included as part of a
10 Master Development Plan. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy.
11 Policy 4.3.2-3: Discretionary development shall be conditioned to incorporate water conservation techniques
12 and the use of drought resistant native plants pursuant to the County's Guide to Landscape Plans.
13 Comment: Consistent. Mitigation Measure VIS-1 requires that all landscaping plans follow the
14 Ventura County Guide to Landscape Plans guidelines unless waived at the time of submittal by the
15 Ventura County Planning Division. The Plans specify the minimum landscape and irrigation
16 coverage and suggested drought tolerant species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VIS-1
17 would ensure consistency with this policy.
18 Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities
19 Policy 4.4.2-1: Community sewage treatment facilities and solid waste disposal sites shall be deemed
20 consistent with the General Plan only if they are designated on the Public Facilities Map. Onsite septic
21 systems (i.e., individual sewage disposal systems), on-site wastewater treatment facilities, waste transfer
22 stations, off-site waste treatment facilities and on-site storage facilities are consistent with the General Plan if
23 they conform to the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan.
24 Comment: Consistent. The waste treatment facilities proposed for the SVLRC Expansion Project are
25 for the SVLRC and will not be available to the community and as such are not required to be
26 designated on Public Facilities Map. The existing on-site septic system may remain under the
27 proposed project, but is currently consistent with the General Plan. The additional waste treatment
28 facilities must be consistent with General Plan goals, policies and programs of the General Plan as a
29 condition of the CUP modification.
30 Policy 4.4.2-2: Any subdivision, or discretionary change in land use having a direct effect upon the volume of
31 sewage, shall be required to connect to a public sewer system. Exceptions to this policy to allow the use of
32 septic systems may be granted in accordance with County Sewer Policy. Installation and maintenance of
33 septic systems shall be regulated by the County Environmental Health Division in accordance with the
34 County's Sewer Policy, County Building Code, and County Service Area 32.
35 Comment: Consistent. The proposed project would result in an increase in generation of domestic
36 wastewater due to the increased number of employees. As part of the proposed SVLRC Expansion an
37 on-site self-contained packaged wastewater treatment plant is proposed within the ancillary/support
38 facilities area (Figure 2.4-3). The facility would be permitted by the LARWQCB and would meet the
39 operation and maintenance guidelines required by the California Department of Health Services
40 (DHS). The proposed project would be expected to meet the three Ventura County Sewer Policy
41 exception criteria and would not be required to connect to a public sewer system. EHD would
42 determine compliance with these criteria during the Individual Sewage Disposal System permitting
43 process.
1 Policy 4.4.2-3: In order to reduce the need for additional wastewater treatment capacity, the County shall:
2 • Require new discretionary development to utilize water-conserving design features;

3 • Encourage the retrofitting of existing uses and buildings with water-conserving devices;
4 • Require that new wastewater lateral and trunk collection lines be designed to allow the minimum
5 feasible amount of inflow and infiltration into the wastewater collection system; and
6 • Periodically inspect existing lateral and trunk collection lines to identify areas subject to excessive
7 inflow and infiltration and remedy identified problems as feasible.
8 Comment: Consistent. Treated wastewater at the SVLRC would be pumped to the leachate storage
9 tanks where it would commingle with treated leachate for reuse. The treated effluent would be used
10 for irrigation and/or dust control or applied back to the landfill.
11 Policy 4.4.2-5: Waste treatment and disposal operations shall be designed and conducted in a manner that is
12 compatible with surrounding land uses such that the potential impacts are mitigated to less than significant
13 levels, or, where no feasible mitigation measures are available, a statement of overriding considerations
14 consistent with CEQA shall be adopted. At the end of such operations, the site shall be restored to a use
15 compatible with surrounding land uses.
16 Comment: Consistent. As discussed in Impact LU-1, due to the open space, rural character of the
17 proposed landfill expansion area, the project site is most closely associated with the rural and open
18 space areas of Alamos Canyon and Brea Canyon, which have a rural, open space, and agricultural
19 (i.e., cattle grazing) community character. The proposed buildings and structures associated with the
20 project would be potentially incompatible with the rural, open space character of the surrounding area.
21 However, upon closure of the landfill, all of the buildings and structures would be removed, with the
22 exception of support facilities for closure and post-closure maintenance. These facilities would be
23 screened from surrounding areas due to topographic features (e.g., existing hillsides and ridgelines),
24 thus eliminating the incompatibility. Furthermore, the landfill closure area would be revegetated with
25 native drought-tolerant vegetation that would be compatible with surrounding vegetation.
26 Policy 4.4.2-6: Applicants for discretionary development shall be encouraged to employ practices that reduce
27 the quantities of wastes generated and shall be requested to engage in recycling activities to further reduce the
28 volume of waste disposed of in landfills.
29 Comment: Consistent. AB 939 requires every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its
30 waste from landfills by the year 2000. Current law also requires State agencies to institute waste
31 reduction and buy recycled activities to assist local governments in this effort. The project would be
32 in compliance with both AB 939 and current waste reduction laws.
33 Public Utilities
34 Policy 4.5.2-1: New gas, electric, cable television and telephone utility transmission lines shall use or parallel
35 existing utility rights-of-way where feasible and avoid scenic areas when not in conflict with the rules and
36 regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission. When such areas cannot be avoided, transmission
37 lines should be designed and located in a manner to minimize their visual impact.
38 Comment: Consistent. Existing electrical, gas, and communication facilities that currently serve the
39 Simi Valley Landfill are adequate to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no new gas, electric,
40 cable television, or telephone utility transmission corridors are expected to be constructed. However,
41 it is possible that additional communications lines may be necessary. New lines would be located in
42 existing utility corridors using existing infrastructure.
1 Policy 4.5.2-2: All transmission lines should be located and constructed in a manner which minimizes
2 disruption of natural vegetation and agricultural activities and avoids unnecessary grading of slopes when not
3 in conflict with the rules and regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission.
4 Comment: Consistent. As stated above, existing electrical, gas, and communication facilities that
5 currently serve the SVLRC are adequate to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no new gas,
6 electric, cable television, or telephone utility transmission lines are expected to be required.
7 However, additional communications lines would be located in existing corridors to minimize
8 disruption of natural vegetation and agricultural activities and avoid unnecessary grading of slopes.
9 Policy 4.5.2-3: Discretionary development shall be conditioned to place utility service lines underground
10 wherever feasible.
11 Comment: Consistent. No new utility transmission corridors are expected to be required. If feasible,
12 new utility service lines would be located underground.
13 Flood Control and Drainage Facilities
14 Policy 4.6.2-1: All necessary flood control and drainage facilities shall be constructed to meet the minimum
15 standards of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District consistent with the goals, policies and
16 programs of the General Plan.
17 Comment: Consistent. The preliminary hydrologic evaluation prepared for the proposed landfill
18 expansion (GeoSyntec 2006; see Appendix D) indicates that surface water can be managed from the
19 expanded site to prevent off-site flooding. Incorporation of six detention/sedimentation basins,
20 around the perimeter of the landfill (Figure 3.3-6), into the drainage plan would reduce outflows
21 associated with a 100-year flood to less than 10-year flood flows. This flow is consistent with the
22 Simi Valley Master Plan of Drainage mandatory peak flow rates. The stormwater management
23 system proposed by GeoSyntec is designed to manage peak flow from a 2-year, 25-year, and 100-
24 year storm. The design was based on simulated flood events, which ranged in duration from 5
25 minutes to 24-hours, thus exceeding requirements in 27 CCR 20365 (GeoSyntec 2006). Additionally,
26 implementation of Mitigation Measure WR-3 (requiring the proposed detention/sedimentation basin
27 in the northwest portion of Phase III, at the confluence of Alamos Canyon Creek and the tributary
28 creek to the northeast, be armored sufficiently to withstand erosive flow associated with a 100-year
29 storm event along Alamos Canyon Creek) would ensure consistency with this policy.
30 While a preliminary hydrologic evaluation was prepared in 2006, a detailed hydrologic analysis
31 shall be performed at the time construction drawings are prepared for the detention/sedimentation
32 basins. The detailed hydrologic analysis shall be performed in accordance with the Ventura County
33 Watershed Protection District Hydrology Manual and shall be consistent with the Watershed
34 Protection District Calleguas Creek Watershed Drainage Study. The hydrologic analysis must
35 further be in accordance with Watershed Protection District Standards, which is that there must be
36 no increase in peak runoff in any storm frequency. Facilities that have a direct connection to a
37 Watershed Protection District jurisdictional channel must be designed to meet District standards and
38 will require a permit from the District. The Watershed Protection District will have an opportunity
39 to review and comment on the draft construction drawings prior to finalizing the drawings and
40 proceeding with the construction of the detention/sedimentation basins.

1 Policy 4.6.2-2: Discretionary development shall be conditioned to provide flood control and drainage
2 facilities deemed by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District as necessary for the development, and
3 shall be required to contribute toward flood control facilities necessitated by cumulative development.
4 Comment: Consistent. As stated under Policy 4.6.2-1, the project will be designed to include
5 adequate flood control and drainage facilities (Section 2.3.3), by performing the hydrologic analysis
6 in conformance with the Watershed Protection District Hydrology Manual, being consistent with the
7 flow rates developed in the Calleguas Creek Watershed model, and by following the District’s
8 standards for reduction of peak runoff. Design of the detention/sedimentation basins will follow the
9 standards, guidelines, and procedures as established in the Ventura County Flood Control Design
10 Manual. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure WR-3 would require flood control
11 capable of withstanding a 100-year storm event along Alamos Canyon Creek.
12 Parks and Recreation
13 Policy 4.10.2-1: The County shall maintain and enforce the local parkland dedication requirements (Quimby
14 Ordinance), to acquire and develop neighborhood and community recreation facilities. Parkland dedication
15 shall be based on a standard of five acres of local parkland per thousand population, including neighborhood
16 and community parks.
17 Comment: Consistent. Although the Quimby Ordinance does not apply to a landfill project, the
18 applicant would pay in lieu fees for parks and trails development as described in Mitigation Measures
19 REC-1 through REC-3 in order offset increased recreational demands created by employee households.
20 Policy 4.10.2-3: Developers shall be encouraged to make unused open space available for recreation.
21 Comment: Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.14.2.3.4, Mitigation Measure REC-1 requires that
22 the applicant dedicate public easements for the planned Alamos Canyon Trail. Similarly, Mitigation
23 Measure REC-2 requires that the applicant offer to dedicate in fee the 20-acre community park site
24 identified in the escrow agreement between the applicant and Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks
25 District (RSRPD). Implementation of Mitigation Measures REC-1 and REC-2 would ensure that open
26 space would be available for recreation, thereby ensuring consistency with this policy.
27 Policy 4.10.2-4: The County shall require reservation of land for public purchase, pursuant to the County
28 Subdivision Ordinance, where requested by a recreation agency.
29 Comment: Consistent. As discussed in above and in Section 3.14.2.3.4, Mitigation Measures REC-1
30 and REC-2 would ensure that land would be reserved as requested by the RSRPD, thereby ensuring
31 consistency with this policy.
32 3.1.2.3.6 City of Simi Valley General Plan Consistency Analysis

33 The City of Simi Valley General Plan circulation overlay includes the proposed expansion of Alamos Canyon
34 Road, a secondary arterial, though the proposed project area. This future road is outside of the boundaries of
35 the City of Simi Valley, but within its sphere of influence. This road was proposed as part of The Canyons
36 Project and included in the associated Canyons Draft Specific Plan. This project is no longer proposed for
37 development and the property involved in The Canyons Project was subsequently acquired by Waste
38 Management. As such, the proposed portion of Alamos Canyon Road would not be required to support the
39 proposed Canyons residential development and there would be no other need for the road as included in the
40 General Plan. Nor would the road be compatible with the landfill expansion. Indeed, the project would
41 preclude the development of this proposed Alamos Canyon Road. Therefore, the City of Simi Valley General

1 Plan should be amended to remove the proposed Alamos Canyon Road from the Circulation Element as a
2 condition of this project’s approval.
3 3.1.3 Mitigation Monitoring

4 Table 3.1-1 summarizes the potentially significant adverse land use impacts of the proposed project and less
5 than significant impacts for which mitigation measures would further reduce impacts. For each impact, the
6 table describes any applicable mitigation measures, the significance of the impact following mitigation, and
7 identifies the parties responsible for implementing and overseeing the mitigation as well as the timing of the
8 mitigation. The mitigation measures would be imposed as conditions of approval of CUP-3142 modification
9 number 8 for the proposed project.
Table 3.1-1. Mitigation for Land Use Impacts

Potentially Significance
Significant Mitigation Measure(s) After Responsible Timing
Parties
Adverse Impact Mitigation
LU-1: The applicant shall pay a one-
time fee (as determined by the
decision-making body) to a County-
approved low-income-housing entity
Ventura County
or an established housing trust fund to Less than Resource Prior to
Impact LU-3: assist in providing for construction of significant issuance of
Demand for affordable housing within the vicinity Significant Management Conditional
Agency,
Housing of Simi Valley.No feasible mitigation and Planning Use Permit
as the County lacks the legal authority unavoidable modification
or an enforceable mechanism to Division
impose fees and allocate them to
projects that would mitigate housing
demand impacts.


1 3.2 Air Quality
3 The following section describes the climate/ meteorology of the project area, the regulations that apply to the
4 project, criteria for determining the significance of impacts, the potential impacts associated with the project,
5 and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce these impacts.
7 The project site is located in the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which comprises Ventura, Santa
8 Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. Emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project
9 alternative would affect air quality in the immediate project area and the surrounding region. The area of
10 influence with respect to Valley Fever is the area encompassing the SVLRC that is subject to blowing dust as
11 a result of disturbance of previously undisturbed soil, as Valley Fever occurs as a result of inhalation of a
12 specific wind-blown fungus present in the soil.
13 3.2.1.2 Setting
14 3.2.1.2.1 Regional Climate and Meteorology
15 The climate of the project region is classified as Mediterranean, which is characterized by cool, dry summers
16 and mild winters. The major influences on the regional climate are the Eastern Pacific High, a strong,
17 persistent high-pressure system, and the moderating effects of the Pacific Ocean. Seasonal variations in the
18 position and strength of the Eastern Pacific High are key factors in weather changes for the area.
19 The Eastern Pacific High attains its greatest strength and most northerly position during the summer, when it
20 is centered west of northern California. In this location, this high effectively shelters southern California from
21 the effects of polar storm systems. Large-scale atmospheric subsidence associated with the high produces an
22 elevated temperature inversion along the West Coast. The base of this subsidence inversion is generally 1,000
23 to 2,500 feet above msl during the summer. Vertical mixing is often limited to the base of the inversion and
24 air pollutants are trapped in the lower atmosphere.
25 The proximity of the Eastern Pacific High and a thermal low pressure system in the desert interior to the east
26 produces a prevailing westerly wind within the project region for most of the year, particularly during the
27 spring and summer months. Breezes typically increase during the morning hours and reach a peak in the
28 afternoon. These winds generally subside after sundown. During the warmest months of the year, however,
29 breezes can persist well into the nighttime hours. Conversely, during the colder months of the year, easterly
30 land breezes increase by sunset and into the evening hours.
31 During fall and winter months, the Eastern Pacific High can combine with high pressure over the continent to
32 produce light winds and extended inversion conditions in the region. These stagnant atmospheric conditions
33 often result in can produce elevated pollutant concentrations in the SSCAB. Excessive buildup of high pressure
34 in the Great Basin region can produces a “Santa Ana” condition, characterized by warm, dry, northeast winds
35 in the region. Santa Ana winds are a dominant weather pattern in the project area from late fall through the
36 winter months. Santa Ana events cause blowing dust from disturbed soil and blowing ash from areas of recent
37 wild fires.
38 As winter approaches, the Eastern Pacific High begins to weaken and shift to the south, allowing storm
39 systems to pass through the region. The number of days with precipitation varies substantially from year to
40 year, which produces a wide range of variability in annual precipitation totals. At Canoga Park, about 10
41 miles southeast of the project site, Aannual precipitation averages about 176.89 inches per year (collected
3.2 Air Quality
1 from 1949 through 2006), with the majority of rainfall occurring from late November through early April
2 (NOAA 2010). This wet-dry seasonal pattern is characteristic of most of California. Infrequent precipitation
3 during the summer months usually occurs from tropical air masses that originate from continental Mexico or
4 tropical storms off the West Coast of Mexico.
5 The average high and low temperatures in Simi Valley in August July are about 9695°F and 5857°F,
6 respectively. January average high and low temperatures are 688°F and 3409°F, respectively (NOAA 2010).
7 Prevailing daytime winds for the warmer months of the year are from the west to west-southwest with average
8 wind speeds of approximately eight to twelve12 miles per hour (mph). Predominant nighttime winds are from
9 the east to east southeast and average from zero three to four mph. Santa Ana winds blow through the valley
10 from the northeast to east and can exceed velocities of 30 mph.
11 The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in Simi Valley is limited by the presence of persistent temperature
12 inversions. Because air cools under decreased atmospheric pressure, temperatures typically decrease with
13 altitude. A reversal of this state in the atmosphere, where temperature increases with height, is known as an
14 inversion. The base of the inversion, or the mixing height, represents an abrupt change in the density of the
15 atmosphere so that the air below the inversion base does not mix with the air above the base.
16 Two types of temperature inversions (warmer air on top of colder air) are created in the area: subsidence and
17 radiational (surface). The subsidence inversion is a regional effect created by the Pacific high in which air is
18 heated as it is compressed when it flows from a high pressure area to the low pressure areas inland. This type
19 of inversion generally forms at about 1,000 to 2,500 feet and can occur throughout the year, but is most
20 evident during the summer months. Surface inversions are formed by the more rapid cooling of air near the
21 ground at night, especially during winter. This type of inversion is typically lower and is generally
22 accompanied by stable air. Both types of inversions limit the dispersal of air pollutants in the region. Ozone
23 (O3) is the primary air pollutant of concern during the subsidence inversions, while carbon monoxide (CO),
24 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulates are of greatest concern during winter inversions.
25 3.2.1.2.2 Air Pollutants and Air Monitoring
26 Criteria Pollutants
27 Air pollutants are defined as two general types: 1) “criteria” pollutants, representing pollutants of which
28 national and state ambient air quality standards have been set based on health protection and welfare
29 considerations; and 2) toxic compounds, which are referred to as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) by the
30 federal government and as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by the State of California. TACs are pollutants that
31 have been determined to pose potential cancer or non-cancer (acute or chronic) health risks to the general
32 public. Units of concentration for both of these types of air pollutants are generally expressed in parts per
33 million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).
34 Air quality at a given location can be described by the concentrations of various air pollutants in the
35 atmosphere. The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by comparing the pollutant’s
36 concentration to an appropriate national and/or state ambient air quality standard. These standards represent
37 the allowable atmospheric concentrations at which the public health and welfare are protected and include a
38 reasonable margin of safety to protect the more sensitive individuals in the population. The U.S.
39 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes the NAAQS that regulate the following criteria
40 pollutants: ozone (O3); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (NO2); sulfur dioxide (SO2); particulate
41 matter (PM) less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10); particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
42 (PM2.5); and lead. Maximum pollutant concentrations generally shall not exceed a short-term NAAQS more than
43 once per year and they shall not exceed the annual standards on average over three years.

3.2 Air Quality
1 The federal 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the measured average of the annual fourth-highest daily
2 maximum 8-hour average concentration is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. For CO, the 8-hour and 1-hour
3 federal standards of standards of 9 and 35 ppm, respectively, are not to be exceeded more than once per year.
4 The federal annual NO2 standard is attained when the annual arithmetic mean concentration in a calendar year
5 is less than or equal to 0.053 ppm (rounded to three decimal places). The 1-hour NO2 standard is attained
6 when the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentration
7 does not exceed 0.10 ppm. For SO2, the annual primary federal standard is attained if the annual one 1-hour
8 arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 80 0.075 µg/m3. The EPA has rescinded the former 3-
9 hour and 24-hour and annual SO2 primary standards of 1,300 and 365 µg/m3, respectively, are not to be
10 exceeded more than once per yearhave been rescinded. The federal PM10 standards is are attained when the
11 annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50 µg/m3, and when the 99th percentile of 24-
12 hour concentrations is less than or equal to 150 ug/m3. The federal PM2.5 standards are attained when the
13 annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3 and when the 98th percentile of 24-
14 hour concentration is less than or equal to 65 µg/m3.
15 The state standards, established by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), are termed the California
16 Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). California standards for O3, CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are values
17 not to be exceeded. All other standards are not to be equaled or exceeded. Table 3.2-1 below summarizes the
18 NAAQS and CAAQS.
Table 3.2-1. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

California National Standards1
Pollutant Averaging Time
Standards 2 Primary2,3 Secondary2,4
8-hour 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm ---
Ozone (O3)
1-hour6 0.09 ppm --- ---
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm ---
Carbon monoxide (CO)
1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm ---
Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Same as primary
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.10 ppm ---
Annual --- --- ---
Sulfur dioxide 24-hour 0.04 ppm --- ---
(SO2) 3-hour --- --- 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm ---
Annual
Particulate matter less (arithmetic mean) 20 µg/m3 --- ---
than 10 microns (PM10)
24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as primary
Annual 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 ---
Particulate matter less than (arithmetic mean)
2.5 microns (PM2.5) 3
24-hour --- 35 µg/m ---
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 --- ---
Calendar Quarter --- 1.5 µg/m3 Same as primary
Lead (Pb)
Rolling 3-Month
--- 0.15 µg/m3 Same as primary
Average
Notes:
1. Standards, other than for ozone and those based on annual averages, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The
ozone standard is attained when the number of days above the standard in three continuous calendar years is less than
four.
2. Concentrations are expressed in units in which they were promulgated.
3. Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
4. Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects of a pollutant.
5. 1-hour average concentration.
Source: ARB 2008a
19 The criteria pollutants of primary concern that are assessed in this EIR include O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, and
20 PM2.5. Of the criteria pollutants of concern, O3 is unique because it is not directly emitted. Rather, ozone is a

3.2 Air Quality
1 secondary pollutant, formed from precursor pollutants that include reactive volatile organic compounds
2 (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). VOC and NOx react to form O3 in the presence of sunlight through a
3 complex series of photochemical reactions. As a result, unlike inert pollutants, ozone levels usually peak
4 several hours after the precursors are emitted and many miles downwind of the source.
5 these, O3 is the most serious and widespread air pollution problem in Ventura County. Ozone, the main
6 constituent of smog, forms in the atmosphere by a series of complex chemical reactions and transformations
7 involving volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. These
8 “ozone precursor” pollutants come from a wide variety of sources such as gasoline vapors, fuel combustion,
9 chemical solvents, and household products such as hairsprays, deodorants, and cleaners.
10 Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas, consisting of three atoms of oxygen, that can chemically burn and
11 cause narrowing of airways, forcing the lungs and heart to work harder to provide oxygen to the body. A
12 powerful oxidant, ozone is capable of destroying organic matter – including human lung and airway tissue.
13 Ozone damages cells in the lungs, making the passages inflamed and swollen. Ozone also causes shortness of
14 breath, nasal congestion, coughing, eye irritation, sore throat, headache, chest discomfort, fatigue, and nausea.
15 It can damage alveoli, the individual air sacs in the lungs where oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange occurs.
16 Ozone also has been associated with a decrease in resistance to infections. People most affected by O3 include
17 the young, elderly, and athletes. Ozone may pose the worst health threat to people who already suffer from
18 respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Ozone also damages agricultural crops, native vegetation, and various
19 natural and manufactured materials.
20 As many of the project-related emission sources would be diesel-powered, diesel particulate matter (DPM) is
21 a key pollutant evaluated in this analysis. DPM is one of the components of ambient PM10 and PM2.5. DPM is
22 classified as a TAC by the ARB. As a result, DPM is evaluated in this study both as a criteria pollutant (as a
23 component of PM10 and PM2.5) and as a TAC (for cancer and non-cancer health effects).
24 Secondary PM2.5 Formation
25 Primary particles are emitted directly into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion sources, windblown soil,
26 and dust. Secondary PM2.5 forms in the atmosphere by complex reactions of precursor emissions of gaseous
27 pollutants, such as NOx, SOx, VOC, and ammonia (South Coast Air Quality Management District [SCAQMD]
28 et al. 2007). Secondary PM2.5 includes sulfates, nitrates, and complex carbon compounds.
29 Project-generated emissions of NOx, SOx, and reactive organic compounds (ROC) would contribute to
30 secondary PM2.5 formation some distance downwind of the emission sources. However, since it is hard to
31 predict secondary PM2.5 formation from an individual project, the air quality analysis in this document focuses
32 on the effects of direct PM2.5 emissions generated by the project.
33 Toxic Air Contaminants
34 TACs are identified by the ARB based on exposure assessments conducted by the Board and health effects
35 assessments conducted by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Some TACs
36 are cancer-causing chemicals. Others have non-cancer health effects from short-term isolated exposure or
37 longer term continuous exposure for a significant fraction of a lifetime. Some chemicals are both cancer-
38 causing agents and have non-cancer health effects as well. OEHHA develops non-cancer and cancer health
39 values from information available from published animal and human studies.
40 Atmospheric Deposition
41 The fallout of air pollutants to the surface of the earth is known as atmospheric deposition. Atmospheric
42 deposition occurs in both a wet and dry form. Wet deposition occurs in the form of precipitation or cloud water
43 (fog) and is associated with the conversion in the atmosphere of directly emitted pollutants into secondary
3.2 Air Quality
1 pollutants such as acids. Dry deposition occurs in the form of directly emitted pollutants or the conversion of
2 gaseous pollutants into secondary PM. Atmospheric deposition can produce watershed acidification, aquatic
3 toxic pollutant loading, deforestation, damage to building materials, and respiratory problems.
4 Local Air Monitoring Levels
5 The EPA designates all areas of the United States as having air quality better than (attainment) or worse than
6 (nonattainment) the NAAQS. A nonattainment designation generally means that a primary NAAQS has been
7 exceeded more than once per year in a given area. The ARB also designates areas of the state as either in
8 attainment or nonattainment of the CAAQS. An area is in nonattainment if a CAAQS has been exceeded
9 more than once in three years.
10 The project site is located in the Ventura County portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin, which includes
11 Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. The project site is located in the Ventura County portion of the
12 SCCAB. The EPA categorizes Ventura County this area as in serious a Severe-17 nonattainment for of the
13 eight-hour ozone standard, serious nonattainment for PM10, maintenance for the CO standards, and
14 attainment/unclassifiable nonattainment area for PM2.5. Ventura County is in attainment for the CO, NO2, and
15 SO2 national standards (EPA 20108).
16 The ARB also designates areas of the state according to whether they meet the CAAQS. A nonattainment
17 designation means that a CAAQS has been exceeded more than once in three years. The ARB currently
18 designates Ventura County as a nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The air basin is in attainment of
19 the CAAQS for CO, SO2, NO2, sulfates, and lead, and is unclassified for hydrogen sulfide and visibility
20 reducing particles.
21 Generally, concentrations of photochemical smog, or O3, are highest during the summer months and coincide
22 with the season of maximum solar radiation. Inert pollutant concentrations tend to be the greatest during the
23 winter months and are a product of light wind conditions and surface-based temperature inversions that are
24 more frequent during that time of year. These conditions limit atmospheric dispersion, trapping pollutants
25 close to the ground. However, in the case of PM10 impacts from fugitive dust sources, maximum dust impacts
26 may occur during high wind events and/or in proximity to man-made ground-disturbing activities, such as
27 vehicular activities on roads and earth moving during construction activities.
28 The VCAPCD maintains a network of stations within the Ventura County that monitor air quality and
29 compliance with the ambient standards. The closest station to the proposed project is Simi Valley – Cochran
30 Street, about six miles east-southeast of the SVLRC. This station monitors ambient levels of O3, NO2, PM10,
31 and PM2.5. Table 3.2-2 presents a summary of the most recent four years of data collected at the Simi Valley –
32 Cochran Street station.
Table 3.2-2. Maximum Pollutant Concentrations Measured at the Simi Valley – Cochran
Street Monitoring Station (2005 – 2008)
Averaging National State Highest Monitored Concentration
Pollutant Period Standard Standard 2005 2006 2007 2008
1-hour n/a 0.09 0.121 0.130 0.113 0.115
Ozone (ppm)
8-hour 0.075 0.07 0.094 0.104 0.097 0.095
1-hour n/a 0.18 0.063 0.055 0.064 0.077
NO2 (ppm)
Annual 0.053 0.03 0.015 0.013 0.013 0.012
24-hour 150 50 76 57 119 84
PM10 (μg/m3)
Annual n/a 20 24.6 22.4 28.9 n/a26.6
24-hour 35 n/a 51 40 54 561
PM2.5 (μg/m3)
Annual 15 12 11.2 10.3 13.4 n/a10.7
Source: ARB 2009
Notes:
1. Exceedences of the standards are bolded.

3.2 Air Quality
1 Sensitive Receptors
2 The impact of air emissions on sensitive members of the population is a special concern. According to
3 VCAPCD guidance, sensitive receptor land use types include residences, schools (elementary through high
4 schools), daycare centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project
5 site include the following: 1) a residence located about one mile to the south; 2) a medical facility, Kidney
6 Center, located 1.1 miles to the south; 3) an elementary school and playground, Arroyo Elementary School,
7 located 1.2 miles to the south; and 4) a daycare center, Arroyo Montessori, Inc., located 1.6 miles to the south.
8 3.2.1.2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
9 Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are emitted by natural
10 processes and human activities. Examples of GHGs that are produced both by natural processes and industry
11 include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
12 The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without these natural GHGs,
13 the Earth’s surface would be about 61°F cooler (AEP 2007). However, emissions from fossil fuel combustion
14 by humans have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere to above natural levels. Scientific
15 evidence indicates a correlation between increasing global temperatures/climate change over the past century
16 and human induced levels of GHGs. According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
17 Change (IPCC) “Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007,” most of the observed increase in global
18 average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
19 concentrations of these three gases, collectively known as Greenhouse Gases (GHG). The report states,
20 “Global atmospheric concentrations activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
21 determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide
22 concentration are primarily due to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous
23 oxide are primarily due to agriculture” (IPCC 2007: Summary for Policymakers).
24 For example, sSome observed changes effects of climate change include shrinking glaciers, thawing
25 permafrost, later freezing and earlier break-up of ice on rivers and lakes, a lengthened growing season, shifts
26 in plant and animal ranges, and earlier flowering of trees (IPCC 2007). Other, longer term environmental
27 impacts of global warming may include sea level rise, changing weather patterns with increases in the severity
28 of storms and droughts, changes to local and regional ecosystems including the potential loss of species, and a
29 significant reduction in winter snow pack. For example, one study estimates that the Sierra Nevada Mountains
30 as a whole could lose as much as 50 percent of its April snowpack compared to current levels by the end of
31 the 21st century (California Department of Water Resources 2006). Current data suggests that in the next 25
32 years, in every season of the year, California will experience unprecedented heat, longer and more extreme
33 heat waves, greater intensity and frequency of heat waves, and longer dry periods. More specifically, the
34 California Climate Change Center predicted that California could witness the following events (Fried, et al
35 2006):
36 • Temperature rises between 3-10.5°F;

37 • 6-20 inches or more of sea level rise;
38 • 2-4 times as many heat wave days in major urban centers;
39 • 2-6 times as many heat related deaths in major urban centers;
40 • 1-1.5 times more critically dry years; and
41 • 10-55 percent increase in the expected risk of wildfires.

3.2 Air Quality
1 These environmental changes are predicted to have negative environmental, economic, and social
2 consequences around the globe.
3 GHGs have varying amounts of global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the ability of a gas or aerosol
4 to trap heat in the atmosphere. By convention, CO2 is assigned a GWP of one. In comparison, CH4 (methane
5 or natural gas) has a GWP of 21, which means that it has a global warming effect 21 times greater than CO2
6 on an equal-mass basis. To account for their GWP, GHG emissions are often reported as a CO2 equivalent
7 (CO2e). The CO2e for a source is calculated by multiplying each GHG emission by its GWP, and adding the
8 results together to produce a single, combined emission rate representing all GHGs.
9 There are no federal standards for GHG emissions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the
10 harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized and that the EPA must regulate GHGs
11 as pollutants. Currently, control of GHGs is generally regulated at the state level and is approached by setting
12 emission reduction targets for existing sources of GHGs, setting policies to promote renewable energy and
13 increased energy efficiency, and developing statewide action plans.
14 To date, 12 states, including California, have set state GHG emission targets. Executive Order S-3-05 and the
15 passage of AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, promulgated the California target to
16 achieve 1990 GHG levels by the year 2020. This emissions reduction e target-setting approach allows
17 progress to be made in addressing climate change, and is a forerunner to the setting of emission limits. The
18 Federal government and EPA have also begun the process to regulate GHGs as pollutants (sSee section
19 3.2.1.3.2 of this EIR).A companion bill, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, similarly addresses global warming, but from
20 the perspective of electricity generators selling power into the state. The legislation requires that imported
21 power meet the same GHG standards as power plants in California.
22 3.2.1.2.4 Valley Fever
23 Soils in arid areas, such as portions of Ventura County, may contain a fungus known as coccidioides immitis.
24 Spores from the fungus can be released during earthmoving operations, such as agricultural plowing, grading,
25 and excavation. Upon release, the spores may cause a disease known as coccidioicomycosis in susceptible
26 individuals. The disease is also known as Valley Fever, based on its being found in large areas of the
27 California Central Valley. The disease is considered to be endemic throughout Ventura County.
28 In a typical year, only a small number of cases of Valley Fever are reported to the Ventura County Public
29 Health Services. In 1994, however, an increase in Valley Fever cases was reported in the weeks and months
30 following the January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake. The U.S. Department of Health Services, Center for
31 Disease Control (CDC) hypothesized that the earthquake and its aftershocks caused soil to become airborne,
32 releasing coccidioides immitis spores. At least 170 people in Ventura County were diagnosed with Valley
33 Fever. Fewer than 5 percent of those infected became seriously ill and one fatality was reported. Once
34 infected, most victims become immune, according to the CDC (World News Digest, June 1994).
35 From 1994 to 2002, the number of cases of Valley Fever decreased markedly (SAIC 2002). The number of
36 cases reported annually during that time period averaged less than 19. However, cases of Valley Fever
37 increased by 600 percent in Spring 2004, following major wildfires in Ventura County in Fall 2003. About 14
38 cases per month were reported from Fall 2003 to Spring 2004, compared to an average of two cases per
39 month before the October fires. At least 70 cases were reported during that time period, with two thirds of
40 them in the eastern part of the county (Daily News 2004).
42 To provide for a more comprehensible understanding of the mandates that pertain to the air quality resource,
43 the following organizes regulations for criteria pollutants and GHGs into two separate sections.
3.2 Air Quality
1 3.2.1.3.1 Criteria PollutantsFederal Regulations
2 Federal Regulations
3 The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1969 and its subsequent amendments form the basis for the nation’s air
4 pollution control effort. The EPA is responsible for implementing most aspects of the CAA. Basic elements of
5 the act include the NAAQS, hazardous air pollutant standards, attainment plans, motor vehicle emission
6 standards, stationary source emission standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone
7 protection, and enforcement provisions.
8 The CAA delegates the enforcement of the federal standards to the states. In California, the ARB is
9 responsible for enforcing air pollution regulations. In Ventura County, the VCAPCD has been delegated this
10 responsibility.
11 State Implementation Plan
12 All states with nonattainment areas are required by the CAA to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
13 that is designed to eliminate or reduce the severity and number of NAAQS violations, with an underlying goal
14 of bringing (and maintaining) the state’s air quality conditions into compliance with the NAAQS by specific
15 deadlines. The SIP is the primary means for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the
16 regulatory measures needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS in each state.
17 In July 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Based on Ventura County’s ozone levels over
18 the previous three years, EPA designated Ventura County as a moderate nonattainment area for the 8-hour
19 ozone standard on June 15, 2004. Moderate ozone nonattainment areas must attain the national 8-hour ozone
20 standard by June 15, 2010. On February 14, 2008, ARB formally requested the EPA to reclassify Ventura
21 County up one classification level to a serious 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. This means that Ventura
22 County must meet the national 8-hour ozone standard by June 15, 2013. Although Ventura County will have
23 more time to attain the 8-hour standard, the serious classification requires Ventura County to meet the
24 requirements for that higher classification, many of which are more stringent than for moderate areas. The
25 strategies for the County to attain the national 8-hour O3 standard are presented in the Final Ventura County
26 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP) (VCAPCD 2008). The 2007 AQMP also presents 2003 -
27 2005 Triennial Assessment and Plan Update for the County, as required by the CCAA.
28 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards

29 for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
30 On March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905), the EPA promulgated the emission guidelines for existing MSW landfills
31 and the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new or modified MSW landfills under authority of
32 Section 111 of the CAA. Subpart WWW regulates the emissions of non-methane organic compounds
33 (NMOC) emissions from MSW landfills. The landfills emission guidelines, as implemented through an
34 approved State plan or the landfills Federal plan, and the Landfills NSPS require large landfills (at least 2.5
35 million mega grams [Mg] and 2.5 million cubic meters in size) with estimated NMOC emissions of at least 50
36 Mg per year to collect and control or treat landfill gas.
37 On January 16, 2003 (68 Federal Register [FR] 2227), EPA promulgated the Landfills National Emission
38 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart AAAA) under authority of
39 section 112 of the CAA. The Landfills NESHAP apply to both major and area sources and contain the same
40 requirements as the landfills emission guidelines and Landfills NSPS, but they also add the following:
41 • Requires landfill operators to continuously monitor control devices to ensure compliance with the
42 operating conditions for landfill gas control systems;
3.2 Air Quality
1 • Adds new reporting requirements to ensure that any deviations will be corrected in a timely fashion;
2 • Requires MSW Landfills to prepare and implement a plan to control toxic air emissions during
3 startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) of their landfill gas collection and control systems and to
4 report when this plan is not followed;
5 • Reduces toxic air emissions from bioreactor operations at MSW landfills; and
6 • Requires bioreactor landfills to install and operate the collection and control systems, required by
7 existing rules, on an earlier schedule than conventional landfills.
8 Emission Standards for Non-Road Diesel Engines
9 The EPA has established a series of cleaner emission standards for new off-road diesel engines culminating in
10 the Tier 4 Final Rule of June 2004. The Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 standards require compliance with
11 progressively more stringent emission standards. Tier 1 standards were phased in from 1996 to 2000 (year of
12 manufacture), depending on the engine horsepower category. Tier 2 standards were phased in from 2001 to
13 2006 and the Tier 3 standards were phased in from 2006 to 2008. The Tier 4 standards complement the latest
14 2007+ on-road heavy-duty engine standards by requiring 90 percent reduction in DPM and NOx when
15 compared against current emission levels. To meet these standards, engine manufacturers will produce new
16 engines with advanced emissions control technologies similar to those already expected for on-road heavy
17 duty diesel vehicles. The Tier 4 standards will be phased in starting with smaller engines in 2008 until all but
18 the very largest diesel engines meet NOx and PM standards in 2015.
19 Emission Standards for On-Road Trucks
20 To reduce emissions from on-road, heavy-duty diesel trucks, EPA established a series of cleaner emission
21 standards for new engines, starting in 1988. The 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule provides the final and
22 cleanest standards for engines manufactured in 2007 (EPA 2000a). Complete phase-in of the 2007 standards
23 for new engines will be accomplished by 2010.
24 State Regulations and Agreements
25 California Clean Air Act
26 Under the CAA, state agencies may establish Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) and regulations of their
27 own, provided they are at least as stringent as the federal requirements. The ARB has adopted the NAAQS for
28 purposes of regulating air quality in California and they have promulgated more stringent ambient standards
29 as the CAAQS.
30 Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles
31 The purpose of this regulation is to reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-
32 fueled vehicles (ARB 2008b). Vehicle fleets as a whole must meet annual emission factor reduction
33 requirements, based upon schedules identified in the regulation. This regulation applies to existing and
34 proposed vehicles that perform refuse handling and cell excavation activities at the SVLRC.
35 Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Idling Regulation
36 This ARB rule became effective in February 1, 2005, and prohibits heavy-duty diesel trucks from idling for
37 longer than five minutes at a time, unless they are queuing, and provided the queue is located beyond 100 feet
38 from any homes or schools (ARB 2006a).

3.2 Air Quality
1 California Diesel Fuel Regulations
2 In 2004, the ARB set limits on the sulfur content of diesel fuel sold in California for use in on-road and off-
3 road motor vehicles (ARB 2004). Under this rule, diesel fuel used in motor vehicles has been limited to 500-
4 ppm sulfur since 1993. The sulfur limit was reduced to 15 ppm beginning on September 1, 2006.
5 Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP)
6 The Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) establishes a uniform program to regulate
7 portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units (ARB 2005). Once registered in the PERP,
8 engines and equipment units may operate throughout California without the need to obtain individual permits
9 from local air districts, as long as the equipment is located at a single location for no more than 12 months.
10 The PERP generally would apply to portable equipment used during proposed construction activities.
11 Local Regulations and Agreements
12 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
13 Through the attainment planning process, the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
14 develops VCAPCD Rules and Regulations to regulate sources of air pollution in the County. The VCAPCD
15 rules most applicable to the project are listed below.
16 Rule 12 10- Authority to ConstructPermits Required: This rule requires anyone that installs or modifies
17 equipment that will emit air contaminants to first obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC). For instance,
18 modifications to the existing flares or generators at the SVLRC that are modified would require an ATC.
19 Rule 26 - New Source Review: This rule specifies the New Source Review provisions that are applicable to
20 new, replacement, modified or relocated emissions units in Ventura County. These provisions shall be
21 applicable on a pollutant-by-pollutant and an emissions unit-by-emissions unit basis. Applications received by
22 the VCAPCD shall be subject to the version of this rule in effect at the time such application is deemed
23 complete, regardless of the date on which the new or replacement emissions unit is installed, or the date on
24 which the emissions unit is modified or relocated.
25 Rule 33 – Part 70 Permits – General: Rule 33, which includes Rules 33 through 33.10, specifies the
26 requirements and procedures by which a source would obtain a Part 70 permit (Title V Permit). The SVLRC
27 is a major source of air emissions. Operational and emissions limits are defined in its VCAPCD Part 70
28 Permit No. 01395. This Operating Permit has a term of July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012.
29 Rule 36 - New Source Review – Hazardous Air Pollutants: The requirements of this Rule apply to any
30 owner or operator who constructs or reconstructs a major source of HAP, as described in Section 112 (b) of
31 the federal CAA, after the effective date of this Rule unless the major source in question has been specifically
32 regulated or exempted from regulation under a standard issued pursuant to Section 112(d), Section 112(h), or
33 Section 112(j) of the CAA and incorporated in a subpart of 40CFR63, or the owner or operator of such major
34 source has received an ATC for such construction or reconstruction project before the effective date of this
35 Rule.
36 Rule 51 – Nuisance: This rule prohibits discharge from any source of air contaminants or other material
37 which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public;
38 or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public; or which cause or
39 have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.

3.2 Air Quality
1 Rule 54 – Sulfur Compounds: This rule applies to any source that emits sulfur compounds and it includes
2 limitations on sulfur emission concentrations and ambient impacts.
3 Rule 55 - Fugitive Dust: This rule prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any applicable source such that
4 the dust remains visible beyond the midpoint (width) of a public street or road adjacent to the property line of
5 the emission source or beyond 50 feet from the property line if there is not an adjacent public street or road.
6 This rule also prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any applicable source such that the dust causes 20
7 percent opacity or greater during each observation and the total duration of such observations (not necessarily
8 consecutive) is a cumulative 3 minutes or more in any one hour. A person conducting active operations shall
9 utilize one or more of the applicable best available control measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions for
10 each fugitive dust source type. No person shall conduct an active operation with a monthly import or export of
11 2,150 cubic yards or more of bulk material without utilizing at least one of the following measures at each
12 vehicle egress from the site to a public paved road: 1) install a pad consisting of washed gravel (minimum
13 size: one inch) maintained in a clean condition to a depth of at least six inches and extending at least 30 feet
14 wide and at least 50 feet long; 2) pave the surface at least 100 feet long and at least 20 feet wide; 3) utilize a
15 wheel shaker/wheel spreading device, also known as a rumble grate, consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe,
16 or grates) at least 24 feet long and sufficient width to allow all wheels of vehicle traffic to travel over grate to
17 remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site; and 4) install and
18 utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles
19 exit the site. No person shall engage in earth-moving activities in a manner that creates visible dust emissions
20 over 100 feet in length. Additionally, no person shall allow track-out to extend 25 feet or more in length
21 unless at least one of the following three control measures is utilized: 1) track-out area improvement; 2) track-
22 out prevention; and 3) track-out removal.
23 Rule 62.7 - Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities: The purpose of this rule is to
24 limit emissions of asbestos, a TAC, from structural demolition/renovation activities. The rule requires people
25 to notify the VCAPCD of proposed demolition/renovation activities involving 100 square feet or more of
26 asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and to survey these structures for the presence of ACMs. The rule also
27 includes notification requirements for any intent to disturb ACM; emission control measures; and ACM
28 removal, handling, and disposal techniques. All proposed structural demolition activities associated with
29 project construction would need to comply with the requirements of Rule 62.7.
30 Rule 72 - New Source Performance Standards: As incorporated in this rule, the provisions of Title 40 CFR
31 Part 60 New Source Performance Standards are hereby adopted by reference and shall apply to the owner or
32 operator of any stationary source which contains an affected facility, the construction or modification of
33 which is commenced after the applicability date of each NSPS. This rule incorporates the following
34 provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60: Subpart WWW Municipal Solid Waste
35 Landfills.
36 Rule 74.17.1 – Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: The provisions of this Rule shall apply to all MSW
37 landfills meeting both of the following conditions: 1) Construction, reconstruction, or modification was
38 commenced before May 30, 1991; and 2) the MSW landfill has accepted waste at any time since November 8,
39 1987, or has additional design capacity available for future waste deposition. The provisions of this Rule shall
40 apply to any solid waste disposal site exempted under Subsections F.3 or F.4 or Rule 74.17. The rule provides
41 requirements for gas collection and control system.
42 Rule 74.9 – Stationary Internal Combustion Engines: The purpose of this rule is to limit the emissions of
43 NOX, CO, and ROCs from any stationary spark-ignited or diesel internal combustion engine rated at 50 or
44 more horsepower, operated on any gaseous fuel, including liquid petroleum gas (LPG), or liquid fuel, and not
45 subject to the provisions of Rule 74.16.

3.2 Air Quality
1 3.2.1.3.2 GHGs
2 International Initiatives
3 Over the past 15 years, various international, national, regional, state, and local initiatives have been adopted
4 to address climate change. The foremost international climate change initiative is the United Nations
5 Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), commonly known as the Kyoto Protocol. Signed on
6 March 21, 1994, the Kyoto Protocol calls for governments to gather and share information on GHG
7 emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and
8 adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing
9 countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. There have been several
10 international summits since Kyoto, most recently Copenhagen (December 2009), which seek to advance and
11 cement climate change goals and programs, but no significant advances in this area have been accomplished
12 since Kyoto.
13 Federal Initiatives and Regulations
14 Although the U.S. has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it established a comprehensive policy to address
15 climate change in 2002. The policy has three basic components: slowing the growth of emissions,
16 strengthening science, technology, and institutions, and enhancing international cooperation. The federal
17 government is implementing this policy through voluntary and incentive-based programs and has established
18 major programs to advance climate technologies and improve climate science.
19 The U.S. government administers a wide array of public-private partnerships to reduce U.S. GHG intensity.
20 These programs focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy, methane, and other non-carbon dioxide (non-
21 C02) gases, agricultural practices and implementation of technologies to achieve GHG reductions. Based upon
22 a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision (Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) 549 U.S. 497, the Environmental
23 Protection Agency (EPA) has been given the authority to regulate CO2 or GHG emissions as an air pollutant
24 under the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7602(g)). EPA also implements several voluntary programs that
25 substantially contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions.
26 Final Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule
27 The USEPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule on October 30, 2009 (USEPA
28 2009). The rule requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines,
29 and facilities with stationary sources that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of CO2e emissions to
30 collect emissions activity data and submit annual emissions reports to the USEPA beginning with year 2010
31 operations. The rule applies to the existing and proposed SVLRC operations. The rule does not apply to
32 mobile sources of GHGs. This reporting system will provide a better understanding of GHG emission sources
33 within the U.S. and it will guide the development of policies and programs to reduce GHG emissions. It also
34 will support implementation of the EPA PSD and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule has similarities to
35 the California Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions, which also specifies a reporting
36 threshold of 25,000 metric tons of CO2e for stationary sources.
37 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas

38 Tailoring Rule
39 On May 13, 2010, the EPA finalized the “GHG Tailoring Rule” to address GHG emissions from the largest
40 stationary sources. The rule includes a phased implementation schedule, when CAA permitting requirements
41 for GHGs will begin in January 2011 for large facilities that are already required to obtain PSD and Title V
42 permits for other pollutants. In July 2011, Clean Air Act permitting requirements will expand to cover all new
43 facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 TPY CO2e and modifications at existing facilities that
3.2 Air Quality
1 would increase these emissions by at least 75,000 TPY. These permits must demonstrate the use of best
2 available control technologies (BACT) to minimize GHG emission increases when facilities are constructed
3 or significantly modified. The existing and proposed SVLRC are subject to this new rule.
4 California Initiatives and Regulations
5 AB 32 - California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
6 The enactment of AB 32, “The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” (Health & Safety Code
7 §38500 et seq), established a comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve
8 quantifiable reductions of GHGs within the state. The ARB is the primary state agency responsible for
9 developing and maintaining a statewide inventory of GHG emissions and for formulating plans and action
10 steps to reduce current GHG emissions statewide to 1990 GHG emission levels by the year 2020. AB 32
11 defines GHGs as CO2, CH4, N20, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
12 hexafluoride.
13 From 2007 to 2009, the ARB promulgated several discrete early action measures to reduce GHG emissions
14 prior to the full and final adoption of a plan to reduce aggregate California GHG emissions. Specifically, these
15 discrete early action measures include (1) Green Ports/Electrification, (2) SmartWays truck efficiency, (3)
16 PFCs in semiconductor manufacturing, (4) landfill gas capture, (5) tire inflation program, and (6) vehicle
17 owner refrigerant (HFC-134e) servicing.
18 The Act instructs the ARB to establish a mandatory GHG reporting and verification program by January 1,
19 2008. In April 2008, the ARB finalized a regulation for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions
20 from major sources (ARB 2008c). In December 2008, the ARB approved the final Climate Change Proposed
21 Scoping Plan (“Scoping Plan”) which outlines the State’s strategy for achieving the 2020 GHG emissions
22 limit outlined under the law. The Scoping Plan includes recommendations for reducing GHG emissions from
23 most sectors of the California economy.
24 On June 30, 2009, California was granted a Clean Air Act waiver (42 U.S.C. §7543(a)) from EPA to regulate
25 automotive tailpipe CO2 emissions. The ARB originally approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from
26 passenger vehicles in September 2004 based upon 2002 legislation, AB 1493 (Pavley). These regulations are
27 expected to reduce passenger vehicle GHG emissions by approximately 22 percent in 2012 and 30 percent in
28 2016, while improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs.
29 In December 2009, the ARB promulgated a low carbon fuel standards (LCFS) in order to reduce the carbon
30 intensity of transportation fuels used in California (i.e., gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG), ethanol,
31 liquefied natural gas (LNG), hydrogen, diesel, biodiesel, and electricity). It is expected that the LCFS will
32 reduce carbon intensity from the use of such fuels by an average of 10 percent per year. Carbon intensity is a
33 measure of the GHG emissions associated with the combination of all the steps in the “lifecycle” of a
34 transportation fuel.
35 AB 32 requires the ARB to incorporate the standards and protocols developed by the California Climate
36 Action Registry (CCAR) into the state’s future GHG emissions reporting program, to the maximum extent
37 feasible. The current GHG emission calculation methods used by CCAR are contained in California Climate
38 Action Registry—General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1, (CCAR 2009). This protocol categorizes GHG
39 emission sources as either (1) direct (vehicles, on-site combustion, fugitive, and process emissions) or (2)
40 indirect (from off-site electricity, steam, and co-generation).

3.2 Air Quality
1 Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2 As part of the AB 32 requirements, the ARB approved a mandatory GHG reporting regulation in December
3 2007, which became effective January 2009. The regulation requires operators of facilities in California that
4 emit greater than 25,000 metric tons per year of CO2 from stationary combustion sources in any calendar year
5 after 2007 to report these emissions on an annual basis. The existing SVLRC is subject to this regulation.
6 SB 97 – CEQA Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
7 The Legislature also adopted Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) in 2007. Under SB 97, the State Office of Planning and
8 Research (OPR) is required to develop CEQA guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or
9 the effects of greenhouse gas emissions as required by this division." (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.05(a)).
10 OPR Technical Advisory - CEQA Review of Greenhouse Gases
11 On June 19, 2008, OPR issued a Technical Advisory, “CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Addressing
12 Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act” (CEQA) Review), to guide agencies before
13 the final regulations are issued. This Technical Advisory noted:
14 Lead agencies should determine whether greenhouse gases may be generated by a proposed project,
15 and if so, quantify or estimate the GHG emissions by type and source. Second, the lead agency must
16 assess whether those emissions are individually or cumulatively significant. When assessing whether
17 a project's effects on climate change are "cumulatively considerable" even though its GHG
18 contribution may be individually limited, the lead agency must consider the impact of the project
19 when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Finally, if
20 the lead agency determines that the GHG emissions from the project as proposed are potentially
21 significant, it must investigate and implement ways to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate the
22 impacts of those emissions.
23 The Technical Advisory also noted the scientific knowledge and understanding of how best to perform this
24 analysis was still evolving. The OPR Technical Advisory also explained that:
25 We realize that perhaps the most difficult part of the climate change analysis will be the
26 determination of significance. Although lead agencies typically rely on local or regional definitions
27 of significance for most environmental issues, the global nature of climate change warrants
28 investigation of a statewide threshold of significance for GHG emissions. To this end, OPR has asked
29 ARB technical staff to recommend a method for setting thresholds which will encourage consistency
30 and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the state. Until such time as state
31 guidance is available on thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, we recommend the following
32 approach to your CEQA analysis. Source: www.opr.ca.gov/download.php?dl=ceqa/pdfs/june08-
33 ceqa.pdf.
34 California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency) Final Statement of

35 Reasons for Regulatory Action; Amendments to State CEQA Guidelines
36 Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to
37 SB 97 (December 2009)
38 Following extensive public review and comment on the proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to
39 address environmental impact analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions, the Resources Agency adopted
40 amendments to the CEQA Guidelines (tit. 14, Cal. Code of Regs., § 15000 et seq.) to comply with the
41 mandate set forth in Public Resources Code section 21083.05.

3.2 Air Quality
1 1. Threshold Criteria for GHG Emissions
2 Due to the global nature of the effects of GHG emissions, the primary CEQA concern with GHG emissions is
3 the cumulative impact of a project’s incremental GHG emissions when viewed in connection to past, current
4 and probable future project GHG emissions.
5 According to GHG amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, each public agency that is a CEQA lead agency
6 needs to develop its own approach to performing a climate change analysis for projects that generate GHG
7 emissions. A consistent approach should be applied for the analysis of all such projects, and the analysis must
8 be based on best available information. For these projects, compliance with CEQA entails three basic steps:
9 • identify and quantify the GHG emissions;

10 • assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and
11 • if the impact is found to be significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures that will
12 reduce the impact below significance.
13 To date, in California, there are no formally adopted or published CEQA thresholds of significance for project
14 specific or cumulative anthropogenic GHG emissions. Formulating such significance thresholds for CEQA
15 purposes is especially problematic for GHG emissions, because unlike other air pollutant emissions that create
16 impacts in local and regional air basins (i.e., air pollution nonattainment areas or toxic air contaminant
17 hotspots), anthropogenic GHG emissions are implicated as a cause for global climate change regardless of
18 their emission source or location. Moreover, simply estimating GHG emissions from a specific project is not
19 an adequate way to gauge the degree to which those emissions would contribute to global warming or climate
20 change. Substantial additional scientific research and regulatory guidance are needed to determine whether a
21 project’s incremental GHG emissions impacts on climate change would be significant, and whether and how
22 cumulative GHG emissions will affect global climate change.
23 The CEQA Guideline amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation
24 of the effects of GHG emissions in draft CEQA documents. They do not, however, establish a specific
25 threshold of significance. The amendments do identify a general methodology for assessing the significance
26 of impacts from project GHG emissions. Specifically, CEQA Guideline Section 15064.4 states:
27 “(a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the
28 lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort,
29 based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of
30 greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the
31 context of a particular project, whether to:
32 (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and
33 which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has discretion to select the model it
34 considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead
35 agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use;
36 and/or
37 (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards.
38 (b) A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing the
39 significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:
40 (3) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to
41 the existing environmental setting;
3.2 Air Quality
1 (4) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines
2 applies to the project.
3 (5) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement
4 a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
5 Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review
6 process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas
7 emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still
8 cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or
9 requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.”
10 These CEQA Guidelines amendments were adopted and became effective on March 18, 2010.
11 2. Methodology for Calculating Project GHG Emissions
12 Since the proposed CEQA Guidelines amendments were never intended to establish a uniform, widely
13 accepted and adopted standard for determining the CEQA significance of project specific GHG emissions, the
14 ARB and some local air pollution control districts, such as the SCAQMD, have been working to develop
15 interim thresholds for evaluating GHG emissions. Both the ARB and SCAQMD prepared draft interim
16 thresholds that would employ a tiered approach to determining significance.
17 The ARB has proposed an interim industrial project screening threshold of 7,000 metric tons (MT) CO2e per
18 year for non–transportation emissions, as well as a threshold that would evaluate compliance with
19 “performance standards” for transportation and construction activities which have yet to be developed. In
20 October 2008, SCAQMD published the “Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
21 Significance Threshold” (SCAQMD Guidance) which includes a 5-tiered approach to evaluating the CEQA
22 significance of project-specific GHG emissions. Unlike the ARB threshold, the SCAQMD threshold
23 comparison encompasses all sources of GHG emissions, including transportation sources. Both the Bay Area
24 Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
25 (SJVAPCD), the next two largest air pollution control districts in California following the SCAQMD, have
26 also developed recommended thresholds of significance for specific land use projects. One of the BAAQMD
27 options for a land use project threshold of significance uses an efficiency standard based upon per capita
28 MTCO2e/yr to determine the significance of GHG emissions from certain types of land use projects.
29 SJVAPCD has chosen a slightly different approach to the CEQA significance threshold for GHG emissions
30 by establishing “best performance standards” for various sectors of GHG emissions from stationary sources to
31 land use development projects. The SJVAPCD intends to achieve feasible GHG emission reductions from
32 these projects.
33 The VCAPCD has not yet adopted any one of these approaches to setting a threshold of significance for land
34 use development projects nor have they developed their own method of determining significance in the area
35 of project GHG emissions. “When adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds
36 of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts,
37 provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.”
38 CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7(c).
41 The following thresholds are used in this EIR to determine the significance of project air quality impacts for
42 CEQA purposes. These criteria are identified in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines and

3.2 Air Quality
1 they are based on standards set by the VCAPCD and ARB (VCAPCD 2003). According to the VCAPCD, a
2 project would have a significant impact on air quality if:
3 AQ-1: Project-related operational emissions exceed 25 pounds per day of ROC and NOx. This threshold
4 does not apply to proposed construction emissions, as they are considered to be temporary. However,
5 construction activities would require mitigation of their emissions exceed one of these thresholds.
6 AQ-2: Project emissions violate an ambient air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or
7 projected air quality violation.
8 AQ-3: Project emissions expose the public to significant levels of TACs. The determination of significance
9 is based on the following thresholds:
10 • Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk greater or equal to 10 in 1 million (10 × 10-6);
11 • Non-cancer (chronic or acute) Hazard Index greater or equal to 1.0 (project increment).
12 AQ-4: The project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (2007
13 AQMP).
14 AQ-5: The project would generate fugitive dust emissions in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment,
15 nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which may
16 endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the public, or which may cause,
17 or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
18 AQ-6: The proposed project may reasonably be expected to generate odorous emissions in such quantities as
19 to cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or
20 which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the public, or which
21 may cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
22 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
23 When the Draft EIR was circulated on September 28, 2009, the CEQA Guidelines did not include explicit
24 guidance on how significance thresholds can or should be developed for proposed GHG emissions. However,
25 the recently adopted revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, which address the mitigation of GHG emissions,
26 create a new resource section for GHG emissions in the CEQA Guidelines initial study checklist (See
27 Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines). That section poses the following questions – Would the project:
28 1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
29 environment?
30 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions
31 of GHGs?
32 Given the explicit requirements of these revised CEQA Guidelines, the County has determined, with the
33 assistance of VCAPCD, that it will use the following criterion to determine the potential environmental
34 impact significance of proposed GHG emissions. This criterion was selected after an extensive review of (1)
35 federal, state, and regional agency GHG regulatory thresholds and (2) GHG CEQA thresholds of significance
36 being developed or adopted by local air quality agencies in California. Thus, for purpose of the County’s
37 processing of this landfill expansion project, a project has the potential to cause a significant impact on the
38 environment if:
39 AQ-7: A project would generate GHG emissions (in CO2e) in excess of 10,000 metric tons per
40 year.Potential incremental contributions from the project to global climate change.

3.2 Air Quality
1 This threshold criterion is consistent with CEQA significance threshold proposals currently under review in
2 the SCAQMD, the VCAPCD, and the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. Therefore, while
3 not all local air quality districts have formally proposed or adopted this or any other threshold of significance
4 for GHG emissions, it is considered reasonably likely that the proposed threshold will be adopted, and is
5 therefore suitable as a threshold for environmental impact analysis. Some air districts, including the
6 SCAQMD, only apply the 10,000 metric ton threshold to stationary sources of GHGsonly. However, in
7 keeping with the apparent intent of the CEQA Guideline revisions to address all GHG emissions and their
8 potential impacts, this EIR includes both mobile and stationary source emissions in the threshold calculation.
9 The analysis of project GHGs under criterion AQ-7 excludes the portion of GHGs emitted by the SVLRC that
10 are biogenic in nature. Biogenic emissions are part of the natural biogeochemical cycling of carbon. Natural
11 processes, such as photosynthesis, remove CO2 from the atmosphere and may store carbon in plant tissues for
12 long periods of time (called sequestration). In the reverse of this process, CO2 is released as plants and plant
13 by-products (e.g. garden waste or paper) decompose or burn. Emissions of CO2 from biomass decomposition
14 and combustion do not yield a net increase in atmospheric CO2 because they are theoretically equivalent to
15 the CO2 absorbed during plant growth. Therefore, proposed biogenic emissions would occur whether or not
16 waste is deposited at the landfill.
17 Unlike CO2 emissions, CH4 and N2O emitted from biomass decomposition or combustion are not considered
18 to be biogenic. This is because in general, no CH4 or N2O is produced from natural biomass decomposition.
19 Therefore, CH4 and N2O emissions from biomass decomposition and combustion are included as part of the
20 project’s GHG emissions subject to CEQA review and AB 32 regulation/reduction. This approach is
21 consistent with guidance developed by the ARB State Reporting Plan and Landfill Project Protocol and the
22 CCAR Reporting Protocol.
23 CEQA requires a lead agency to analyze a project’s environmental effects based on the net increment of
24 change that will occur as a result of the project (State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(a)). Any determination and
25 analysis of potentially significant environmental impacts or change under CEQA involves thresholds of
26 significance or “an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of particular environmental
27 effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the
28 agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant”
29 (State CEQA Guidelines §15064.7).
30 The determination of whether a project’s environmental impact is to be considered significant requires careful
31 judgment on the part of the lead agency based on scientific and factual data to the fullest extent possible (State
32 CEQA Guidelines §15064(b)). “If, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is
33 too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact”
34 (State CEQA Guidelines §15145). Additionally, the State CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(b) requires that if
35 thresholds of significance are adopted for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review
36 process they must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation, and developed through a public
37 review process and be supported by substantial evidence.
38 Currently, there are no formally adopted or published CEQA thresholds of significance for GHG emissions.
39 Formulating GHG emission significance thresholds for CEQA purposes is problematic, as it is difficult to
40 determine what level of proposed emissions would substantially contribute to global climate change. Despite
41 these difficulties and uncertainties, local and state efforts are underway to develop GHG significance
42 thresholds. Within this context, SB 97 (Public Resources Code §21083.05) was adopted in August 2007. It
43 directs the Office of Planning and Research and the Resources Agency to amend the State CEQA Guidelines
44 to address the mitigation of GHG emissions. The Resources Agency is required to certify or adopt those
45 guidelines by January 1, 2010. Therefore, in the absence of an adopted or science-based CEQA significance
46 threshold for GHGs, this EIR provides estimates of GHG emissions that would occur from each project
47 alternative, but it does not judge their significance.
3.2 Air Quality
1 AQ-8: Valley Fever. Impacts would be considered significant in the event that the project causes adverse
2 impacts to public health.
4 3.2.2.2.1 Existing Emissions at Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center
5 Operation of the existing SVLRC facility generates air emissions primarily from the combustion of landfill
6 gas and diesel fuel. These source activities include: 1) landfill gas flaring; 2) internal combustion of landfill
7 gases for use as renewable energy (cogeneration); 3) MSW delivery by on-road trucks; 4) refuse handling by
8 off-road equipment; and 5) fugitive gases that escape from the landfill surfaces. Additionally, the operation of
9 mobile sources on paved and unpaved roadways and wind erosion produce fugitive dust emissions.
10 Activity data used to estimate emissions from existing operational sources were obtained from Waste
11 Management, Inc. and recent special studies conducted for the SVLRC (TRC 2005). Operation of the existing
12 SVLRC during the CEQA Baseline period of 2009 through 2034 (expected year of closure for the existing
13 landfill) was based upon and a refuse throughput of 785,552 tons per year, which approximates throughput
14 levels in 2008. Historically, the SVLRC exceeded this level of throughput during four years (2004 through
15 2007), with a peak of 887,004 tons in 2005. It is probable that in the near future, the SVLRC will exceed the
16 2008 throughput levels. However, use of the lower 2008 throughput value in this air quality analysis
17 produces more conservative results, as this scenario produces larger incremental impacts in comparison to
18 future project years, compared to a higher baseline throughput value and its associated higher emissions.
19 Emission factors used to estimate existing operational emissions were obtained from the following sources:
20 1. The ARB OFFROAD2007 Emissions Model (ARB 2006b) for off-road construction and mobile
21 equipment;
22 2. Atm AA Inc. landfill gas analyses (Atm AA Inc. 2008);
23 3. AP-42, Volume 1, Fifth Edition (EPA 1995);
24 4. EPA Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) Version 3.02 (EPA 2005); and
25 5. The ARB EMFAC2007 mobile source emissions models for on-road trucks (ARB 2006c).
26 Appendix B-1 includes data and assumptions used to estimate emissions for the existing SVLRC operations
27 during the CEQA Baseline period of 2009 through 2034 (expected year of closer for the existing landfill).
28 Criteria Pollutant Emissions
29 Table 3.2-3 summarizes the annual average daily emissions that would occur from existing operations at the
30 SVLRC for the CEQA Bbaseline period of 2009 through 2034. The first year proposed for closure under
31 existing operations is 2034. The VCAPCD CEQA Guidelines recommend that emissions from sources subject
32 to VCAPCD permits be excluded from CEQA significance determinations, as they are subject to APCD
33 regulations, such as emission controls and offset requirements. Therefore, Ppeak daily emissions generated by
34 each a project or alternative were compared to the 2009 CEQA Baseline annual average daily emissions to
35 determine their significance under CEQA, excluding permitted sources (flares and cogeneration units) from
36 both scenarios. The 2009 CEQA Baseline annual average daily emissions with and without permitted sources
37 are shown in Table 3.2-3.

3.2 Air Quality
Table 3.2-3. Average Daily Emissions for Operation of the Existing SVLRC - CEQA
Baseline Period of 2009-2034
Daily Emissions (Pounds)
Year/Activity
ROC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5
CEQA Baseline 2009
LFG – Fugitive 347
Flares 7 108 90 43 40 40
Cogeneration Units 124 586 175 20 17 17
Delivery Trucks 8 45 111 0 5 4
Off-Road Equipment 19 69 241 0 9 8
Employee Commutes 2 31 3 0 0 0
Fugitive Dust 39 5
Total Daily Emissions – 2009 506 838 620 64 111 74
2009 Daily Emissions minus 375 144 355 0.3 53 17
Permitted Sources1
Peak Year2
Flares 10 163 104 65 60 60
Delivery Trucks 2 13 111 0 1 1
Employee Commutes 0 5 3 0 0 0
Fugitive Dust 39 5
Total Daily Emissions – Peak Year 727 1,155 663 95 127 91
Peak Year Emissions minus 113 355 113 0 385 41 0 5 41 113 6
Permitted Sources1 530
203423
Flares 10 158 131 63 58 58
Total Daily Emissions – 2034 699 1,015 387 93 84 84
Year 2034 Emissions minus 508 0 0 1 1 1
Permitted Sources1
Notes:
1. Year 2034 emissions are based on the remaining landfill capacity of 43.5 million cubic yardsExcludes emissions
from flares and cogeneration units.
2. Peak Years for NOx = 2014/ROC, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 = 2032/SOx = 2033.
3. Excludes emissions from permitted sources (the flares and cogeneration units)First year of facility closure under
existing permit.
1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2 Table 3.2-4 presents an estimate of annual GHG emissions that would occur from existing operations at the
3 SVLRC for the CEQA Baseline period of 2009 through 2034. Sources of GHG emissions from the existing
4 facility include those identified for criteria pollutants in Section 3.2.3.2.1. The methodologies used to estimate
5 existing GHG emission are described in Appendix B-1.

3.2 Air Quality
Table 3.2-4. Annual GHG Emissions for Operation of the Existing

SVLRC - CEQA Baseline Period of 2009-2034
Annual Emissions (Metric Tons)(1)
Year/ActivityYear
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2009
LFG – Fugitive 12,033 4,016 96,366
Flares 46,688 156 3.12 50,926
Cogeneration Units 21,499 144 2.87 25,402
Delivery Trucks 1,812 0 0 1,832
Off-Road Equipment 3,309 1 0 3,333
Employee Commutes 63 0 0 68
Total GHG Emissions – 2009 85,403 4,316 6 177,927
Non-Biogenic Emissions – 2009 (1) 5,184 4,316 6 97,708
2032
LFG – Fugitive 18,194 6,072 145,708
Flares 70,593 236 5 77,001
Cogeneration Units 32,507 217 4 38,408
Delivery Trucks 1,827 0 0 1,831
Employee Commutes 45 0 0 50
Non-Biogenic Emissions – 2032 (1) 5,180 6,525 9 145,038
203412
LFG – Fugitive 17,589 5,870 140,865
Flares 68,246 228 5 74,442
Cogeneration Units 31,426 210 4 37,132
Non-Biogenic Emissions – 2034 (1) 6,308 9 135,176
Notes:
1. Excludes CO2 emissions from the decomposition and combustion of biomass Units of
million metric tons.
2. Year 2034 emissions are based on the remaining landfill capacity of 43.5 million cubic yards.
.First year of facility closure under existing permit.
1 3.2.2.2.2 Proposed Project Air Pollutant Emissions
2 Air pollutant emissions from proposed construction and operations were calculated using the most current
3 emission factors and methods, then compared to the thresholds identified in Section 3.2.2.1 to determine their
4 significance. For impacts that exceed a significance criterion, mitigation measures were applied to the proposed
5 activities to determine their ability to reduce impacts to insignificance. The following analysis considers the air
6 quality impacts that would occur from each project alternative. For purposes of this EIR, the evaluation of
7 significance is determined by comparing impacts from a project alternative to the CEQA baseline conditions
8 developed for the existing SVLRC facility.
9 Construction Emissions
10 Emissions from construction activities would occur for each project in 2009 and 2010 due to relocation relocate
11 and construction of construct office and maintenance buildings plus the on-site recycling center and other
12 ancillary and support facilities. Project construction activities would involve off-road construction equipment
13 and on-road trucks. These emission sources would primarily use diesel fuel, resulting in combustive emissions
14 in the form of ROC, CO, NOx, SOx, and PM. In addition, equipment and vehicles traveling over unpaved
15 surfaces and performing activities such as grading or earthmoving would generate fugitive dust emissions in the
16 form of PM10 and PM2.5. Operational activities associated with the SVLRC in 2009 and 2010 also would occur
17 during periods of project construction.
3.2 Air Quality
1 Review of the project construction schedule shows that all equipment would not operate simultaneously at
2 once. However, for a conservative approach, the analysis assumed that during a peak daily emissions
3 scenario, all equipment would operate during the entire day. Appendix B-1 includes equipment usage data and
4 scheduling assumptions needed to calculate emissions for proposed construction activities.
5 Operational Emissions
6 Proposed operational activities would be similar to those that occur from the existing SVLRC facility,
7 including:
8 • Truck traffic (which includes diesel, gasoline, and liquefied natural gas vehicles idling, traveling on-
9 site, and traveling off-site) for the delivery of MSW and recyclables;
10 • Production and use of LFG (e.g., landfill fugitives, flares, cogeneration, and liquefied LFG [starting
11 in 2015]);
12 • Off-road mobile equipment (e.g., refuse handling, dirt/debris pushing operations, and cell
13 excavation);
14 • Worker commuting activities (i.e., traveling on- and off-site); and,
15 • Fugitive dust (i.e., activities on paved and unpaved roads and wind erosion).
16 Operational emissions were estimated for the proposed facility for years 2009 to 2054 (expected year of
17 closer for the proposed landfill). Equipment usage and scheduling data used to calculate emissions for
18 proposed operational activities are presented in Appendix B-1.
19 To assess operational air quality impacts for each project alternative, the analysis compared the net change in
20 emissions between a project alternative for each development year and existing emissions in year 2009 to the
21 VCAPCD daily emission thresholds to determine CEQA significance.
22 Greenhouse Gases
23 The air quality analysis includes an estimate of GHG emissions produced from proposed construction and
24 operational activities. GHG emissions associated with proposed activities generally were calculated with the
25 methodologies provided in the CCAR Protocol. The CCAR Protocol is the guidance document that CCAR
26 members use to prepare annual facility GHG inventories for the Registry. Emission factors needed for the
27 analysis also were obtained from 1) the ARB OFFROAD2007 Emissions Model and 2) the ARB
28 EMFAC2007 mobile source emissions models. Appendix B-1 includes data and assumptions used to estimate
29 GHG emissions for proposed activities. Biogenic GHG emissions are netted out to account for only
30 anthropogenic sources. Biogenic emissions are part of the natural biogeochemical cycling of carbon and
31 would occur whether or not waste is deposited at the landfill. They do not add to the overall carbon in the
32 natural cycle. Emissions of CO2 from biomass decomposition and combustion do not yield a net increase in
33 atmospheric CO2 because they are theoretically equivalent to the CO2 absorbed during plant growth.
34 Health Risks
35 A health risk assessment (HRA) was conducted in accordance with the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots
36 Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2003) and VCAPCD HRA
37 guidelines. The HRA evaluated individual lifetime cancer risks, chronic, and acute non-cancer hazard indices
38 associated with each project Alternative. Additional details of the HRA methodology and inputs are described
39 in Section 3.2.2.3.1 and 3.2.2.3.2 under Impact AQ-3 and in Appendix B-3.

3.2 Air Quality
1 Proposed Environmental Controls
2 The emission control measures that the analysis assumed as part of the unmitigated project scenarios are as
3 follows:
4 1. The calculation of unmitigated fugitive dust emissions from proposed construction and operational
5 activities is based upon compliance with VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust. The analysis assumed a
6 50 to 75 percent reduction in PM10 emissions from uncontrolled levels, depending on the source type
7 (Western Regional Air Partnership 2006). This would occur with the use of rigorous watering of the
8 site and other control measures, such as a limitation of vehicle speeds to 15 mph on-site.
9 2. Mobile off-road equipment used for on-site material handling and cell excavation would convert to
10 engines with EPA nonroad Tier 4 standards in 2015, as this year approaches the time when the
11 proposed vehicle fleets have to comply with these standards, as required by the In-Use Off-Road
12 Diesel Vehicles Regulation (ARB 2008b).
13 3. The LFG collection and control system would operate according to the requirements of VCAPCD
14 Rule 74.17.1: 1) this system would collect 85 percent of the LFG generated by the facility while the
15 remaining 15 percent would escape as fugitive emissions from the landfill surface; and 2) once a
16 landfill phase is closed, this system would have a LFG capture efficiency of 95 percent in these areas.
17 4. Flares would destroy NMOC from burning have a LFG destruction efficiency by a rate of 99 percent,
18 according to the requirements of VCAPCD Rule 74.17.1consistent with levels achieved in practice.
19 5. Cogeneration units would comply with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and would have
20 a destroy NMOC from burning LFG LFG destruction efficiency by a rate of 98 percent, according to
21 the requirements of NSPS Subpart WWWVCAPCD Rule 74.17.1.
22 6. With the relocation of GI Waste Hauling Facility trucks that are powered by liquefied natural gas
23 (LNG) to the SVLRC in 2015, 25 percent of the truck delivery fleet would convert from diesel to
24 LNG or LFG fuel at this time.
25 3.2.2.2.3 Valley Fever Impacts
26 Valley Fever impacts were evaluated by determining if 1) the project is in compliance with applicable State
27 regulations, County ordinance, or other guidelines or policies; and 2) project impacts are not covered by
28 existing regulations, but have been included in recent data or industry recognized studies. The degree of
29 impact would be determined using current available information related to adverse effects on public health.
30 3.2.2.3 Proposed Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
31 The following air quality impact assessments separately address project-specific construction and operational
32 impacts. Impact topics for proposed construction and operations are designated with a lower cases “c” and
33 “o”, respectively. Cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.3.2.
34 3.2.2.3.1 Construction Impacts
35 Impact AQ-1c: ROC and NOx Emissions
36 Table 3.2-5 presents an estimate of the unmitigated peak daily emissions that would occur during project
37 construction for years 2010 and 2011. These data show that project construction would exceed the VCAPCD
38 daily NOx emission threshold in 2010 and 2011 and the ROC threshold in 2011. Proposed construction
39 emissions are not counted towards these significance thresholds, as they are temporary in nature. However, if
40 they exceed one of these thresholds, they would require mitigation.

3.2 Air Quality
Table 3.2-5. Project Construction Peak Daily Unmitigated Emissions

Peak Daily Emissions (Pounds)
Year
2010 46.2 204.7 423.9 0.3 100.3 24.6
2011 17.8 57.7 149.0 0.2 6.9 6.4
VCAPCD Threshold 25 N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes
2 Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures to mitigate
3 ozone precursor emissions from on-site off-road construction equipment:
4 1. All construction equipment shall meet the EPA Tier 3 nonroad equivalent standards. The construction
5 contractor shall be exempt from this requirement if he provides proof that a given piece of equipment
6 is unavailable within the California that meets Tier 3 standards.
7 2. Minimize equipment idling time.
8 3. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers’
9 specifications.
10 4. Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October), to minimize the
11 number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.
12 5. Encourage the use of alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas
13 (CNG), LNG, or electricity.
15 To evaluate the effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the analysis assumed that all construction
16 equipment would meet the equivalent of EPA Tier 3 nonroad standards. Table 3.2-6 presents an estimate of
17 the mitigated peak daily emissions that would occur during project construction for years 2010 and 2011.
18 Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would substantially reduce equipment emissions from
19 uncontrolled levels. The data in Table 3.2-6 show that mitigated emissions from project construction would
20 exceed the VCAPCD daily NOx emission threshold in 2010 and 2011. However, since Therefore, daily
21 emissions of NOx from proposed construction would remain substantial after implement mitigation measures
22 recommended by the VCAPCD (VCAPCD 2003), mitigated daily construction emissions would produce less
23 than significant air quality impacts.
Table 3.2-6. Project Construction Peak Daily Mitigated Emissions

Peak Daily Emissions (Pounds)
Year
2010 19.8 204.7 277.7 0.3 17.9 14.0
2011 9.1 57.7 122.3 0.2 6.9 6.3
VCAPCD Threshold 25 N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes
24 Impact AQ-2c: Ambient Air Quality Standards Other than O3
25 A dispersion modeling analysis using the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term, Version 3 model (ISCST3)
26 program was performed consistent with VCAPCD protocols to estimate ambient impacts from project
27 construction emissions. Impacts predicted by the ISCST3 model were added to background pollutant levels
28 recorded at the Simi Valley air monitoring station to determine if these total project impacts would exceed an

3.2 Air Quality
1 ambient air quality standard (AAQS). Since the project region is in nonattainment of the state PM10 and
2 national PM2.5 AAQSs, the background values for these pollutants that are used in the analysis exceed their
3 respective AAQS. The analysis focused on a peak day of emissions, representing the time period when the
4 project would produce the highest ambient impacts. Appendix B-2 includes a discussion of the project
5 construction emissions dispersion modeling analysis.
6 Table 3.2-7 presents the projected maximum ambient impacts for unmitigated project construction. These data
7 show that unmitigated project construction emissions would contribute to exceedances of the (1) 1-hour
8 CAAQS and NAAQS for NO2; (2) 24-hour CAAQS and NAAQS for PM10; (3) annual CAAQS for PM10; and
9 (4) the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5. These exceedances represent potentially significant impacts. All other
10 pollutant impacts would remain below significance levels.
Table 3.2-7. Ambient Air Pollutant Impacts Due to Project Construction without
Mitigation(1)
Averaging Maximum Background Total
Pollutant Period Impact Concentration Impact CAAQS NAAQS
(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
1-hour 517 (2) 23 540 339 -188
NO2
Annual 5 23 28 57 100
1-hour 1,265 6,555 7,820 23,000 40,000
CO
8-hour 249 4,056 4,305 10,000 10,000
24-hour 72 117 189 50 150
PM10
Annual 11 29 40 20 -
PM2.5 24-hour 16 56 72 - 35
1-hour 2 18(4) 20 655 19575-
SO2
24-hour 0.2 5(4) 5.2 105 365-
Notes:
1. Significant impacts are shown in bold font.
2. Derived through use of the Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) (see Appendix B.2).
12 To reduce the ambient impact of project construction emissions, the construction contractor shall implement
13 Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Additionally, the operator shall implement the following mitigation measure to
14 further reduce fugitive dust emissions from proposed construction activities:
15 Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Additional Fugitive Dust Controls for Construction. The calculation of
16 unmitigated fugitive dust emissions from proposed construction activities is based upon compliance with
17 VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust, which is assumed to would produce a 50 percent reduction in PM10
18 emissions from uncontrolled levels. This would occur with the use of rigorous watering of the site and other
19 control measures, such as a limitation of vehicle speeds to 15 mph on-site.
20 The proposed construction contractor shall develop and implement dust control methods to achieve a 90
21 percent reduction of fugitive dust emissions from uncontrolled levels. Additional control measures to reduce
22 fugitive dust shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
23 1. Designate personnel to monitor the dust control program and order increased watering, as necessary,
24 to ensure a 90 percent control level. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when
25 work may not be in progress.
26 2. Apply approved non-toxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all
27 inactive construction areas or replace groundcover in disturbed areas.
28 3. Provide temporary wind fencing around sites being graded or worked.

3.2 Air Quality
1 4. Cover truck loads that haul dirt, sand, or gravel or maintain at least two feet of freeboard in
2 accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code.
3 5. Ensure dust is not tracked onto paved roads in compliance with APCD Rule 55. Install wheel washers
4 where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off tires of vehicles and any
5 equipment leaving the site.
6 6. Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed 25 mph as instantaneous gusts or when
7 visible dust plumes emanate from the site and stabilize all disturbed areas.
8 7. Sweep all streets at least once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets
9 (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).
10 8. Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’
11 specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces.
12 9. Pave road and road shoulders.
13 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation
14 Table 3.2-8 presents the projected maximum ambient impacts for mitigated project construction due to
15 Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. These data show that mitigated project construction emissions would
16 contribute to exceedances of the: 1) 1-hour CAAQS and NAAQS for NO2; 2) 24-hour CAAQS for PM10; 3)
17 annual CAAQS for PM10; and 4) the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5. These exceedances represent significant
18 impacts to air quality. All other pollutant impacts would remain below significance levels.
Table 3.2-8. Ambient Air Pollutant Impacts Due to Project Construction with
Mitigation(1)
Pollutant Impact Concentration Impact CAAQS NAAQS
Period (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
1-hour 427 (2) 23 450 339 -188
NO2
Annual 3 23 26 57 100
1-hour 1,265 6,555 7,820 23,000 40,000
CO
8-hour 249 4,056 4,305 10,000 10,000
24-hour 22 117 139 50 150
PM10
Annual 1 29 30 20 -
PM2.5 24-hour 10 56 66 - 35
1-hour 2 18(4) 20 655 -195
SO2
24-hour 0.2 5(4) 5.2 105 -365
Notes:
19 Impact AQ-3c: TACs
20 Project construction equipment would emit TACs that would impact public health. The main form of TACs
21 from project construction would occur as DPM emitted from diesel-powered on- and off-road equipment. The
22 intermittent operation of equipment over a large portion of the project site would minimize the ambient
23 impact of proposed TACs in proximity to the project region. Additionally, since there are no sensitive
24 receptors in close proximity to the project site, project construction would not expose the public to significant
25 levels of TACs.
27 As impacts to air quality would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.

3.2 Air Quality
2 Impacts to air quality would be less than significant.
3 Impact AQ-4c: Air Quality Plan
9 measures that are designed to bring the County into attainment of the national O3ambient air quality
10 standards. The attainment strategies in this plan include mobile source control measures and clean fuel
11 programs that are enforced at the state and federal level on engine manufacturers and petroleum refiners and
12 retailers and as a result, project construction would have to comply with these control measures. The 2007
13 AQMP includes projections of future emissions from construction activities. Project construction emissions
14 would fit into these future emission growth projections. The 2007 AQMP also assumes source compliance
15 with adopted VCAPCD rules. Project construction would comply with all applicable VCAPCD rules and
16 regulations, such as Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust). Therefore, compliance with these requirements would ensure
17 that project construction would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans.
19 As impacts to air quality would be less than significant, no mitigation is required. However, implementation
20 of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would further reduce emissions from project construction.
23 Impact AQ-5c: Fugitive Dust Emissions
24 Review of Table 3.2-7 shows that unmitigated Project construction emissions would produce a maximum
25 ambient 24-hour PM10 impact of 72 µg/m3, which would exceed the 24-hour PM10 CAAQS of 50 µg/m3. The
26 overwhelming majority of this impact, or 60 µg/m3, would occur from fugitive dust generated from earth-moving
27 activities and the operation of mobile sources on unpaved surfaces. Since this maximum impact is predicted to
28 occur on the SVLRC property line, proposed ambient PM10 impacts would quickly decrease in magnitude with
29 distance from the SVLRC facility. For example, the maximum ambient 24-hour PM10 impact of fugitive dust
30 predicted to occur from the facility at the nearest point inhabited by a considerable number of persons would be
31 about 11 µg/m3 (Figure B-2.13 in Appendix B-2). This point is on Highway 118, directly south of the SVLRC
32 main gate. This impact is substantially less than the 24-hour PM10 CAAQS of 50 µg/m3. Therefore, project
33 construction would not generate significant levels of fugitive dust in regard to Impact AQ-5.
35 As impacts to air quality would be less than significant, no mitigation is required. Project construction would
36 comply with VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust, which would reduce project PM10 emissions from
37 uncontrolled levels by 50 percent. Mitigation Measure AQ-2, Additional Fugitive Dust Controls for
38 Construction, would further reduce fugitive dust emissions from these sources to 90 percent from
39 uncontrolled levels. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would lower the ambient impact
40 of project PM10 emissions to less than those disclosed in the above paragraph.

3.2 Air Quality
3 Impact AQ-6c: Odorous Emissions
4 Project construction would increase air pollutants due to the combustion of diesel fuel. Some individuals find
5 diesel combustion emissions to be objectionable in nature, although quantifying the odorous impacts of these
6 emissions to the public is difficult. The mobile and intermittent nature of most emission sources would help to
7 adequately disperse combustive emissions from project construction. Additionally, since there are no sensitive
8 receptors in close proximity to the project site, project construction would not expose the public to significant
9 levels of odors.
11 As impacts to air quality would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
14 Impact AQ-7c: Global Climate Change
15 Table 3.2-9 presents an estimate of annual GHG emissions that would occur from project construction in 2009
16 and 2010. Sources of GHG emissions from project construction are the same as those identified for criteria
17 pollutants in Table 3.2-5. The data in Table 3.2-9 show that GHG emissions generated by project construction
18 would not exceed 10,000 metric tons per year of CO2eincrementally contribute to global climate change.
19 Therefore, GHG emissions from project construction would not cause a significant impact on the environment.
Table 3.2-9. Annual GHG Emissions for

Project Construction
Year Annual Emissions (Metric Tons)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
First 2,265 0.52 0.04 2,521
Second 1,916 0.56 0.04 2,139
21 As impacts to global climate change would be less than significant, no mitigation is required. However,
22 Mmeasures that reduce fossil fuel consumption of proposed construction equipment would reduce GHG
23 emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would have this effect. This is the case, as use of
24 equipment that comply with the newest emission standards would have more fuel-efficient engines compared to
25 older equipment. Additionally, minimizing equipment idling time and using alternatively-fueled equipment
26 would reduce fossil fuel consumption and resulting GHG emissions compared to unmitigated construction
27 activities. Newly amended CEQA Guideline section 15126.4, subdivision (c) states that lead agencies shall
28 consider feasible means of mitigating significant effects of GHG emissions. The GHG emission mitigation
29 measures include: (1) measures in an existing plan or program for the reduction of emissions that are required as
30 a part of the lead agency decision; (2) emission reductions resulting from a project through implementation of
31 project features, project design, or as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F regarding energy conservation;
32 (3) off-site measures such as offsets not already required by law or regulation; (4) sequestration of GHG
33 emissions; and (5) long-range plans for the reduction of GHG emissions.

3.2 Air Quality
2 The GHG emissions generated by from project construction would produce less than significant impacts to the
3 environmentincrementally contribute to global climate change.
4 3.2.2.3.2 Operation
5 Impact AQ-1o: ROC and NOx Emissions
6 Table 3.2-10 presents estimates of unmitigated peak daily emissions increments that would occur during
7 project operations for various milestone years. These data represent the net change between project
8 operational peak daily emissions for each development year and existing daily emissions in year 2009. The
9 main contributors to daily project operational emissions would occur from: be: 1) trucks that transport
10 materials to the site; 2) off-road refuse-handling equipment; 3) employee commuting activities; and 43) LFG
11 combusted in cogeneration unitsflares. The data in Table 3.2-10 show that the net change in daily operational
12 emissions between the project and the2009 CEQA Baseline excluding permitted sources (flares and
13 cogeneration units) from both scenarios would result in the increase in peak daily emissions from project
14 operations that would exceed the VCAPCD daily ROC and NOx emission thresholds for 2009 initial and the
15 peak emission each milestone years. The peak emission years for these pollutants include 1) 2013 for NOx
16 and 2) 2041 for ROC. The data in Appendix B-1 Table B-1-PP-5 show that the increase in proposed
17 emissions would exceed the VCAPCD daily ROC and NOx emission thresholds of 25 pounds per day from
18 2009 until 2053. As a result, project operations during these years would produce significant levels of daily
19 ROC and NOx emissions.
21 Mitigation Measure AQ-3: To reduce peak daily emissions of ROC and NOx from project operations, the
22 landfill operator shall implement the following measures to mitigate ozone precursor emissions from on-site
23 off-road mobile equipment:
24 1. Beginning in 2009, convert all equipment to engines that meet EPA Tier 3 nonroad equivalent
25 standards. The landfill operator shall be exempt from this requirement if he provides proof that a
26 given piece of equipment is unavailable within the California that meets Tier 3 standards.
27 2. Minimize equipment idling time.
28 3. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers’
29 specifications.
30 4. Encourage the use of alternatively fueled equipment, such as CNG, LNG, or electricity.
31 Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Simi Valley Landfill Emissions Reduction Program Agreement. In instances,
32 when air quality impacts from mobile sources due to project operations cannot be mitigated to insignificant
33 levels with the available air pollution control measures recommended for the project, the VCAPCD, in its Air
34 Quality Assessment Guidelines, recommends implementing an Emissions Reduction Program to ensure
35 additional mitigation of air quality impacts by requiring the project proponent to contribute funds for
36 programs that reduce air pollutant emissions from non-project sources. However, while several municipal
37 jurisdictions in the county have enacted air emissions mitigation programs in the form of Transportation
38 Demand Management (TDM) programs, Ventura County has not established a Government Code section
39 66000 et seq. fee rule or made a Board of Supervisors commitment to adopt such a fee rule to assess, collect,
40 and spend such fees on mitigation programs.

3.2 Air Quality
Table 3.2-10. Project Peak Daily Operational Emissions - Unmitigated

Year/Activity
2009Initial Year
LFG – Fugitive 343 - - - - -
Flares 7 107 89 43 40 40
Delivery Trucks 79 1,238 477 1 53 44
Employee Commutes 30 560 51 - 0 0
Fugitive Dust 199 22
Total Daily Emissions with 654 2,756 1,503 65 335 147
Permitted Sources– 2009
Total Daily Emissions without 524 2,069 1,240 2 278 90
Permitted Sources1
2009 CEQA Baseline with 506 838 620 64 111 74
Permitted Sources
2009 CEQA Baseline without 375 144 355 0.3 53 17
Permitted Sources1
Net Change from CEQA Baseline 148 1,917 883 1 224 73
with Permitted Sources12
without Permitted Sources12
Peak Daily Emisisons23
LFG – Fugitive 821 - - - - -
Flares 18 147 139 107 98 98
Cogeneration Units 514 1,742 273 92 79 79
Delivery Trucks 12 1,238 477 1 12 7
Total Peak Daily Emissions with 1,394 4,072 1,653 200 369 206
Permitted Sources 3
Total Peak Daily Emissions 862 2,183 1,241 1 192 29
Net Change from CEQA Baseline 888 3,234 1,033 136 258 132
with Permitted Sources2Net
Change from CEQA Baseline1
Net Change from CEQA Baseline 487 2,039 886 1 07 1389 1203
205534
LFG – Fugitive 302 - - - - -
Flares 12 190 157 76 70 70
Cogeneration Units 448 2,115 633 72 62 62
Total Daily Emissions with 763 2,305 790 148 132 132
Permitted Sources – 2055
Total Daily Emissions without 303 0 0 0 0 0
Permitted Sources1
with Permitted Sources2Net
Change from CEQA Baseline1
Net Change from CEQA Baseline -72 -144 -355 0 -53 -17
VCAPCD Thresholds 25 --- 25 --- --- ---
Notes:
1. Equal to project daily emissions minus CEQA Baseline daily emissions that occurred in 2009.
1. Excludes proposed and baseline emissions from the flares and cogeneration units.
3. Peak Years for NOx = 2013/CO = 2019/ROC = 2041/SOx, PM10, PM2.5 =2043.
4. Year 2055 is proposed as the first year of facility closure.

3.2 Air Quality
1 Therefore, to accomplish the purposes of an Emissions Reduction Program, some other legally enforceable,
2 feasible mechanism to achieve the same result is required. In this instance, a legally enforceable agreement
3 between the County of Ventura, VCAPCD, and the applicant (WMI) could be executed such that funding
4 would be provided by the applicant via the agreement to the VCAPCD for the purpose of funding emission
5 reduction programs in Ventura County, based on estimated mobile source emissions from operations in excess
6 of standards. Such an agreement would, at a minimum, have the following features:
7 • A binding agreement would be executed by the County of Ventura, the VCAPCD, and the applicant
8 wherein the applicant commits:
9 o To the payment of fees, calculated based on the amount of project operational emissions
10 from mobile sources in excess of standards, into a fund administered by the VCAPCD. Fees
11 would be determined based on the project’s mobile source emissions in excess of standards
12 and the cost-effectiveness of projects funded by the VCAPCD’s Carl Moyer Memorial Air
13 Quality Standards Attainment Program.
14 o Pay the assessed fees over a time period mutually agreeable to all parties.
15 • The VCAPCD would be entitled to recover all cost of administrating the expenditure of the funds so
16 collected.
17 • The fees would be used by the VCAPCD to fund emission reduction projects in Ventura County.
18 Projects that could be funded include, but would not necessarily be limited to, project types eligible
19 for funding under the VCAPCD’s emission reduction incentive programs such as:
20 o The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program,
21 o Clean Air Fund,
22 o The Lower Emissions School Bus Program, and
23 o The Lawn Mower Trade-In Program.
24 Emission reduction programs such as the one described above facilitate reductions in emissions by reducing
25 individual vehicle emissions (buses, trucks, etc.) and emissions from other devices and equipment powered by
26 internal combustion engines through the use of more efficient engines, less polluting fuels, or electric or
27 hybrid power sources. It is uncertain the extent to which the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center
28 Emissions Reduction Program would offset overall project-related vehicular emissions and it is not possible
29 to calculate what those reductions might be because the specific emission mitigation projects are unknown at
30 this time. However, implementing an Emissions Reduction Program Agreement for the proposed Simi Valley
31 Landfill expansion project is considered an effective emission reduction measure.

33 To evaluate the effectiveness Mitigation Measure AQ-3, the analysis assumed that beginning in project year 1
34 (2009), all operational off-road mobile equipment would convert to engines that meet the equivalent of EPA
35 Tier 3 nonroad standards. Table 3.2-11 summarizes the mitigated peak daily emissions estimated for project
36 operations for year 2009. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would apply to operations prior to
37 year 2015, , as aas after this time, on-site equipment would convert to cleaner engines that comply with Tier 4
38 nonroad standards. Hence, there are no feasible mitigations to further reduce project operational emissions
39 beginning in 2015. Table 3.2-11 summarizes the mitigated peak daily emissions estimated for project
40 operations for year 2009. These data in Table 3.2-11 show that the net change in mitigated operational
41 emissions between the project and the 2009 CEQA Baseline excluding permitted sources would result in daily
42 emissions that would exceed the VCAPCD daily ROC and NOx emission thresholds for 2009. The data in
43 Appendix B-1 Table B-1-PP-5s show that the increase in proposed mitigated emissions would exceed the
44 VCAPCD daily ROC and NOx emission thresholds of 25 pounds per day from 2009 until 2053. As a result,
45 mitigated project operations during these years would produce significant levels of daily ROC and NOx
3.2 Air Quality
1 emissions. As a result, project operations would produce significant levels of ROC and NOx emissions during
2 a peak day of activity.
Table 3.2-11. Project Peak Daily Operational Emissions - Mitigated

Year/Activity
Initial Year2009
LFG – Fugitive 343 - - - - -
Flares 7 107 89 43 40 40
Delivery Trucks 79 1,238 477 1 53 44
Total Daily Emissions with Permitted 654 2,752 1,357 65 335 147
Sources
Total Daily Emissions without 524 2,064 1,093 2 278 90
Permitted Sources1
2009 CEQA Baseline with Permitted 506 838 620 64 111 74
Sources
2009 CEQA Baseline without 375 144 355 0.3 53 17
Permitted Sources1
Net Change from CEQA Baseline with 148 1,914 737 1 224 73
Permitted Sources2
VCAPCD Thresholds 25 --- 25 --- --- ---
Notes:
1. Excludes proposed and baseline emissions from the flares and cogeneration units.
3 Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would further reduce operational emissions of ROC and NOx. However, since it is
4 uncertain the extent to which the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Emissions Reduction Program
5 would offset overall project-related vehicular emissions and, thus, not possible to calculate what those
6 reductions might be, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
7 Impact AQ-2o: Ambient Air Quality Standards Other than O3
8 A dispersion modeling analysis using the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term, Version 3 model (ISCST3)
9 program was performed to estimate ambient impacts of the project construction and operational emissions.
10 The analysis focused on a peak day of emissions, representing the time period when the project would
11 produce the highest ambient impacts. Appendix B-2 includes a discussion of the project dispersion modeling
12 analysis.
13 Table 3.2-12 presents the projected maximum ambient impacts for unmitigated project construction and
14 operations. These data show that unmitigated project emissions would contribute to exceedances of the: 1) 1-
15 hour CAAQS and NAAQS for NO2 and; 2) 24-hour CAAQS and NAAQS for PM10. In addition, unmitigated
16 project emissions would exacerbate existing exceedances of the ; 31) 24-hour and annual CAAQS for PM10;
17 42) the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5; and 35) the annual CAAQS and NAAQS for PM2.5. All other pollutant
18 impacts would remain below significance levels.

3.2 Air Quality
Table 3.2-12. Ambient Air Pollutant Impacts Due to Project Construction and
Operations without Mitigation(1)
Pollutant Period Impact Concentration Impact CAAQS NAAQS
(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
1-hour 693(2) 23 716 339 188
NO2
Annual 12 23 35 57 100
1-hour 1,657 6,555 8,212 23,000 40,000
CO
8-hour 1,281 4,056 5,337 10,000 10,000
24-hour 574 117 174 50 150
PM10
Annual 4 29 33 20 -
24-hour 22 56 78 - 35
PM2.5
Annual 1 13 14 12 15
1-hour 38 18 56 655 197
SO2
24-hour 5 5 10 105 -
Notes:
2 To reduce emissions from proposed construction, the construction contractor shall implement Mitigation
3 Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. To reduce combustive emissions from proposed operations, the landfill operator
4 shall implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4. Additionally, the operator shall implement the
5 following mitigation measure to further reduce fugitive dust emissions from proposed operations:
6 Mitigation Measure AQ-45: Additional Fugitive Dust Controls for Operations. The calculation of
7 unmitigated fugitive dust emissions from proposed operational activities is based upon compliance with
8 VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust, which is assumed to produce a 50 to 75 percent reduction in PM10
9 emissions from uncontrolled levels, depending on the source type. This would occur with the use of rigorous
10 watering of the site and other control measures, such as a limitation of vehicle speeds to 15 mph on-site.those
11 identified in VCAPCD Rule 55.
12 The project landfill operator shall develop and implement dust control methods to achieve a 90 percent
13 reduction of fugitive dust emissions from uncontrolled levels. Additional control measures to reduce fugitive
14 dust shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
15 1. Designate personnel to monitor the dust control program and order increased watering, as necessary,
16 to ensure a 90 percent control level. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when
17 work may not be in progress.
18 2. Apply approved non-toxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all
19 inactive construction and operational areas or replace groundcover in disturbed areas.
20 3. Provide temporary wind fencing around sites being graded or worked.
21 4. Cover truck loads that haul dirt, sand, or gravel or maintain at least two feet of freeboard in
22 accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code.
23 5. Ensure dust is not tracked onto paved roads in compliance with APCD Rule 55. Install wheel washers
24 where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off tires of vehicles and any
25 equipment leaving the site.
26 6. Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed 25 mph as instantaneous gusts or when
27 visible dust plumes emanate from the site and stabilize all disturbed areas.
28 7. Sweep all streets at least once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets
29 (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).

3.2 Air Quality
1 8. Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’
2 specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces.
3 9. Pave road and road shoulders.
4 Mitigation Measure AQ-5: [MOVED TO AQ-4]

6 Table 3.2-13 presents the projected maximum ambient impacts for mitigated project construction and
7 operations due to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-43 and AQ-5. These data show that mitigated
8 project operational emissions would contribute to exceedances of the: 1) 1-hour CAAQS and NAAQS for
9 NO2 2) 24-hour CAAQS for PM10; 3) annual CAAQS for PM10; 4) 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5; and 5) annual
10 CAAQS for PM2.5. In addition, mitigated project emissions would exacerbate existing exceedances of the 1)
11 24-hour and annual CAAQS for PM10; 2) the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5; and 3) the annual CAAQS for PM2.5.
12 These exceedances represent significant impacts to air quality. All other pollutant impacts would remain
13 below significance levels.
Table 3.2-13. Ambient Air Pollutant Impacts due to Proposed Project Construction and
Operations with Mitigation(1)
Averaging Maximum Background Total Impact
Pollutant Period Impact (µg/m3) Concentration (µg/m3) CAAQS (3) NAAQS
(µg/m3)
NO2
1-hour 620(2) 23 643 339 188
Annual 10 23 33 57 100
1-hour 1,657 6,555 8,212 23,000 40,000
CO
8-hour 1,281 4,056 5,337 10,000 10,000
24-hour 28 117 145 50 150
PM10
Annual 2 29 31 20 -
24-hour 15 56 71 - 35
PM2.5
Annual 1 13 14 12 15
1-hour 38 18 56 655 197
SO2
24-hour 5 5 10 105 -
Notes:
14 Mitigation Measure AQ-54 would further reduce the ambient impact of project operational emissions from
15 those identified in Table 3.2-13: 1) 1-hour CAAQS for NO2; 2) 24-hour CAAQS for PM10; 3) annual CAAQS
16 for PM10; 4) 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5; and 5) annual CAAQS for PM2.5. However, since it is uncertain the
17 extent to which the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Emissions Reduction Program would offset
18 overall project-related vehicular emissions and, thus, not possible to calculate what those reductions might be,
19 the impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
20 Impact AQ-3o: TACs
21 An HRA was conducted to quantify the significance of public health effects generated by project construction
22 and operational emissions of TACs. The HRA evaluated individual lifetime cancer risks and chronic and acute
23 non-cancer effects produced by the project.
24 Individual lifetime cancer risk represents the chance that an individual would contract cancer after a lifetime
25 (70 years) of exposure to TACs of concern. The VCAPCD considers the cancer risk produced by a project to
26 be significant if it equals or exceeds 10 chances in one million (10 × 10-6) at any residential receptor.
27 Chronic and acute non-cancer hazard indices (HHI) represent predicted long- and short-term exposures to
28 certain TACs, respectively. The HHI were calculated by dividing the model-predicted TAC concentration by
3.2 Air Quality
1 the TAC reference exposure levels (RELs) established by OEHHA. An HHI equal to or greater than one
2 indicates the potential for adverse health effects.
3 Since project construction and operations would generate emissions of PM, this analysis also discusses the
4 potential effects of these emissions in terms of increased mortality and morbidity in the region. Appendix B-3
5 documents the project HRA methodologies and the TAC emission calculations used for inputs in the HRA.
6 Emissions of TACs from project construction and operational sources would occur from:
7 • Internal combustion of diesel trucks and off-road equipment;

8 • Combustion of Landfill Gas in Flares, and generators;
9 • Fugitive Landfill Gas;
10 • Particulate emissions from truck tire and brake wear; and
11 • Particulate emissions from wind erosion.
12 For the internal combustion sources, DPM exhaust emissions were modeled in the HRA for cancer and chronic
13 non-cancer effects. With regard to acute non-cancer effects from these sources, the HRA assessed both criteria
14 pollutants and chemicals that are subsets of DPM. Although no specific risk factors have been developed for
15 ultrafine particulates (UFPs), they are major constituents of DPM emissions. DPM emissions are analyzed in the
16 HRA and they include the entire range of diesel particulate sizes including UFP, and the risk factors established
17 for DPM for use in health risk analyses incorporate all DPM constituents.
18 Fugitive landfill gas and flare combustion emissions were speciated into their respective TAC components
19 with the use of source test data (Atm AA Inc. 2008). The cogeneration unit emissions were also speciated into
20 their respective TAC components using EPA AP-42 profiles (EPA 2000b).
21 For determining CEQA significance, the HRA calculated the incremental change in health effects due to the
22 project compared to CEQA Baseline conditions (i.e., proposed project minus CEQA Baseline). These project
23 increments were compared to the health risk thresholds identified in Section 3.2.3.1 to determine their
24 significance.
25 To estimate cancer risk impacts, emissions were projected over a 70-year period, from 2009 through 2078 for
26 both the project and CEQA Baseline to enable equal comparison of cancer risks between the two scenarios
27 (the change in risk between the project and CEQA Baseline). The 70-year emissions were estimated from
28 equipment activity levels and emission factors for each year of analysis. While the proposed SVLRC would
29 close and stop accepting refuse in 2054, the facility would generate LFG and would require the operation of
30 flares and cogeneration units through 2078. The chronic non-cancer effects also were evaluated for each year
31 from 2009 through 2078.
32 To estimate project acute health effects, the HRA focused on project operations in year 2054, as this was
33 determined, based on hourly emissions and their locations, to represent the year with the greatest ambient
34 impact between the project and CEQA Baseline conditions. The cogeneration unit was the main contributor to
35 acute impacts. The CEQA Baseline was modeled using 2054 emissions to match the same period of operation
36 as the project.
37 The HRA estimated cancer and non-cancer effects to several population subgroups (receptors), including
38 residential, off-site occupational, and sensitive receptors. Each of these receptor types has specific air
39 pollutant exposure duration and breathing rate factors, as presented in Appendix B-3. Cancer burden was
40 calculated using residential exposure assumptions. The analysis follows OEHHA guidance (OEHHA 2003).

3.2 Air Quality
1 Table 3.2-14 presents estimates of maximum incremental cancer risks and chronic and acute health effects
2 due to the project. These data correspond to the maximum CEQA incremental values that would occur at each
3 receptor type. The cancer risk and non-cancer HHI increments at all other receptor locations within the
4 modeling domain would be less than those shown in Table 3.2-14.
Table 3.2-14. Maximum Health Impacts Estimated for Construction and

Operations of the SVLRC Project
Maximum Predicted Incremental Impacts1
Health Receptor Type Mitigated Significance
Impact Proposed CEQA Baseline CEQA Threshold3
Increment2
Project
Residential 2.5 0.8 1.7
Cancer Risk Occupational 0.5 0.2 0.3 10 (× 10-6)
Sensitive 1.8 0.6 1.2
Chronic Residential 0.03 0.01 0.02
Hazard Occupational 0.03 0.01 0.02 1.0
Index Sensitive 0.003 0.002 0.001
Acute Residential 0.03 0.06 -0.03
Hazard Occupational 0.03 0.06 -0.03 1.0
Index Sensitive 0.0001 0.0002 -0.0001
Notes:
1 For each receptor type, all risk values correspond to the receptor with the maximum CEQA incremental impact.
2 The CEQA increment represents project impact minus the CEQA Baseline impact.
5 Table 3.2-14 shows that the maximum CEQA increment for residential cancer risk from the unmitigated project
6 is predicted to be 1.7 in one million (1.7 × 10-6). This risk value is less than the significance criterion of 10 in
7 one million (10 × 10-6) risk, and therefore would produce a less than significant impact under CEQA. This risk
8 level would occur at residences located approximately 1.6 miles (2.5 kilometers [km]) east of the SVLRC
9 property boundary. The main contributors to project cancer risks are diesel-powered mobile equipment and
10 trucks.
11 The maximum CEQA increment for occupational cancer risk from the unmitigated project is predicted to be 0.3
12 in one million (0.3 × 10-6). This risk value is less than the significance criterion of 10 in one million cancer risk
13 and therefore would produce a less than significant impact under CEQA. This risk level would occur at
14 Moorpark College, approximately 3 km west of the SVLRC property boundary, as prevailing winds would
15 maximize the impact of proposed emissions in this occupational location.
16 The prediction that the maximum “occupational” receptor cancer risk location would occur to the west of the
17 project site is due to three factors: (1) the predominant nighttime wind regime would transport proposed
18 emissions to the west, (2) the nighttime winds would occur during stable atmospheric conditions, which
19 would minimize the dispersion of TACs and therefore maximize their ambient impacts, and (3) the
20 distribution of occupational receptor locations in proximity to the SVLRC. However, due to the closer
21 proximity of residents to the eastern side of the SVLRC, the maximum “residential” receptor cancer risk
22 location would occur to the east of the project site.
23 The maximum CEQA increment for cancer risk at a sensitive receptor (as defined in section 3.2.1.2.2 above)
24 from the unmitigated project is predicted to be 1.2 in one million (1.2 × 10-6). This risk value, which was
25 conservatively modeled with 70-year residential exposure assumptions, is less than the significance criterion of
26 10 in one million cancer risk, and therefore would produce a less than significant impact under CEQA. This
27 risk level would occur at the High School at Moorpark College, approximately 1.9 miles (3 km) west of the
28 SVLRC property boundary.

3.2 Air Quality
1 Table 3.2-14 shows that the maximum CEQA increments for the chronic and acute HHIs from the
2 unmitigated project would be either negative or substantially less than one for all receptor locations.
3 Therefore, the unmitigated project would produce less than significant non-cancer health effects under CEQA.
5 Health risks due to air emissions would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
6 Significance of Impacts after Mitigation
7 Health risks due to air emissions would be less than significant.
8 Impact AQ-4o: Air Quality Plan
9 Project consistency with the AQMP requires an evaluation of the impact of the project on population growth and
10 air quality. Project operations would nominally affect population in Ventura County, due to the small increase in
11 worker population required by the project. Project operations would produce nonattainment pollutants in the
12 form of combustive and fugitive dust (PM10/PM2.5) emissions. The 2007 AQMP proposes emission reduction
13 measures that are designed to bring the County into attainment of the national O3 ambient air quality standards.
14 The attainment strategies in this plan include mobile source control measures and clean fuel programs that are
15 enforced at the state and federal level on engine manufacturers and petroleum refiners and retailers and, as a
16 result, project operations would have to comply with these control measures. The 2007 AQMP includes
17 projections of future emissions for the SVLRC. While project operational emissions from stationary sources are
18 expected to increase beyond those predicted in the 2007 AQMP, these additional emission increases would have
19 to be offset by at least 100 percent according to VCAPCD regulations. The 2007 AQMP also assumes source
20 compliance with adopted VCAPCD rules. Project operations would comply with all applicable VCAPCD rules
21 and regulations, such as Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust). Therefore, compliance with these requirements would ensure
22 that project operations would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans.
24 As impacts to air quality would be less than significant, no mitigation is required. However, implementation
25 of Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 would further reduce emissions from project operations.
28 Impact AQ-5o: Fugitive Dust Emissions
29 Review of Table 3.2-12 shows that unmitigated project operational emissions by themselves would produce a
30 maximum ambient 24-hour PM10 impact of 54 µg/m3, which would exceed the 24-hour PM10 CAAQS of 50
31 µg/m3. The overwhelming majority of this impact, or 49 µg/m3, would occur from fugitive dust generated from
32 earth-moving activities and the operation of mobile sources on paved and unpaved surfaces. However, this
33 ambient impact would quickly decrease in magnitude with distance from the SVLRC boundary. For example,
34 the maximum ambient 24-hour PM10 impact of fugitive dust predicted to occur from the facility at the nearest
35 point inhabited by a considerable number of persons would be about 11 µg/m3 (Figure B-2.14 in Appendix B-
36 2). This point is on Highway 118, directly south of the SVLRC main gate. This impact is substantially less
37 than the 24-hour PM10 CAAQS of 50 µg/m3. Therefore, project construction and operation would not generate
38 significant levels of fugitive dust in regard to Impact AQ-5o.

3.2 Air Quality
2 As impacts to air quality would be less than significant, no mitigation is required. Project operations would
3 comply with VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust, which would reduce project PM10 emissions from
4 uncontrolled levels by 50 to 75 percent, depending on the source type. Mitigation Measure AQ-4, Additional
5 Fugitive Dust Controls for Operations, would further reduce fugitive dust emissions from these sources to 90
6 percent from uncontrolled levels. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would lower the
7 ambient impact of project PM10 emissions to less than those disclosed in the above paragraph.
10 Impact AQ-6o: Odorous Emissions
11 Project operations would generate odorous emissions due to: 1) the combustion of diesel fuel in mobile
12 equipment; 2) the presence of municipal refuse and green waste; and 3) the decomposition of refuse and green
13 waste. Some of the more common odorous compounds produced from the decomposition of refuse and green
14 waste are: 1) ammonia, which has an odor threshold of 46.8 ppm; 2) sulfur dioxide, with an odor threshold of
15 0.47 ppm; and 3) hydrogen sulfide, with an odor threshold of 0.00047 ppm (Leonardos et al 1969). The lower
16 the odor threshold of a substance, the more easily it can be sensed. Historically, the green waste operations
17 have been the main source of odor emissions from the SVLRC. Some individuals find diesel combustion
18 emissions to be objectionable in nature, although quantifying the odorous impacts of these emissions to the
19 public is difficult.
20 At the project site, prevailing daytime winds are from the west to southwest with average wind speeds of eight
21 to 12 mph and predominant nighttime winds are from the east to southeast and average from one to four mph.
22 Typical wind conditions during the day would transport proposed odor emissions to the east to northeast.
23 Typical wind conditions during the night would transport odor emissions to the west to southwest. Since
24 nighttime is often accompanied by stable conditions when atmospheric dispersion is at a minimum, this
25 typically would be the period when odorous emissions would reach their highest ground level ambient
26 concentrations.
27 Some individuals find diesel combustion emissions to be objectionable in nature, although quantifying the
28 odorous impacts of these emissions to the public is difficult. The mobile and intermittent nature of most mobile
29 emission sources during the daytime would help to adequately disperse combustive emissions from these project
30 operations sources. Additionally, since there are no sensitive receptors in close proximity to the project site, the
31 generation of diesel combustive emissions from project operations would not expose the public to significant
32 levels of odors.
33 In 2000, WMC installed an odor control system in an area along the east SVLRC boundary where the
34 topography includes two low points (saddles) in the ridgeline confining the landfill. The odor control system
35 consists of a series of flexible hose lines equipped with fogging/misting nozzles deployed on utility poles up
36 to 30 feet above ground. An odor control product mixed with water is emitted from the nozzles when
37 warranted by landfill operations and wind conditions. In May 2003, WMC developed an Odor Control Plan
38 for the SVLRC for the intent to minimize the generation of odors from the landfill. The Plan contains a
39 description of procedures used to minimize odor generation, such as: 1) daily covering of refuse with ADC, as
40 approved by the EHD and the Planning Division; 2) minimizing the area of the active face; and 3) the
41 collection and flaring of LFG. The Plan also identifies steps to be taken to mitigate odors in the event of a
42 complaint. Historically, there have been few complaints from the public regarding odors from the SVLRC.
43 Therefore, with continuation of effective use of the current odor control system and Odor Control Plan,
44 project operations would not expose the public to significant levels of odors.
3.2 Air Quality
2 To ensure that emissions from proposed SVLRC operations would produce less than significant odor impacts
3 to the public, the landfill operator shall implement the following mitigation measure:
4 Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Odor Control Plan. The landfill operator shall implement Condition Number 41,
5 Odor Control Plan, in Conditional Use Permit CUP-3142-7 during proposed operations at the SVLRC. This
6 plan shall be updated, as deemed necessary to comply with current regulations, by the EHD and Planning
7 Division., to ensure that proposed operations comply with requirements of VCAPCD, EHD, and Planning
8 Division regulations.
10 Impacts of odorous emissions would be less than significant.
11 Impact AQ-7o: Global Climate Change
12 Table 3.2-15 presents estimates of unmitigated annual GHG emission increments that would occur during
13 project operations for various milestone years 2009, 2041 (peak GHG emissions year), and 2055 (proposed
14 first year of closure). These data represent the net change between project operational GHG emissions for
15 each development year and existing GHG emissions generated in year 2009. Sources of GHG emissions from
16 project operations are the same as those identified for criteria pollutants in Table 3.2-8. This analysis presents
17 an accounting of (1) total GHGs and (2) total GHGs that exclude biogenic emissions of CO2. Biogenic CO2
18 emissions would occur from (1) fugitive LFG due to the decomposition of waste in the landfill and (2)
19 combustion of LFG (mainly CH4) in flares, cogeneration units, and LNG-powered delivery trucks. The
20 unmitigated GHG analysis assumes that by year 2015, 25 percent of the collection trucks (63 of 250 trucks)
21 would burn LNG and the source of this fuel would originate from the proposed landfill gas-to-liquefied
22 natural gas (LFGTLNG) facility.
23 The data in Table 3.2-15 show that the net change in GHG emissions between proposed operations for each
24 development year and the 2009 CEQA Baseline 2009 would exceed 10,000 metric tons per year of CO2e, with
25 or without the inclusion of biogenic CO2 emissions. These data show that by 2041, biogenic CO2 emissions
26 contribute to 54 percent of the facility total for CO2e emissions and that this factor increases to about 67
27 percent by facility closure in 2055.
29 Measures that reduce fossil fuel consumption would reduce GHG emissions. The project includes design
30 features (although not specifically mitigation measures, these would reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions
31 either on site or at another location) that would minimize GHG emissions from proposed operations, such as
32 the following:
33 1. Use of a LFG collection system would provide methane fuel to generate on-site electricity, thereby
34 replacing electricity generated off-site by fossil-fuels and also preventing the flaring of this GHG.
35 2. Proposed new building construction would meet at a minimum Silver Level certification under the
36 LEED® Green Building Rating System (LEED-NC), developed by the U.S. Green Building Council.

3.2 Air Quality
Table 3.2-15. Annual GHG Emissions from the Operation of the SVLRC Project
Annual Emissions (Metric Tons)
Year/Activity
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2009
LFG – Fugitive 11,906 3,974 95,354
Flares 46,197 154 3.08 50,391
LNG Delivery Trucks
Diesel-Powered Delivery Trucks 27,435 2 2 27,995
Employee Commutes 1,138 0.13 0.25 1,219
Total 2009 GHGs 119,673 4,274 8 209,058
Total 2009 GHGs Excluding Biogenic1 40,298 4,274 8 132,544
CEQA Baseline 85,403 4,316 6 177,927
CEQA Baseline without Biogenic Sources 5,184 4,316 6 97,708
Net Change from CEQA Baseline 34,272 -42 2 33,993
Net Change from CEQA Baseline without 35,114 -42 2 34,836
Biogenic Sources
2041
LFG – Fugitive 28,470 9,502 228,006
Flares 148,222 376 7.51 158,440
LNG Delivery Trucks 4,177 7 0 4,520
Employee Commutes 743 0.04 0.25 821
Total 2041 GHGs 293,839 10,480 20 520,270
Net Change from CEQA Baseline 18,798 6,164 14 152,705
Net Change from CEQA Baseline without 23,981 10,480 20 250,413
Biogenic Sources
2055
LFG – Fugitive 13,652 4,556 109,337
Flares 144,716 483 9.66 157,853
Total 2055 GHGs 259,397 5,714 23 386,561
Total 2055 GHGs Excluding Biogenic1 5,714 23 127,164
Net Change from CEQA Baseline without
Biogenic Sources -5,184 1,398 17 29,456
Notes:
1. Excludes CO2 emissions from the decomposition and combustion of biomass.
1 Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 also would reduce GHGs from unmitigated levels. This is the
2 case, as use of equipment that comply with the newest emission standards would have more fuel-efficient
3 engines compared to older equipment. Additionally, minimizing equipment idling time and using
4 alternatively-fueled equipment would reduce fossil fuel consumption and resulting GHG emissions compared
5 to unmitigated operations. Other measures that would reduce GHG emissions from future operations include
6 the following: (1) use of mileage-efficient tires on refuse transport trucks; and (2) employee carpooling.
7 This unmitigated GHG analysis assumes that an LNG-powered collection truck would consume 75 gallons of
8 LNG per day (based on estimates by Waste Management) and that, the 63 collection trucks proposed to burn
9 this fuel by 2015 would consume about 4,000 gallons of LNG per average calendar day (annualized from 312
10 operational days per year). With an average daily production rate of 18,000 gallons of LNG, the LFGTLNG
11 facility would have about 14,000 gallons remaining to power other sources.
3.2 Air Quality
1 Newly amended CEQA Guideline section 15126.4, subdivision (c) states that lead agencies shall consider
2 feasible means of mitigating significant effects of GHG emissions. The LFGTLNG facility is expected to
3 become operational at full capacity by January 1, 2014. In addition, the applicant currently operates a number
4 of LNG-powered collection trucks throughout the State. Therefore, it would be feasible for WM to divert
5 some of these vehicles to the project site (or purchase new LNG trucks to replace retired trucks) to take
6 advantage of the LNG produced on-site. In addition, other low carbon fueled trucks (bio-diesel, compressed
7 natural gas, liquefied propane gas [LPG], electric, or other types) could be used in lieu of diesel trucks. While
8 the reduction in GHG emissions varies by fuel, any carefully chosen alternative fuel for a larger fraction of
9 trucks would reduce GHG emissions compared to the proposed unmitigated truck fleet mix. To ensure that the
10 collection truck fleet has a diverse and therefore reliable supply of fuel, the following mitigation measure
11 would allow the applicant to operate 50 percent of the total fleet by conventional power (gasoline or diesel).
12 Mitigation Measure AQ-7. Additional Alternative Fuels Collection Trucks. The landfill operator shall
13 operate a collection truck fleet that is powered by at least 50 percent alternative fuels. The definition of
14 alternative fuels includes LNG, LPG, compressed natural gas (CNG), or electric power. The landfill operator
15 shall achieve this level of operation by January 1, 2020.
16 The following mitigation measure also would reduce GHG emissions from proposed unmitigated vehicles.
17 Mitigation Measure AQ-8. Use Biodiesel Blends in Diesel-Powered Off-Road Equipment and Collection
18 Trucks. The applicant shall maximize the use of biodiesel in off-road equipment and diesel-powered
19 collection trucks. The CO2e emission factor for 100 percent biodiesel is about 7 percent lower than ultra-low
20 sulfur diesel (ULSD). The most readily available form of biodiesel is a blend of 20/80 percent
21 biodiesel/ULSD by weight (B20), the use of which would result in an approximately 2 percent reduction in
22 GHG emissions relative to ULSD. Use of fuel with a higher biodiesel/ULSD ratio would result in higher
23 GHG reductions. However, higher bio-diesel percentages than B20 may result in reduced power and/or
24 require engine modifications.
26 Table 3.2-16 presents estimates of annual operational GHG emissions for milestone year 2041 due to the
27 implementation of mitigation measure AQ-7. The analysis did not estimate the effects of mitigation measure
28 AQ-8, due to the uncertainly of its participation level. The mitigated GHG analysis assumes that by year
29 2020, 50 percent of the collection trucks (126 of 250 trucks) would burn LNG fuel or equivalent. The data in
30 Table 3.2-16 show that the net change in mitigated GHG emissions between year 2041 proposed operations
31 and the 2009 CEQA Baseline 2009 would substantially exceed 10,000 metric tons per year of CO2e, with or
32 without the inclusion of biogenic CO2 emissions. Therefore, GHG emissions from proposed operations, even
33 with the implementation of AQ-7 and AQ-8, would cause a significant and unavoidable impact on the
34 environment.
35 Impact AQ-8o: Valley Fever
37 significant impact. Landfill-related activities have the potential for release of coccidioides immitis spores at
38 the landfill. However, it is likely that much of the population of Ventura County has already been exposed to
39 Valley Fever and would continue to be exposed because of the various earthmoving activities that occur
40 throughout the region. Many people who are exposed do not develop symptoms. Also, the project has been in
41 operation for decades and future operations would not substantially change the current levels of exposure
42 associated with landfill operation. Given the endemic nature of the disease and the number of earthmoving
43 activities in the County (e.g., grading and excavation for new residential, commercial, and industrial
44 development, and surface mining operations), it is not possible to attribute a specific case of Valley Fever to a
45 specific earthmoving activity. Nevertheless, Valley Fever can be debilitating and even fatal in some cases.
3.2 Air Quality
1 Also, given that the symptoms of Valley Fever can be confused with more common diseases, it is likely that
2 cases of Valley Fever are under-diagnosed in the population.
Table 3.2-16. Annual Mitigated GHG Emissions from the Operation of the SVLRC Project
Annual Emissions (Metric Tons)
Year/Activity
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2009
CEQA Baseline 85,403 4,316 6 177,927
CEQA Baseline without Biogenic Sources 5,184 4,316 6 97,708
2041
LFG – Fugitive 28,470 9,502 228,006
Flares 148,222 376 7.51 158,440
LNG Delivery Trucks 8,354 14 1 9,040
Employee Commutes 743 0.04 0.25 821
Total 2041 GHGs 292,780 10,487 21 519,559
Net Change from CEQA Baseline without 13,562 6,171 15 147,817
Biogenic Sources
Notes:1. Excludes CO2 emissions from the decomposition and combustion of biomass.
3 Based on the following, no significant impacts with regard to Valley Fever are expected from the proposed
4 expansion at the SVLRC:
5 • Numerous ground-disturbing activities occur continually throughout the County as part of a variety of
6 activities that include, but are not limited to, major and minor construction projects, surface
7 mining/quarrying operations, and agricultural operations. Such ground-disturbing activities are
8 considered baseline and represent a continual source of spores that contribute to the low number of
9 Valley Fever cases reported each year. The proposed project would fall within these baseline
10 operations that currently occur continually within the County.
11 • Based on analysis by the CDC of the Valley Fever outbreak associated with the January 1994
12 Northridge earthquake, as well as a subsequent outbreak following the wildfires of Fall 2003 it
13 requires a major ground-disturbing event (i.e., another major earthquake or wildfire) to release a large
14 number of spores over a wide area for a significant outbreak of Valley Fever to occur.
15 • Since ground-disturbing activities, such as at the proposed SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project, are
16 continuous throughout the County and the number of cases of Valley Fever reported in the County
17 each year is low, the proposed expansion would not represent an increased risk to public health.
18 The SVLRC has an ongoing, aggressive dust control program to minimize dust at the landfill due to vehicular
19 movement, earthmoving, and other onsite activities. This dust program would continue with implementation
20 of the proposed project and would be augmented by proposed Mitigation Measure AQ-5, Additional Fugitive
21 Dust Controls for Operations. Therefore, the impact due to the potential for exposure to Valley Fever would
22 therefore be less than significant.
24 As Valley Fever impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.

3.2 Air Quality
2 Impacts from Valley Fever would be less than significant.
3 3.2.3 Mitigation Monitoring Program
4 Table 3.2-16 17 summarizes the potentially significant adverse air quality impacts of the proposed project or
5 less than significant impacts for which mitigation measures would further reduce impacts. For each impact,
6 the table describes any applicable mitigation measures, the significance of the impact following mitigation,
7 and identifies the parties responsible for implementing and overseeing the mitigation as well as the timing of
8 the mitigation. The mitigation measures would be imposed as conditions of approval of the CUP modification
Table 3.2-1617. Mitigation for Air Quality Impacts

Significant Adverse Mitigation Measure(s) After Responsible Timing
Parties
Impact Mitigation
Impact AQ-1c: AQ-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following Less than Planning During
Project construction measures to mitigate ozone precursor emissions from on-site off- significant. Division construct
would produce road construction equipment: and APCD ion
emissions that exceed 1. All construction equipment shall meet the EPA Tier 3
VCAPCD daily ROC nonroad equivalent standards. The construction contractor
and NOx emission shall be exempt from this requirement if he provides proof
significance that a given piece of equipment is unavailable within
thresholds. California that meets Tier 3 standards.
3. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper
4. Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May
5. Encourage the use of alternatively fueled construction
equipment, such as CNG, LNG, or electricity, if feasible.
Impact AQ-2c: See AQ-1. Significant for Planning During
Project construction AQ-2: Additional Fugitive Dust Controls for Construction. (1) 1-hour Division construct
would result in off- CAAQS for and APCD ion
site ambient air The calculation of unmitigated fugitive dust emissions from NO2, (2) 24-
pollutant proposed construction activities is based upon compliance with hour CAAQS
concentrations that VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust, which is assumed to produce a for PM , (3)
would contribute to 50 percent reduction in PM10 emissions from uncontrolled levels. annual 10
an exceedance of an This would occur with the use of rigorous watering of the site and CAAQS for
ambient air quality other control measures, such as a limitation of vehicle speeds to PM10, and (4)
standard. 15 mph on-site. 24-hour
The proposed construction contractor shall develop and NAAQS for
implement dust control methods to achieve a 90 percent reduction PM2.5.
of fugitive dust emissions from uncontrolled levels. Additional
control measures to reduce fugitive dust shall include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1. Designate personnel to monitor the dust control program and
order increased watering, as necessary, to ensure a 90 percent
control level. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress.
2. Apply approved non-toxic chemical soil stabilizers according
to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction
areas or replace groundcover in disturbed areas.
3. Provide temporary wind fencing around sites being graded or
worked.
4. Cover truck loads that haul dirt, sand, or gravel or maintain at
least two feet of freeboard in accordance with Section 23114
of the California Vehicle Code.

3.2 Air Quality

Potentially Significance Responsible Timing
Significant Adverse Mitigation Measure(s) After
Impact Mitigation Parties
Impact AQ-2c 6. Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed 25
(cont.) mph as instantaneous gusts or when visible dust plumes
7. Sweep all streets at least once a day if visible soil materials
are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers
with reclaimed water).
8. Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers
according to manufacturers’ specifications, to all unpaved
parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces.
9. Pave road and road shoulders.
AQ-7c. Potential See AQ-1. Incrementally Planning During
incremental contribute to Division construct
contributions from global climate and APCD ion
the project to global change.
climate change.
Impact AQ-1o: AQ-3: To reduce peak daily emissions of ROC and NOx from Significant for Planning Project
Project operations project operations, the landfill operator shall implement the ROC and NOx Division duration
would produce following measures to mitigate ozone precursor emissions from and APCD
emissions that exceed on-site off-road mobile equipment:
VCAPCD daily ROC 1. Beginning in 2009, convert all equipment to engines with
and NOx emission EPA nonroad Tier 3 standards. The landfill operator shall be
significance exempt from this requirement if he provides proof that a
thresholds. given piece of equipment is unavailable within California that
meets Tier 3 standards.
3. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper
4. Encourage the use of alternatively fueled equipment, such as
CNG, LNG, or electricity, if feasible.
Agreement.
In instances, when air quality impacts from mobile sources due
to project operations cannot be mitigated to insignificant levels
with the available air pollution control measures recommended
requiring the project proponent to contribute funds for programs
that reduce air pollutant emissions from non-project sources.
However, while several municipal jurisdictions in the county
have enacted air emissions mitigation programs in the form of
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, Ventura
County has not established a Government Code section 66000 et
seq. fee rule or made a Board of Supervisors commitment to
adopt such a fee rule to assess, collect, and spend such fees on
mitigation programs.
Therefore, to accomplish the purposes of an Emissions
Reduction Program, some other legally enforceable, feasible
mechanism to achieve the same result is required. In this
instance, a legally enforceable agreement between the County of
Ventura, VCAPCD, and the applicant (WMI) could be executed
such that funding would be provided by the applicant via the
agreement to the VCAPCD for the purpose of funding emission
reduction programs in Ventura County, based on estimated
mobile source emissions from operations in excess of standards.

3.2 Air Quality

Such an agreement would, at a minimum, have the following
features:
• A binding agreement would be executed by the County of
Ventura, the VCAPCD, and the applicant wherein the
applicant commits:
o To the payment of fees, calculated based on the amount
of project operational emissions from mobile sources in
excess of standards, into a fund administered by the
VCAPCD. Fees would be determined based on the
project’s mobile source emissions in excess of
standards and the cost-effectiveness of projects funded
by the VCAPCD’s Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality
Standards Attainment Program.
o Pay the assessed fees over a time period mutually
agreeable to all parties.
• The VCAPCD would be entitled to recover all cost of
administrating the expenditure of the funds so collected.
• The fees would be used by the VCAPCD to fund emission
reduction projects in Ventura County. Projects that could be
funded include, but would not necessarily be limited to,
project types eligible for funding under the VCAPCD’s
emission reduction incentive programs such as:
o The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards
Attainment Program,
o Clean Air Fund,
Emission reduction programs such as the one described above
emissions (buses, trucks, etc.) and emissions from other devices
and equipment powered by internal combustion engines through
the use of more efficient engines, less polluting fuels, or electric
or hybrid power sources. It is uncertain the extent to which the
Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Emissions Reduction
Program would offset overall project-related vehicular emissions
and it is not possible to calculate what those reductions might be
because the specific emission mitigation projects are unknown at
this time. However, implementing an Emissions Reduction
Program Agreement for the proposed Simi Valley Landfill
expansion project is considered an effective emission reduction
measure.

3.2 Air Quality

Impact AQ-2o: See AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3, and AQ-4. Significant for Planning Project
Project construction AQ-45: The calculation of unmitigated fugitive dust emissions (1) 1-hour Division duration
and operation would from proposed construction and operational activities is based CAAQS for and APCD
result in off-site upon compliance with VCAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust, which is NO2; (2) 24-
ambient air pollutant assumed to produce a 50 to 75 percent reduction in PM10 hour CAAQS
concentrations that emissions from uncontrolled levels, depending on the source for PM10; (3)
would contribute to type. This would occur with the use of rigorous watering of the annual
an exceedance of an site and other control measures, such as a limitation of vehicle CAAQS for
ambient air quality speeds to 15 mph on-site. PM10; (4) 24-
standard. hour NAAQS
The project landfill operator shall develop and implement dust for PM2.5; and
control methods to achieve a 90 percent reduction of fugitive dust (5) annual
emissions from uncontrolled levels. Additional control measures CAAQS for
to reduce fugitive dust shall include, but are not limited to, the PM2.5.
following:
1. Designate personnel to monitor the dust control program and
order increased watering, as necessary, to ensure a 90 percent
control level. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress.
2. Apply approved non-toxic chemical soil stabilizers according
to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction
and operational areas or replace groundcover in disturbed
areas.
3. Provide temporary wind fencing around sites being graded or
worked.
4. Cover truck loads that haul dirt, sand, or gravel or maintain at
least two feet of freeboard in accordance with Section 23114
of the California Vehicle Code.
6.5. Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed
25 mph as instantaneous gusts or when visible dust plumes
7.6. Sweep all streets at least once a day if visible soil
materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water
sweepers with reclaimed water).
8.7. Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil
stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications, to all
unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces.
9.8. Pave road and road shoulders.
AQ-5: [PREVIOUS AQ-5 MOVED TO AQ-4]
Impact AQ-6o: AQ-6: Odor Control Plan. The landfill operator shall implement Less than EHD and Project
Project operations the currently approved 2003 Odor Control Plan during proposed Significant Planning duration
would generate operations at the SVLRC. This plan shall be updated, as deemed Division
potentially significant necessary to comply with current regulations, by the EHD and
odor emissions. Planning Division.

3.2 Air Quality

Impact AQ-7o: AQ-7. Additional Alternative Fuels Collection Trucks. The SignificantIncr Planning Project
Proposed operational landfill operator shall operate a collection truck fleet that is ementally Division duration
emissions of GHGs powered by at least 50 percent alternative fuels. The definition of contribute to and APCD
would cause a alternative fuels includes LNG, LPG, compressed natural gas global climate
significant impact on (CNG), or electric power. The landfill operator shall achieve this change.
the level of operation by January 1, 2020.
environment.Potentia AQ-8. Use Biodiesel Blends in Diesel-Powered Off-Road Significant Planning Project
l incremental Equipment and Collection Trucks. The applicant shall maximize Division duration
contributions from the use of biodiesel in off-road equipment and diesel-powered and APCD
the project to global collection trucks. The CO2e emission factor for 100 percent
climate change. biodiesel is about 7 percent lower than ultra-low sulfur diesel
(ULSD). The most readily available form of biodiesel is a blend
of 20/80 percent biodiesel/ULSD by weight (B20), the use of
which would result in an approximately 2 percent reduction in
GHG emissions relative to ULSD. Use of fuel with a higher
biodiesel/ULSD ratio would result in higher GHG reductions.
However, higher bio-diesel percentages than B20 may result in
reduced power and/or require engine modifications.

3.2 Air Quality

1 3.3 Water Resources
4 The area of influence with respect to surface water quality and quantity would be that portion of the Calleguas
5 Creek drainage system located downstream of the proposed project site. Drainage from the SVLRC flows to
6 Arroyo Simi, which collects water from canyons surrounding the proposed project site as well as runoff from
7 the City of Simi Valley. Downstream, Arroyo Simi flows westerly through the City of Moorpark where the
8 channel name changes to the Arroyo Las Posas. The Arroyo Las Posas flows in a generally southwesterly
9 direction and becomes known as Calleguas Creek at the northerly boundary of the City of Camarillo, near St.
10 John’s Seminary. From this point, Calleguas Creek flows in a southerly direction to Mugu Lagoon and then to
11 the Pacific Ocean at Point Mugu Naval Air Weapons Station. The total surface flow distance from the
12 proposed project site to the ocean is approximately 28 miles.
13 The area of influence with respect to groundwater quality and quantity would be the area overlying the
14 groundwater basins affected by the proposed project, which includes the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin, that
15 underlies the proposed project site, and to a lesser extent, the East and West Las Posas groundwater basins,
16 located downgradient of the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin. The Simi Valley Groundwater Basin is
17 approximately 19 square miles.
18 3.3.1.2 Setting
19 3.3.1.2.1 Drainage and Flooding
20 Drainage
21 The existing landfill site is situated in a north-south trending canyon, which drains to the south and empties
22 into the westerly flowing Arroyo Simi. The proposed landfill expansion area is separated from the existing
23 landfill by a topographic high and consists primarily of two distinct watersheds, including a large, broad-
24 based, northeast-southwest oriented canyon (northern expansion area) and a smaller, narrow, similarly
25 oriented canyon (western expansion area). Both of these canyons empty directly into Alamos Canyon (Figure
26 3.3-1). The recent Cell D expansion is located at the head of the canyon that constitutes the western expansion
27 area. Cell D and the proposed western expansion area are separated from the main landfill by a topographic
28 high that roughly corresponds to the eastern boundary of this watershed. Groundwater flow in the western and
29 northern expansion areas mimics topography and drains southwest to Alamos Canyon.
30 East of the proposed project site, Brea Canyon trends parallel to Alamos Canyon. Brea and Alamos canyons,
31 as well as the north-south trending canyon underlying the existing landfill, empty into Arroyo Simi and are
32 strictly ephemeral, containing surface flows only during and shortly after periods of rainfall. Both the existing
33 and proposed landfill sites (including the buffer area) occupy independent drainage areas that are not subject
34 to surface run-on from off-site.
35 Run-off from slopes located above the existing landfill, but within the existing CUP boundary, is collected at
36 the perimeter of the fill area. This runoff, along with sheet flow generated on the fill area, is diverted through
37 a combination of lined and unlined ditches, sediment traps, and slope benches, with most of the runoff
38 culminating in two 36-inch corrugated metal pipes (CMP), located at the canyon floor below the toe of the
39 site. From this central point, surface runoff flows through a 78-inch CMP under the access roadway.

Scale
N
0 0.5
Mile
Proposed Waste
Disposal Area
Limits of Grading
Proposed CUP
Boundary
NORTHERN
EXPANSION
CELL
WESTERN D
EXPANSION
EXISTING
LANDFILL
118
Source: Dibblee and Ehrenspeck, 1992;

William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 2004a
Basemap Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle; Simi Valley West, Calif.
Figure 3.3-1. Topography and Drainage

3.3 Water Resources
1 From there, the water travels under SR-118 in an 84-inch CMP and into the Arroyo Simi. Three other small
2 flow discharge points are located in the northeast, southeast, and west portions of the landfill. Drainage to
3 these discharge points accumulates within the existing CUP boundary, but outside the existing waste disposal
4 area. The site and immediate vicinity are generally rugged. Canyon sides are steep and slopes of 1:1
5 (horizontal: vertical) and steeper are common. Local relief ranges up to 250 feet. Soils at the proposed project
6 site typically range from a moderate-to-very high soil erosion hazard. The relatively flat canyon floors exhibit
7 a moderate soil erosion hazard. The erosion hazard increases on the steeper slopes (United States Soil
8 Conservation Service 1970).
9 A site visit of the existing landfill was conducted by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
10 staff in July 2008 to observe drainage conditions. Results of this site visit are summarized as follows:
11 The existing waste disposal area extends to within approximately 50 vertical feet of the top of the watershed
12 and receives runoff from several perimeter cut slopes (generally 20 to 50 feet high). This run-on surface flow
13 feeds into exterior perimeter surface drains, which lead into the 78-inch CMP storm drain at the toe of the
14 landfill.
15 • Surface water flow across the upper portion of the landfill generally occurs as sheetflow before
16 entering interior perimeter surface drains, which feed into the 78-inch CMP storm drain at the toe of
17 the landfill.
18 • The lower fill slope is appropriately benched with surface drains and down-drains. Surface runoff
19 from this slope also feeds into the 78-inch CMP storm drain at the toe of the landfill.
20 • A large sedimentation basin was observed at the toe of the landfill, immediately upgradient of the
21 CMP storm drain.
22 • Numerous erosion control features were observed throughout the site. Silt fencing and hay bales are
23 used around the perimeter of stockpiled soil and down-drain entrances. Energy dissipaters are present
24 at the base of slope down-drains, immediately upgradient of perimeter drainage culverts. In addition
25 to the large detention/sedimentation basin at the toe of the landfill, a small sedimentation basin, with
26 associated upgradient bioswale and silt fencing, was observed in the southwest portion of the site.
27 Slope revegetation was evident throughout the site.
28 Flooding
29 A portion of the proposed project site is located in a designated flood hazard area (Figure 3.3-2) (FEMA
30 2008). The west end of the northern expansion area is located within a 100-year flood plain, as designated by
31 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This flood plain, which is also referred to as a Special
32 Flood Hazard Area by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD), merges westward with
33 the flood plain located at the base of Alamos Canyon.
34 The Arroyo Simi is an improved flood control channel maintained and regulated by the VCWPD. The
35 Arroyo Simi collects water from canyons surrounding the proposed project site as well as runoff from the City
36 of Simi Valley. Downstream, Arroyo Simi flows westerly, south of the City of Moorpark, where it joins the
37 channel name changes to Arroyo Las Posas in the vicinity of Hitch Road. , then The Arroyo Las Posas flows
38 in a generally southwesterly direction under the Ventura Freeway before emptying into and becomes known
39 as Calleguas Creek at the northern Boundary of Camarillo near St. Johns Seminary. Calleguas Creek flows in
40 a southerly direction to Mugu Lagoon and then to the Pacific Ocean (Figure 3.3-3).

LEGEND
100-Year Flood Zone
500-Year Flood Zone
Scale
N
0 0.5
Mile
Proposed Waste
Disposal Area
Limits of Grading
Proposed CUP
Boundary
118
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle; Simi Valley West, Calif.
Figure 3.3-2. Simi Valley 100-Year and 500-Year Flood Zones

OJAI
RIVER
E EK
CR
IO
ON FILLMORE
ANT
LOS
N
SA RIVER
VEN
ANG RA CO
SANTA
TU
PAULA
ELE
RA
CLA
S CO NT Y
U
UNT
TA ARROYO SIMI
Y
N
A
SA
TUR
VEN
VENTURA LANDFILL SITE

ARROYO LAS POSAS SIMI VALLEY
P
A
CAMARILLO
C
OXNARD
THOUSAND OAKS
I
F
I
CALLEGUAS CREEK Y
U NT T Y
N PORT O UN
C
HUENEME R A C S CO
U E
NT EL
VE ANG
O S
NOT TO SCALE C LO
E
SOURCE: ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS A
N
NOTE: MAJOR DRAINAGES ARE SHOWN IN BLACK
Source: SCS Engineers (Adapted from 1988 FEIR)
Figure 3.3-3. Major Drainages in Ventura County

3.3 Water Resources
1 Precipitation and run-off data collected for the 2002 landfill expansion Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR) indicated
2 that the estimated peak discharge from a 100-year, 24-hour storm at the existing landfill site is 801 cubic feet per
3 second (cfs) (A-Mehr, Inc. 2002). Caltrans staff indicated (from the 1988 EIR) that the 84-inch drainpipe under
4 SR-118 has a capacity of 385 cubic feet per second. However, a large detention/sedimentation basin, which is
5 approximately 48,000 square feet and designed to hold a maximum of 8.9 acre-feet of stormwater runoff, has
6 been constructed at the toe of the landfill. This basin was designed to remove silt from a flow of 38.4 cfs, the
7 average flow computed for a 50-year, 24-hour storm. The basin has an emergency spillway designed for a 100-
8 year, 24-hour storm flow of 801 cfs.
9 3.3.1.2.2 Surface Water and Groundwater Conditions
10 Regional Conditions
11 Principal groundwater basins in this portion of the Calleguas Creek drainage system include the Simi Valley
12 Groundwater Basin and the East and West Las Posas basins. Basins farther downstream to the west include
13 the Conejo, Tierra Rejada, and Santa Rosa basins. These basins are comprised principally of alluvial and/or
14 valley-fill deposits of Quaternary geologic age. The hill and mountain areas adjoining these basins are
15 underlain principally by older geologic formations of low permeability, which do not yield groundwater
16 readily to wells.
17 Many wells have been drilled in the alluvial deposits within the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin and along
18 Arroyo Simi. Historically, these wells have been used for limited domestic and agricultural usage, as well as
19 for stock watering purposes. With the importation of State Project water to the area in the mid-1960s and the
20 gradual urbanization of the area, virtually all of these wells have now been abandoned or destroyed. In
21 addition, most of the alluvial wells along the Arroyo Simi have been abandoned due to excessive mineral
22 content and the availability of better quality imported State Project Water.
23 Present water supply to residences and industrial users in and along Arroyo Simi is from Ventura County
24 Waterworks District No. 8 (City of Simi Valley), which is a member of the CMWD. The Metropolitan Water
25 District of Southern California (MWD) and the State Water Project supply water to the CMWD. The Ventura
26 County Waterworks District No. 8 has plans to develop a pump and treat system for the groundwater from
27 existing dewatering wells, operated by the City of Simi Valley, to produce potable water supply to
28 supplement its imported water supply purchased from the CMWD. The pump and treat system will rely on the
29 regional brine line that is currently under construction and that will ultimately extend to the Simi Valley
30 Water Quality Control Plant. In addition, the CMWD has expressed its intent to withdraw groundwater from
31 the Las Posas Groundwater Basin near Camarillo. A detailed discussion of water supply is provided in
32 Section 3.12, Water Supply.
33 Regional Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
34 Because surface water occurs strictly on an ephemeral basis in the proposed landfill expansion canyon, as
35 well as the adjoining Alamos and Brea canyons, the quality or rates of natural run-off in these drainages have
36 never been monitored. In the upstream direction (i.e., at the east end of the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin),
37 surface water runoff in the Arroyo Simi is monitored at a gage near Los Angeles Avenue. Historic data for
38 runoff at this location was noted to be mainly calcium-sulfate in character. Local dewatering wells operated
39 by the City of Simi Valley to dewater the area of artesian conditions in the east end of the valley discharge
40 flow directly to the Arroyo Simi upstream from the landfill. These flows are typically calcium-sodium sulfate
41 in character and have a slight hydrogen sulfide odor. The concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) from
42 these wells are on the order of 1,000 to 1,500 milligrams/liter (mg/l). By comparison, the federal drinking
43 water standard for TDS is 1,000 mg/l (SAIC 1988).

3.3 Water Resources
1 The Arroyo Simi lies about 4,000 feet southwest of the landfill. In this area, the arroyo drains westerly and
2 eventually merges with alluvium in the main portion of the East Las Posas Groundwater Basin, 1.5 miles west
3 (downstream). Between the west end of the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin and the City of Simi Valley
4 Wastewater Treatment Plant, perennial flow generally does not occur in the Arroyo Simi. However, the
5 treatment plant discharges a mean flow of 9.0 to 9.5 million gallons per day (gpd) of tertiary treated effluent
6 directly to the Arroyo Simi. Based on information collected for the 1988 Final EIR, the TDS of this effluent
7 was tested in 1986 and found to be 590 to 640 mg/l.
8 Arroyo Simi flows westerly, south of the City of Moorpark, where it joins the Arroyo Las Posas, then
9 southwesterly under the Ventura Freeway before emptying into Calleguas Creek. Calleguas Creek flows in a
10 southerly direction to Mugu Lagoon and then to the Pacific Ocean. Various reaches within the Calleguas
11 Creek watershed are identified on the 2002 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of water quality limited
12 segments as impaired due to water column and sediment toxicity, organophosphate pesticides in water, and
13 chlorpyrifos in fish tissue. This listing requires the development of Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDLs),
14 which establish the maximum amount of pollution a water body can receive without exceeding water quality
15 standards. The TMDLs are incorporated as amendments to the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los
16 Angeles and Ventura Counties (i.e., the Basin Plan) (LARWQCB 1994; Larry Walker Associates 2004;
17 Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan 2009).
18 With respect to surface water quality in the Calleguas Creek watershed, the LARWQCB approved the
19 following TMDLs (LARWQCB 2002, 2007):
20 • Boron: 1 mg/l
21 • Chloride: 150 mg/l
22 • Sulfate: 250 mg/l
23 • Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): 850 mg/l
24 • Nitrate: 10 mg/l
25 • Nitrite as nitrogen: 1 mg/l
26 In 2005 and 2006, the LARWQCB similarly approved TMDLs for metals, selenium, and the organophosphate
27 pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon, in the Calleguas Creek watershed (LARWQCB 2005, 2006).
28 Recent groundwater quality data from the alluvial aquifer within Arroyo Simi are unavailable due to the lack
29 of active wells in the area. However, based on information collected for the 1988 Final EIR, 1985 data for
30 alluvial well IR1, located in Arroyo Simi just southwest of the treatment plant, suggest TDS values of 2,400
31 to 3,000 mg/l, with a slight hydrogen sulfide odor. Also based on information collected for the 1988 Final
32 EIR, limited historic data pertaining to water quality within the Sespe Formation (bedrock) indicate a sodium
33 sulfate-bicarbonate character and TDS values averaging approximately 1,200 mg/l.
34 3.3.1.2.3 Local Hydrogeology
35 Hydrogeology
36 A thorough discussion of the geologic setting is provided in Section 3.7, Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral
37 Resources, and Paleontological Resources. Geologic formations at the landfill site consist of alluvium along the
38 lowermost portions of the canyons, as well as bedrock of the Sespe Formation. Beds of the Sespe Formation
39 strike approximately east-west and dip to the north at an angle of about 30 degrees. This geologic structure of
3.3 Water Resources
1 tilted beds dominates the site, appearing as a highly visible series of red and tan interbedded sandstone, siltstone,
2 and claystone beds. The beds appear to be generally continuous across the site, but lateral pinch-outs of thinner
3 beds and variations in individual thickness of some beds have been observed. More than 30 discrete sandstone
4 beds have been mapped at the site. A zone of weathered bedrock of variable thickness lies atop the unweathered
5 Sespe rocks. Superimposed on this bedrock are various surficial units, including the upper Pliocene to lower
6 Pleistocene Saugus Formation, which caps subdued ridge tops in the southwest portion of the property; older
7 alluvium, representing erosional remnants of the upper Pleistocene to Holocene alluvial deposits; recent
8 alluvium, occupying the axes of active watercourses; various mass wasting deposits, including translational and
9 rotational landslide masses; and surficial soil and colluvial deposits (GeoSyntec 2005).
10 The site is traversed by three, roughly east-west trending geologic faults, comprised of the Brea Canyon,
11 Strathearn, and Canada de la Brea faults, all of which are high angle reverse faults with less than several
12 hundred feet of displacement. Based on data collected for the 1988 Final EIR, packer test results (i.e.,
13 permeability tests) from the fault zones very closely matched the permeabilities of packer tests taken some
14 distance from the faults. Although some fracturing occurs in bedrock throughout the site and extensive
15 fracturing is exhibited immediately adjacent to the faults (GeoSyntec 2005), such fracturing does not appear
16 to cause notable permeability increase near the fault zones. A lack of increase in permeability could be due to
17 healing of some fractures, as the fractures observed during exploratory drilling for the fault investigation were
18 commonly clay filled or closed.
19 Based on data collected for the 1988 Final EIR, the Strathearn Fault appears to be dry. Initially, groundwater
20 levels from the Canada de la Brea Fault Zone indicated a groundwater flow gradient towards the center of the
21 fault zone from both sides. This pattern would indicate that some outward flow must occur along the strike of
22 the fault zone, perpendicular to the line of cross-sections. However, groundwater levels in open boreholes
23 drilled near the center of the fault zone continued to rise over a period of months. This slow groundwater
24 recovery in boreholes in the fault zone may indicate that permeabilities are actually lower near the center of
25 the fault zone than away from the zone. Groundwater monitoring indicates that: (a) water levels tend to
26 increase toward the north; and (b) a preferential pathway for groundwater flow along the fault trace is not
27 evident. This interpretation was confirmed in a more recent investigation by GeoSyntec (2005), in which
28 wells were installed in Alamos Canyon on either side of the Canada de la Brea Fault, to assist with evaluation
29 of potential fluid migration in the fault zone. Groundwater levels in both of these faults were similar and did
30 not appear to be affected by the fault.
31 Groundwater Flow
32 Two distinct but interconnected hydrogeologic systems of groundwater flow are recognized at the site,
33 including the bedrock system and the alluvium/colluvium system in the canyons. The conceptual model for
34 the existing landfill is described by the classic recharge/discharge flow system. Groundwater flows from areas
35 of recharge from hilltops, highland areas, and along hillsides, to areas of local discharge in the valley bottoms.
36 Canyon bottoms behave as the collection point for groundwater originating higher in the valley. In this type of
37 flow model, vertical groundwater gradients are downward in recharge areas, such as hilltops and highland
38 areas, and upwards in valley floors. This flow model is supported by inorganic mixing models and isotopic
39 analysis (GeoSyntec 2005).
40 The bedrock system represents the larger and more extensive of these hydrogeologic systems, and serves to
41 regionally transport groundwater in a westerly direction through sandstone beds within the Sespe Formation.
42 Based on data collected for the 1988 Final EIR, typical permeability values for these sandstone units are 1 x 10-5
43 to 1 x10-6 cm/sec. Separating these beds are clayey strata having permeabilities of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-8 cm/sec.
44 Further evidence of low permeability and limited recharge to these rocks is the long time period required for
45 water levels to rise to equilibrium in newly drilled piezometers (up to a week to 10 days).

3.3 Water Resources
1 The shallow alluvial deposits lie along the canyon floor beneath the existing landfill. The relatively small
2 amount of groundwater flow in the alluvial deposits is considered to be more predominately parallel to the
3 original land surface. Based on data collected for the 1988 Final EIR, estimates of alluvial hydraulic
4 conductivity varied from 1 x 10-2 cm/sec to 4 x 10-5 cm/sec. Because alluvial deposits are heterogeneous, their
5 permeability values are likely to be between these two reported values. Data generated for the northern
6 expansion area (GeoSyntec 2005) indicated an alluvial hydraulic conductivity of approximately 5 x 10-4
7 cm/sec (1.5 feet/day) or less, indicative of a relatively low permeability silty and clayey alluvium. However,
8 similar to the existing landfill, alluvium of the northern expansion area appears overall to be more permeable
9 than the underlying bedrock by an order of magnitude or more.
10 Because groundwater flows downgradient along the path of highest hydraulic conductivity, it follows that any
11 fluids passing through the existing refuse and reaching the alluvial deposits would tend to flow down-canyon
12 through the alluvial deposits, because the permeability values are greater than those in the underlying
13 bedrock. Furthermore, when evaluating groundwater flow directions and gradients at the site, it is important
14 to separate water level data in alluvial wells from wells screened in bedrock. Based on data collected for the
15 1988 Final EIR, monitoring wells in waste and/or alluvium flows south toward Arroyo Simi at a gradient of
16 0.18 vertical feet per horizontal foot (about 950 feet per mile). In contrast, regional groundwater flow in Sespe
17 sandstone strata is inferred to be primarily along strike in a southwesterly direction from the recharge areas in
18 the mountains and toward Arroyo Simi.
19 More recent groundwater measurements and interpreted groundwater flow directions are consistent with
20 historical data. Groundwater flow from the ridge tops encircling the existing landfill site is interpreted to be
21 through the sandstone units of the Sespe Formation, toward the former canyon bottom and alluvium, which acts
22 as a groundwater discharge point for the site to the south (Figure 3.3-4). The alluvial zone acts as the preferred
23 migration pathway for alluvial groundwater and leachate constituents due to the large contrast in permeability
24 between the alluvium and the underlying Sespe Formation (CH2MHill 2007, 2008, 2009; see Appendix C).
25 As shown in Figure 3.3-5, groundwater elevation contours in the proposed northern expansion area (measured
26 in May 2005) closely mimic ground surface topography, suggesting a topographically controlled groundwater
27 flow system that is consistent with interpretations of the existing landfill area. The water table elevations are
28 approximately 50 to 60 feet higher at valley margins than at the valley floor. Flow is inward from valley
29 margins toward the center of the valley at a relatively steep lateral gradient of 10 percent. Overall,
30 groundwater flow is from east to west, with an elevation decrease in the valley axis from about 1,000 feet
31 above msl at the head of the canyon to 800 feet above msl at the outlet. The average horizontal gradient in the
32 northern expansion area is 4.5 percent to the west (down-canyon) (GeoSyntec 2005).
33 In the western expansion area, there is no appreciable alluvium present and groundwater occurs primarily in
34 Sespe Formation bedrock. As illustrated in Figure 3.3-4, groundwater is expected to flow downgradient to the
35 west-southwest, towards Alamos Canyon (GeoSyntec 2005).
36 Based on information collected for the 1988 Final EIR, groundwater sources at the site are extremely limited.
37 Only a few historically known water wells tapped the Sespe Formation, due to the extremely low yield and
38 the poor quality of water found in this formation. The low permeability of these sandstone beds is
39 corroborated by the very slow recovery of on-site water levels in monitoring wells during purging operations.
40 3.3.1.2.4 Groundwater Quality
41 Proximal Oil Field Conditions
42 The proposed project site lies within the Alamos area and immediately west of the Canada de la Brea area of
43 the Simi Oil Field (DOGGR 2001). Several oil wells of the Simi Field are located within the northern
44 expansion area (Figure 3.9-1, in Section 3.9, Hazards). This oil field lies adjacent to the Canada de la Brea
45 and Strathearn faults and local oil accumulations are likely related to these structures. The abandoned
46 (inactive) Strathearn Oil Field is located near Arroyo Simi, approximately 0.5 mile south of the landfill.

Existing topography (feet above M.S.L.)
Proposed expansion area
Existing expansion area
Point of compliance monitoring well in current mrp
Monitoring well to be added to compliance
monitoring program after expansion
Wells and piezometers for semi-annual
groundwater elevations
NORTHERN
General groundwater flow direction
EXPANSION
in expansion area
Water table elevaton contour (20’ interval)
CELL D
WESTERN
EXPANSION
EXISTING
LANDFILL
N Scale
0 600
Feet
Source: GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc., 2005
Figure 3.3-5. Groundwater Elevations and Inferred Groundwater Flow, Proposed Expansion Area
3.3 Water Resources
1 Historically, many of these oil wells co-produced brines with the oil production. Typically, disposal of these
2 oil field brines was into unlined sumps and/or into drainage channels, although this practice has been changed
3 to disposal of the brine into deep injection wells. Based on information collected for the 1988 Final EIR,
4 historic data reveal that several unlined sumps and discharge areas for brines, drilling muds, and other oil field
5 wastewater were located in Brea Canyon, just east of the landfill. These data indicate that the wastewater was
6 strongly sodium-chloride in character, with high boron and a TDS level of 26,550 mg/l.
7 Up-dip migration of hydrocarbons from reservoir rocks to the ground surface occurs locally, as evidenced by
8 a line of oil sands and oily seepage that trends westerly about 1.5 miles from Brea Canyon, in the vicinity of
9 the northern expansion area. Natural hydrocarbons are also known to occur near the leachate toe barrier of the
10 existing landfill, as well as in several monitoring wells at the existing landfill.
11 FigureThe presence of naturally occurring petroleum deposits and the high salinity of water associated with
12 local oil production affects the interpretation of water quality monitoring at the landfill. Based on information
13 collected for the 1988 Final EIR, aromatic organic compounds such as benzene, toluene, xylenes, and
14 ethylbenzene have been detected in laboratory tests of oil extracts of natural hydrocarbons at the existing
15 landfill. The natural occurrence of these aromatic hydrocarbons in the vicinity of oil fields and oil field waters
16 is not uncommon.
17 Springs and Surface Waters
18 Based on information collected for the 1988 Final EIR, natural springs and seeps have been identified in the
19 vicinity of the landfill by various investigators. Such springs include the Alamos Canyon Spring west of the
20 landfill, the Brea Canyon Spring east of the landfill, and an unnamed spring mapped just north of the current
21 landfill, within the landfill expansion footprint. The off-site springs consist of localized accumulations of
22 ponded water, approximately one acre in size. The on-site spring consists of a small localized accumulation of
23 ponded water, approximately six feet by six feet in size. These seeps lie within alluvium of each of the
24 respective canyons. The two off-site seeps lie adjacent to the Strathearn Fault and may be related to a barrier
25 effect created by this fault. Similarly, the on-site seep lies adjacent to the Canada de la Brea Fault and may be
26 related to a barrier effect created by this fault.
27 Quality of water at the Alamos and Brea Canyon seeps during three rounds of sampling, performed in 1985,
28 show that both springs have chloride-to-sulfate ratios of about 1/2.5; iron and TDS concentrations are
29 moderately high (TDS values of 1,000 to 1,460 mg/l at Alamos Spring, and 1,900 to 3,830 mg/l at Brea
30 Spring). Water quality testing of the seep within the proposed landfill expansion area is limited to two
31 inorganic analyses from 1987 that show the water to have very high chloride-to-sulfate ratios (about 180:1
32 and 235:1), low alkalinity, very high TDS (over 21,000 mg/l), and very high sodium (about 3,500 mg/l).
33 Water Quality Monitoring Plan
34 From 1971 to 1982, the VRSD, the prior operator of the landfill, operating in conformance with WDRs issued
35 by the LARWQCB, discharged Class I solid and liquid waste (i.e., hazardous waste) on approximately 30
36 acres of a designated 75-acre portion of the northern part of the landfill. Approximately 29,000 tons of solid,
37 liquid, and containerized hazardous waste was discharged during this period. On May 23, 1983, the
38 LARWQCB adopted Order No. 83-26, prescribing revised WDRs for the landfill and prohibiting disposal of
39 hazardous wastes. On November 30, 1988, the California Department of Health Services indicated in writing
40 to the CIWMB that the prior Class I disposal area was safe for additional overfilling of solid waste over the
41 Class I waste.
42 On February 26, 1990, the LARWQCB adopted Order No. 90-034, prescribing WDRs and associated water
43 quality monitoring. This order was amended by Order No. 93-062, on September 27, 1993, and Order No. 00-
44 092, on June 29, 2000. On June 13, 1994, the LARWQCB also adopted a revised Water Quality Control Plan
3.3 Water Resources
1 (Basin Plan) for the Los Angeles Region. The Plan contains water quality objectives and beneficial uses for
2 groundwater of the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin. The requirements of Order No. 00-092 include
3 conformance with the goals of the Basin Plan.
4 Order No. 93-062 was amended on November 19, 2003 and in the process adopted Order No. R4-2003-0152,
5 relative to the addition of 50 acres of landfill capacity. Order No. 93-062 was subsequently amended on
6 February 10, 2000 and in the process adopted Order No. R4-2006-0007, relative to the acceptance of treated
7 wood waste in areas of the landfill containing a composite bottom liner.
8 In accordance with 27 CCR §20390, Order No. R4-2003-0152 (the Order) includes water quality protection
9 standards specifically for the Simi Valley Landfill. The Order specifies points of compliance where surface
10 water, groundwater, and vadose (unsaturated) zone monitoring shall occur. The Order also specifies
11 constituents of concern, in accordance with 27 CCR §20395, and associated concentration limits, in
12 accordance with 27 CCR §20400. The constituents of concern include metals, pesticides, herbicides, PCBs,
13 oil and grease, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, total organic carbon, and other
14 general water quality parameters such as TDS, potential of hydrogen (pH), and electrical conductivity.
15 In accordance with 27 CCR §20385, the Order also includes monitoring and response programs to be
16 implemented. Therefore, Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-5643, which was adopted by the
17 LARWQCB on December 4, 2003 and which further specifies water quality and vadose zone sampling protocol,
18 is incorporated into the Order. Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-5643 includes a Detection Monitoring
19 Plan (DMP) per 27 CCR §20420; an Evaluation Monitoring Program (EMP) per 27 CCR §20425; and a
20 Corrective Action Program (CAP) per 27 CCR §20430. Currently, only a DMP is required at the SVLRC.
21 A DMP includes establishment of monitoring points at appropriate locations and depths to yield groundwater
22 samples from the uppermost aquifer that represent the quality of groundwater passing the point of compliance
23 and to allow for the detection of a release from the landfill. An EMP shall be instituted whenever
24 confirmation of measurably significant or physical evidence of a release is noted. The discharger must use
25 either statistical or non-statistical methods to compare downgradient concentrations of each monitored
26 constituent with its respective background concentration, to determine if a release has occurred. The DMP
27 allows for resampling of compliance points with detectable concentrations of constituents of concern. The
28 EMP requires that the landfill owner characterize the nature, extent, and source of contaminants. In the event
29 of statistical and nonstatistical exceedances of site-specific concentration limits, the landfill operator/owner
30 may complete an Optional Demonstration Report (ODR), which demonstrates that the constituents
31 responsible for the exceedance are due to "a source other than the landfill or are an artifact caused by an error
32 in sampling, analysis, or statistical evaluation or by natural variation in the groundwater, surface water, or the
33 unsaturated zone" (27 CCR §20420). The landfill operator/owner shall institute a CAP when the LARWQCB
34 determines that the assessment of the nature and extent of the release and the design of a CAP have been
35 satisfactorily completed. The LARWQCB must also approve an application for an amended report of waste
36 discharge for corrective action, submitted by the discharger during an EMP.
37 On August 6, 1995, the SVLRC submitted a Proposed Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Landfill to
38 the LARWQCB. The LARWQCB responded to the submittal in a correspondence dated December 21, 1995,
39 allowing the landfill to implement the monitoring plan prior to approval by the LARWQCB, at the risk of the
40 landfill. Subsequently, the landfill submitted an Addendum to the Proposed MRP for the Landfill, dated
41 February 13, 1996. More recently, on July 28, 2003, the County approved CUP-3142-7, which includes a
42 groundwater and leachate monitoring program, as approved by the LARWQCB.
43 Groundwater Quality Results
44 In order to update water quality information in the 2002 Final SEIR, groundwater monitoring reports from
45 Winter 2006 through Spring 2009 were reviewed as representative data (CH2MHill 2007, 2008, and 2009; see
3.3 Water Resources
1 Appendix C). Groundwater sampling results from this time period, which was completed in accordance with
2 Order No. R4-2003-0152 and Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-5643, are included in Appendix C,
3 and a summary of this data is provided below. The most recent data in Appendix C is generally representative
4 of the data since 2003, as the water quality has not varied greatly over time.
5 The following summarizes water quality conditions from the Winter/Spring 2007 sampling period:
6 • Inorganic water quality parameters, such as chloride, TDS, and sulfate were detected, with some
7 concentrations exceeding statistical prediction limits (thresholds established by WDR Order No. R4-
8 2003-0152 and Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-5643). An ODR submitted to the
9 LARWQCB on December 8, 2006 concluded that these exceedances are not attributed to a release from
10 the landfill.
11 • VOCs acetone, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX), and carbon disulfide were
12 detected. However, as concluded in an ODR in 2001(and discussed in detail in Section 3.5.2.3 of the
13 2002 Final SEIR), acetone is a common laboratory contaminant and the other compounds are
14 naturally occurring crude oil constituents. Naturally occurring oil seeps and shallow accumulations of
15 oil deposits, as observed in shallow monitoring wells, are common in the vicinity of the landfill.
16 Therefore, it is unclear whether the landfill refuse is the source of these contaminants.
18 • Statistical analysis for indicator parameters alkalinity (bicarbonate), chemical oxygen demand,
19 chloride, nitrate, dissolved sodium, sulfate, and TDS resulted in no prediction limit exceedances.
20 • VOCs acetone, BTEX, and carbon disulfide were detected. However, as concluded in an ODR in
21 2001, acetone is a common laboratory contaminant and the other compounds are naturally occurring
22 crude oil constituents.
24 • Statistical analysis for indicator parameters alkalinity (bicarbonate), chemical oxygen demand,
25 chloride, nitrate, dissolved sodium, sulfate, and TDS resulted in no prediction limit exceedances.
26 • VOCs acetone, methylene chloride, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were detected in several
27 groundwater samples. However, as concluded in an ODR in 2001, these compounds are common
28 laboratory contaminants. Similarly, ethyl methacrylate was detected in one laboratory batch of
29 groundwater samples analyzed from three wells. However, it was concluded that detection of this
30 compound was a result of laboratory error, as the same compound was detected, at similarly low
31 concentrations, in field quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples.
32 • BTEX, carbon disulfide, chloroform, 2-methylnaphthalene, phenol, and several other phenolic
33 compounds were detected in relatively low concentrations in four wells. However, as concluded in
34 an ODR in 2001, these compounds are naturally occurring crude oil constituents.
35 • The pesticides 4,4-DDE and Dieldrin were detected in one groundwater sample at very low
36 concentrations. However, as concluded in an ODR in 2002, detection of very low concentrations of
37 pesticides such as these are due to matrix interference.
38 The groundwater quality analyses are reviewed by the LARWQCB for conformance with WDRs, as established
39 by Order No. R4-2003-0152 and Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-5643 (LARWQCB 2003). Based
40 on a review of this sampling data, the landfill is currently operating in conformance with the WDRs established
41 by the LARWQCB and no enforcement actions are currently in-place (Cross, personal communication 2009).

3.3 Water Resources
1 Surface Water Quality Results
2 Surface water quality sampling is completed annually at the SVLRC, in accordance with provisions of an
3 Industrial Stormwater General Permit. Analyses are completed in accordance with Table T-1 of the WDRs
4 (LARWQCB 2003). The annual sampling results from 2008 and 2009 are included in Appendix L, Surface
5 Water Quality Results (WMC 2008, 2009). The surface water quality analyses are reviewed by the LARWQCB
6 for conformance with provisions of the Industrial Stormwater General Permit. Based on a review of this
7 sampling data, the landfill is currently not operating in conformance with the permit; however, no enforcement
8 actions are contemplated.
9 Sampling indicates that surface water quality concentrations exceed Federal EPA benchmarks for total
10 suspended solids (TSS), specific conductance, nitrates, nitrites, and several metals, including iron and lead.
11 However, the Industrial Stormwater General Permit is established such that there are no established analytical
12 thresholds; therefore, exceedance of EPA benchmarks only constitutes a concern; not a violation. In the event
13 that an inspection is completed by the LARWQCB, improper or insufficient BMPs, which are designed to
14 mitigate surface water quality impacts, would constitute a violation. The last site inspection at the landfill
15 occurred in 2001. LARWQCB staff recommended installation of rip-rap (at an indeterminate location) to reduce
16 siltation in runoff (Lee, personal communication 2009).
17 Leachate Collection and Characterization
18 A main concern at any landfill is the generation of leachate and the potential for degradation of local
19 groundwater by mixing with leachate. Leachate from landfills typically contains concentrations of dissolved
20 metals and various natural products of organic decomposition, potentially creating a health hazard. At SVLRC,
21 definitive leachate indicators are confounded by the presence of naturally occurring petroleum hydrocarbons in
22 the subsurface. It is therefore often difficult to determine whether leachate constituents (e.g., benzene, toluene)
23 were derived from the bedrock groundwater or the waste.
24 Leachate is created when water, regardless of its source, moves through waste fill and dissolves soluble
25 substances contained in the fill. If the capacity of the waste fill to retain water (leachate) is exceeded (i.e.,
26 moisture content exceeds field capacity), then water can be discharged into adjacent materials (e.g., alluvium)
27 that are permeable and capable of transmitting the fluids.
28 Potential sources of water into the waste include:
29 • Infiltration of direct precipitation and of uncontrolled surface water run-on.

30 • Infiltration from previously used fluid impoundments on the landfill.
31 • The intrinsic moisture content of the waste.
32 • Water produced by the microbiological reactions that occur during anaerobic decomposition of the
33 buried waste. (However, the total volume of water produced during decomposition is very low
34 compared with all other potential sources of water. Further, leachate fluid and gas extraction systems
35 typically recover decomposition water vapor along with the gases; this condensate water is collected
36 and handled for on or off-site disposal.)
37 • Poor grading control in the early years of the site, which permitted ponding of water and inadequate
38 site drainage/run-off. Water from such ponds can percolate into the fill.
39 • Co-disposal of sewage sludge with relatively high moisture content, especially during the early years
40 of the site.
41 • Co-disposal of various types of liquid wastes and oil field drilling muds during the early years of site
42 operation.
3.3 Water Resources
1 A leachate control system, consisting of both a hydraulic barrier and a LCRS, was installed in 1985 at the toe
2 of the landfill. The entire system was keyed at least 5 feet into unweathered, competent Sespe Formation
3 bedrock. A description of the landfill toe LCRS is included in Section 2.2.6.1 of the 2002 Final SEIR. During
4 construction, natural hydrocarbon seeps were reportedly encountered in the excavation on the east side of the
5 system. These seeps were collected and diverted via a pipeline directly into the manhole sump in the front of
6 the barrier.
7 Leachate from the landfill is either collected in sumps, in lined portions of the landfill, or allowed to pass
8 down canyon within the alluvial groundwater zone, which in turn are intercepted and collected at the toe-
9 barrier system. Cell B (Phases B-1, B-2, and B-3 inclusive) has been constructed using Subtitle D liner
10 systems, allowing leachate from these cells to be collected in the Cell B-3 sump. Approximately 3,500 to
11 3,800 gallons per week are collected from this sump and reintroduced to the landfill via liquid injection
12 points, over the lined portions of the landfill. Liquid reintroduction commenced during 2002, as authorized by
13 the LARWQCB in 2001, for leachate collected from the Subtitle-D-lined landfill cells and gas condensate
14 (CH2MHill 2007, 2008; see Appendix C).
15 Liquid extracted from the landfill toe barrier is not managed through reintroduction. The alluvial fluids are
16 pumped from the toe barrier sump into a 500-gallon polyethylene tank, where the fluids are stored prior to
17 treatment. Toe barrier liquids are treated through the particulate-activated carbon filtration system and utilized
18 for dust control, in accordance with Provisions for Onsite Uses of Water, Section J, of WDR Order No. R4-
19 2003-0152 (CH2MHill 2007, 2008, and 2009; see Appendix C).
20 3.3.1.2.5 Potential Leachate Flow Paths
21 The only opportunity for migration of fluid from the waste results from contact of saturated wastes with
22 underlying alluvium, or contact of saturated wastes and/or alluvium with selected Sespe beds (See Sandstone
23 Beds 20 and 21 below). The 1988 EIR concluded that the alluvial flow path provides the greatest potential for
24 transport and collection of fluids from the landfill, due to both the relative permeability of the alluvium and its
25 location along the base of the fill. However, subsequent saturation studies indicate that the movement of the
26 refuse fluids into the native materials is probably very minute because of: 1) the high absorptive capacity of
27 the refuse; 2) the very low permeability of the surrounding bedrock; and 3) the limited extent of contact
28 between the saturated refuse and the bedrock. Even where saturated refuse is in contact with the underlying
29 alluvium, very little leachate appears to be entering/migrating through the alluvium.
30 This limited migration of leachate is illustrated by the fact that numerous organic compounds detected at well
31 MW-5 have not migrated to the toe barrier, located only 500 feet from the well. Because the refuse found at
32 the base of MW-5 represents some of the oldest material disposed at the landfill, it suggests that the refuse has
33 been there for approximately 20 years. Yet, no indication has been found that the organic constituents in MW-
34 5 have reached the toe barrier. Based on the quantities of fluid collected at the toe barrier and the lack of
35 impact, either chemically or hydraulically, at bedrock wells surrounding the landfill, the lack of significant
36 leachate migration into bedrock also appears to be substantiated.
37 Sandstone Beds 20 and 21
38 Pursuant to Condition 44 (Leachate Mitigation Control Program) and Condition 45 (Groundwater and
39 Leachate Monitoring Program) of the Conditions for CUP-314-7– Simi Valley Landfill, and as part of a Phase
40 II Saturation Study, an investigation was completed of the unexpected eastward movement of groundwater in
41 the vicinity of sandstone beds 20 and 21. The study evaluated alternative methods to control and or extract
42 leachate from the waste. In a letter dated May 11, 1993, to WMC, the County Planning Division found the
43 Phase IIB Saturation Study to be satisfactory in terms of the nature and extent of leachate within the permitted
44 site boundaries and stated that no further studies were necessary. The Planning Division also stated that an
45 off-site leachate control system (dewatering the waste column) was not necessary at this time. The study
3.3 Water Resources
1 concludes that monitoring should continue and the toe barrier should remain in operation. Monitoring would
2 include:
3 • Continuance of the Leachate Migration Control Program (CUP-3142-7 Condition 44) to assure the
4 potential for off-site migration of leachate is mitigated.
5 • Continuance of the Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring Program (CUP-3142-7 Condition 45),
6 which must meet the requirements of 27 CCR §§20380-20435.
7 Vadose Zone Monitoring
8 Requirements for vadose or unsaturated zone monitoring are contained in 23 CCR §2559. Local RWQCBs
9 shall specify the frequency and timing of soil and soil-pore liquid monitoring in the WDRs. Requirements for
10 vadose zone monitoring are also contained in Water Code Section 13273(b)(2), pursuant to the Calderon Bill
11 (AB 3525). The SVLRC operates a gas collection system to prevent migration of landfill gas, in accordance
12 with WDR Order No. 00-092 and Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 5643. The collection system
13 consists of vertical and horizontal gas collection wells, associated piping, blower, flare, and landfill gas
14 condensate treatment system.
16 Many laws and regulations apply to water resources. The following sections discuss those most directly
17 applicable to the proposed project.
18 3.3.1.3.1 Federal Regulations
19 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also called The Clean Water Act (33 United States Code [U.S.C.]
20 §1251) governs water pollution prevention and control throughout the United States. Federal water quality
21 regulations are administered by the EPA. The State Water Resourced Control Board and other state agencies
22 implement these regulations via delegations of Federal Authority. The 1972 amendments to the federal Water
23 Pollution Control Act established the NPDES permit program to control discharges of pollutants to water
24 bodies. The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act created a new section of the act devoted to stormwater
25 pollution prevention permitting. Construction activities are regulated under the General Construction Permit,
26 which requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) when the total amount of
27 ground disturbance during construction exceeds one acre. The SWPPP includes pollution prevention measures
28 (erosion and sediment control measures and measures to control non-stormwater discharges and hazardous
29 spills), demonstration of compliance with all applicable local and regional erosion and sediment control
30 standards, identification of responsible parties, a detailed construction timeline, and a BMPs monitoring and
31 maintenance schedule. The LARWQCB enforces the General Construction Permit in this area.
32 3.3.1.3.2 State Regulations
33 The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the SWRCB and the RWQCBs to regulate water
34 quality throughout the state. The Act specifically designates the SWRCB as the “…state water pollution
35 control agency for all purposes stated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and any other federal act,
36 heretofore or hereafter enacted….” The SWRCB administers water rights in California and oversees the nine
37 Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The LARWQCB designates beneficial uses of surface and
38 groundwater resources for the proposed project area and establishes applicable water quality objectives in the
39 Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region, Simi Valley Groundwater Basin (LARWQCB 1994).
40 Groundwater can be used only intermittently for municipal and industrial use.

3.3 Water Resources
2 Ventura County General Plan
3 Policy 2.10.2-1: Land use in the floodway should be limited to open space, agriculture, or passive to low
4 intensity recreational uses, subject to the approval of the County Watershed Protection District. The
5 floodway’s principal use is for safely conveying floodwater away from people and property.
6 Policy 2.10.2-2: Within areas subject to flooding, the County shall require the recordation of a Notice of
7 Flood Hazard or dedication of a flowage easement with the County Recorder for all divisions of land and
8 discretionary permits.
9 Policy 2.10.2-3: Development shall be protected from a 100-year flood if built in the flood plain areas.
10 Policy 2.10.2-4: The design of any structures which are constructed in flood plain areas as depicted on the
11 Hazards Protection Maps, shall be governed by Federal regulations as well as the County Flood Plain
12 Management Ordinance and shall incorporate measures to reduce flood damage to the structure and to
13 eliminate any increased potential flood hazard in the general area due to such construction.
14 Policy 4.6.2-1: All necessary flood control and drainage facilities shall be constructed to meet the minimum
15 standards of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District consistent with the goals, policies and
16 programs of the General Plan.
17 Policy 4.6.2-2: Discretionary development shall be conditioned to provide flood control and drainage
18 facilities deemed by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District as necessary for the development, and
19 shall be required to contribute toward flood control facilities necessitated by cumulative development.
20 3.3.2 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
22 Based on the criteria identified in the Ventura County Initial Study Guidelines and Administrative Supplement
23 to the State CEQA Guidelines, the threshold criteria for evaluating water resources impacts, including
24 groundwater quantity, groundwater quality, surface water quantity, and surface water quality state:
25 WR-1: Groundwater Quantity. Any project that would directly or indirectly decrease, either
26 individually or cumulatively, the net quantity of groundwater in a basin that is overdrafted, would
27 be considered to have a potentially significant impact. In groundwater basins that are not
28 overdrafted, or are not in hydrologic continuity with an overdrafted basin, net groundwater
29 extraction that would individually or cumulatively cause the basin(s) to become overdrafted,
30 would be considered to have a potentially significant impact. In areas where the basin condition
31 is not known and there is evidence of overdraft due to declining water levels in a well or wells, it
32 would be assumed that any net increase in groundwater extraction may potentially cause a
33 significant impact until such time as reliable studies determine otherwise. Notwithstanding the
34 above, any project which would result in 0.15 acre-feet, or less, of net annual increase in
35 groundwater extraction is not considered to have a significant project or cumulative impact.
36 WR-2: Groundwater Quality. Any project that would individually or cumulatively degrade the quality
37 of groundwater and cause groundwater to fail to meet groundwater quality objectives set by the
38 LARWQCB would be considered to have a potentially significant impact. In cases where the
39 proposed land use impact upon the quality of groundwater is unknown and there is evidence that
40 the proposed land use could cause the quality of groundwater to fail to meet the groundwater
3.3 Water Resources
1 quality objectives set by the LARWQCB, the project would be considered to have a potentially
2 significant impact until such time as reliable studies determine otherwise. Applicants for land use
3 projects that propose the use of groundwater in any capacity and are located within two miles of
4 the boundary of a former or current test site for rocket engines would be required to test for
5 perchlorate and trichloroethylene (TCE).
6 WR-3: Surface Water Quantity. Any project that would increase the net utilization of surface water in
7 a hydraulic unit that is overdrafted or adversely impacts an overdrafted hydrologic unit is a
8 significant adverse impact. In hydraulic units that are not overdrafted or that do not impact an
9 overdrafted hydrologic unity, water use that would individually or cumulatively cause the
10 hydraulic unit to become overdrafted is a significant adverse impact. In areas where the hydraulic
11 unit condition is not known, it must be assumed that any net increase in surface water use may
12 potentially cause a significant impact unless a reliable study determines otherwise.
13 WR-4: Surface Water Quality. Any project that would degrade the quality of surface water and cause it
14 to fail to meet surface water quality objectives for a hydrologic unit defined in the most recent
15 Water Quality Control Plan is a significant adverse impact.
16 WR-5: Flooding Hazard. Flooding hazards are ubiquitous throughout Ventura County and are
17 accommodated by the Ventura County Building Code and the Ventura County Watershed
18 Protection District Standards and Specifications Design Manual. The effects of flooding hazards
19 are required to be considered within the existing framework of grading and building code
20 ordinances which apply to all projects.
22 3.3.2.2.1 WR-1: Groundwater Quantity
23 In determining a project’s impact on a groundwater basin, the net amount of groundwater extraction resulting
24 from the proposed project was compared to the historical groundwater extraction for the project site. If a
25 project would directly or indirectly cause a net decrease in groundwater quality in an overdrafted basin, this
26 decrease in groundwater quality would be considered to have a potentially significant project and cumulative
27 impact. If the net effect on groundwater quantity is zero or increase, the project impact would not be
28 significant. In areas where the groundwater basin is not currently overdrafted, project or cumulative
29 development that causes the basin to become overdrafted would be considered to have a potentially
30 significant impact. A net increase in groundwater extraction that does not cause the basin to become
31 overdrafted would not be considered significant. In areas where the overdraft status of the basin is unknown, a
32 net increase in groundwater extraction would have a potentially significant impact, which must be determined
33 by further investigation. A net decrease or no change in extraction would be considered less than significant.
34 3.3.2.2.2 WR-2: Groundwater Quality
35 The project’s known groundwater quality impacts was determined by comparing the impact of each
36 constituent resulting from the proposed project with the limits for those constituents required to meet the
37 beneficial use stated in the current Basin Plan.
38 Within a non-impacted Basin (i.e., a hydraulic unit where all groundwater constituents meet the current
39 LARWQCB water quality objectives), a project that individually or cumulatively causes a hydraulic unit where
40 all groundwater constituents meet the current LARWQCB water quality objectives to fail to meet these objects,
41 would be considered to have a potentially significant adverse impact. Within an impacted Basin, a project would
42 be considered potentially significant for both the project and cumulative impacts if a constituent resulting from
43 the proposed project exceeds the stated limit for those constituents causing the basin to be impacted.
3.3 Water Resources
1 The potential discharge of materials known to be hazardous to the State of California would be considered
2 potentially significant.
3 The use of septic tanks in Basins known to be impacted due to concentrations of nitrates would be subject to
4 the limitations of the “nitrate formula’ as defined by the County.
5 All projects proposing to use groundwater in any capacity that are located within two miles of the boundary of a
6 former or current test site for rocket engines would be required to test for the constituents for perchlorate and
7 TCE.
8 3.3.2.2.3 WR-3: Surface Water Quantity
9 Impacts to surface water quantity would be considered significant and adverse in hydrologic units that are
10 overdrafted if net project water usages increase. If net water usage is zero or a decrease, the impact is less than
11 significant or beneficial. In hydraulic units that are not currently overdrafted, individual or cumulative water
12 use that causes the hydraulic unit to become overdrafted is a significant adverse impact.
13 3.3.2.2.4 WR-4: Surface Water Quality
14 Project surface water quality impacts were compared with the objectives for ground waters contained in the
15 most recently adopted Basin Plans. In hydrologic units where surface water meets the Basin Plan water
16 quality objectives, water use that individually or cumulatively causes the hydrologic unit to fail to meet these
17 objectives is a significant adverse impact.
18 3.3.2.2.5 WR-5: Flooding Hazard
19 Within the context of the existing regulatory framework, the project would be reviewed to determine the
20 applicability of the Ventura County Code, State law, and County standards to the drainage design of the
21 project. The review must include an analysis of the risk to the project with respect to the off-site and on-site
22 drainage sources, the effects of local site conditions, and the sensitivity of the proposed project to flooding.
23 3.3.2.3 Project Impacts
24 3.3.2.3.1 Impact WR-1: Groundwater Quantity
25 As discussed in Section 2.4.2.6.1, Water Supply, the annual water demand for the proposed project would be
26 approximately 174 acre-feet per year (Psomas 2007b). The proposed project would be served by the CMWD,
27 which is considered by Ventura County to be a permanent source of water. Although the CMWD may in the
28 future be using limited groundwater from the Las Posas Basin, the main source of water for District No. 8 of
29 the CMWD is imported State San Joaquin Delta water, supplied by CMWD, which originates from the MWD,
30 as part of their State Water Project annual contract rights. At least a portion of the water supply includes
31 recycled water from the City of Simi Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is supplied to the landfill site
32 via an existing pipeline installed by the City of Simi Valley and the CMWD. The applicant would obtain a
33 water availability letter from CMWD, which includes conditions that the applicant must satisfy prior to
34 receiving services from CMWD. In addition, similar to Condition #14 (Master Development Plan) of CUP-
35 3142-7, imposed by Ventura County for the current phase of landfill expansion, an updated water supply
36 plan would be included as part of a Master Development Plan, which is designed to ensure that the landfill
37 is operated in an environmentally safe manner and to mitigate any significant avoidable environmental
38 impacts identified in the EIR. The water supply plan would describe improvements to be made to assure
39 adequate potable and non-potable water for landfill operations, dust control, fire protection, landscaping,
40 human consumption, and hygiene.

3.3 Water Resources
1 Because a water availability letter would be submitted by CMWD with the proposed project application,
2 verifying that adequate water supplies are available; an updated water supply plan would be included as part
3 of a Master Development Plan; and the CMWD is considered a permanent source of water (See Section 3.12,
4 Water Supply); groundwater quantity impacts would be less than significant.
6 As impacts to groundwater quantity would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
8 Impacts to groundwater quality would be less than significant.
9 3.3.2.3.2 Impact WR-2: Groundwater Quality
10 Laboratory Contaminants
11 Groundwater quality analyses completed in the Winter 2006 through Spring 2009 sampling periods detected
12 the presence of acetone. This data is also representative of other monitoring periods since the 2002 Final
13 SEIR was completed. As discussed in Section 3.5.2.3 of the 2002 Final SEIR, an ODR prepared in 2001
14 demonstrates that many of the constituents detected in groundwater at the landfill are due to sources other
15 than the landfill or due to laboratory error. A large number of chemicals are utilized in the day-to-day
16 operation of analytical laboratories. These include chemical standards used to calibrate analytical equipment,
17 chemical preservatives added to sample containers, and solvents used in the cleaning of analytical equipment
18 and containers. Although analytical laboratories attempt to minimize the impact of these chemicals on the
19 samples they analyze, instances of laboratory contamination of environmental samples are not uncommon.
20 The LARWQCB has recognized the impacts of laboratory contamination on landfill monitoring programs and
21 has addressed this issue in Order 93-062. In section 13.A.5 of Order 93-062, the LARWQCB specifically
22 identifies methylene chloride, acetone, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (B2EHP) as common laboratory
23 contaminants. Therefore, potential water quality impacts associated with the presence of these common
24 laboratory contaminants would not be incrementally greater as more waste is placed in the landfill, resulting
25 in less than significant impacts.
26 Oil Field Impacts
27 During the Winter/Spring 2007 and Winter/Spring 2008 sampling periods, inorganic water quality
28 parameters, such as chloride, TDS, and sulfate were detected, with some concentrations exceeding statistical
29 prediction limits (thresholds established by WDR Order No. R4-2003-0152 and Monitoring and Reporting
30 Program No. CI-5643). In addition, VOCs BTEX and carbon disulfide were detected in Winter/Spring 2007,
31 2008, and 2009.
32 As previously discussed, the SVLRC is located within an oil-producing region known as the Simi Oil Field.
33 The presence of naturally occurring petroleum deposits and the high salinity of water associated with local oil
34 production affects interpretation of water quality monitoring data. Several previous investigations have
35 documented this impact of crude oil deposits on groundwater. Crude oil has been observed in several of the
36 on-site exploratory borings and monitoring wells. The source of benzene in groundwater samples collected
37 from S-01 and S-01RD was evaluated and attributed to the presence of crude oil deposits near these
38 monitoring wells. Water quality conditions were evaluated in former well E-0-3C and the presence of benzene
39 and toluene in this well were attributed to impacts of crude oil deposits within the Sespe Formation.

3.3 Water Resources
1 As concluded in ODRs in 2001(and discussed in detail in Section 3.5.2.3 of the 2002 Final SEIR) and December
2 8, 2006, these organic compounds are naturally occurring crude oil constituents. Naturally occurring oil seeps
3 and shallow accumulations of oil deposits, as observed in shallow monitoring wells, are common in the vicinity
4 of the landfill. Therefore, it is unclear whether the landfill refuse is the source of these contaminants.
5 The conclusion based on the above considerations is that water quality impacts associated with detection of
6 naturally occurring petroleum compounds in the groundwater are not a result of past landfill operations; and
7 the impacts would not become incrementally greater if the landfill were expanded. Thus, with regard to oil
8 field contaminants, no project-related water quality impacts are anticipated.
9 Landfill Leachate
10 Considering past operational practices at the site, landfill leachate must be considered as a potential source of
11 groundwater contamination. Leachate composition can be used in evaluation of groundwater impacts from
12 landfills. For a particular leachate constituent to function as an effective indicator of leachate releases from
13 the landfill, it should generally be present at high concentrations in the leachate relative to background
14 groundwater quality and should generally not be associated with other potential contaminant sources. Data on
15 the composition of the leachate and alluvial liquids at the landfill are available from the toe barrier system
16 (Sample Point L-01, see section 3.5.1.2 of the 1993 FEIS for additional information) and from a series of
17 former vertical wells that were screened near the contact between the waste materials and the underlying
18 alluvial deposits (e.g., wells MW-5, S-16, S-17, S-19, and S-23). From evaluation of that data, several general
19 characteristics can be noted concerning the character of leachate and alluvial fluids at the landfill:
20 • Chlorinated VOCs were commonly detected in the leachate and alluvial liquids. Because of the
21 relatively high mobility and persistence of these compounds in subsurface environments, chlorinated
22 VOCs are expected to be reliable indicators of impacts on groundwater.
23 • BTEX is commonly detected in the SVLRC alluvial liquid samples and may, therefore, in some
24 instances, be effective indicators of impacts on groundwater. However, these compounds are
25 considered unreliable as leachate indicators for the SVLRC, because these compounds are also
26 indicators of natural crude oil impacts.
27 • Other crude oil-related constituents present in groundwater, such as carbon disulfide, phenol, and
28 benzyl alcohol, which are not consistently present in on-site leachate or alluvial liquids, are also not
29 considered reliable leachate indicators.
30 • As previously discussed, considerable variation in groundwater chemistry has been noted from one
31 Sespe sandstone bed to another. As a result of this variation in groundwater chemistry, several of the
32 more common leachate indicator parameters (e.g., chloride, TDS, sulfate) are not expected to provide
33 consistently reliable indication of impacts on groundwater at SVLRC. Based on these site conditions,
34 TOC, dissolved iron, and bicarbonate alkalinity were identified as site-specific leachate indicator
35 parameters. As part of SVLRC’s current DMP, statistically significant exceedances of one or more of
36 these site-specific indicators are taken as tentative evidence of a release. Statistically significant
37 exceedances of these three leachate indicators have not occurred at the SVLRC.
38 It was concluded in the 1988 Final EIR that because of the large permeability contrast between the alluvium
39 and the underlying Sespe Formation, the alluvial zone likely acts as the preferred migration pathway for both
40 alluvial groundwater and leachate. However, subsequent saturation studies (Meredith/Boli & Associates
41 1992) indicate that because of: 1) the high absorptive capacity of the refuse; 2) the very low permeability of
42 the surrounding bedrock; and 3) the limited extent of contact between the saturated refuse and the bedrock,
43 the movement of the refuse fluids into the native materials is probably very minute. It was concluded that
44 even where saturated refuse is in contact with the underlying alluvium, very little leachate appears to be
45 entering/migrating through the alluvium. Therefore, potential water quality impacts associated with leachate
3.3 Water Resources
1 generation from unlined existing portions of the landfill would not be incrementally greater as more waste is
2 placed over the existing landfill footprint (i.e., proposed Phase I, see Figure 2.4-2), resulting in less than
3 significant impacts.
4 Much of the proposed landfill expansion would occur in a large east-west trending drainage, located
5 immediately north and topographically separate from the existing landfill footprint (proposed Phases II and
6 III, see Figure 2.4-2). Leachate from the existing landfill footprint would be hydrologically separate from this
7 proposed expansion area, due to the east-west-trending topographic divide along the north perimeter of the
8 existing footprint. In addition, any new landfill cells would be fully lined with regulation-compliant liner
9 systems to prevent direct contact between the waste and soils or bedrock. These expanded landfill cells would
10 contain a leachate collection and removal system, and would be monitored with groundwater monitoring
11 wells. Therefore, the potential for leachate contamination from expanded areas of the landfill would be
12 reduced to less than significant levels, as well.
13 Landfill Gas
14 Groundwater impacts at landfills also can be caused by the presence of landfill gas. Landfill gas can
15 migrate and contact water, allowing VOCs to partition into the water, resulting in detectable VOCs in
16 groundwater samples.
17 As discussed in the 2002 Final SEIR, monitoring well WM-03 formerly monitored groundwater in sandstone
18 Bed 28, near the northwest corner of the landfill. Samples from WM-03 consistently revealed detectable
19 concentrations of several chlorinated VOCs. A site-specific study indicated that these chlorinated compounds
20 result from downgradient migration of landfill gas from the former Class I area into this well. SVLRC
21 initiated an evaluation program for this well in 1995 to create a hydraulic barrier within this bed to minimize
22 migration of impacted groundwater. This program involved pumping and on-site treatment of the
23 groundwater from this well. With LARWQCB approval (LARWQCB 2004), Well WM-03 was subsequently
24 abandoned, to eliminate the conduit for landfill gas, and removed as a point of compliance sampling point.
25 Well E-17, which also monitors groundwater in Bed 28, has replaced well WM-03 as a point of compliance
26 well.
27 Monitoring wells S-01RD and WM-02RD monitor groundwater in sandstone beds 33 and 29, respectively,
28 near the northwest corner of the landfill. It is noted that both of these wells are located inboard of the
29 applicable point of compliance and, therefore, are susceptible to landfill gas impacts. A Demonstration Report
30 prepared by WMC in October 1996 and an Optional Demonstration Report prepared by GeoSyntec
31 Consultants in October 2001 recommended that these wells be relocated further west nearer to the point of
32 compliance. However, the LARWQCB did not require relocation of these wells.
33 Based on the above observations and the fact that Well WM-03 was an anomalous source of VOC migration,
34 the landfill gas impacts to groundwater are considered less than significant.
35 Pesticides
36 As discussed in the 2002 Final SEIR, WDR Order No. 00-092 added various pesticides as constituents of
37 concern in 2000. Subsequently, low-concentration pesticide detections were reported in the March 2001
38 “every-5-year constituent-of-concern” sampling event. A 2001 ODR indicated that a source for pesticides is
39 unknown and the reported detections likely were not a result of migration of landfill leachate into the
40 groundwater, citing the relatively low levels of pesticides in the leachate. An addendum to this ODR indicated
41 that the reported pesticide detections were most likely false positives. A Quality Assurance Manager at STL,
42 the laboratory that reported the pesticide detections, also indicated that the low-concentration detections are
43 most likely false positives. Also as discussed in the 2002 Final SEIR, Mr. Dana Cole of the LARWQCB
44 indicated that, because the concentrations are so low, the data is interpretive and may be related to
3.3 Water Resources
1 background VOC concentrations related to naturally occurring petroleum hydrocarbons beneath the site. The
2 Quality Assurance Manager at STL supports this opinion. In addition, Mr. Peter Wong, of the California
3 Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), a specialist in such laboratory data, reviewed the laboratory
4 results and similarly concluded that the data are likely false positives. Because pesticide detections in the
5 March 2001 sampling event have been accepted as false positives, the LARWQCB did not require corrective
6 action.
7 Therefore, it is concluded that previous detections of pesticide compounds in the groundwater were false
8 positives and were not the result of past landfill operations. Thus, with regard to pesticides, no project-related
9 water quality impacts are anticipated.
11 As impacts to groundwater quality would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
13 Impacts to groundwater quality would be less than significant.
14 3.3.2.3.3 Impact WR-3: Surface Water Quantity
15 The proposed landfill expansion would not increase the net utilization of surface water in a hydraulic unit that is
16 overdrafted or adversely impact an overdrafted hydrologic unit. Surface runoff within the proposed CUP
17 boundary would continue to be collected at the perimeter of the fill area. This runoff, along with sheet flow
18 generated on the fill area itself, would continue to be diverted through a combination of lined and unlined
19 ditches, sediment traps, and slope benches, with the runoff culminating in six detention/sedimentation basins
20 (Figure 3.3-6) around the perimeter of the landfill. Surface water would subsequently be discharged from these
21 basins to downstream drainage features. Drainage to these discharge points would accumulate within the
22 proposed CUP project boundary, but outside the proposed waste disposal area. Surface runoff would not be
23 utilized for any project-related purpose.
24 Because the proposed landfill expansion would not increase the net utilization of surface water in a hydraulic
25 unit, impacts would be less than significant.
27 As impacts to surface water quantity would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
29 Impacts to surface water quantity would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
30 3.3.2.3.4 Impact WR-4: Surface Water Quality
31 Ponding and Erosion
32 During the proposed expansion period, contamination of surface waters could occur by various means.
33 Ponding of water on the surface of a landfill is a concern because it could promote infiltration of water
34 through the cover material, which would contribute to saturation of the waste and leachate generation.
35 Ponding is a common problem at landfills where waste decomposition, compaction, and consolidation
36 produce differential and total settlement. The addition of water into the waste accelerates decomposition,
37 which increases settlement, resulting in more ponding.

Basin #1
k
ee
Cr
on
ny
Ca
os
am
Al
Basin #6
Basin #2
Basin #3
Basin #5
N
SR
118
Basin #4
Scale
0 1000
Feet
Source: GeoSyntec 2006
Figure 3.3-6. Drainage Control at Final Grade

3.3 Water Resources
1 Washout of cover materials and waste could result from inadequate drainage, particularly uncontrolled high-
2 velocity flows. Earthwork associated with landfilling activities exposes areas of bare earth (from excavations)
3 and loose soil (from stockpiling and covering activities) to erosion. These, in turn, could result in incremental
4 increases in debris loading and siltation of downstream drainage conveyances.
5 However, due to the limited precipitation in the area and with the implementation of the planned landfill
6 drainage and cover provisions, it is anticipated that incremental project impacts from the proposed expansion
9 As impacts to surface water quantity would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
11 Impacts to surface water quantity would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
12 3.3.2.3.5 Impact WR-4: Surface Water Quality
13 Ponding and Erosion
14 During the proposed expansion period, contamination of surface waters could occur by various means.
15 Ponding of water on the surface of a landfill is a concern because it could promote infiltration of water
16 through the cover material, which would contribute to saturation of the waste and leachate generation.
17 Ponding is a common problem at landfills where waste decomposition, compaction, and consolidation
18 produce differential and total settlement. The addition of water into the waste accelerates decomposition,
19 which increases settlement, resulting in more ponding.
20 Washout of cover materials and waste could result from inadequate drainage, particularly uncontrolled high-
21 velocity flows. Earthwork associated with landfilling activities exposes areas of bare earth (from excavations)
22 and loose soil (from stockpiling and covering activities) to erosion. These, in turn, could result in incremental
23 increases in debris loading and siltation of downstream drainage conveyances.
24 However, due to the limited precipitation in the area and with the implementation of the planned landfill
25 drainage and cover provisions, it is anticipated that incremental project impacts from the proposed expansion
27
28 The Standard Industrial Classification of the facility mandates that the SVLRC continue to maintain SWRCB
29 Water Quality Order No. 99-08-DWQ NPDES General Permit No. CAS000001. Prior to landfill expansion,
30 the applicant must provide proof of coverage under this permit by submitting copies of the Notice of Intent
31 and the required SWPPP to the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Water Quality Section, for
32 review. The SWPPP requires installation of erosion control measures and non-point source pollution
33 prevention measures.
34 WMC must annually submit an interim drainage plan to the County for approval. This plan details the runoff
35 structures, channels, and sheet flow directions at the site. These plans are designed to minimize surface water
36 ponding and contact of waste and water.
37 In addition, similar to Condition #14 (Master Development Plan) of CUP-3142-7, imposed by Ventura
38 County for the current phase of landfill expansion, updated on-site and off-site drainage plans would be

3.3 Water Resources
1 included as part of a Master Development Plan, which is designed to ensure that the landfill is operated in an
3 EIR. The on-site drainage plan would meet the requirements of the Ventura County Public Works Agency and
4 the Environmental Health Division and the off-site drainage plan would meet the requirements of the Ventura
5 County Watershed Protection District.
6 Erosion/siltation hazards are ubiquitous throughout Ventura County and are addressed by the Ventura County
7 Public Works Agency, Flood Control District Standards and Specifications Design Manual. Erosion/siltation
8 hazard is required to be considered within the existing framework of the grading and building code ordinance
9 which applyies to all projects. Drainage controls must be properly designed and maintained to prevent
10 erosion. Debris-laden flows can cause blockage of drainage conduits (both open channels and buried pipe).
11 Siltation of conduits also serves to lessen their hydraulic efficiency. The spillover of water from blocked
12 and/or overflowing conduits could cause flooding in surrounding areas. Some types of debris flows also can
13 promote deterioration of channel linings as well. All of these effects incrementally increase the maintenance
14 load on the responsible public works entities. If these situations occurred, they would be considered
15 potentially significant impacts. However, a system of six detention/sedimentation basins (Figure 3.3-6) is
16 proposed for removal of silt from stormwater runoff before being discharged from the site. Based on a
17 preliminary hydrologic evaluation of anticipated runoff at the expanded landfill (GeoSyntec Consultants
18 2006; see Appendix D), outflow from these basins under 100-year flood conditions would be reduced to
19 existing flood conditions. In addition, except during peak flow conditions, sand particles 0.1 millimeters and
20 greater are expected to settle and not be transported downstream, thus preventing downstream siltation of
21 drainages and creeks.
22 Use of existing and proposed drainage and erosion control measures would reduce incremental increases in
23 infiltration of surface water into the landfill waste mass, which increases leachate generation, and erosion-
24 related impacts, such that impacts would be less than significant
25 Surface Water Contaminants
26 Existing surface water flows and water quality on and proximal to the site have been monitored on a regular
27 or periodic basis, at LARWQCB-designated points of compliance SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3, in accordance with
28 Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ. Such monitoring would continue in association with landfill
29 expansion. Surface water quality data generated in 2008 and 2009 (see Appendix L) were compared with
30 water quality objectives contained in the Basin Plan, including TMDL amendments, as specified in Section
31 3.3.1.2.2. Based on this data, water quality objectives were exceeded for nitrates, sulfate, total dissolved
32 solids, and mercury. In addition, a representative with the LARWQCB (Lee, personal communication 2009)
33 indicated that surface water quality concentrations currently exceed Federal EPA benchmarks for total
34 suspended solids, specific conductance, nitrates, nitrites, and several metals, including iron and lead. As toe
35 barrier liquids from the unlined portion of the landfill are surface applied for dust control, the possibility
36 exists that groundwater-based pollutants may exist within surface runoff, as suggested by these water quality
37 objective exceedances.
38 Much of the proposed landfill expansion would occur in a large east-west trending drainage, located
39 immediately north and topographically separate from the existing landfill footprint. However, waste
40 associated with proposed landfill expansion would be partially placed above the existing landfill footprint.
41 Most notably, as illustrated in Figure 2.4-2, Phase I of the proposed landfill expansion would completely
42 overlie the existing landfill footprint, resulting in surface runoff from Phase I coinciding with existing landfill
43 runoff.
44 The SVLRC is located in the upper reaches of the Calleguas Creek watershed. Various reaches within this
45 watershed are identified on the 2002 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of water quality limited segments as
46 impaired due to water column and sediment toxicity, organophosphate pesticides in water, and chlorpyrifos in
3.3 Water Resources
1 fish tissue. The Industrial Stormwater General Permit for the SVLRC is established such that there are no
2 analytical thresholds. Although the LARWQCB has indicated that surface water quality data is in excess of
3 EPA Federal benchmarks, no violations or enforcement actions are currently in-place pertaining to the SVLRC.
4 However, the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines and Administrative Supplement to the State
5 CEQA Guidelines indicate that any project that would degrade the quality of surface water and cause it to fail
6 to meet surface water quality objectives for a hydrologic unit, defined in the most recent Water Quality
7 Control Plan, is considered a significant adverse impact. Because 1) existing surface water quality at the
8 SVLRC exceeds Basin Plan and Federal EPA benchmark water quality objectives, thus contributing to
9 impairment of the Calleguas Creek watershed; 2) there is no indication that future landfill operations would
10 be different from existing landfill operations (i.e., contaminated runoff could continue to occur); 3) currently
11 contaminated runoff from the existing landfill would be co-mingled with runoff from Phase I of the proposed
12 expansion; and 4) toe barrier liquids from the landfill, possibly containing groundwater-based pollutants,
13 would continue to be used for dust control, surface water quality impacts are considered significant.
15 Mitigation Measure WR-1: Toe Barrier Liquid Analysis by VCWPD. Toe barrier liquids sampling results
16 shall be reviewed by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Water & Environmental Resources
17 Division, Water Quality Section, for conformance with Basin Plan surface water quality objectives, including
18 associated TMDLs, prior to use in dust control. In the event that sampling results are in excess of these water
19 quality objectives, use of toe barrier liquids for dust control shall cease pending enhanced remedial actions
20 and additional sampling demonstrating that the toe barrier liquids are within acceptable limits.
21 Mitigation Measure WR-2: Stormwater Runoff Analysis by VCWPD. Stormwater runoff sampling results
22 shall be reviewed by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Water & Environmental Resources
23 Division, Water Quality Section, for conformance with Basin Plan surface water quality objectives, including
24 associated TMDLs. In the event that sampling results are in excess of these water quality objectives, on-site
25 Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be adjusted and enhanced until additional sampling demonstrates
26 that stormwater runoff is within acceptable limits. BMPs that shall be adjusted and enhanced to increase
27 surface water quality shall include, but not be limited to the following:
28 • Runoff shall be directed by berms and ditches away from the active landfill face to the on-site
29 drainage system.
30 • Runoff from within the active face, during rain events (i.e., not runoff associated with dust control),
31 shall be detained in temporary basins, sampled, and analyzed prior to discharge into the on-site
32 drainage system, to verify that runoff complies with Basin Plan surface water quality objectives,
33 including associated TMDLs.
34 • A sump, including a water quality filter, shall be provided to collect surface runoff at the household
35 hazardous waste collection facility. The water quality shall be sampled and analyzed bi-monthly,
36 during the rainy season (i.e., November 15 to April 15) to verify that runoff complies with Basin Plan
37 surface water quality objectives, including associated TMDLs.
38
40 With implementation of Mitigation Measures WR-1 and WR-2, comparison of toe barrier liquids and
41 stormwater sampling results with Basin Plan water quality objectives, and associated remedial actions in the
42 event of non-compliance, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

3.3 Water Resources
1 3.3.2.3.63.3.2.3.5 Impact WR-5: Flooding Hazard
2 Surface Runoff
3 Two factors may affect total and peak runoff. First, the application of a low permeability final cover would
4 incrementally reduce the portion of precipitation that would infiltrate the surface. This would incrementally
5 increase the runoff coefficient and result in a greater quantity of water leaving the site as runoff. Second, in a
6 counteracting effect, the flattening of the landfill top slope would tend to reduce the velocity of run-off,
7 increasing the time of concentration, and therefore reducing the peak flow at downstream points.
8 The preliminary hydrologic evaluation prepared for the proposed landfill expansion (GeoSyntec 2006;
9 provided in Appendix D) indicates that surface water can be managed from the expanded site to prevent off-
10 site flooding. Incorporation of six detention/sedimentation basins, around the perimeter of the landfill (Figure
11 3.3-6), into the drainage plan would reduce outflows associated with a 100-year flood to less than or equal to
12 existing flood flows. This flow is consistent with the Simi Valley Master Plan of Drainage mandatory peak
13 flow rates. The stormwater management system proposed by GeoSyntec is designed to manage peak flow
14 from a 2-year, 25-year, and 100-year storm. The design was based on simulated flood events, which ranged in
15 duration from 5 minutes to 24-hours, thus exceeding requirements in 27 CCR 20365 (GeoSyntec 2006).
16 The site would be organized into six watersheds, with runoff from each watershed conveyed to a separate
17 detention/sedimentation basin, from which runoff would be discharged to one of six discharge points, as
18 illustrated in Figure 3.3-6. Stormwater would be collected on the landfill using diversion berms, ditches, and
19 pipes similar to what currently occurs at the SVLRC. A detailed phasing plan for the drainage facilities would
20 be worked out and incorporated with construction plans for the new phased disposal areas. Interim facilities
21 would provide stormwater management capabilities equivalent to those of existing conditions and those at
22 final development of the expanded landfill.
23 While a preliminary hydrologic evaluation was prepared in 2006 by GeoSyntec, a detailed hydrologic analysis
24 would be performed at the time construction drawings are prepared for the detention/sedimentation basins.
25 The detailed hydrologic analysis would be performed in accordance with the Ventura County Watershed
26 Protection District Hydrology Manual and would be consistent with the Watershed Protection District
27 Calleguas Creek Watershed Drainage Study. The hydrologic analysis would further be in accordance with
28 Watershed Protection District Standards, which is that there must be no increase in peak runoff in any storm
29 frequency. Facilities that have a direct connection to a Watershed Protection District jurisdictional channel
30 would be designed to meet District standards and would require a permit from the District. The Watershed
31 Protection District would have an opportunity to review and comment on the draft construction drawings prior
32 to finalizing the drawings and proceeding with the construction of the detention/sedimentation basins.
33 Therefore, during progressive landfill phases and achievement of final grades, potential incremental flooding
34 impacts are considered less than significant.
35 Flood Zones
36 A portion of the proposed project site is located in a designated flood hazard area (Figure 3.3-2) (FEMA
37 2008). The west end of the northern expansion area is located within a designated 100-year floodplain, as
38 designated by the FEMA, or Special Flood Hazard Area, as designated by the VCWPD. There is a one
39 percent annual probability that the 100-year floodplain would be inundated by storm flows. This flood plain
40 merges westward with the flood plain of upper Alamos Canyon Creek. This upper portion of Alamos Canyon
41 Creek has been designated as a FEMA “Unnumbered/Approximate A” flood zone, which means that FEMA
42 has no formal documented studies of this watercourse and therefore no rigorous determinations of the 100-
43 year flood hazard areas available for reference. For this reason, a flood study of the upper Alamos Canyon
44 floodplain was recently completed by Hall & Foremen, Inc. (2009) (Appendix E), to determine the limits of
3.3 Water Resources
1 the 100-year flood hazard area, based on existing topographic conditions. The study was also completed to
2 determine whether the proposed landfill expansion would negatively impact the 100-year flood hazard area of
3 Alamos Canyon Creek.
4 The updated flood map, superimposed on the proposed landfill footprint, is illustrated on Figure 3.3-7. In
5 comparing this flood map with the FEMA map, shown in Figure 3.3-2, the flood hazard area within the
6 proposed landfill expansion area is shorter and less pronounced. In addition, the flood hazard area
7 immediately north of State Highway 118 is much wider, based on the new study. The existing double culvert
8 structure beneath the highway would be a substantial flow constraint for Alamos Canyon Creek. The
9 calculated 100-year flood water surface is 27 feet vertically above the culvert and backs up approximately 460
10 linear feet upstream of the culvert. However, the projected backwater surface does not affect the confluence of
11 Alamos Canyon Creek and the tributary creek which flows through the northern landfill expansion area.
12 The calculated reach of the 100-year backwater effects on the tributary creek (within the landfill footprint),
13 upstream of the confluence with Alamos Canyon Creek, is approximately 150 linear feet. The flood level
14 within the lower portion of the tributary creek derives largely from water in the tributary creek watershed and
15 the narrow restrictive channel shape near the confluence with Alamos Canyon Creek, rather than overflow
16 from Alamos Canyon Creek. This fact indicates that if the future drainage rate from the tributary creek does
17 not exceed the current flow rate, future grading improvements affecting the tributary canyon should not
18 negatively impact the upstream or downstream 100-year floodwater surface of Alamos Canyon Creek (Hall &
19 Foremen, Inc. 2009).
20 The proposed landfill expansion would fill the Alamos Canyon tributary creek and substantially change the
21 drainage performance of the drainage area, effectively eliminating the existing 100-year flood storage
22 capacity of the tributary creek. Similar to other portions of the landfill, surface runoff from the portion of the
23 proposed landfill expansion overlying the 100-year flood plain would be collected at the perimeter of the fill
24 area. This runoff would be diverted through a combination of lined and unlined ditches, sediment traps, and
25 slope benches, with the runoff culminating in a detention/sedimentation basin located at the base of the flood-
26 prone drainage (Figure 3.3-6). Surface water would subsequently be discharged from this basin to
27 downstream drainage features. Based on a preliminary hydrologic evaluation of anticipated runoff at the
28 expanded landfill (GeoSyntec Consultants 2006; see Appendix D), outflow from this basin under 100-year
29 flood conditions would be reduced to less than or equal to existing flood conditions, which would be
30 consistent with Ventura County drainage design policy. And as previously discussed for Surface Runoff, a
31 detailed hydrologic analysis would be performed at the time construction drawings are prepared for the
32 detention/sedimentation basin, such that there would be no increase in peak runoff in any storm frequency.
33 Such a reduction in contributing flood flow to Alamos Canyon Creek would result in less than significant
34 impacts.
35 FigureHowever, a review of Figure 3.3-7 illustrates that the 100-year floodplain of Alamos Canyon Creek
36 would abutout the proposed detention/sedimentation basin at the base of the tributary creek. As indicated
37 above, the calculated reach of the 100-year floodplain on the tributary creek (within the landfill footprint),
38 upstream of the confluence with Alamos Canyon Creek, is approximately 150 linear feet. Although the
39 backwater floodplain would not encroach on the landfill footprint (i.e., area of refuse and underlying liner),
40 100-year floodwaters would encroach on the location of the detention/sedimentation basin and potentially
41 undermine the structural integrity of the basin. Erosive undercutting and failure of the basin could result in
42 flooding in excess of 10-year flood conditions, which would be inconsistent with Ventura County drainage
43 design policy. Impacts are considered potentially significant.
44 In addition, construction of the detention/sedimentation basin within the floodplain would likely increase
45 runoff velocities at the toe of slope of the basin, over existing conditions, potentially resulting in downstream
46 erosion. As previously discussed, the floodplain within the lower portion of the tributary creek derives
47 largely from water in the tributary creek watershed, rather than overflow from Alamos Canyon Creek.
Limits of Grading
Proposed Waste
Disposal Area
Proposed CUP
Boundary
118
LEGEND
100 Year Floodplain Limits
Scale N
0 1,500
Feet
Source: Hall & Foreman, Inc. 2009
Figure 3.3-7. Updated Flood Map and Project Footprint

3.3 Water Resources
1 Elimination of the tributary portion of the flood plain, by construction of the landfill, would result in the
2 detention basin slope only slightly encroaching on the floodplain. However, downstream erosion impacts
3 would be potentially significant, as the toe of slope of the basin would encroach on the floodplain over a
4 cumulative distance of approximately 300 feet.
6 Mitigation Measure WR-3: Detention/Sedimentation Basin Armoring. The proposed detention/

7 sedimentation basin in the northwest portion of Phase III, at the confluence of Alamos Canyon Creek and the
8 tributary creek to the northeast, shall be armored sufficiently to withstand erosive flow associated with a 100-
9 year storm event along Alamos Canyon Creek. Basin armoring shall include rock rip-rap, precast concrete
10 block, or roller compacted concrete.
11 Mitigation Measure WR-4: Downstream Erosion Control Measures. The applicant shall coordinate with the
12 VCWPD, Advanced Planning Section, Floodplain Management Division, in developing erosion control
13 features within Alamos Canyon Creek, downstream of the proposed detention/sedimentation basin in the
14 northwest portion of Phase III, at the confluence of Alamos Canyon Creek and the tributary creek to the
15 northeast, to address increased stormwater runoff flow velocities adjacent to the proposed basin.
16 Alternatively, the detention/sedimentation basin shall be redesigned such that it does not encroach on the
17 designated floodplain.
19 Flooding impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures WR-3 and WR-
20 4.
22 Table 3.3-1 summarizes the potentially significant adverse water resource impacts and less than significant
23 impacts for with mitigation measures would further reduce impacts of the proposed project. For each impact,
24 the table describes any applicable mitigation measures, the significance of the impact following mitigation,
25 and identifies the parties responsible for implementing and overseeing the mitigation as well as the timing of
26 the mitigation. The mitigation measures would be imposed as conditions of approval of the CUP modification

3.3 Water Resources
Table 3.3-1. Mitigation for Water Resource Impacts

Significance Responsible
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Timing
After Mitigation Parties
Impact WR-4: WR-1: Toe Barrier Less than Ventura County Subsequent to
Contaminated Liquid Analysis by significant Watershed required
stormwater runoff, VCWPD. Toe barrier Protection stormwater
potentially as a result of liquids sampling results District, Water & runoff
use of toe barrier liquids shall be reviewed by the Environmental sampling and
for dust control. Ventura County Resources pPrior to Phase
Watershed Protection Division, Water I operations
District, Water & Quality Section
Environmental Resources
Division, Water Quality
Section, for conformance
with Basin Plan surface
water quality objectives,
including associated
TMDLs, prior to use in
dust control. In the event
that sampling results are
in excess of these water
quality objectives, use of
toe barrier liquids for dust
control shall cease
pending enhanced
remedial actions and
additional sampling
demonstrating that the toe
barrier liquids are within
acceptable limits.

3.3 Water Resources

Impact WR-4: WR-2: Stormwater Less than Ventura County First rainfall
Contaminated Runoff Analysis by significant Watershed event during
stormwater runoff, VCWPD. Stormwater Protection Phase I
potentially as a result of runoff sampling results District, Water & operations and
use of toe barrier liquids shall be reviewed by the Environmental subsequent to
for dust control. Ventura County Resources required
Watershed Protection Division, Water stormwater
District, Water & Quality Section, runoff
Environmental Resources sampling.
Division, Water Quality
Section, for conformance
with Basin Plan surface
water quality objectives,
including associated
TMDLs. In the event that
sampling results are in
excess of these water
quality objectives, on-site
Best Management
Practices shall be adjusted
and enhanced until
additional sampling
demonstrates that
stormwater runoff is
within acceptable limits.
Impact WR-5a: WR-3: Less than Waste Prior to Phase
Potential erosive Detention/Sedimentation significant Management, III operations
undercutting of Basin Armoring. The Inc., Ventura
detention/sedimentation proposed County
basin bank, due to 100- detention/sedimentation Watershed
year flood along basin shall be armored Protection
Alamos Canyon Creek sufficiently to withstand District, U.S.
erosive flow associated Army Corps of
with a 100-year storm Engineers,
event along Alamos California
Canyon Creek. Basin Department of
armoring shall include U.S. Fish and
rock rip-rap, precast Game
concrete block, or roller
compacted concrete.

3.3 Water Resources

Impact WR-5b: Mitigation Measure Less than Waste Prior to Phase
Potential downstream WR-4: Downstream significant Management, III operations
erosion as a result of Erosion Control Measures Inc., Ventura
constructing and/or Redesign of County
detention/sedimentation Detention/Sedimentation Watershed
basin partially within Basin. The applicant shall Protection
the floodplain. coordinate with the District, U.S.
VCWPD, Advanced Army Corps of
Planning Section, Engineers,
Floodplain Management U.SCalifornia
Division, in developing Department of.
erosion control features Fish and Game
within Alamos Canyon
Creek, downstream of the
proposed
detention/sedimentation
basin in the northwest
portion of Phase III, at the
confluence of Alamos
Canyon Creek and the
tributary creek to the
northeast, to address
increased stormwater
runoff flow velocities
adjacent to the proposed
basin. Alternatively, the
detention/sedimentation
basin shall be redesigned
such that it does not
encroach on the
designated floodplain.

3.3 Water Resources
1 This page intentionally left blank.

1 3.4 Biological Resources
2 This section identifies the existing conditions of biological resources within the proposed project area and
3 addresses potential impacts to biological resources that could result from the proposed project.
6 The area of influence for biological resources includes the project property and project vicinity that could be
7 affected by the project.
8 3.4.1.2 Setting
9 Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to include a description of the physical
10 environmental conditions in the vicinity of a project that exist at the time of the NOP. These environmental
11 conditions constitute the baseline physical conditions by which the CEQA lead agency determines whether an
12 impact is significant. This section provides a description of the existing baseline conditions of biological
13 resources within the project site and its surroundings. Biological resources are categorized into: vegetation
14 and wildlife; endangered, threatened, rare, or sensitive species; wetland and aquatic habitats and biota; coastal
15 habitats; wildlife movement corridors; and locally important species.
16 Biological resources in the project area have been studied for over 10 years and described in several
17 environmental documents, including the Simi Valley Landfill And Recycling Center Conditional Use Permit
18 3142 Modification No. 6 Final Supplemental EIR (SAIC 2002), the Biological Resources and Jurisdictional
19 Delineation of “The Canyons” Specific Plan Properties (Psomas 2002a), and biological surveys conducted by
20 Psomas (2006) provided in Appendix F-1, and site reconnaissance visits conducted by SAIC on June 27 and
21 July 15, 2008. The following description of biological resources incorporates information from these previous
22 environmental documents, including information from the most recent surveys. Additional information
23 regarding existing biological resources was obtained from general reference material including review of
24 database information such as the CDFG and California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFG
25 2008a). Plant community nomenclature generally follows the classifications (Holland and Sawyer and Keeler-
26 Wolf) used by Psomas (2006a).
27 3.4.1.2.1 Regional Overview
28 The project site is located entirely within unincorporated Ventura County, northwest of and adjacent to the
29 City of Simi Valley and SR-118. The project area is within the western transverse range subdivision of the
30 California Floristic Province.
31 3.4.1.2.2 Vegetation and Wildlife
32 The available habitat on the site would support numerous wildlife species. Wildlife observed in the vicinity of
33 the project site (including the Alamos and Brea Canyon drainages within roughly 0.5 miles from the site)
34 included three amphibians, 10 reptiles, 111 birds, and 31 mammals (Psomas 2002a).
35 Slopes in the proposed expansion area are vegetated primarily with chaparral or sage scrub. The valley floors
36 are dominated by non-native grasslands influenced by grazing and previous cultivation. Buffer areas outside
37 of the grading limits have similar vegetation and are dotted with individual coast live oak trees and small oak
38 woodlands.

3.4 Biological Resources
1 The project site has been used for grazing and portions of the area were used for oil and gas exploration.
2 Portions of the site have been dry-farmed. Habitats in the proposed landfill expansion area include ruderal
3 (i.e., disturbed), grassland, sage scrub, chaparral, and oak woodland. Scattered coast live oaks and riparian
4 woodland are present east of the landfill in Brea Canyon and to the west in Alamos Canyon.
5 The vegetation mosaic observed on-site is likely a reflection of the combined influences of fire history,
6 grazing history, cultivation, slope aspect, slope gradient, and soil types.
7 The plant communities found within the proposed SVLRC expansion area are listed in Table 3.4-1 and
8 depicted in Figure 3.4-1. These plant communities as well as the wildlife associated with each community are
9 discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
Table 3.4-1. Approximate Acreages of Plant Communities on the Project Site

Plant Community Existing Waste Proposed Waste Proposed Total Within Proposed CUP
Disposal Area Disposal Area Buffer Area Boundary
Grassland 0.0 134.9 123.1 258.0
Sage Scrub 0.1 64.1 185.2 249.4
Disturbed 168.4 34.1 215.6
13.1
Chamise Chaparral 10.2 0.0 113.2 123.4
Landscaped 6.4 3.0 8.1 17.5
Coast Live Oak
Woodland 0.0 0.0 13.3 13.3
Riparian 0.0 0.0 10.5 10.5
Total Acres 185.1 215.1 487.5 887.7
Source: Psomas (2006a)
Note:
1
The area of disturbance includes the proposed waste disposal area and the grading limits of the waste disposal area.
10 Grassland
11 Grassland habitat is the dominant vegetation type (approximately 258 acres) within the of the proposed CUP
12 boundary covering approximately 258 acres of which 134.9 acres are located a the proposed waste disposal
13 area and 123.1 acres are located within the proposed buffer area (Table 3.4-1 Figure 3.4-1). Approximately
14 152.8 acres of grassland would be disturbed by grading associated with the proposed waste disposal area.
15 Additionally, some of the grassland areas along the eastern portion of the existing waste disposal area could
16 be disturbed by development that could occur within the proposed buffer area (e.g., access roads, material and
17 equipment storage yards, recycling facilities and equipment, and drainage structures). This grassland
18 community occurs on the valley floor and gentle slopes in the proposed expansion area, as shown on Figure
19 3.4-1. The grassland habitat on the project site is composed of areas dominated by non-native annual grasses,
20 areas dominated by invasive weeds, localized areas dominated by native perennial grasses, and areas of non-
21 native grasses being colonized by small scattered shrubs. A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and
22 Keeler-Wolff 1995) classifies the species assemblage on-site among the California annual grassland series
23 while the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California (Holland 1986) classifies this
24 species assemblage as non-native grassland (Psomas 2006a).
25 The more extensive grasslands are located within the western portion of the project area within the Alamos
26 Canyon drainage. This area is grazed by horses and cattle, and the flatter portions within the expansion area
27 have been previously dry-farmed and are mowed periodically by the rancher. The history of disturbance has
28 probably contributed to the lower quality condition of this portion of the community as compared to other,
29 less disturbed annual grasslands on the project property.

LEGEND
Existing Waste Boundary
Proposed Grading Limit
on
ea
sa l Ar
ny
Note: Proposed “Buffer” areas are Dispo
Ca
aste
areas between proposed grading limits dW
ose
os
and proposed CUP boundary. p
Pro
am
e
Featur
Al
ge
Draina
Brea Creek
Existing
Waste
Disposal Area
Plant Communities
Grassland
Sage Scrub
118 Chamise Chaparral
on
Coast Live Oak Woodland

N
ny
Scale
.
Rd
Riparian
Ca
0 2000 Landscaped Areas

Brea
er
Feet
ad
Disturbed/Developed
M
Mapping Sources: PSOMAS 2006
Figure 3.4-1. Plant Communities

1 Areas of nNon-native annual grassland dominated by annual grasses are is located mainly in the flat center of
2 the proposed expansion area and to the west of the existing disposal area. Dominant species include wild oats
3 (Avena fatua, A. barbata), ripgut brome
4 (Bromus diandrus), and barley (Hordeum spp.). Other species include tocalote (Centaurea melitensis),
5 mustard (Brassica sp.), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), filaree (Erodium sp.), yellow sweet clover
6 (Melilotus officinalis), and vetch (Vicia sp.). Native species scattered within this community include fascicled
7 tarplant (Hemizonia fasciculata), three-pod milkvetch (Astragalus trichopodus), fleshy lupine (Lupinus
8 succulentus), and narrow-leaf milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis).
9 Grasslands dominated by native perennial grasses are present on-site in localized areas, typically in the
10 transition between grassland and sage scrub communities. This habitat type is discussed further in Section
11 4.2.1.2.7 under locally important communities.
12 As the valley floor begins to slope upwards to the ridges, scattered perennial species characteristic of sage
13 scrub, primarily purple sage (Salvia leucophylla) and giant wild rye (Lemus condensatus), increase in
14 dominance. This is the interface or ecotone between grassland and sage scrub where native grasses and shrubs
15 are present together. This ecotone area provides quality habitat for associated native herbs and wildflowers,
16 many of which have sensitive listing, including Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae) and Plummer’s
17 mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae). Native wildflowers such as purple owl’s clover (Castilleja
18 densiflora), foothill lupine (Lupinus succulentus), common fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia),
19 and fascicled tarweed (Hemizonia fasciculata) are common. However, non-native grasses and forbs are also
20 abundant.
21 An ephemeral drainage feature (Figure 3.4-1) is located in the center of the valley floor grassland in the
22 expansion area and runs eastward from Alamos Canyon through the grassland community. This feature is
23 dominated by non-native grasses, weedy invasive species and scattered sage scrub species. This area was
24 previously mapped as “Riparian” by Psomas (2006a); however, due to the lack of typical riparian vegetation
25 (as discussed in further detail in Section 3.4.1.2.4 and shown in Figure 3.4-1) it will be considered grassland
26 for the purpose of this report.
27 Grassland is the most extensive wildlife habitat type on the SVLRC. Western whiptail (Cnemidophorus
28 tigris), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) were all
29 seen in non-native grassland, especially in openings such as road margins. Other reptiles, such as the gopher
30 snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), southern alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus), and western
31 rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) have been observed in past surveys. Large numbers of rodent burrows are
32 present. California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and
33 species of kangaroo rats (Dipodomys) spp.), deer mice (Peromyscus spp.), meadow mice (Microtus
34 californicus), harvest mice (Reithrodontomys megalotis) all utilize non-native grasslands and are expected to
35 occur in the project vicinity. Lagomorphs including black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and desert
36 cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) are also associated with the grassland habitat, especially where there are
37 scattered shrubs. Common gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), introduced red fox (Vulpes vulpes), striped
38 skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and bobcat (Lynx rufus) would be expected to forage in open areas. Larger
39 mammals such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), and mountain lion (Puma
40 concolor) are expected in these habitats as well. In addition to overhead foraging birds such as red-tailed
41 hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), many
42 species of grassland foragers are found as well. These include western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), black
43 phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), American crow (Corvus brachyhynchos), and mourning dove (Zenaida
44 macroura). Additionally, occasional western gulls (Larus occidentalis) fly over the site to forage in the
45 landfill and may perch on man-made structures in the non-native grasslands.

1 Sage Scrub
2 Approximately 249.4 acres of sage scrub habitat occur within the proposed CUP boundary and of which
3 91.164.1 acres is anticipated to be disturbed by grading of the proposedlocated within the proposed waste
4 disposal area, 185.2 acres is located within the proposed buffer area, and 0.1 acre is located within the
5 existing waste disposal area (Table 3.4-1and Figure 3.4-1). The sage scrub plant community (also commonly
6 referred to as coastal sage scrub) occurs on undisturbed slopes within the proposed expansion area and on
7 adjacent lands. Characteristic plant species of the sage scrub community found on-site include California
8 sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), golden yarrow
9 (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), white sage (Salvia apiana), black sage
10 (Salvia mellifera), purple sage, and chaparral yucca (Yucca whipplei ssp. intermedia). A Manual of California
11 Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolff 1995) classifies the species assemblage on-site among the purple sage
12 series while the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California (Holland 1986)
13 classifies this species assemblage as Venturan coastal sage scrub (Psomas 2006a). The sage scrub vegetation
14 on the project site varies in quality ranging from native-dominated areas in good condition to disturbed areas
15 dominated by invasive non-natives such as tocalote, mustard, and annual grasses in the spaces between the
16 shrubs. Open areas between shrubs also support a diverse herbaceous community, with drought-tolerant
17 species such as native bunchgrasses and native wildflowers. Venturan coastal sage scrub is ranked as sensitive
18 by the CNDDB (CDFG 2008a).
19 The Venturan coastal sage scrub community occurs in the vicinity of the project area on undisturbed slopes
20 north, northeast, and west of the current SVLRC disposal area. The dominant species of the sage scrub
21 community vary as a result of combined effects of fire history, grazing intensity, slope aspect, soil erodibility,
22 and soil type. Depending on location, the community is composed of solid single-species stands of purple
23 sage or mixed assemblages of sage, California buckwheat, California sagebrush, yucca and various other
24 shrubs. Plant density varies, with more open stands predominating on steep, eroding slopes. Density is greater
25 on north facing slopes of the western expansion area with a greater frequency of species typically associated
26 with chaparral, including chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and hollyleaf
27 redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia). This area burned in an October 2003 fire and shrubs are recovering through
28 basal resprouting and seedling establishment.
29 Characteristic bird species observed in this habitat include California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), loggerhead
30 shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), California quail (Callipepla californica), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna),
31 song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos),
32 house wren (Troglodytes aedon), and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Similar to grassland, several species of
33 rodents are expected to use this community, attracting predators such as Bobcat (Lynx rufus). The coastal California
34 gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), a Federally-listed threatened species, also uses sage scrub habitat but
35 has not been observed on-site. This species is discussed in detail in Section 3.4.1.2.3,under Federally and State Listed
36 Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Species.
37 Chamise Chaparral
38 Approximately 123 acres of chamise chaparral habitat occur within the proposed CUP boundary (Figure 3.4-
39 1). Approximately 8 acres would be disturbed within the grading limits of the proposed waste disposal area.
40 Additionally, some of the chamise chaparral habitat along the eastern portion of the existing waste disposal
41 area could be disturbed by future development within the proposed buffer area (e.g., access roads, material
42 and equipment storage yards, recycling facilities and equipment, and drainage structures).This plant
43 community is found on xeric slopes and ridges with shallow, dry soils. Chamise chaparral is the predominant
44 chaparral type in southern California. Characteristic species of chamise chaparral found on the project site
45 include chamise, California lilac (Ceanothus spp.), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), laurel sumac (Rhus
46 laurina), black sage, white sage, and chaparral yucca. A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and
47 Keeler-Wolff 1995) classifies the species assemblage on-site among the chamise series while the Preliminary

1 Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California (Holland 1986) classifies this species assemblage
2 as chamise chaparral (Psomas 2006a).
3 Approximately 123.4 acres of chamise chaparral habitat occur within the proposed CUP boundary including
4 10.2 acres within the existing waste disposal area and 113.2 acres within the proposed buffer area (Table 3.4-
5 1 and Figure 3.4-1).
6 This plant community occurs in areas of steep slopes and sharp ridges on the project site within the buffer
7 area to the south and east of the existing waste disposal footprint. Chamise chaparral intergrades with sage
8 scrub across much of the project site and contains many of the same species discussed in the preceding
9 section under sage scrub. The understory of this community is sparse and is dominated by annual species such
10 as grasses and herbs. Shrub density tends to be especially high on north and west-facing slopes. The majority
11 of the chamise chaparral burned in the 2003 fires and has responded to the fire by crown sprouting.
12 Characteristic wildlife species listed above for sage scrub are also prevalent in the chaparral community,
13 which is intermixed with the sage scrub community within the project site.
14 Coast Live Oak Woodland

15 Approximately 13 acres of coast live oak woodland habitat occur within the proposed CUP boundary. This
16 community is dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) with an understory of non-native annual
17 grasses.
18 Generally, coast live oak is evergreen and reaches 30 to 85 feet in height. The understory herb component is
19 continuous and dominated by brome grasses and several other introduced taxa. Coast live oak woodlands
20 typically occur on north facing slopes and shaded ravines. The distribution of coast live oak woodlands
21 includes the outer South Coast Ranges, and coastal slopes of the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges, usually
22 below 4,000 feet in elevation.
23 The A dense cover of coast live oaks occurs outside of the project site adjacent to the western project
24 boundary on within the floodplains adjacent to Alamos Creek. This area represents southern coast live oak
25 riparian forest.
26 Approximately 13.3 acres of coast live oak woodland habitat occurs on the project site within the proposed
27 CUP boundary (Table 3.4-1 and Figure 3.4-1). This community is dominated by coast live oak (Quercus
28 agrifolia) with an understory of non-native annual grasses. The
29 Within the project site, coast live oaks occur across the grassland community in scattered, open stands to the
30 east and west of the SVLRC (Figure 3.4-1). Approximately 0.2 acre of coast live oak woodland would be
31 removed within the grading limits of the proposed waste disposal area along the western boundary of the
32 project site adjacent to Alamos Canyon. The grassy understory of the oak woodland habitat is intensively
33 grazed by cattle, and in many areas the lower branches of the oaks have been grazed as well, giving these
34 areas the appearance of a pruned landscape. A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolff
35 1995) classifies the species assemblage on-site among the coast live oak series while the Preliminary
36 Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California (Holland 1986) classifies this species assemblage
37 as coast live oak woodland (Psomas 2006a).
38 Species observed utilizing oak woodlands during reconnaissance by SAIC biologists on June 27, 2008,
39 include acorn woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), oak
40 titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), song sparrow (Melospiza
41 melodia), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Owls such as the western screech owl (Megascops
42 kennicottii), roost and nest in coast live oak trees and may be present on-site. Mule deer and coyote often use
43 the trees as cover during the day or night and their sign was observed by SAIC biologists on June 27, 2008.
1 Additionally, many of the characteristic wildlife species of grasslands identified in section 3.4.1.2.1, Regional
2 Overview, are also found in and around coast live oak habitat because of the sparseness of the oak cover on-
3 site and the presence of grassland species in the oak understory. Wildlife species use oak trees as cover,
4 acorns as a food source, nesting habitat, and foraging habitat (for insects).
5 Riparian HabitatCommunitCommunitiesy
6 Riparian communities (10.5 acres) occur along Alamos Canyon and Brea Canyon within the proposed CUP
7 boundary (Table 3.4-1 and Figure 3.4-1). These areas would not be disturbed by proposed project activities.
8 The primary riparian communities in these drainages, which parallel and are immediately adjacent to buffer
9 area at the project CUP boundary, include mule fat scrub and southern willow riparian scrub. Alamos Canyon
10 is a broad sandy wash with very sparse vegetation (mule fat and occasional willows and sycamores) near the
11 western edge of the proposed CUP boundary. Brea Creek is dominated by mule fat and willows with a large
12 patch of southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus) in the buffer zone near the eastern edge of the proposed
13 CUP boundary. Alamos and Brea canyons are discussed further in Section 3.4.1.2.4, Wetland Habitats and
14 Biota. In both Alamos and Brea canyons, the riparian vegetation becomes denser further downstream and the
15 lower reaches adjacent to the project site near SR-118 Freeway are vegetated with dense southern willow
16 riparian scrub.
17 Mule fat scrub is a species-poor scrub community strongly dominated by mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), a
18 tall, willowy shrub. This community is maintained by frequent flooding and occupies portions of intermittent
19 streams at sites too dry to support woody species having higher water requirements, such as willows. This
20 community is typically found in intermittent stream channels with fairly coarse substrate and moderate depth
21 to the water table (Holland 1986). A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolff 1995)
22 classifies the species assemblage as mulefat series while the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial
23 Communities of California (Holland 1986) classifies this species assemblage as mulefat scrub (Psomas
24 2006a).
25 The southern willow riparian scrub habitat community along lower Brea and Alamos creeks is a dense,
26 broadleaf, winter deciduous riparian thicket dominated by several willow species (Salix spp.) with emergent
27 Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Most stands are too
28 dense to allow much understory development. This community requires loose, sandy or fine gravelly alluvium
29 deposited near stream channels during flood flows. Adjacent to the proposed CUP boundary, this riparian
30 community is dominated by mature arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and less frequently by black willow (Salix
31 gooddingii). A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolff 1995) classifies the species
32 assemblage among the arroyo willow series while the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial
33 Communities of California (Holland 1986) classifies this species assemblage as southern riparian willow
34 (Psomas 2006a).
35 Numerous species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are expected to occur within the riparian and
36 wetland habitatscommunities in the project vicinity (Psomas 2002a), including lower Alamos and Brea
37 canyons outside the project site boundary. Birds use riparian and wetland areas as a place to forage for insects
38 and as a source of drinking water. Lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus),
39 yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), mallard (Anas
40 platyrhynchos), Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii), and black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus)
41 all use riparian habitats communities and have been observed in the project vicinity in previous surveys. The
42 yellow warbler is a California species of special concern (SSC)—discussed further in Section 3.4.1.2.7 under
43 locally important species. Similarly, mammals commonly use riparian habitat communities for foraging, as a
44 water source, for cover, and as travel corridors. Wildlife species likely to occur on the project site in this
45 habitat community type include coyote, gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), raccoon
46 (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and mule deer.
47 Expected reptile species include garter snake (Thamnophis spp.) and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer).

1 Amphibians include Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla) and western toads (Bufo boreas). Western
2 spadefoot toads (Spea hammondii) have been observed in the lower portion of Brea Canyon. Individuals were
3 seen crossing the road that parallels the drainage near the proposed landfill boundary (Psomas 2002a).
4 Landscaped Areas
5 Approximately 17.5 acres of landscaped habitat occur within the proposed CUP boundary including 6.4 acres
6 within the existing waste disposal area, 3.0 within the proposed waste disposal area, and 8.1 acres within the
7 proposed buffer area (Table 3.4-1 and Figure 3.4-1). This designation is applied to areas that have been
8 seeded to prevent erosion or have been planted using container plants. These areas occur as manufactured
9 slopes along the perimeter access road, past disposal areas, and landscaping around structures and along the
10 paved access road. Dominant plants include fleshy lupine (Lupinus affinissp. ), California poppy
11 (Eschscholzia californica), and cape marigold (Dimophotheca sinuata), a South African ornamental.
12 Container planting is part of an ongoing aesthetics mitigation program. Native plant species planted on the
13 landscaped areas include toyon, coast live oak, and sandb(a)r willow (Salix exigua). In addition, several
14 nonnative plant species are also present in the landscaped areas including yellow sweet clover, fountain grass
15 (Pennisetum setaceum), smilo grass (Piptatherum miliaceum), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), bristly ox
16 tongue (Picris echioides), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha). Approximately 9 acres of landscaped areas
17 would be disturbed by grading of the proposed waste disposal area.
18 Additionally, some of the landscaped areas along the eastern portion of the existing waste disposal area could
19 be disturbed by development that could occur within the proposed buffer area (e.g., access roads, material and
20 equipment storage yards, recycling facilities and equipment, and drainage structures).
21 Landscaped areas provide habitat for burrowing small mammals, such as Botta's pocket gopher and California
22 ground squirrel. Western fence lizards and side-blotched lizards (Uta stansburiana) are both commonly
23 observed in landscaped areas. The presence of perches as well as abundant prey attracts raptors, including red-
24 tailed hawk and American kestrel.
25 Disturbed or Ruderal Habitat

26 Approximately 215.6 acres of disturbed habitat and land is within the proposed CUP boundary including
27 168.4 acres within the existing waste disposal area, 13.1 acres within the proposed waste disposal area, and
28 34.1 within the proposed buffer area (Table 3.4-1 and Figure 3.4-1)and 41.3 acres of disturbed habitats would
29 be impacted by grading activities associated with the proposed waste disposal area. Disturbed habitats are
30 typically support plant communities dominated by non-native, invasive and weedy species. Disturbed areas
31 include the margins along roads, recent ground disturbances, berms, and active landfill areas. Disturbed
32 habitats are discussed as elements of native community and more detail is included in the community
33 discussions above.
34 Species observed in this habitat include brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), European starling (Sturnus
35 vulgaris), common raven (Corvus corax), American crow, and gull species. Greater roadrunner will also use
36 bare ground hunting for lizards. Roads are frequently used as thoroughfares for coyotes, mule deer, gray fox,
37 and raccoons. Berms on or adjacent to disturbed areas are often used for burrowing by rodents and California
38 ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Western fence lizards bask on the hot, open ground. Non-native
39 mice and rats will often forage in the active landfill areas. Man-made owl boxes mounted atop tall poles at
40 SVLRC are used by barn owls (Tyto alba), which are used to control rodents at the site (personal
41 communication, Tignac and Riley 2008).
42 3.4.1.2.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species and Nesting Birds
43 Wildlife and plant species that have special status may be protected under policies of federal, state, and/or
44 local agencies. These include species listed or formally proposed for protection under the Federal or
1 California Endangered Species acts (ESA and CESA, respectively) and nesting birds (protected by the Federal
2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code). Species that are not protected
3 by Endangered Species legislation, but are recognized by various organizations including the California
4 Native Plant Society (CNPS), the CDFG, and other entities as rare, declining, or species of local concern are
5 addressed under Section 3.4.1.2.7 under locally important species.
6 Federally and State Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Species

7 A literature search and review of the CNDDB (CDFG 2008a) identified 23 species (including 11 plant species
8 and 12 wildlife species), listed as endangered and/or threatened pursuant to the ESA or CESA, as having the
9 potential to occur within the vicinity of the proposed waste expansion area. A list of these species, their
10 regulatory status, a general habitat description and distribution, and known occurrences in the project vicinity
11 is provided in Appendix F-2. None of these 23 species have been observed during on-site surveys. However,
12 as shown in Table 3.4-2, limited potentially suitable habitat may be present on the project site for some listed
13 plant species including: Braunton’s milk vetch (Astragalus brauntonii), San Fernando Valley spineflower
14 (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina), and Lyon’s pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyoni). In addition, two
15 endangered or threatened wildlife species (coastal California gnatcatcher and American peregrine falcon)
16 have the potential to occur on the project site (Table 3.4-2). These two species are discussed below. Table 3.4-
17 2 provides an overview of these species and their potential to occur on-site.
18 Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). The United States Fish and Wildlife
19 Service (USFWS) designated the coastal California gnatcatcher as threatened on March 30, 1993 (USFWS
20 1993). Critical habitat designated in 2007 includes the portions of the project site and expansion area
21 (USFWS 2007). Currently, there is no recovery plan for the coastal California gnatcatcher.
22 The coastal California gnatcatcher is a year-around resident with a range restricted to California and Baja
23 California, Mexico. This subspecies is found from Ventura County south to San Diego County and east to San
24 Bernardino County. The gnatcatcher breeds almost exclusively in the coastal sage community, but can also be
25 found in adjacent grassland, chaparral, and riparian habitats. The breeding season of the gnatcatcher extends
26 from late February through July, with peak nesting activities occurring from mid-March through May. This
27 species typically nests in coastal sagebrush.
28 Prior to 1995, the coastal California gnatcatcher was thought to be extirpated in Ventura County because no
29 verified sightings had been made since 1924. In 1995, a single gnatcatcher was observed several times in
30 Moorpark at the west end of Simi Valley. Since that time, coastal California gnatcatchers have been observed
31 at two additional locations in the region. The original sighting in Moorpark is approximately 4 miles west of
32 the SVLRC. Two nesting pairs and several juveniles have been observed at that location since the original
33 sighting. A second locality is near the intersection of State Route 23 and Tierra Rejada road, about 2.5 miles
34 southwest of the project site. A third discovered locality is about 7 miles east of the SVLRC. The USFWS
35 required surveys in suitable coastal sage scrub habitat in the region as a result of these sightings. The SVLRC
36 property is located in the middle of the known localities but supports limited and patchy suitable habitat.
37 The sage scrub representing potential coastal California gnatcatcher habitat occurs in small to large isolated
38 patches on the project site (Figure 3.4-1). The large patches of coastal sage scrub are judged to represent high
39 quality gnatcatcher habitat and the small patches of coastal sage scrub represent low quality gnatcatcher
40 habitat (Psomas 2006a). The majority of the 249.4 acres of sage scrub on the project site occurs on steep
41 slopes, which is a less preferred habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher breeding, but which may be suitable
42 for gnatcatcher dispersal and foraging. About 63 percent of the sage scrub habitat on-site is within the buffer
43 areas (Table 3.4-1) where it interdigitates with grassland and chaparral.

Table 3.4-2 Federally and State-Listed Species and Potential Occurrence in the Project
Area
Status
Common Name (Federal/State General Habitat Description Potential Occurrence in
Scientific Name Project Area
/Local)1
Plants
Scattered locations in southern
California foot-hills below about Although suitable post-fire
1500 ft. elevation, usually in conditions for the species were
Braunton's milk chaparral, but also found in valley present on-site following
vetch FE/-/CNPS: grassland, sage scrub, closed-cone October, 2003 wildfires, this
Astragalus 1B pine forest; possibly restricted to species was not observed
brauntonii carbonate soils; Ventura, Los during the 2005 focused rare
Angeles, and Orange Counties. plant surveys or previous
Typically flowers from March to surveys on-site.
July.
Coastal sage scrub (sandy); 150-
1220 m. elevation. Rediscovered in
San Fernando Valley 1999; now known from only three Limited habitat on ridgelines in
spineflower FC/SE/CNPS: open sage scrub. Not observed
Chorizanthe parryi 1B occurrences. Most historical habitat during the 2005 focused rare
is now heavily urbanized. Recently
var. fernandina rediscovered at Ahmanson Ranch. plant surveys.
Typically flowers April to June.
Found in openings of chaparral and
valley and foothill grasslands.
Usually found at the ecotone Openings in valley grasslands
Lyon’s pentachaeta FE/SE/CNPS: between grassland and chaparral or are present on-site. Outside the
edges of firebreaks. Known from known range of the species and
Pentachaeta lyonii 1B fewer than twenty extant occurrences not observed during the 2005
in Santa Monica Mountains and focused rare plant surveys.
western Simi Hills. Typically
flowers March to April.
Wildlife
American peregrine Nests on high cliffs, generally near Not documented from the site
falcon FD/SCD,SE, water bodies; feed on birds and no nesting habitat present
on the site, however suitable
Falco peregrinus FP/- (shorebirds & waterfowl); foraging habitat is present on
anatum widespread, but rare worldwide.
the site.
Obligate, permanent resident of Determined absent due to
coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft in
Coastal California southern California. Occupies low negative results during focused
gnatcatcher CAGN surveys in 1998, 1999,
Polioptila californica FT/SSC/- coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on 2002, and 2002. Project site
mesas and slopes. Not all areas
californica classified as coastal sage scrub are located within designated
critical habitat for this species.
occupied.
Sources: Psomas 2006a, CDFG 2008b, CDFG 2008c, CDFG 2008d, CDFG 2008e.
Notes:
FD = Federally Delisted SR = California State Listed as Rare
FE = Federally Listed as Endangered SCD = California State Candidate for Delisting
FT = Federally Listed as Threatened CNPS 1B = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and
FC = Federal Candidate for listing under the elsewhere.
ESA
SE = California State Listed as Endangered
1 Based on the presence of potentially suitable habitat, focused protocol surveys for the coastal California
2 gnatcatcher were conducted on-site by Psomas and independent consulting biologists Pete Bloom and Jim
3 Luttrell during the spring and summer of 2000 (Psomas 2006a). Psomas (2006a) also summarizes focused
4 protocol surveys of the site and environs conducted by Psomas in 1999 for Unocal and in 1998, 2000, and
5 2002 in support of the 2002 SEIR. The surveys identified above included the proposed project site. Surveys
6 followed protocol for gnatcatcher presence/absence surveys (USFWS 1997). No coastal California
7 gnatcatchers were observed during the focused coastal California gnatcatcher surveys or during any of the

1 other biological fieldwork that was conducted on the project site. Based on the negative survey results, the
2 coastal California gnatcatcher has been considered absent from the survey areas.
3 A wildfire that burned through the site in October 2003 temporarily eliminated gnatcatcher habitat from the
4 proposed project site. During reconnaissance surveys by SAIC biologists conducted in June and July 2008,
5 the coastal scrub was observed to be regenerating and portions of the habitat could potentially support the
6 coastal California gnatcatcher. It is expected that coastal scrub has or will eventually reoccupy all or most of
7 its former distribution on the site. Given the amount of time that has elapsed since the last surveys and fire
8 and the documented occurrences of coastal California gnatcatcher in the Moorpark-Simi Valley area
9 mentioned above, it is judged possible , but unlikely, that the gnatcatcher has occupied the site subsequent to
10 the surveys and 2003 wildfire.
11 American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines anatum). The American peregrine falcon was listed as
12 endangered by the USFWS in 1970. This species also receives protection under the MBTA. The USFWS
13 removed this species from the endangered species list in 1999. The American peregrine falcon was listed as
14 endangered by the State of California in 1971 and is also designated as a fully protected species. In 2008, the
15 CDFG proposed to remove the American peregrine falcon from the California endangered species list but it
16 has yet to be delisted.
17 American peregrine falcons nest primarily on high cliffs; however, they will also use human-made structures
18 and occasionally tree cavities or the old nest of other raptors. In California, the peregrine falcons are known to
19 nest along the coast north of Santa Barbara. During winter and periods of migration, they can be found
20 throughout most of the state, but are most likely to be encountered near wetland or aquatic habitats. Peregrine
21 falcons have not been observed on-site and are unlikely to nest at the project site due to lack of suitable nest
22 sites. Nevertheless, suitable foraging habitat is present on-site.
23 Nesting Birds
24 Sage scrub, chamise chaparral, coast live oak woodland, and riparian communities within and adjacent to the
25 project site provide nesting habitat for a variety of birds including owls, raptors, and songbirds, possibly
26 including and coastal California gnatcatcher.
27 The MBTA and the CDFG Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, 3513 and 3800) protect most native birds in
28 addition to those protected by the ESA and CESA. Project-related impacts to birds protected by these
29 regulations would occur during the breeding season, because unlike adult birds, eggs and chicks are unable to
30 escape impacts from project activities such as grading or vegetation removal.
31 Species not protected by ESA or CESA, but that are considered by other agencies as rare, endangered, or
32 declining are discussed in Section 3.4.1.27 under locally important species.
33 3.4.1.2.4 Wetland Habitats and Biota

34 The proposed project site consists of sharply contoured hills and low valleys that drain into nearby creeks and
35 washes to the east and west. A state and federal wetlands and waters investigation for the proposed project
36 site was prepared conducted by Psomas in 2001 and the results summarized in a 2006 report prepared by
37 Psomas (Psomas 2002a and 2006a). The 2001 wetland delineation report wasresults were verified by Psomas
38 in January 2008 (Psomas 2008) and by SAIC augmented during a site visit by SAIC wetland scientists on July
39 15, 2008. The combined results of these investigations are presented below.
40 Major aquatic features in the vicinity of the proposed project include Brea and Alamos canyons (Figure 3.4-
41 2). These drainages lie parallel to the eastern and western boundaries of the project site, respectively. Both of
42 these drainage features flow into Arroyo Simi, which drains into Arroyo Las Posas, then Calleguas Creek,
43 and finally into Mugu Lagoon.
1 Brea Canyon
2 Brea Canyon borders the proposed CUP boundary on the east side and is mapped by USGS as a blueline stream
3 on the USGS West Simi Valley Quadrangle topographic map (Figure 3.4-2). Portions of Brea Canyon and
4 associated wetlands totaling approximately 5.91 acres lie within the project site within the proposed buffer
5 area. These portions of Brea Canyon are connected to other drainages and habitats in Brea Canyon that lie
6 outside of the project site (Psomas 2008). Brea Canyon was previously identified as a Waters of the U.S. and
7 Waters of the State (Psomas 2002a, 2006a, 2008).
8 A tributary of Brea Canyon adjacent to the project site supports a wide, sandy wetland dominated by wetland
9 species including salt grass (Distichlis spicata), spiny rush (Juncus acutus), and yerba mansa (Anemopsis
10 californica). This is located just upstream of the confluence of the tributary with the main stem of Brea Creek
11 Canyon (Figure 3.4-2). The wetland consists of a wet marshy area within the buffer area, adjacent to the Brea
12 Canyon streambed and bounded by a road on the south and west sides, grassland to the east and chaparral-
13 covered hills on the north side. This area was previously identified was a federal- and state-regulated wetland
14 (Psomas 2006a and 2008).
15 Downstream of this confluence the habitat transitions to riparian woodland and scrub varying from willow (Salix
16 spp.)-dominated areas to mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) stands and patches of arrow weed (Pluchea sericea).
17 Generally, the stature and density of riparian vegetation increases with tributary inflows progressing
18 downstream. Brea Creek Canyon ultimately drains into a culvert under SR-118.
19 Several isolated wetlands were identified by Psomas in 2001within the buffer area adjacent to the eastern
20 portion of the CUP boundary (Psomas 2006a). These features were determined to be excluded from state and
21 federal jurisdiction (Psomas 2006a).
22 Alamos Canyon
23 Alamos Canyon borders the proposed CUP boundary on the west side and is mapped by USGS as a blueline
24 stream on the USGS West Simi Valley Quadrangle topographic map (Figure 3.4-2). It is a wash approximately
25 50 feet wide, dominated by sparse scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum) and mulefat. The soil surface is
26 very sandy and surface water flows very briefly. Scattered coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and western
27 sycamore (Platanus racemosa) occur in scattered locations adjacent to the creek. There is a large marsh
28 associated with Alamos Canyon outside the project boundary just north of SR-118. It is characterized by
29 willows, yerba mansa, and bulrush (Scirpus sp.). Alamos Canyon was previously identified as a Waters of the
30 U.S. and Waters of the State (Psomas 2002a, 2006a, 2008).
31 Drainage C
32 An incised drainage feature, referred to on Figure 3.4-2 as as Drainage C, mapped by USGS as a blueline stream
33 on the USGS West Simi Valley Quadrangle topographic map is tributary to Alamos Canyon and runs eastward
34 from Alamos Canyon through a more or less flat-bottomed valley in the center of the expansion area (Figure 3.4-
35 2). Drainage C is approximately 4,357 feet in length, varies in width from 6 to 8 feet, and comprises 0.7 acres
36 within the project area (Psomas 2008). This location drainage was previously identified as a Waters of the U.S. and
37 Waters of the State (Psomas 2002a, 2006a, 2008). The feature would convey flow into Alamos Canyon during and
38 immediately after a rainfall event of sufficient magnitude. During the July 2008 investigation of this site, which
39 was conducted during drought conditions, no evidence of wetland vegetation or recent flow was found. Vegetation
40 observed consisted of upland species including elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), giant wild rye, California
41 sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and non-native annual grasses, with no variation between upland and in-
42 channel/bank communities. One large Chinese tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), an invasive non-native tree,
43 was observed adjacent to this drainage feature on the north side. There are also several filled sections along the
44 feature. These may have been built to allow easy crossing of the feature by vehicles. Evidence of water ponding
1 behind the fill was not present; however, such evidence could have been obscured by downslope soil movement
2 and vegetation growth in the years since the last major rain event.
3 Drainage Features A and B
4 Two drainage features, referred to on Figure 3.4-2 as Drainage A and B, are located in the southwestern portion of
5 the proposed expansion area. Neither drainage is mapped by USGS as a blueline stream on the USGS West Simi
6 Valley Quadrangle topographic map (Figure 3.4-2). Drainage A is approximately 2,864 feet in length and covers
7 approximately 0.3 acres while Drainage B is approximately 2,752 acres and covers approximately 1 acre. The
8 drainages are located in an area mapped as a mixture of grassland and sage scrub (Figure 3.4-1) (Psomas 2008).
9 Both drainages are sparsely vegetated and are highly disturbed by cattle grazing operations (Psomas 2008). This
10 area was not verified by SAIC during the 2008 site visit. Drainage A and B were identified as a Waters of the U.S.
11 and Waters of the State (Psomas 2008).
12 Drainage Feature D
13 Drainage D is mapped by USGS as a blueline stream on the USGS West Simi Valley Quadrangle topographic
14 map (Figure 3.4-2). This Finally, there is a small feature that receives stormwater from road crossings and
15 developed sites and empties into a detention/sedimentation basin via a stand pipe. It is located outside of the
16 proposed CUP boundary and just south of the existing facilities and facilities expansion area, south of the
17 existing landfill. This area is maintained periodically to remove accumulated sediment and prevent it from
18 flowing downstream. Vegetation establishes periodically at this site and is removed when the site is
19 maintained. Drainage D was previously identified as a Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State (Psomas 2006a
20 but is not addressed in Psomas 2008).
21 Seeps
22 Two small seeps, totaling approximately 0.5 acre, are present on the north-facing hillside within the landfill
23 expansion footprint north of the existing landfill operations (Figure 3.4-2).
24 The eastern seep is composed of a perennial seep with water emerging and flowing across the surface and is
25 associated with a small, obscurely defined streambed (Psomas 2006a). However, the streambed is isolated and
26 not connected to a tributary stream (Psomas 2006a). The soil surface at the eastern seep was wet at the
27 surface at the time of the July 2008 site visit. Dominant vegetation was pickleweed (Salicornia virginica),
28 alkali heath (Frankenia salina), salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), an
29 introduced species. The soil surface was saturated and salty. The seep has been trampled by cattle. This seep
30 was previously identified was a state-regulated wetland (Psomas 2006a).
31 The western seep was completely dry at the time of the July 2008 site visit and is characterized by salt grass,
32 alkali heath and Italian ryegrass. Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus) is present mixed with upland grass species
33 next to the seep. The soils were much lighter in color than the eastern seep and there was no evidence that soil
34 surface had been saturated in the recent past. This seep was previously identified as excluded from state and
35 federal jurisdiction (Psomas 2006a).

n
n yo
Ca
os
am
Al
re
D
Drainage C age Featu
Drain
phem
dr
al
nagr
ai
nphm
ageal
air
dr
dr
air
m
al
h
p
e
g
a
n
dr
mr
ai
al
h
p
e
g
a
n
Drainage A
Drainage B
on
ny
Ca
ea
Br
118
Drainage D
LEGEND
i
im
oS
Simi Valley Existing CUP Boundary

y
ro

Ar
SPRR
Jurisdictional Classifications
USGS Blueline Stream - Possible
Waters of the U.S. and State
Possible Waters of the U.S. and State
N Scale
Ventura County Redline Streams
0 3000
Feet Seep - County and State Wetland
Source: Ventura County GIS 2008; Google Earth 2008; Psomas 2006 Seep - County Wetland
Figure 3.4-2. Wetlands, Waters of the U.S., and Redline Streams in the Proposed Project Vicinity
1 The primary ecological functions provided by these seep features relate to their support of hydrophytic plant
2 species and the seasonal presence of water, which may be used by wildlife. The seeps are isolated from other
3 wetland habitat and as such do not provide water filtration functions protective of adjacent aquatic habitat.
4 Their small size (0.048 acres total) and isolation from other wetland habitat limit their wetland functions and
5 values, except as a water source for wildlife. No sign of amphibians was noted and the salinity of the seeps as
6 evidenced by the salt marsh species and salty crust on the soil surface may make these sites unsuitable for
7 amphibians in most years. The seeps are also heavily trampled by cattle.
8 County Jurisdictional Habitats
9 The County of Ventura Watershed Protection District regulates bed and banks and major stormwater
10 overflows adjacent to “redline” channels and wetlands through Encroachment Permits and Watercourse
11 Permits under Ventura County Flood Control District Ordinance FC-18 as amended. A redline channel is
12 defined by the Ventura County Flood Control District Comprehensive Plan for Channel Jurisdictional Limits
13 as originally adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 19, 1960 and most recently revised by the Board
14 on October 11, 1994. This Comprehensive Plan details by zone and stream the 931 miles of jurisdictional
15 channels where the Ventura County Watershed Protection District has regulatory and permitting authority.
16 Redline streams in the project vicinity include Alamos Canyon and Brea Canyon. Both these drainages are
17 adjacent to the proposed CUP boundary, but outside of the proposed waste disposal area (Figure 3.4-2). The
18 planting of vegetation or other work within or adjacent to the channel of a redline stream falls under the
19 regulatory permitting authority of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District per FC-18.
20 The Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (2006) define wetlands as, “Plant communities that
21 are associated with lands that are transitional between terrestrial systems and aquatic systems where the water
22 table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with shallow water. The frequency of
23 occurrence of water must be sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires
24 saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands, pursuant to the
25 County’s definition, include marshes, bogs, sloughs, vernal pools, wet meadows, river and stream overflows,
26 mudflats, ponds, springs, and seeps.”
27 County jurisdictional wetlands within or adjacent to the project area consist of marsh and riparian areas along
28 Alamos and Brea cCanyons within or near the proposed project CUP boundary, but outside of the proposed
29 waste disposal area, and the two previously described seeps located within the proposed waste disposal area.
30 These wetlands are dominated by hydrophytic plants (i.e., plants that require at least seasonally saturated soil
31 conditions) and are therefore, considered wetlands under the County definition. Both seeps are considered a
32 County significant wetland habitat, pending CDFG verification, based on their support of native hydrophytic
33 plant species and seasonal presence of water within an otherwise dry landscape, which may be essential for
34 survival of some species during some years. .
35 The blueline stream (Drainage C) extending from Alamos Canyon eastward through the expansion area
36 (Figure 3.4-2,) does not appear on County redline channel maps. Drainage CAlthough it does not support
37 riparian vegetation or provide other functions and values that would normally be associated with hydrologic
38 features meeting the definition of redline channels. However, it may fall under County Watershed Protection
39 District jurisdiction because of its proximity to Alamos Canyon, which is a redline channel, and its potential
40 to contain overflows or convey flood flows into Alamos Canyon.
41 Insert discussion of Drainages A and, B, and D were identified by Psomas (2008) as CDFG jurisdictional
42 areas. They would not clearly meet the County definition of redline channels and may not fall under the
43 County definition of wetlands although some facultative hydrophytic plant species, such as mule fat and salt
44 grass, are present. Drainages A and B are located on the west side of the landfill in an area mapped by
45 Psomas (2006) as a mixture of non-native grasses and Venturan coastal sage scrub. These are andephemeral

1 drainages that appear to be tributary to Alamos Canyon and Arroyo Simi, respectively. whether or not they
2 are considered County jurisdiction.
3 Federal Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters

4 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The USACE defines
5 wetlands as “Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
6 sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
7 adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (USACE 1987). For a wetland to be considered jurisdictional by
8 the USACE, and therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, it must exhibit wetland
9 hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Clarification on the methodology for conducting
10 wetland delineations was provided in the Corps of Engineers Arid West Interim Regional Supplement
11 (USACE 2006). In addition, the USACE does not regulate isolated wetlands, as a result of the U.S. Supreme
12 Court decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
13 (USACE 2003).
14 Waters of the U.S. are defined as areas subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and areas that are within the
15 limits of ordinary high water. Clarification to waters and wetlands regulation was provided following a U.S.
16 Supreme Court Decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States
17 (USEPA and USACE 20072008). The outcome of those decisions has affected which features the USACE
18 will, will not, and may assert jurisdiction over. Specifically, the USACE will not assert jurisdiction over
19 swales and erosional features. The USACE will assert jurisdiction over tributaries to waters that do not have
20 seasonal flow (at least approximately three consecutive months of flow) only if there is a specific nexus for
21 doing so (e.g., if the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary significantly affect the chemical,
22 physical, and biological integrity of downstream navigable waters, or if adjacent wetlands are present).
23 During the 2008 SAIC site visit, tThe two seeps on the north facing hillside in the southern portion of the
24 project site both meet the wetland vegetation criterion. The western seep does did not meet criteria for soils or
25 hydrology, and is therefore, not a federally regulated wetland. The eastern seep does did not meet the
26 vegetation, soils, or hydrology criteria. However, it both seeps areis isolated and haves no surface water
27 connection to any jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. nor is itare they adjacent to any jurisdictional Waters of
28 the U.S. Therefore, neither seep is federally -regulated.
29 The blueline stream (Drainage C) that runs east to west on the project site was determined by Psomas to be
30 Waters of the U.S. (Psomas 2002a, 2006a, and 2008). On December 2, 2008, the United States
31 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army issued guidance clarifying Clean
32 Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the consolidated cases
33 Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (EPA and USACE 2008). The blueline stream may or
34 may not be considered a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., under guidance given by the USACE subsequent to
35 the Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States court decisions. Erosional features are not
36 considered Waters of the U.S. Despite a connection with Alamos Canyon, this site has ambiguous
37 qualifications for consideration as Waters of the U.S. Surveys conducted under drought conditions reveal
38 minimal evidence of at least seasonal flow, minimal evidence of ponding behind fill placed in the centerline,
39 and a lack of prevalent riparian or hydrophytic vegetation, and a lack of adjacent wetlands. For the purpose of
40 this document the Drainage C is assumed to be Waters of the U.S. pending verification by USACE.
41 Creek channels of Brea and Alamos creeks in or adjacent to the proposed project site buffer area as well as
42 the wetland adjacent to Brea Canyon streambed were determined to be Waters of the U.S. by Psomas (Psomas
43 2002a and 2006a). Similar to the blueline stream, these channels have ambiguous qualifications for
44 consideration as Waters of the U.S. following Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States. Thus,
45 for the purpose of this document these creek channels are assumed Waters of the U.S. pending verification by
46 USACE. may be Waters of the U.S. If they do not carry water seasonally, they are connected to waters that do

1 (Arroyo Simi and Arroyo Las Posas). No dredging or placement of fill in either of these drainages is
2 proposed.
3 The Psomas reports did not specifically address whether In addition, these drainages support substantial
4 riparian habitat and wetlands, act as wildlife corridors and may provide habitat for rare, threatened or
5 endangered species.Drainages A, B, and D were Waters of the U.S. However, they are labeled as such on
6 Figure 4 of the report (Psomas 2006a and 2008). Thus, for the purpose of this document these creek channels
7 are assumed Waters of the U.S. pending verification by USACE.
8 State Jurisdictional Waters (Streambeds)

9 The CDFG jurisdiction includes bed, bank and channel of rivers, lakes, and streams to the landward edge of
10 riparian vegetation. CDFG takes jurisdiction over wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are
11 part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFG.oversees the 1602 program which regulates activities that
12 would alter the flow, bed, banks, channel or associated riparian areas of Waters of the State. Regulated
13 features include lakes, rivers, and streams that flow at least intermittently through a bed or channel, and may
14 include ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with subsurface flow (CDFG 2008f). Alteration
15 of the flow, bed, banks, channel, or associated riparian areas of a river, stream, or lake requires notification of
16 the CDFG and entering into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFG.
17 Alamos Canyon and Brea Canyon (including the adjacent wetland) are considered Waters of the State and any
18 developments within them would therefore, be subject to CDFG regulation under the 1602 program.
19 The more easterly of the two seeps on the proposed project site would meet the state definition of wetlands
20 because of the presence of hydrophytic vegetation (it also has hydric soils and wetland hydrology) (Figure
21 3.4-2). The western seep, although it displays could also be considered a wetland under state definition
22 because of the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, it does not meet the definition of a Waters of the State
23 (Psomas 2006a). Neither of these seeps would be considered a river, stream, or lake requiring a Streambed
24 Alteration Agreement with CDFG for the proposed development.
25 In addition, tThe ephemeral blueline stream running eastward through the expansion area (Drainage C) was
26 determined by Psomas to be a Waters of the State (Psomas 2006a and 2008). During the 2008 surveys
27 performed by SAIC, the drainage may or may not be considered a Water of the State because it shows
28 showed minimal evidence of seasonal flow; , showing no evidence of ponding behind fill placed in the
29 centerline at different locations;, and lacking lacked riparian or hydrophytic vegetation or adjacent wetlands.
30 Regardless, for the purpose of this document this drainage is assumed to be Waters of the State pending
31 CDFG verification.
32 Similarly, tThe constructed detention/sedimentation basin (Drainage D) south of the project site is outside the
33 existing landfill and proposed CUP boundaries and, for this reason, will not be discussed further in this
34 analysis. as well as Drainages A and B in the southwestern portion of the project site were listed as a Waters
35 of the State on Figure 4 of the report (Psomas 2008). Thus, for the purpose of this document these creek
36 channels are assumed Waters of the State pending CDFG verification.
37 is not considered a lake, river, or stream and would not be subject to CDFG regulation under the CDFG 1602
38 program. In summary, 7.91 acres of Waters of the State are located within the project site of which 5.91 are
39 located within the proposed Buffer Area and 2.0 acres are located within the proposed waste disposal
40 footprint. In addition, one seep in the western portion of the project site meets the state definition of a
41 wetland (Figure 3.4-2).

1 3.4.1.2.5 Coastal Habitats
2 The proposed project site is located 18 miles from the ocean. Thus, coastal habitats are not present on the
3 project site or in the project vicinity.
4 3.4.1.2.6 Migration Corridors
5 The Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines define a migration corridor as, “An area, as defined
6 by a qualified biologist, which experiences recurrent fish or wildlife movement and which is important to fish
7 or wildlife species seeking to move from one habitat area to another.” Migration corridors serve as
8 connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated
9 animal populations. Migration corridors may be local such as between foraging and nesting or denning areas,
10 or they may be regional in nature. Migration corridors are not unidirectional access routes; however, reference
11 is usually made to source and receiver areas in discussions of wildlife movement networks. Habitat linkages
12 are migration corridors that contain contiguous strips of native vegetation between source and receiver areas.
13 Habitat linkages provide cover and forage sufficient for temporary inhabitation by a variety of ground-
14 dwelling and avian animal species. Wildlife migration corridors are essential to the long-term ecological
15 health of a region as they provide avenues of genetic exchange and allow animals to access alternative
16 territories as fluctuating environmental conditions and dispersal pressures dictate.
17 The Simi Hills form a topographic bridge between the Santa Monica Mountains to the south and the Santa
18 Susana Mountains to the north, but are isolated by SR-23 to the west, SR-118 to the north, U.S. 101 to the
19 south, and SR-27 to the east. Within the regional wildlife network, these lands function as genetic and
20 population reservoirs that are important for maintaining species and genetic diversity through migration
21 between areas (Ng et al. 2004). Actual and potential wildlife corridors have been identified along these
22 freeway systems which could enable increased migration between the Simi Hills and the Santa Monica
23 Mountains (Ng et al. 2004; Penrod et al. 2006).
24 State Route 118, which is an elevated freeway with travel speeds exceeding 65 mph, is a formidable barrier to
25 wildlife attempting to move locally between the Simi Hills and the Santa Susana Mountains, Big Mountain,
26 and Oak Ridge; and regionally between the Santa Monica Mountains and Los Padres National Forest. Alamos
27 Canyon and Brea Canyon are major wildlife corridors leading north from SR-118. The proposed project does
28 not expand into either canyon, but a valley, running east-west toward Brea Canyon from Alamos Canyon that
29 may facilitate wildlife movement between the canyons, is to be largely filled in. Alamos Canyon contains an
30 intermittent stream channel surrounded by a mosaic of habitats including riparian plants such as sycamore
31 trees. Coast live oaks also border the river channel. The different habitat types and riparian trees provide
32 cover for wildlife species moving between the Santa Susana Mountains, Oak Ridge, Big Mountain, and the
33 Simi Hills. Several studies have addressed wildlife movement in the vicinity of the SVLRC (Psomas 2002b;
34 Penrod et al. 2006; Ng et al. 2004; and LSA 2004). These studies identified three crossings near the SVLRC
35 proposed expansion area: Alamos Canyon West culvert, Alamos Canyon Road underpass, and Alamos
36 Canyon East culvert (Figure 3.4-3). A culvert exists at Brea Canyon, but no crossing useable by wildlife
37 exists. A vertical pipe, capped with a grate, prevents non-avian wildlife from crossing under SR-118 from
38 Brea Canyon. Because of this, Brea Canyon serves as a wildlife corridor only north of SR-118. Each of the
39 Alamos Canyon crossings is located outside of the SVLRC expansion and buffer area. The landfill boundary
40 of the proposed project does not extend into Alamos Canyon, although the toe of the retaining slope for a
41 detention basin would be within the 100 year floodplain of Alamos Creek. The following descriptions of
42 Alamos Canyon West culvert, Alamos Canyon Road underpass, and Alamos Canyon East culvert follows
43 descriptions provided by Psomas (2006a) following LSA (2004).
44 The Alamos Canyon West culvert consists of two 10-foot diameter concrete box culverts that runs for 816
45 feet under SR-118 and is located within a drainage that conveys flow to Arroyo Simi. The substrate within the
46 culvert is sandy, with a shallow, braided stream channel. The rectangular openings on the north end of the
1 culvert are approximately 20 feet wide by 10 feet high. Data collected from LSA (2004) indicate that a variety
2 of medium sized to large mammals can be found in the general vicinity north and south of SR-118 at the
3 Alamos Canyon West culvert. The species detected within the vicinity of the culvert included mule deer,
4 bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote, gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon, striped skunk (Mephitis
5 mephitis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), domestic livestock, and domestic dog (Canis familiaris).
6 The Alamos Canyon East culvert consists of a six-foot diameter reinforced concrete pipe culvert, extending
7 approximately 600 feet under SR-118. The substrate within the culvert is sandy, with a shallow, braided
8 stream channel. A variety of medium sized to large mammals can be found in the general vicinity north and
9 south of SR-118 at the Alamos Canyon East culvert (LSA 2004). Mountain lion tracks were detected at
10 LSA’s scent station located in East Alamos Canyon north of SR-118 in May 2003. The medium sized species
11 detected in the general vicinity north and south of SR-118 at the Alamos Canyon East culvert included:
12 bobcat, coyote, gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, opossum, and rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.). Homeless
13 encampments and dumping activities also occur near the Alamos Canyon East culvert entrance on the south
14 side of SR-118. Alamos Canyon Road underpass appears to be used by a variety of wildlife. Data collected
15 from field studies (Ng et al. 2004, Psomas 2002b, and LSA 2004) indicate that underpass is used by mule
16 deer, bobcat, coyote, raccoon, striped skunk, opossum, rabbit, hare (Lepus sp.), long tailed weasel (Mustela
17 frenata), livestock, domestic dog, and house cat (Felis catus).
18 The Alamos Canyon Road underpass is a large passageway, measuring 16 feet high, 137 feet wide, and 160
19 feet long (Penrod et al. 2006). An unused asphalt road, approximately 60 feet wide, runs down the middle of
20 the underpass. The freeway overpass actually consists of two bridges, approximately 50 feet apart, each
21 supporting two lanes of traffic. There is clear view of the opposite side of the undercrossing from either end,
22 and the distance from one end to the other is relatively short, approximately 75 feet. Well developed coastal
23 sage scrub habitat grows on natural substrate near the underpass. Much of the vegetation in the immediate
24 vicinity of the asphalt road is annual non-native grasses. The area surrounding the Alamos Canyon Road
25 underpass is utilized as an illegal dumping site and several active homeless camps were observed by the
26 people conducting the wildlife studies. This underpass is more suitable for medium and large species than the
27 culverts of Alamos Canyon West and East, but it is also used by small mammals and birds. Mountain lion
28 (Psomas 2002b), bobcat (Psomas 2002b, LSA 2004), coyote (Ng 2000, LSA 2004), mule deer, striped skunk,
29 and raccoon have all been documented to use this crossing.
30 3.4.1.2.7 Locally Important Species/Communities
31 The Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (2006) define locally important species as, “A plant
32 or animal species that is not an endangered, threatened, or rare species, but is considered by qualified
33 biologists to be a quality example or unique species within the County and region. This term also includes
34 Candidate Species.” Locally important communities are defined as “A plant or animal community which is
35 considered by qualified biologists to be a quality example characteristic of or unique to the County or region”
36 (e.g., oak trees, oak forest, oak savannahs, raptor nesting).

A
Alamos
Canyon Road
Undercrossing
Alamos
Canyon
West Alamos
Canyon
East
n
nyo
Ca
os
am
Al
Creek
ea
Br
n
yo
.
Rd
an
a
C
er
ea
ad
Br
M
118
LEGEND
Proposed Grading Limit Scale
N
Proposed Habitat Enhancements 0 Feet 4000
Figure 3.4-3. Alamos Canyon Crossings

1 Locally Important Species

2 A literature search and review of the CNDDB identified the potential for 39 locally important species,
3 including 12 plant species and 27 wildlife species (one fish, one amphibian, five reptiles, 14 birds, and six
4 mammals) as having the potential to occur within the vicinity of the proposed project area. A list of these 39
5 species is provided in Appendix F-2, which describes their status and distribution and potential occurrence in
6 the project area. Previous studies conducted on the site combined with on-site reconnaissance surveys
7 conducted by SAIC biologists were used to determine the potential for these species to occur in the vicinity
8 the proposed project area. Seventeen of these 39 species have been observed during on-site surveys, as
9 summarized in Table 3.4-3. In addition, potentially suitable habitat for six plant species and a moderate
10 potential for four wildlife species occurs on-site (Table 3.4-3). The balance of the 39 species were not
11 determined unlikely to occur on-site based on absence of suitable habitat conditions, distribution, and absence
12 during surveys of the project site during focused botanical surveys that were conducted in April, May, and
13 June 2005 by Psomas (Psomas 2006a) and therefore are eliminated from not discussed further discussion.
Table 3.4-3 Locally Important Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area
Status
Common Name and (Federal/ General Habitat Description Occurrence in the Project
Scientific Name Area
State/Local)
Sources: Psomas 2006a, CDFG 2008d, CDFG 2008e.
Notes:
FP = Fully Protected CDFG CNPS 3 =Plants about which we need more information.
WL = CDFG Watch List CNPS 4 =Plants of limited distributions; a watch list.
SSC = Species of Special Concern (CDFG) LI = Locally Important Species on Ventura County 2008a
CNPS 1B = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in list.
California and elsewhere. * = Locally Important Species meeting Ventura County
Criteria.
Plants
Round-leaved filaree Cismontane woodland, valley and Valley grassland is present on
California -/-/CNPS: the site. Not observed during
(=Erodium) 2* foothill grasslands. Occurs on clay the 2005 focused rare plant
soils. Typically flowers March to May.
macrophyllum surveys of the Project area.
Found in heavy soils of chaparral, open Observed over 1,000
valley/ foothill grassland, foothill individuals of Catalina
woodland, cismontane woodland and mariposa lily throughout the
Catalina mariposa lily -/-/CNPS: coastal sage scrub, from 15 to 700 property during the 2005
Calochortus meters (50 to 2,300 feet) in elevation, focused rare plant surveys.
catalinae 4* and from San Diego County to San This species was primarily
Luis Obispo County and Channel observed in non-native
Islands. Typically flowers March to grassland habitats and sage
June. scrub on the Project site.
Openings in chaparral, foothill
woodland, cismontane woodland, Over 900 individuals of
coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill
grasslands, lower montane coniferous Plummer’s mariposa lilies
Plummer's mariposa were found throughout the site
lily -/-/CNPS: forest and yellow pine forest, from 100 during the 2005 rare plant
to 1,700 meters (328 to 5,577 feet) in
Calochortus 1B,LI elevation. surveys. This species was
plummerae mainly observed in sage scrub
Occurs on dry, rocky and sandy sites, and chamise chaparral on the
usually of granitic or alluvial material.
Can be common after fire. Typically Project site.
flowers spring May to July.
Marshes and swamps, valley and Valley grassland habitat and
foothill grassland, vernal pools. Often
Southern tarplant in disturbed sites near the coast. alkaline soils with salt grasses
Centromadia -/-/CNPS: are present. Not observed
(=Hemizonia) parryi 1B,LI Alkaline soils sometimes with saltgrass. during the 2005 focused rare
Blooms May – November. Annual
ssp. australis herb. Typically flowers May to plant surveys of the Project
area.
November.

Common Name and Status Occurrence in the Project
(Federal/ General Habitat Description
Scientific Name State/Local) Area
Notes:
Criteria.
Plants cont
Dune larkspur Coastal chaparral, and coastal dunes Suitable habitat present on-
Delphinium parryi -/-/CNPS: <650 ft. elevation; Ventura, Santa site. Not observed during the
1B.LI Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. 2005 focused rare plant
ssp. blochmaniae Typically flowers in April and May. surveys of the Project area.
Usually occurs in wetlands (alkaline Not found within the
seeps, swamps, and salt marshes), but expansion area. However, this
occasionally found in non wetlands species is present within the
Southwestern spiny (meadows and coastal dunes). buffer area on the eastern
rush -/-/CNPS:
Juncus acutus ssp. 4,LI Associated with moist, saline places boundary of the Project site
throughout southern California; along Brea Canyon.
leopoldii generally from 3 to 900 meters (1 to Individuals of this species
2,952 feet) elevation. Typically flowers were common within the flat
May to June. floodplain of Brea Creek.
Found in chaparral, valley and foothill Valley grassland and coastal
Many-stemmed -/-/CNPS: grassland, and coastal sage scrub in sage scrub habitat is present on
dudleya 1B* heavy soils, often clay. South western the site. Not observed during
Dudleya multicaulis California, below 2000 ft. elevation. the 2005 focused rare plant
Typically flowers April to June. surveys of the project area.
Found in chaparral, valley and foothill Valley grassland and coastal
Many-stemmed -/-/CNPS: grassland, and coastal sage scrub in sage scrub habitat is present on
dudleya heavy soils, often clay. South western the site. Not observed during
Dudleya multicaulis 1B* California, below 2000 ft. elevation. the 2005 focused rare plant
Typically flowers April to June. surveys of the Project area.
Dry sites in coastal sage scrub, Coastal sage scrub and valley
Palmer's chaparral and valley/foothill grasslands,
grapplinghook -/-/CNPS: below ±5000 ft. elevation; SW grassland habitat is present on
the site. Not observed during
Harpagonella 4* California and north Baja; generally in the 2005 focused rare plant
palmeri clay soils. Typically flowers March to
May. surveys of the Project area.
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, Coastal sage scrub is present

Rayless ragwort -/-/CNPS: coastal scrub (alkaline) and drying on the site. Not observed
during the 2005 focused rare
Senecio aphanactis 2,LI alkaline flats. Typically flowers January plant surveys of the Project
to April.
area.
Wildlife
Occurs primarily in grassland habitats,
but can be found in valley foothill
hardwood woodlands. Frequents
washes, flood plains of rivers, alluvial Western spadefoot toads seen
Western spadefoot fans, playas and alkali flats, but also in lower Brea Canyon near the
toad Spea -/SSC /* ranges into foothills and mountains. proposed landfill boundary
hammondii Likes sandy, gravelly soil. Found in during a previous survey
valley and foothill grasslands, open (Psomas 2002a).
chaparral and pine oak woodlands.
Vernal pools are essential for breeding
and egg laying.
Inhabits coastal sage scrub and
Coast horned lizard chaparral in arid and semi arid climates. Observed on sandy open
Phrynosoma -/SSC/* patches between shrubs on
coronatum Prefers friable, rocky, or shallow sandy ridge (Psomas 2006a).
soils.

Notes:
Criteria.
Wildlife cont
Coastal Ranges from Bay area to
northern Baja California; also,
southwestern Sierra Nevada, parts of
Central Valley, Transverse Ranges;
Silvery legless lizard various habitats, mainly shrublands. Suitable habitat is present in
Anniella pulchra -/SSC /* Occurs primarily in areas with sandy or the expansion area and within
pulchra loose loamy soils under the sparse the proposed landfill boundary.
vegetation of beaches, chaparral or
pine, oak woodland or sycamores,
cottonwoods, or oaks that grow on
stream terraces.
Coast patch-nosed Found in coastal chaparral, desert Suitable habitat is present
snake within the expansion area and
Salvadora hexalepis -/SSC /* scrub, washes, sandy flats and rocky within the proposed landfill
areas.
virgultea boundary.
Nests in rodent burrows, usually in
open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts and scrublands with Suitable habitat present on the
site, but the presence of
Burrowing owl -/SSC /* low growing vegetation; forages in California ground squirrels and
Athene cunicularia open habitat; occurs through western
US and Mexico. Dependent upon their burrows were not
detected by Psomas (2006a).
burrowing mammals, usually California
ground squirrel.
Common in grasslands and farmlands.
White-tailed kites breed in lowland Observed foraging over site
White-tailed kite -/FP/* grasslands, agriculture, wetlands, oak- during previous surveys
Elanus leucurus woodland and savannah habitats, and
riparian areas associated with open (Psomas 2006a).
areas.
Northern harrier -/SSC Breeds colonially in grasslands and Observed foraging over site
wetlands; forages over open terrain, during previous surveys
Circus cyaneus (nesting)/* meadows, marshes, pasture, grasslands. (Psomas 2006a).
Inhabits mountainous or hilly terrain,
hunting over open country. Nests in Observed foraging over site
Golden eagle remote trees and cliffs; forages over
Aquila chrysaetos -/FP, WL/* shrublands and grasslands; breeds during previous surveys
(Psomas 2006a).
throughout western north America,
winters to east coast.
No suitable nesting habitat is
Nests and hunts in forests and mixed present on-site, but suitable
Sharp-shinned hawk woodlands, hilly areas, dense brush,
Accipiter striatus -/WL/* woodlands and in open areas; foraging habitat is present in
the expansion area and
throughout North America. proposed landfill boundary.
Nests and hunts in forests and open
woodlands or streamside groves,
occasionally forages in open areas;
Cooper’s hawk most of US. Hilly areas, riparian and Observed foraging over site
-/WL/* during previous surveys
Accipiter cooperii woodlands. Nest sites mainly in (Psomas 2006a).
riparian growths of deciduous trees, as
in canyon bottoms on river flood plains;
also live oaks.

Notes:
Criteria.
Wildlife cont
Inhabits dry open county and prairies, No suitable nesting habitat is
Prairie falcon mountains and open terrain. Nests on present on-site, but suitable
-/WL/* high cliffs, forages primarily over open foraging habitat is present in
Falco mexicanus lands; occurs throughout arid western the expansion area and
U.S. and Mexico. proposed landfill boundary.
A resident and winter visitor in Observed on-site during
lowlands and foothills throughout previous surveys including
California. Prefers open habitats with June 2008 SAIC site visit.
scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences,
Loggerhead shrike -/SSC utility lines, or other perches. Highest
Lanius ludovicianus (nesting)/* density occurs in open-canopied valley
foothill hardwood, valley foothill
hardwood-conifer, valley foothill
riparian, pinyon-juniper, juniper, desert
riparian, and Joshua tree habitats.
Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma Observed on-site during
County to San Diego County. Common previous surveys (Psomas
in short grass-prairie, “bald” hills, 2006a).
California horned mountain meadows, open coastal
lark plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali
Eremophila alpestris -/WL/* flats. Common in open habitats usually
actia where trees and large shrubs are absent.
Found from grasslands along the coast
and the deserts to alpine dwarf shrub
habitat above treeline.
Favors wet habitats, especially willows Observed on or adjacent to site
and alders; open woodlands, gardens during previous surveys
Yellow warbler -/SSC and orchards. Breeds in willow and (Psomas 2006a). Suitable
Dendroica petechia (nesting)/* cottonwood riparian habitat; much of habitat is present in Alamos
north America, winters Mexico to and Brea Canyons adjacent to
South America. the landfill property boundary.
Southern California Resident in southern California coastal Observed on-site during
rufous-crowned sage scrub and sparse mixed chaparral. previous surveys (Psomas
sparrow -/WL/* 2006a).
Aimophila ruficeps Frequents relative steep, often rocky
hillsides with grass and forb patches.
canescens
Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly Observed on-site during
dense stands of chamise. Found in previous surveys (Psomas
Bell’s sage sparrow -/WL/* coastal sage scrub in south of range. 2006a).
Amphispiza belli belli Nest located on the ground beneath a
shrub or in a shrub 6-18 inches above
ground. Territories about 50 yds apart.
Occupies many diverse habitats, but Suitable grassland habitat
San Diego black- primarily is found in arid regions exists within the proposed
supporting shortgrass habitats. landfill expansion area.
tailed jackrabbit -/SSC /* Common in grasslands that are Species was observed by SAIC
Lepus californicus
bennettii overgrazed by cattle and they are well in 2008.
adapted to using low-intensity
agricultural habitats.

Notes:
Criteria.
Wildlife cont
Coastal southern California from San Species observed during
San Diego desert Diego County to San Luis Obispo previous surveys (Psomas
woodrat County. Moderate to dense canopies 2006a).
Neotoma lepida -/SSC /* preferred. They are particularly
intermedia abundant in rock outcrops and rocky
cliffs and slopes.
Mountains, grasslands, arid terrain,
deserts, open marshy areas and interior Species observed during
American badger -/SSC/* valleys where burrowing animals are previous surveys (Psomas
Taxidea taxus available as prey and soil permits
digging; throughout central and western 2006a).
North America in most habitats.
1 Locally Important Plant Species

2 Three locally important and sensitive plant species were observed during biological studies of the expansion
3 area and surrounding property, including Plummer’s mariposa lily, Catalina mariposa lily, and southwestern
4 spiny rush as identified in Table 3.4-3. Southwestern spiny rush and Catalina mariposa lily are listed on CNPS
5 List 4 (plants of limited distribution, a watch list) and Plummer’s mariposa lily is listed as a CNPS List 1B
6 species (Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere). Catalina mariposa lily and Plummer’s
7 mariposa lily were observed at multiple locations within proposed expansion area and grading limits, as
8 shown in Figure 3.4-4. These species were observed during the spring and early summer 2001 field surveys in
9 support of the 2002 SEIR, and during the 2005 focused rare plant surveys conducted within the proposed
10 CUP boundary (Psomas 2006a). Most of the Plummer’s mariposa lily documented on the project site are
11 located near the edge of the grading limits in the northern portion of the project area. There is also a
12 substantial number outside the grading limits but within the proposed buffer area (Figure 3.4-4). Southwestern
13 spiny rush was observed along the flat floodplain of Brea Creek during previous surveys of the project area
14 (Psomas 2006a) and during the 2008 field visit by SAIC. In addition, six locally important and sensitive plant
15 species (round-leaved filaree, southern tarplant, dune larkspur, many-stemmed dudleya, Palmer’s
16 grapplinghook, and rayless ragwort) have not been observed on-site, but have the potential to occur based on
17 the presence of suitable-appearing habitat.
18 Locally Important Wildlife Species
19 Several locally important wildlife species were observed within or adjacent to the proposed CUP boundaries
20 during general and focused wildlife surveys as identified in Table 3.4-3. Locally important species designated
21 by the CDFG as a SSC observed at the proposed project site include western spadefoot toad, coast horned
22 lizard, northern harrier, loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, San Diego
23 desert woodrat, and American badger. Other locally important species observed

25 Several locally important wildlife species were observed within or adjacent to the proposed CUP boundaries
26 during general and focused wildlife surveys as identified in Table 3.4-3. Locally important species designated by
27 the CDFG as a SSC observed at the proposed project site include western spadefoot toad, coast horned lizard,
1 northern harrier, loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, San Diego desert
2 woodrat, and American badger. Other locally important species observed have been assigned to the CDFG
3 Watch List (WL) including Cooper’s hawk, golden eagle, California horned lark, southern California rufous-
4 crowned sparrow, and Bell’s sage sparrow. Two additional locally important species found on-site, white tailed
5 kite and golden eagle, are designated as Fully Protected (FP) species by CDFG.
6 In addition, four locally important and sensitive wildlife species have not been observed on-site, but have a
7 moderate potential to occur based on the presence of potentially suitable habitat. These species include:
8 silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea),
9 sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus).
10 Several locally important and sensitive wildlife species have not been observed on-site and have a low
11 potential of occurring on site. These species are listed in Appendix F-2 and with the exception of burrowing
12 owl, are not discussed further.
13 Locally Important Communities

14 Sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, native grassland, and riparian habitats on or adjacent to the site are
15 considered to meet Ventura County criteria for locally important communities because they provide quality
16 remaining examples of plant and animal communities characteristic of Ventura County. The spatial
17 juxtaposition of these communities within the project site and surrounding areas adds to their significance in
18 representing a characteristic Ventura County landscape and creating multiple habitat edges or ecotones that
19 promote wildlife diversity. Additionally, they are documented to support a variety of the locally important
20 plant and wildlife species.
21 Sage scrub occurs throughout the project site and on adjacent lands, typically interdigitating with chamise
22 chaparral and grassland communities, as discussed in Section 3.4.1.2.2. Southern coast live oak riparian forest
23 occurs in Alamos Canyon and southern riparian scrub occurs in Brea Canyon. Oak woodlands are present on
24 slopes adjacent to Alamos and Brea canyons and are found almost exclusively within the buffer areas of the
25 project site. Chamise chaparral, while abundant statewide, is limited especially at low elevations as found in
26 the immediate project vicinity. Native perennial grasses (Nassella spp.) were observed in small groups
27 scattered throughout the project site, including the proposed expansion area and buffer area during the SAIC
28 reconnaissance visit (June 27, 2008). Native grasslands are present at the fringes of large stands of annual
29 grasses and especially in transition zones between grassland and sage scrub. Native grassland communities
30 are considered to be an important and unique community in southern California and are identified by the
31 preparers of this document as a locally important and unique habitat. The presence of native grasses in the
32 project area ranged from localized patches dominated by native grasses to sparsely scattered individuals.
33 Little is known about the extent of the previous occurrence of native grasses on-site including their density or
34 cover because they were not addressed in previous reports and may have increased in response to the wildland
35 fire that burned through the site in 2003.
36 Two locally important species of mariposa lily present on the site and many of the locally important wildlife
37 species described in the preceding section are associated with these communities.

on
ny
Ca
os
am
Al
Brea Creek
LEGEND
Catalina Mariposa Lily 1
Plummer’s Mariposa Lily 1
Southwestern Spiny Rush 2
118 Proposed Waste Disposal Area
Notes:
1. Focused surveys for Catalina Mariposa
Scale Lily and Plummer’s Mariposa Lily
N conducted April-June 2005 by Psomas.
0 2000
Feet 2. Field Reconnaissance Visit, June 2008
Mapping Sources: PSOMAS 2006 by SAIC.
Figure 3.4-4. Rare Plant Locations in the Project Area

1 3.4.1.2.8 Summary of Sensitive Biological Resources
2 The native vegetation and wildlife habitat on the proposed SVLRC expansion area is composed primarily of
3 grassland, sage scrub, and chamise chaparral. Brea and Alamos canyons east and west of the project site
4 contain riparian corridors with aquatic and wetland habitat, coast live oak woodland, and riparian woodlands
5 with willows and mulefat. Three locally important plant species have been observed during biological studies
6 of the expansion area and surrounding property, including Plummer’s mariposa lily, Catalina mariposa lily,
7 and southwestern spiny rush. The proposed project area is located within an area designated as critical habitat
8 for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Additionally, the site supports approximately 18 locally important
9 wildlife species that are resident or regular visitors to the project site and are also classified as California
10 Species of Special Concern, California Fully Protected Species, or listed on the CDFG WL.

13 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
14 The ESA protects federally listed and proposed threatened and endangered species, and their designated
15 critical habitats. Consultation with the USFWS and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is required
16 under ESA Section 7 if listed species or their designated critical habitats would be adversely affected by a
17 federal action. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the taking of listed species without authorization from the
18 USFWS or NMFS.
19 3.4.1.3.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and Executive Order 13186
20 The MBTA provides for the protection of migratory birds by making it illegal to possess, hunt, pursue, or kill
21 migratory bird species unless specifically authorized by a regulation implemented by the Secretary of the
22 Interior, such as designated seasonal hunting. Further, the MBTA prohibits the take, possession, import,
23 export, transport, selling, purchase, barter, or offering for sale, purchase or barter, any migratory bird, their
24 eggs, parts, and nests, except as authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11). Under certain circumstances,
25 a depredation permit can be issued to allow limited and specified take of migratory birds.
26 Executive Order 13186 (effective January 10, 2001), outlines the responsibilities of federal agencies to protect
27 migratory birds, in furtherance of the MBTA, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts, the Fish and
28 Wildlife Coordination Act, and ESA. This order specifies the following:
29 • The USFWS as the lead for coordinating and implementing Executive Order (EO) 13186;
30 • Requires federal agencies to incorporate migratory bird protection measures into their activities; and
31 • Requires federal agencies to obtain permits from the Service before any “take” occurs, even when the
32 agency intent is not to kill or injure migratory birds.
33 Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species
34 The National Invasive Species Management Plan was developed in response to EO 13112 in 1997. This order
35 established the National Invasive Species Council (Council) as the leader in development of the plan, and
36 directs the Council to provide leadership and oversight on invasive species issues to ensure that federal
37 activities are coordinated and effective. In addition, the Council has specific responsibilities including:
38 promoting action at local, state, tribal, and ecosystem levels; identifying recommendations for international
39 cooperation; facilitating a coordinated network to document, evaluate, and monitor invasive species' effects;
40 developing a web-based information network on invasive species; and developing guidance on invasive
41 species for federal agencies. The Council has developed nine plan priorities that provide direction for federal
1 agencies. The plan priorities include: leadership and coordination of state and federal entities, prevention (a
2 risk based approach), early detection and rapid response, control and management, restoration, international
3 cooperation, research, information management, and education and public awareness. Additional details are
4 available at: http://www.invaisvespecies.gov/council/.
5 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.)
6 The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
7 integrity of the United State’s water through the elimination of discharges of pollutants. The CWA primarily
8 relates to water quality and is discussed in Section 3.7. However, Section 404 of the CWA also regulates
9 discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetlands.
10 Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands
11 This Executive Order directs federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible long and short-term adverse
12 impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of
13 new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.
14 This EO does not apply to the issuance of permits (by federal agencies), licenses, or allocations to private
15 parties for activities involving wetlands on non-federal property.
16 Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management
17 This Executive Order directs federal agencies to avoid, to the extent feasible, the long and short-term adverse
18 impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support
19 of floodplain development where there is a practicable alternative.
21 California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.)
22 The CESA provides for recognition and protection of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animal
23 species. The Act requires state agencies to coordinate with the CDFG to ensure that state authorized/funded
24 projects do not jeopardize a listed species. The Act prohibits the taking of a listed species without
25 authorization from the CDFG.
26 California Lake and Streambed Alteration Program (Fish and Game Code Section
27 1600 et seq.)
28 The California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1600-1616, regulates activities that would alter the flow, bed,
29 banks, channel, or associated riparian areas of a river, stream or lake—all considered “waters of the state.”
30 The law requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify CDFG before
31 beginning an activity that will substantially modify a river, stream, or lake. Such alterations must also be
32 evaluated under CEQA and authorized via a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) by regional CDFG staff.
33 A SAA is required when a project involves altering a stream or disturbing riparian vegetation, including any
34 of the following activities:
35 • Substantially obstructing or diverting the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake;

36 • Using any material from these areas; and/or
37 • Disposing of waste where it can move into these areas.

1 A SAA specifies conditions and mitigation measures that must be implemented to minimize impacts to
2 riparian or aquatic resources from the proposed project. Streambed protection measures may be extended by
3 CDFG further into adjacent uplands given the particular circumstances surrounding a project.
4 Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act (C.W.C. Section 13000 et seq.; C.C.R. Title
5 23 Chapter 3, Chapter 15)
6 This Act is the primary state regulation addressing water quality, and waste discharges (including dredged
7 material) on land; and all permitted discharges must be in compliance with the Regional Basin Plan. For the
8 proposed project site, the Act’s requirements are implemented by the Central Coast RWQCB.
9 Executive Order W-59-93 - California Wetlands Conservation Policy
10 In August 1993, the Governor announced the California Wetlands Conservation Policy. The goals of the
11 policy are to establish a framework and strategy that:
12 • Ensures no overall net loss and achieves a long-term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence
13 of wetlands acreage and values in California in a manner that fosters creativity, stewardship, and
14 respect for private property;
15 • Reduces procedural complexity in the administration of state and federal wetlands conservation
16 programs; and
17 • Encourages partnerships to make landowner incentive programs and cooperative planning efforts the
18 primary focus of wetlands conservation and restoration.
19 The Executive Order also directed the California Resources Agency to establish an Interagency Task Force to
20 direct and coordinate administration and implementation of the policy. The California Resources Agency and
21 the departments within the agency generally do not authorize or approve projects that fill or harm any type of
22 wetlands. Exceptions may be granted for projects meeting all the following conditions: the project is water
23 dependent; there is no other feasible alternative; the public trust is not adversely affected; and the project
24 adequately compensates the loss.
26 Ventura County Ordinance FC-18
27 The County of Ventura Watershed Protection District regulates bed and banks and major stormwater
28 overflows adjacent to “redline” channels and wetlands through Encroachment Permits and Watercourse
29 Permits under Ventura County Ordinance FC-18. In addition, planting of vegetation or other work within or
30 adjacent to the channel of a redline stream falls under the regulatory and permitting authority of the Ventura
31 County Watershed protection per FC-18. Wetlands Redline channels for the purposes of regulation by the
32 County of Ventura are defined in Section 3.4.1.2.4.
33 Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance Section 8107-25
34 Ordinance identifies tree species that are protected from damage or removal in unincorporated, non-coastal
35 areas due to their local or state importance. Protected trees include: most large native trees associated with
36 streams and wetlands; and Heritage Trees. A project that involves pruning, trimming, removal or disturbances
37 within the dripline of protected trees require a Tree Permit from the County of Ventura Planning Division.

1 Ventura County General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
2 Goal 1.5.1: Preserve and protect significant biological resources in Ventura County from incompatible land
3 uses and development. Significant biological resources include endangered, threatened or rare species and
4 habitats, wetland habitats, coastal habitats, wildlife migration corridors and locally important
5 species/communities.
6 Policy 1.5.2-4: Discretionary development shall be sited a minimum of 100 feet from significant wetland
7 habitats to mitigate the potential impacts on said habitats. Buffer areas may be increased or decreased upon
8 evaluation and recommendation by a qualified biologist and approval by the decision-making body. Factors to
9 be used in determining adjustment of the 100 foot buffer include soil type, slope stability, drainage patterns,
10 presence or absence of endangered, threatened or rare plants or animals, and compatibility of the proposed
11 development with the wildlife use of the wetland habitat area. The requirement of a buffer (setback) shall not
12 preclude the use of replacement as a mitigation when there is no other feasible alternative to allowing a
13 permitted use, and if the replacement results in no net loss of wetland habitat. Such replacement shall be "in
14 kind" (i.e. same type and acreage), and provide wetland habitat of comparable biological value. On-site
15 replacement shall be preferred wherever possible. The replacement plan shall be developed in consultation
16 with CDFG. (This policy is also addressed in section 3.1.2.7.3, Biological Resources.)
19 Section 15065(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant effect if it has the
20 potential to: degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
21 species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant
22 or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
23 Additionally, the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines and Administrative Supplement to the
24 State CEQA Guidelines, provides general guidelines for evaluating significant impacts. Based on these
25 guidelines a project would generally have a significant impact if the following threshold criteria are reached:
26 BIO-1: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Species. A significant impact to such species would occur if a
27 project would directly or indirectly: reduce species population; reduce species habitat; or restrict
28 reproductive capacity.
29 BIO-2: Wetland Habitat. A significant impact would result from the direct reduction of, or a substantial
30 indirect impact to, a significant Wetland Habitat. All wetlands are potentially significant.
31 BIO-3: Migration Corridors. A significant impact to a migration corridor would result if a project would
32 substantially interfere with the use of said area by fish or wildlife. This could occur through
33 elimination of native vegetation, erection of physical barriers, or intimidation of fish or wildlife via
34 introduction of noise, light, development, or increased human presence.
35 BIO-4: Locally Important Species/Communities. Since this group of species/communities is so diverse,

36 determination of significance must be made on a case-by-case basis. For this document, a
37 significant impact would occur if a project would directly or indirectly cause a substantial
38 reduction in population numbers, habitat area, or reproductive capacity. For locally important
39 communities or habitats a significant impact would result if the project caused a substantial
40 reduction in area or impairment in quality or function.

2 Potential impacts, disturbance to, or loss of a known resource through human activities associated with, or
3 attendant to the project were considered. The assessment included, but was not limited to, impacts from
4 construction and operations, including grading, noise, light, and increased human presence. Additionally, the
5 introduction of foreign substances (e.g., water pollution, blowing refuse, invading plants, and animal
6 encroachment) as a result of the project were considered. Impacts within the expansion area that limit species
7 diversity, nesting, breeding, or foraging areas, geographic distribution, or any other factors which impact
8 biological resources were considered. Significance was determined in light of the biological resource goals
9 and policies of the County, State, and Federal Governments as reflected in the criteria listed above as BIO-1
10 through BIO-4.
11 When development occurs in natural areas, the biological resources of the site and the surrounding area are
12 affected. These effects may take the form of direct impacts, which include habitat loss and fragmentation,
13 introduction of barriers to movement, direct loss of individuals of special-status species, and the elimination
14 of native vegetation and wildlife habitat or its conversion into habitat of lower value such as ornamental
15 landscaping or ruderal areas. Development may also result in indirect impacts that affect the quality of
16 habitats on and surrounding the project site. Indirect impacts may include:
17 • Invasion of weedy or landscape plants into natural areas;

18 • Increase in nuisance species, such as gulls and corvids, and their effects on native vegetation and
19 wildlife;
20 • Introduction of feral predators or other non-native animals;
21 • Light intrusion into natural areas;
22 • Noise disturbances;
23 • Declines in air quality;
24 • Changes in the quality and quantity of water resources in the vicinity of the landfill;
25 • Erosion and sedimentation; and
26 • Intentional or accidental depredations of biological resources by humans.
27 Impacts are assessed by establishing existing conditions and determining the direct and indirect effects of the
28 proposed project on biological resources. Impact assessment is based on the removal or modification of
29 populations and habitat that could be reasonably attributed to the proposed project. Direct project impacts are
30 based on the limits of grading as shown on Figure 2.4-1 and Figure 3.4-1.
32 The proposed project would cover 887.7 acres, including the existing landfill area. Ground disturbing
33 activities would occur on 302.6 acres, of which 252.2 acres consist of native and naturalized vegetation and
34 wildlife habitat (Table 3.4-14). These ground disturbing activities would occur within the limits of grading for
35 the proposed waste disposal area (Figure 3.4-1). The buffer area covers 487.5 acres. The majority of the
36 buffer area would not be affected by earthmoving activities, but would be subject to indirect impacts from
37 landfill operations. However, it is anticipated areas along the eastern portion of the existing waste disposal
38 area could be disturbed by development (e.g., access roads, material and equipment storage yards, recycling
39 facilities and equipment, and drainage structures). Short-term and long-term habitat losses that would be from
40 the proposed project are summarized by plant community/habitat type in Table 3.4-14.

Table 3.4-4. Approximate Acreages of Plant Communities Impacted by Project

Plant Community Area of Disturbance1
Grassland 152.8
Sage Scrub 91.1
Disturbed 41.3
Chamise Chaparral 8.1
Landscaped 9.1
Coast Live Oak Woodland 0.2
Riparian 0
Total Acres 302.6
Source: Psomas (2006a)
Note:
1
The area of disturbance includes the proposed waste disposal area and the grading limits of the waste disposal area.
1 Direct and indirect impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed project are detailed
2 in the following analysis. Section 3.4.2.3.1 discusses impacts to endangered and threatened species and
3 nesting birds. Impacts to wetland habitat are discussed in Section 3.4.2.3.2. Impacts to migration corridors are
4 discussed in Section 3.4.2.3.3. Section 3.4.2.3.4 discusses impacts to locally important species/communities.
5 3.4.2.3.1 Impact BIO-1: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Species and Nesting Birds
6 As discussed in Section 3.4.1.2.3, no federally or state listed endangered, threatened, or rare plant species are
7 known or believed to occur on-site. However, limited potentially suitable habitat may be present on the
8 project site for some listed plant species such as Braunton’s milk vetch, San Fernando Valley spineflower, or
9 Lyon’s pentachaeta. Individuals inhabiting the project site prior to grading could be directly impacted by
10 project construction (due to habitat loss and potential direct mortality, if present) and operation (due to a
11 reduction in habitat quality and the potential for “take”, if present) or indirectly impacts due to dust or
12 invasion of non-native species. Therefore, the project would have potentially significant direct and indirect
13 impacts on these species if they are present within the proposed project site.
14 In addition, no federally or state listed endangered, threatened, or rare wildlife species are known or believed
15 to occur on-site. However, the project site is located within designated critical habitat for the coastal
16 California gnatcatcher and potentially suitable habitat for this species occurs on-site. While this species is not
17 currently known to occur at the project site, the potential exists for this species to occupy the site in the
18 foreseeable future given its recent documented occurrence at localities in the Simi Valley-Moorpark area that
19 are within a few miles of the site as well as the progressive recovery of the coastal sage and chaparral habitats
20 on-site since the 2003 wildfire.
21 Additionally, suitable foraging habitat for the American peregrine falcon is located on-site. However, the
22 project site does not provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. Therefore, project implementation would
23 not result in impacts on nesting habitat for this species and potential impacts on foraging habitat would not be
24 considered significant.
25 Nesting birds protected by federal and state regulation also occur on-site.
26 The balance of this section will address potential impacts on coastal California gnatcatcher and nesting birds.
27 Coastal California Gnatcatcher. The closest recorded observation of the coastal California gnatcatcher to the
28 SVLRC is 2.5 miles away. Focused protocol surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted in
29 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2002 in the SLVRC area to determine if individuals and/or suitable habitat was present
30 (Psomas 2006a). No gnatcatchers were found during surveys. The sage scrub habitat, representing coastal
31 California gnatcatcher habitat, on-site varies from low to high quality. The majority of suitable habitat
32 occurring on steep slopes, which is not preferred breeding habitat. However, patches of suitable breeding
1 habitat are present on-site. Based on the negative results of protocol surveys and the limited availability of
2 suitable habitat for this species within the project site, it is unlikely that this species would be present on-site.
3 INevertheless, it is possible that coastal California gnatcatchers could inhabit the site due to the presence of
4 regenerating coastal sage scrub habitat on-site; the presence of coastal California gnatcatcher in the
5 Moorpark-Simi Valley area; and the length of time since the most recent protocol survey. If present,
6 individuals inhabiting the project site prior to grading could be impacted by project construction (due to
7 habitat loss and potential direct mortality as well as disturbance to nearby birds, if present) and operation (due
8 to a reduction in habitat quality, and the potential for “take” if birds are present). Direct and indirect impacts
9 to coastal California gnatchatcher as a result of construction or operations would result in a potentially
11 Nesting Birds. Bird nests and eggs are protected under the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code.
12 The project site and surrounding areas support trees and shrubs that could serve as potential nesting habitat for
13 resident and/or migratory birds. Breeding birds can be affected by short-term construction-related noise
14 resulting in the disruption of foraging, nesting, and reproductive activities. Construction activities that occur
15 during the breeding season for birds (February through mid-August) and involve vegetation removal (such as
16 site preparation and vegetation management activities) could destroy active nests within the project site. Such
17 activities would result in short-term direct impacts. Additionally, construction-related noise could disturb
18 nearby nesting birds within the project site and in areas adjacent to the property causing them to leave the
19 nest, thereby exposing eggs and nestlings to predators and resulting in nest abandonment. Disruption of
20 nesting and loss of active bird nests as a result of construction or other site preparation activities would be a
21 significant impact to nesting birds.
23 Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Pre-construction botanical surveys shall be conducted by a qualified, USFWS
24 and CDFG-approved biologist for the Braunton’s milk vetch, San Fernando Valley spineflower, Lyon’s
25 pentachaeta, and other listed species during the appropriate flowering period prior to start of vegetation
26 clearing and grading activities within suitable habitat for these species. The applicant shall notify USFWS for
27 species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and CDFG for species listed under the
28 California Endangered Species Act (CESA) within 24 hours of locating any individuals of listed species. In
29 the event of positive survey results, the project applicant will consult with the USFWS for species listed under
30 the ESA to determine whether formal Section 7 consultation is required and CDFG to obtain an incidental
31 take permit for species listed under the CESA. Compensatory mitigation for the loss of any listed plant
32 species shall be at least on a 1:1 ratio as described in BIO-10.Pre-construction botanical surveys shall be
33 conducted by a County-approved qualified, agency-approved biologist for the Braunton’s milk vetch, San
34 Fernando Valley spineflower, Lyon’s pentachaeta, and other listed species during the appropriate flowering
35 period prior to start of grading activities (including, but not limited to: initial construction activities,
36 development of each landfill cell, and other project-related activities) within suitable habitat for these species.
37 The applicant shall notify USFWS within 24 hours of locating any individuals of these species. In the event of
38 positive survey results, the project applicant would consult with the USFWS to determine whether formal
39 Section 7 consultation should be initiated.

1 Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to removal of coastal scrub habitat or habitat designated as critical
2 habitat by the USFWS for coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN), a qualified, USFWS-approved
3 biologist shall conduct protocol surveys for CAGN and provide the results to the County of Ventura,
4 USFWS, and CDFG. The applicant shall notify USFWS at least 7 days prior to initiation of surveys and
5 within 24 hours of locating any CAGN individuals. In the event of positive survey results, the project
6 applicant will consult with the USFWS to determine whether formal Section 7 consultation is required or
7 whether a Section 10 permit must be obtained. In addition, should this species be found on-site, a
8 qualified, USFWS-approved biologist shall do the following:
9 a. Perform additional surveys once a week during project construction during the breeding season of
10 CAGN. These additional surveys may be suspended as approved by the USFWS. The applicant shall
11 notify the USFWS at least 7 days prior to the initiation of surveys, and within 24 hours of locating
12 any CAGN individuals.
13 b. Postpone work if a CAGN nest is found within 500 feet of project construction activities. A qualified,
14 USFWS-approved biologist shall coordinate with USFWS to devise an optimal strategy of
15 postponing work only in areas where continued construction activities may pose an adverse impact to
16 the CAGN, thereby allowing work to continue beyond the appropriate buffer determined for the
17 documented CAGN nests.
18 Removal of designated critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher within the project site shall be
19 compensated through preservation of existing intact suitable habitat or improvement and preservation of
20 disturbed habitat either on- or off-site and approved by USFWS and the County. Compensation shall be at a
21 minimum of a 1:1 ratio for critical habitat lost due to construction of the project. Off-site compensation shall
22 be conducted within the critical habitat Unit 13 (Unit 13: Western Los Angeles and Ventura Counties) as
23 designated by the USFWS. Preservation of critical habitat shall be ensured through recordation of a
24 biological restrictive covenant with the County of Ventura.
25 Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Prior to removal of coastal scrub habitat from construction activities (including
26 initial construction activities, development of each landfill cell, and any other project-related activities), a
27 qualified agency-approved biologist shall conduct protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and the
28 results provided to the County of Ventura, USFWS, and CDFG. Appropriate coordination with and approval
29 of agencies in compliance with the federal and state Endangered Species Act would shall be required prior to
30 ground disturbing activities. The applicant shall notify USFWS at least 7 days prior to initiation of surveys
31 and within 24 hours of locating any gnatcatchers. In the event of positive survey results, the project applicant
32 would shall consult with the USFWS to determine whether formal Section 7 consultation should be initiated.
33 In addition, should this species be found on-site a qualified agency-approved biologist shall do the following:
34 Perform additional surveys once a week during project construction during the breeding season of the costal
35 California gnatcatcher. These additional surveys may be suspended as approved by the USFWS. The
36 applicant shall notify the USFWS at least 7 days prior to the initiation of surveys, and within 24 hours of
37 locating any coastal California gnatcatchers.
38 Postpone work if a gnatcatcher nest is found within 500 feet of project construction activities. A qualified
39 agency-approved biologist shall coordinate with USFWS to devise an optimal strategy of postponing work
40 only in areas where continued construction activities may pose an adverse impact to the coastal California
41 gnatcatcher, thereby allowing work to continue beyond the 500 foot buffer beyond documented gnatcatcher
42 nests.
43 Removal of designated critical habitat for the costal California gnatcatcher within the project site shall be
44 compensated through replacement or improvement of habitat either on- or off-site and approved by USFWS
45 and other appropriate agencies. Compensation shall be at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Off-site compensation

1 shall be conducted within the critical habitat Unit 13 (Unit 13: Western Los Angeles and Ventura Counties) as
2 designated by the USFWS.
3 Removal of vegetation, grading, and/or other land disturbance activities shall be conducted outside the bird
4 breeding and nesting season (February 1 through August 31) in order to avoid destruction of bird nests or
5 eggs. If land disturbance activities cannot be completed outside the February 1 through August 31 breeding
6 season, a breeding and nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with a CDFG Scientific
7 Collecting Permit within 7 days prior to the land disturbance activity. The nesting bird survey shall cover the
8 construction footprint and a buffer of 500 feet from the construction footprint. If active nests are found, land
9 disturbance activities within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors) shall be postponed or halted until the
10 nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as
11 determined by the biologist. If the construction area is larger than the buffered nesting bird area(s), then land
12 disturbance activities can commence outside the restricted area(s). If land disturbance activities are delayed
13 after the survey has been conducted, then an additional nesting bird survey must be conducted such that no
14 more than 7 days have elapsed between the last survey and the commencement of land disturbance activities.
15 Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for development, the applicant shall provide a signed contract with
16 one of the Planning Division’s approved biological consultants that guarantees that a nesting bird survey will
17 be conducted 7 days prior to any land disturbing activities.
18 Removal of vegetation from construction activities (including initial construction activities, development of
19 each landfill cell, and any other project-related activities) shall be conducted outside the breeding season
20 (February 1 through August 15) in order to avoid destruction of bird nests or eggs.
21 If vegetation removal cannot be completed outside the February 1 through August 15 breeding season,
22 vegetation removal in areas where suitable nesting habitat for resident or migratory bird species may occur
23 shall occur only after pre-grading surveys by a qualified agency-approved County-approved biologist show
24 that active nests would not be impacted by the activities. The pre-grading surveys shall be conducted within
25 seven days or as close as practicable to the commencement of any clearing or grading activities and shall
26 focus on breeding behavior and nesting locations in the proposed work area and immediately adjacent to that
27 area. Based on the results of the surveys, recommended buffer areas between construction activities and
28 observed nesting habitat shall be provided to the County and to the project engineer if the work needs to occur
29 near those locations while nesting is occurring (February 1 through August 15).
31 Impacts on listed plant species, if present, would be less than significant with the implementation of
32 Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
33 Impacts on the coastal California gnatcatcher would be less than significant with the implementation of
34 Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
35 Impacts on nesting birds would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure-BIO-
36 3.
37 3.4.2.3.2 Impact BIO-2: Wetland Habitat
38 The proposed project would result in the removal of about 2,125 square feet (0.05 acre) of marsh vegetation
39 associated with two seeps in the southern part of the expansion area. These seeps are within the grading
40 footprint and the proposed landfill expansion area. Removal of these features would be a direct, permanent
41 loss of wetland habitat. As discussed in Section 3.4.1.2.4, both seeps are considered to be wetlands as defined
42 by the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines. and they meet the state definition of wetlands.
1 According to the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines, a significant impact would result from
2 a direct reduction or substantial indirect impact to a significant wetland habitat. Both seeps are considered a
3 County significant wetland habitat, pending CDFG verification. ; thereforeTherefore, the permanent loss of
4 these two seeps and associated wetland habitat would be considered a significant impact to County wetlands.
5 Portions of Alamos Canyon and Brea Canyon, designated as redline steams by the Ventura County
6 Watershed Protection District are located adjacent to but outside of the proposed CUP boundary. In addition,
7 a,pproximately 5.91acres of wetlands associated with Brea Canyon are located in the proposed Buffer Area
8 but outside the grading limits of the proposed waste disposal area. The portions of Alamos and Brea canyons
9 outside but adjacent to the project site would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. In addition,
10 the proposed project would not directly impact wetland habitat along Brea Canyon Alamos and Brea
11 canyonsAlamos and Brea canyons. However, areas of Alamos and Brea canyons adjacent to and downstream
12 of the project site could be indirectly impacted by sedimentation associated with erosion within the proposed
13 expansion area during construction and operations. Sediment originating on exposed surfaces adjacent to
14 active landfill areas could wash off-site and flow into Alamos Canyon or Brea Canyon. However, intermittent
15 streams are subject to erosion and sedimentation from natural processes, and the proposed project is likely to
16 contribute only minor additional amounts of sediment. Moreover, during construction the proposed project
17 would be required to obtain a General Construction NPDES Permit from the SWRCB and LARWQCB,
18 which requires preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP requires installation of erosion control measures and
19 non-point source pollution prevention measures. During operations, the Standard Industrial Classification of
20 the SVLRC mandates that the facility continue to maintain an Industrial Activities Storm Water General
21 NPDES Permit (SWRCB Water Quality Order No. 99-08-DWQ NPDES General Permit No. CAS000001).
22 Prior to landfill expansion, the applicant must provide proof of coverage under this permit by submitting
23 copies of the NOI and the required SWPPP to the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, for review.
24 Additional discussion of project impacts to surface water are discussed in Section 3.3, Water Resources.
25 Because both construction and operation of the project will require a SWPPP, the implementation of the
26 SWPPPs would minimize the potential for excessive amounts of sedimentation during construction and
27 operations, and measures would be built into the project to control stormwaters and sediment movement
28 during operations, there would not be a substantial indirect impact on wetlands in these drainages. Further
29 discussion of surface water quality impacts due to stormwater is provided in Section 3.3, Water Resources.
30 Therefore, the indirect impact on off-site wetlands due to sedimentation from landfill construction and
31 operation is expected to be less than significant.
33 Mitigation Measure s-BIO-4: The project applicant shall prepare and implement a Wetlands Mitigation
34 Plan acceptable to the County of Ventura prior to initiation of vegetation clearing and grading activity within
35 100 feet of the known seeps. Appropriate mitigation includes enhancing, expanding, or restoring existing
36 wetlands, or creating/establishment of new wetlands in the proposed project vicinity. The Wetlands
37 Mitigation Plan shall include the following components at a minimum:
38 1. A minimum mitigation ratio of 3:1 for acres of wetlands lost versus acres mitigated as a result of the
39 Plan.
40 2. Location(s) of mitigation on suitable portions of the project site or other property that can be
41 protected in perpetuity from future development.
42 3. Timing which shall be initiated prior to acceptance of waste within the proposed expansion area.
43 4. Detailed information on the vegetation, quality, soils, and hydrology of the mitigation site prior to
44 implementation
45 5. The mitigation shall have a goal of no net loss of wetlands.
1 6. Methods for restoration, creation, or enhancement (as applicable).

2 7. Baseline information (i.e., a description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed mitigation
3 site) shall be obtained as a basis for measuring mitigation performance. Baseline information may
4 include: descriptions of historic and existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil
5 conditions, a map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic
6 coordinates for those site(s), and other characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as
7 compensation.
8 8. Monitoring, maintenance, and reporting for a minimum monitoring period, which shall not be less
9 than 5 years.
10 9. Performance criteria that are based on replacement of the characteristics and functions of the
11 wetlands being impacted must be approved by the County and any other appropriate regulatory
12 agency. Performance criteria shall at a minimum include the following parameters: percent vegetative
13 cover, plant diversity, percent non-native plant species, target functions and values, and target
14 hydrological regime.
15 10. The Plan shall include an adaptive management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site
16 conditions or other components of the mitigation project, including the party or parties responsible
17 for implementing adaptive management measures.
18 Procedures to ensure protection of the mitigation sites in perpetuity, either through the recordation of a
19 conservation easement, a biological restrictive covenant, or other agreement approved by the County and
20 other relevant regulatory agencies.
21 The project applicant shall prepare and implement a wetlands mitigation plan acceptable to the County of
22 Ventura prior to initiation of grading activity in the vicinity of the known seeps. Appropriate mitigation would
23 include enhancing, expanding, or restoring existing wetlands, creating/establishment of new wetlands, or
24 permanently protecting wetlands in the proposed project vicinity. The wetlands mitigation plan shall include
25 the following components at a minimum:
26 A minimum mitigation ratio of 3:1 for acres of wetlands lost versus acres mitigated as a result of the Plan.
27 Location(s) of mitigation on suitable portions of the project site or other property that can be protected in
28 perpetuity from future development.
29 Timing which shall be initiated prior to acceptance of waste within proposed expansion area.
30 Detailed information on the vegetation, quality, soils, and hydrology of the mitigation site prior to
31 implementation
32 The mitigation shall have a goal of no net loss of wetlands. Additional goals may include specific functions
33 and values of habitat types to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved.
34 Methods for restoration, creation, or enhancement (as applicable).
35 Baseline information (i.e., a description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed mitigation project
36 site), if applicable, shall be obtained as a basis for measuring mitigation performance. Baseline information
37 may include: descriptions of historic and existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil
38 conditions, a map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic coordinates for
39 those site(s), and other characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as compensation.

1 Monitoring, maintenance, and reporting for a minimum monitoring period, which shall not be less than 5
2 years, if applicable.
3 Performance criteria, if applicable, must be approved by the County and any other appropriate regulatory
4 agency. Performance criteria shall at a minimum include the following parameters: percent cover, plant
5 diversity, percent non-native plant species, target functions and values, and target hydrological regime.
6 The plan shall include an adaptive management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site conditions or
7 other components of the mitigation project, including the party or parties responsible for implementing
8 adaptive management measures.
9 Procedures to ensure protection of the mitigation sites in perpetuity, either through the recordation of a
10 conservation easement, a deed restriction, recordation of a development’s covenants, codes, and restrictions,
11 or other agreements approved by the County and other relevant regulatory agencies.
13 Impacts on wetlands would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4.
14 3.4.2.3.3 Impact BIO-3: Migration Corridors
15 The proposed expansion of the SVLRC would approximately double the size of the existing landfill, with
16 expansion mostly to the northwest. The expansion area would largely eliminate a small valley extending from
17 Alamos Canyon eastward toward Brea Canyon, which provides a logical corridor that most likely facilitates
18 animal movement between the canyons. Temporary and permanently impacted areas would border Alamos
19 Canyon, which is located to the west of the proposed waste disposal area; waste management activities would
20 occur within about 1,000 feet of Alamos Canyon. Alamos Canyon is a major north-south local and regional
21 corridor, providing access under SR-118 to numerous species of wildlife. Wildlife corridors are essential for
22 various species foraging needs and for the continuing genetic exchange between dispersed populations.
23 Alamos Canyon Road (Figure 3.4-3), which crosses under SR-118, is used by many wildlife species,
24 including large predators and their prey including mountain lion and mule deer, smaller predators such as
25 coyote and bobcat, and smaller mammals and birds. Ventura County recognizes the importance of wildlife
26 corridors. The Ventura County General Plan (Goal 1.5.1) specifically calls for the preservation and
27 protection of wildlife movement corridors.:
28 Preserve and protect significant biological resources in Ventura County from incompatible land
29 uses and development. Significant biological resources include endangered, threatened or rare
30 species and habitats, wetland habitats, coastal habitats, wildlife migration corridors and locally
31 important species/communities. (Emphasis as in the original.)
32 By impeding access from Brea to Alamos canyons, expansion of the landfill during both construction and
33 operations phases would cause may divert wildlife moving in Brea Canyon to move across busy highways as
34 opposed to utilizing the undercrossings at Alamos Canyon. Additionally, the close proximity of the proposed
35 expansion area to Alamos Canyon would also impact wildlife use of Alamos Canyon. Although most
36 mammalian migration occurs during the evening, nighttime, and early morning hours, there would be some
37 overlap with landfill operations (6 AM to 8 PM for most operations) during which increased noise from waste
38 disposal equipment and nighttime lighting would affect wildlife foraging and migration in the canyon.
39 During operation of the landfill, grading, waste disposal, and related activities would cause indirect impacts
40 on adjacent vegetation and wildlife habitat potentially affecting wildlife movement in the regionally important
41 Brea and Alamos Canyon corridors. These include impacts of noise, lighting, dust, and wind-blown waste.

1 • Noise levels above 75 dB(A) (, A-weighted sound level in decibels), are known to be capable of
2 producing adverse physiological effects in wildlife (Fletcher 1971). Noise from grading and waste
3 disposal equipment may exceed 75 dB(A) within undisturbed habitat, potentially adversely affecting
4 wildlife foraging or breeding in this area. However, the area of habitat affected by noise would be
5 localized to the vicinity of activities. Noise from bird hazing devices would also carries carry into the
6 adjacent habitat.
7 • Lighting associated with nighttime activities may affect foraging and breeding activity of nocturnal
8 mammals and increase predation rates by exposing prey. The effects of night lighting on nocturnal
9 mammals would be considered a potentially significant impact.
10 • Dust may reduce growth and reproduction of vegetation and adversely affect prey of small
11 vertebrates (e.g., insects). The area of habitat affected by dust would generally be localized to the
12 vicinity of the active phases of the landfill.
13 • Wind-blown refuse and debris from the landfill could degrade adjacent habitat areas potentially
14 affecting wildlife (e.g., by entrapment) as well as vegetation.
15 • Nuisance species such as crows and ravens (corvids) and gulls attracted to the landfill by refuse can
16 potentially affect common bird species by displacing them or through predation. Invasive rats and
17 mice can impact native plant communities and displace native rodents. Waste Management employs
18 a falconer to periodically scatter gulls and corvids that come to scavenge at the landfill. Additionally
19 a loud, high-pitched noisemaker supplements the work of the falconer. Corvids and gulls do not
20 congregate on-site. Waste management has foregone pesticide use on invasive rodents and instead
21 has installed owl boxes. Owls (mostly barn owls) use the boxes and prey on invasive rodents,
22 minimizing their numbers (personal communication Tignac and Riley 2008).
23 Although these impacts may be individually small and some are subject to existing procedures and regulations
24 to minimize them, taken together they have the potential for a significant impact on the use of movement
25 corridors and important habitat in Alamos and Brea canyons adjacent to the project site.
27 Mitigation Measure BIO-5: The permittee shall implement vector control methods to deter refuse
28 scavenging species such as gulls and crows from the waste disposal area. In the vicinity of Alamos Canyon,
29 vector control methods (such as noisemakers and propane cannons, distress call, and use of falcons and dogs)
30 that could result in the avoidance of wildlife use of Alamos Canyon as a corridor shall be avoided.The
31 permittee shall implement vector control methods to deter refuse scavenging species such as gulls and crows
32 from the waste disposal area. In the vicinity of Alamos Canyon, vector control methods (such as noisemakers
33 and propane cannons, distress call, and use of falcons and dogs) that could result in the avoidance of the use
34 of Alamos Canyon as a wildlife corridor, shall be avoided.
35 Mitigation Measure BIO-6: To ensure the continued availability of the Alamos Canyon Wildlife Corridor
36 for the benefit of native plants and wildlife, the permittee shall obtain, dedicate, enhance, and manage habitat
37 in and adjacent to the Alamos Canyon wildlife corridor (including the riparian zone and adjacent upland
38 habitats) from the SR-118 freeway place extending northward at least to the latitude of the northernmost
39 portion of buffer area associated with the proposed landfill expansion. Dedication shall be in perpetuity
40 through a legal instrument such as a conservation easement. Enhancement shall be as described in Mitigation
41 Measure BIO-7.
42 Mitigation Measure BIO-7: As part of a Habitat Restoration and Management Plan, the permittee shall
43 design and implement a plan acceptable to the County of Ventura for habitat enhancements along the channel
44 in Alamos Canyon in order to improve overstory cover for migrating animals and to increase potential habitat
45 for species that rely on riparian corridors. The plan must provide for planting and maintenance of sycamore
1 and coast live oak trees in and adjacent to Alamos Canyon in areas void of trees. By focusing especially on
2 areas of the canyon near the landfill and areas having direct line of sight to the landfill, the plan will create a
3 pattern of more continuous tree cover. A minimum of 30 sycamores and 30 coast live oaks shall be
4 established within the area identified above (see also Figure 3.4-3). In addition, planting of vegetation or other
5 work within or adjacent to the channel above falls under the regulatory and permitting authority of the
6 Ventura County Watershed Protection District per Ordinance FC-18 as amended. As such, habitat
7 enhancement plans for Alamos Canyon shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed Protection District.
8 The permittee shall design and implement a plan acceptable to the County of Ventura for habitat
9 enhancements along the channel in Alamos Canyon in order to improve overstory cover for migrating animals
10 and to increase potential habitat for species that rely on riparian corridors. The plan must provide for planting
11 and maintenance of sycamore and coast live oak trees in and adjacent to Alamos Canyon in areas void of
12 trees. By focusing especially on areas of the canyon near the landfill and areas having direct line of sight to
13 the landfill, the plan will create a pattern of more continuous tree cover. A minimum of 30 sycamores and 30
14 coast live oaks shall be established within the area identified above (see also Figure 3.4-3). Specifications for
15 these habitat enhancements shall be included in the Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan identified in
16 Mitigation Measure BIO-13. In addition, planting of vegetation or other work within or adjacent to the
17 channel above falls under the regulatory and permitting authority of the Ventura County Watershed Protection
18 District per Ordinance FC-18 as amended and the CDFG per Fish and Game Code Section 1602. As such,
19 habitat enhancement plans for Alamos Canyon shall be reviewed and commented on by the Watershed
20 Protection District and the CDFG, as. appropriate.
22 design a plan for and implement at least 2 of the following improvements or enhancements to the Alamos
23 Canyon crossings (i.e., Alamos Canyon East and West culverts and Alamos Canyon Road undercrossing) as
24 shown on Figure 3.4-3:
25 Alamos Canyon West Corridor:
26 • Enhance and maintain riparian vegetation near culverts.

27 Alamos Canyon Road Undercrossing:
28 • Increase the vegetative cover along Alamos Canyon Road.
29 • Replace the paved road with a decomposed granite surface if it is still used for maintenance,
30 otherwise remove the road surface and base entirely and replace it with native vegetation.
31 • Remove the barbed wire fencing along the road.
32 Alamos Canyon East Corridor:

33 • Increase vegetation cover along the drainage.
34 Measures Applicable to the three Alamos Canyon Corridors:

35 • Installation of fencing by the project applicant to funnel wildlife into the Alamos Canyon
36 undercrossings,
37 The permittee shall coordinate with Caltrans to ensure that the improvements selected will not conflict with
38 any planned Caltrans projects. Prior to initiation of project construction activities, the permittee shall provide
39 the plan for these improvements to the County and Caltrans for approval.
40 Planting of vegetation or other work within or adjacent to Los Alamos Canyon channel falls under the
41 regulatory and permitting authority of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District per Ordinance FC-18

1 as amended. As such, habitat enhancement plans for Alamos Canyon shall be reviewed and approved by the
2 Watershed Protection District prior to implementation.
3 The permittee shall construct improvements or enhancements to the Alamos Canyon crossings (i.e., Alamos
4 Canyon East and West culverts and Alamos Canyon Road undercrossing ) as shown on Figure 3.4-3) in order
5 to enhance the ability of wildlife in the project vicinity, including Alamos and Brea canyons, to move under
6 SR-118 thereby helping to maintain wildlife diversity in Ventura County. Mitigation proposed below was
7 originally described by LSA Associates (2004) and adopted by the Ventura State Route 118 Wildlife Corridor
8 Multi-Agency Working Group (2006). These measures were supported and supplemented by Penrod et al.
9 (2006). The permittee shall work with the County of Ventura, Caltrans, and technical advisors selected by the
10 County to identify and implement the most effective and feasible measures to increase connectivity across
11 SR-118 along Alamos Canyon, with final approval of measures from the County prior to commencing project
12 construction. These may be a combination of measures from the following list of previously identified
13 measures from studies referenced above. Because it is not known which of these measures would be
14 technically feasible, the standard for success of this measure will be implementation and maintenance of three
15 or more of the actions identified below, which have been previously identified by experts as actions that
16 would facilitate wildlife crossing under SR-118, plus the two measures identified below that are applicable to
17 all three crossings. Planting of vegetation or other work within or adjacent to Los Alamos Canyon channel
18 falls under the regulatory and permitting authority of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District per
19 Ordinance FC-18 as amended. As such, habitat enhancement plans for Alamos Canyon shall be reviewed and
20 commented on by the Watershed Protection District.
21 Alamos Canyon West Corridor:
22 The following enhancements would decrease the angle of approach, thereby improving access and line-of-
23 sight for wildlife.
24 Enhance and maintain riparian vegetation near culverts.
25 Enlarge the existing twin culverts into a single undercrossing under SR-118 by re-grading the existing steep
26 approach and lowering the entrance on the north side of the culvert; or, by creating a raised 5-foot wide
27 inside “catwalk” running the length of both culverts.
28 Alamos Canyon Road Undercrossing:
29 The following changes would enhance the utility of the undercrossing.
30 Increase the vegetative cover along Alamos Canyon Road.
31 Replace the paved road with a decomposed granite surface if it is still used for maintenance, otherwise
32 remove the road surface and base entirely and replace it with native vegetation.
33 Remove the barbed wire fencing along the road.
34 Enlarge undercrossings at the railroad crossing south of SR-118 and at Los Angeles Avenue.
35 Alamos Canyon East Corridor:
36 The following enhancements would increase the utility of the undercrossing.
37 Increase vegetation cover along the drainage.

1 Enlarge the culvert by means of “tunnel jacking”.
2 Measures Applicable to the three Alamos Canyon Corridors:
3 The following measures apply to the three Alamos Canyon corridors/undercrossings identified above and in
4 Figure 3.4-3:
5 Installation of fencing by the project applicant to funnel wildlife into the Alamos Canyon undercrossings,
6 Reporting to the proper authorities (including police or the California Department of Transportation
7 [Caltrans]) any unauthorized human activities or trespassing (including homeless encampments) in the
8 vicinity of Alamos Canyon observed during routine patrols would increase the utility of the undercrossings.
9 Additionally, collaboration should be done with local groups to secure conservation easements on properties
10 between the SLVRC and the Simi Hills to provide a continuous habitat corridor between the Santa Susana
11 Mountains, Oak Ridge, Big Mountain, and the Simi Hills.
12 Mitigation Measure BIO-9. The conditions applicable to minimizing off-site noise and vibration, nighttime
13 lighting, control of wind-blown refuse, and control of nuisance species of birds (crows, ravens, gulls) and
14 mammals (non-native rodents) in CUP-3142-7 shall be applied to the expansion project including:
15 • Night lighting for the proposed project shall be in accordance with CUP-3142-7 Condition 34
16 limiting hours of operation to 6 AM to 8 PM and CUP-3142-7 Condition 105 requiring shielding to
17 ensure that when night lighting is used, natural areas are not lighted. These measures shall be updated
18 as necessary and applied to the proposed project.
19 • A revised dust suppression plan shall be implemented as required under CUP-3142-7 Condition 44.
20 • Litter shall be controlled through the use of portable wind fences to confine waste to the area of the
21 working face and to ensure that adjacent habitats are maintained free of litter. Existing litter control
22 measures (CUP-3142-7 Condition 45) shall be applied to the proposed project.
23 The conditions applicable to minimizing off-site noise and vibration, nighttime lighting, control of wind-
24 blown refuse, and control of nuisance species of birds (crows, ravens, gulls) and mammals (non-native
25 rodents) in CUP-3142-7 shall be applied to the expansion project including:
26 Night lighting for the proposed project shall in accordance with CUP-3142-7 Condition 34 limiting hours of
27 operation to 6 am to 8 pm and CUP-3142-7 Condition 105 requiring shielding to ensure that when night
28 lighting is used, natural areas are not lighted. These measures shall be updated as necessary and applied to the
29 proposed project.
30 A revised dust suppression plan shall be implemented as required under CUP-3142-7 Condition 44.
31 Litter shall be controlled through the use of portable wind fences to confine waste to the area of the working
32 face and to ensure that adjacent habitats are maintained free of litter. Existing litter control measures (CUP-
33 3142-7 Condition 45) shall be applied to the proposed projeSignificance of Impact After Mitigation
34 Impacts on migration corridors would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures
35 Mitigation Measures BIO-5 through BIO-9.

1 3.4.2.3.4 Impact BIO-4: Locally Important Plant and Wildlife Species and Communities
2 Locally Important Plant Species
3 Based on biological surveys of the project site conducted in 2005 (Psomas) and in 2008 (SAIC),three locally
4 important and sensitive plant species (Plummer’s mariposa lily, Catalina mariposa lily, and southwestern
5 spiny rush) are known or expected to occur within the proposed project area. In addition, six locally important
6 and sensitive plant species (round-leaved filaree, southern tarplant, dune larkspur, many-stemmed dudleya,
7 Palmer’s grapplinghook, and rayless ragwort) have the potential to occur on-site based on the presence of
8 apparently suitable habitat. Impacts to these locally important plant species are evaluated in this section.
9 Plummer’s mariposa lily. Plummer’s mariposa lily was identified in 2005 during focused botanical surveys
10 and nearly 550 individuals were observed within the grading limits of the proposed landfill expansion area
11 (data calculated from Figure 5 in Psomas 2006a). The majority of these plants were at or near the proposed
12 grading limits in the northwestern part of the project area. Seven occurrences with 32 individuals were
13 observed within the proposed waste disposal area. Approximately 13 occurrences with 520 additional
14 individuals were located outside the proposed waste disposal area but within or immediately adjacent to the
15 proposed grading limits (Figure 3.4-4). These individuals and their habitat would be removed during the
16 construction of the proposed project. Approximately 12 occurrences containing about 360 plants were
17 observed within the proposed CUP boundary, but in the buffer zone outside of the proposed grading limits.
18 Individuals and their habitat within the proposed waste disposal area would be removed and their habitat lost.
19 Individuals within the grading limits, but outside the proposed waste disposal area, would be removed by
20 grading; however, there would be some potential to restore the habitat after grading in these areas. Individuals
21 within the buffer area would not be directly affected by the project but there would be some potential indirect
22 effects on the species and their habitat resulting from dust and wind-blown refuse as well as management
23 activities, including trash pickup, within the buffer area. The removal of the plants and their habitat represent
24 significant long-term direct impacts because they represent substantial reductions in this locally important
25 species and its habitat.
26 Catalina mariposa lily. Catalina mariposa lily was identified in 2005 during focused botanical surveys and
27 approximately 34 occurrences with 3,900 individuals were observed within the project site (data calculated
28 from Figure 5 in Psomas 2006a). Approximately 23 of these occurrences with 3,600 individuals were found
29 within the propped CUP boundary, of which 300 plants are located within the grading limits of the proposed
30 waste disposal area and 100 plants are located within the buffer area. Therefore, the majority of these
31 individuals and their habitat would be permanently removed during the construction of the proposed project.
32 Additional plants and their habitat would be temporarily or permanently disturbed during grading, and few
33 would remain undisturbed. Direct and indirect impacts of construction and operation would be as described
34 above for Plummer’s mariposa lily. The removal of the plants and their habitat represent significant long-term
35 direct impacts because they represent substantial reductions in this locally important species and its habitat.
36 Southwestern spiny rush. Southwestern spiny rush was observed along the flatter streambed portions of Brea
37 Creek as described previously in Section 3.4.1.7. These individuals are located at the eastern edge of the
38 buffer and well outside of the grading limits of the proposed waste disposal area. Therefore, this species
39 would not be directly or indirectly impacted by construction of the proposed project. Additionally, the
40 distance between Brea Canyon and grading limits of the waste disposal area and intervening terrain would
41 minimize potential indirect operational effects from wind borne refuse and dust and non-native invasive
42 plants originating on the landfill to degrade the stream corridors where this species occurs. Therefore, there
43 would be no direct or indirect impacts from construction on this species and the indirect impacts of operations
45 Other Locally Important Plants. The round-leaved filaree, southern tarplant, dune larkspur, many-stemmed
46 dudleya, Palmer’s grapplinghook, and rayless ragwort have the potential to occur on-site based on the
1 presence of apparently suitable habitat. If present within the project site, these species could be impacted by
2 project construction and operation as described above for Plummer’s mariposa lily, Catalina mariposa lily,
3 and Southernwestern spiny rush, potentially resulting in a significant impact.
4 Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in a substantial direct reduction in population
5 and direct long-term loss and degradation of habitat of Plummer’s mariposa lily and Catalina mariposa lily,
6 which is considered to be a significant impact. The indirect impacts of project operation on southwestern
7 spiny rush would represent an adverse, but less than significant impact. In addition, the proposed project
8 could result in significant impacts to other locally important plant species, if present within the project site.
10 As discussed in Section 3.4.1.7.1 and listed in Table 3.4-3, lOther locally important wildlife species that
11 could be affected by the project include: amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and songbirds that are resident or
12 regularly use the site;, locally important raptor species that forage on the site;, and species associated with
13 riparian areas that border the site; and burrowing owls associated with grasslands and scrublands with low
14 growing vegetation within the project site. as discussed in Section 3.4.1.7.1 and listed in Table 3.4-3.
15 Locally important wildlife species known to be residents of, or regular visitors to, the SVLRC site and
16 vicinity that could be impacted by the proposed project, include spadefoot toad, coast horned lizard,
17 loggerhead shrike, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, San Diego desert woodrat, American badger, California
18 horned lark, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, and Bell’s sage sparrow. Locally important raptor
19 species known to forage on the project site include white-tailed kite, northern harrier, golden eagle, and
20 Cooper’s hawk. These species would experience a substantial loss of foraging and breeding habitat—252.2
21 acres of native and naturalized vegetation and habitat would be lost as a result of landfill development, of
22 which 198.9 acres would be permanently lost. Populations of species having smaller home ranges would be
23 reduced as a result of the habitat loss.
24 Individuals of some species would diecould be permanently impacted (i.e., injured or killed) as a direct result
25 of construction or operations or as an indirect result of being displaced from their home range by activities
26 associated with construction or operations. During construction, individuals of most locally important species
27 mentioned above are expected to move away from construction activity to nearby areas of similar habitat,
28 provided it is available at the onset of grading activities. Non-resident species would be expected to avoid the
29 site during construction. Wildlife that disperse from the site are vulnerable to mortality by predation and
30 unsuccessful competition for food and territory in receiving sites. Individuals of species having low mobility
31 (particularly burrowing mammals, amphibians, and reptiles) would be eliminated during construction.
32 Impacts to these locally important species would be significant due to the substantial reduction in habitat area
33 for the affected locally important species coupled with anticipated reductions of numbers associated with
34 direct and indirect project impacts including displacement of species populations.
35 Locally Important Communities
36 Sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, grassland, and riparian habitats on or adjacent to the site are considered
37 to meet Ventura County criteria for locally important plant and wildlife communities because they provide
38 quality remaining examples of plant and animal communities characteristic of Ventura County. The spatial
39 relationship of these communities within the project site and surrounding areas adds to their significance in
40 representing a characteristic Ventura County landscape and creating multiple habitat edges or ecotones that
41 promote wildlife diversity.
42 Direct losses of over 252.1 acres of these habitats, including sage scrub (91.1 acres), chamise chaparral (8.1
43 acres), grassland (152.7 acres), and coast live oak woodland (0.2 acre) as a result of landfill expansion
1 represent a substantial reduction in these locally important communities, which is a significant long-term,
2 direct impact.
3 Coast live oak woodland is present in the vicinity of the proposed limits of grading near the western edge of
4 the proposed expansion area. The proposed limits of grading overlap with 0.2 acre of mapped coast live oak
5 woodland, containing understory species normally associated with coast live oak woodland. However, no
6 individual oak trees would be impacts by proposed project activities. Thus, impacts to coast live oak
7 woodlands would be less than significant.
8 Indirect impacts to locally important communities as a result of the proposed project include the degradation
9 of habitat quality in adjacent areas due to noise, lighting, dust, windblown debris as well as introduction and
10 spread of invasive non-native species such as tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), Russian-thistle (Salsola
11 tragus), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) in the vicinity of the
12 landfill.
15 develop and implement a Sensitive Plant Species Restoration Plan acceptable to the Ventura County Planning
16 Division for Plummer’s and Catalina mariposa lily, and any federal or state listed plant species found during
17 pre-construction surveys prior to onset of grading in the expansion area. The goal of the Plan shall be the
18 replacement of these sensitive and/or listed plants on a 1:1 ratio. The Plan shall include:
19 • An up to date review of research on the reproductive success of each species and the success of
20 previous attempts at salvage and transplanting;
21 • Methodology and timing for salvaging seed and plants (corms) from areas to be impacted and
22 procedures for transplanting and/or propagation;
23 • Identification of suitable (approved) locations for transplants and the means to protect the locations
24 from future development;
25 • Maintenance, monitoring, and replacement program to document the success of the transplantation;
26 and,
27 • The number of individuals to be transplanted/propagated in order to meet the goal of the 1:1
28 replacement ratio.
29 The project proponent shall develop and implement a Sensitive Plant Species Restoration Plan for Plummer’s
30 and Catalina mariposa lily acceptable to Ventura County Planning Division prior to onset of grading in the
31 expansion area. The plan shall include:
32 An up to date review of research on the reproductive success of each species and the success of previous
33 attempts at salvage and transplanting;
34 Methodology and timing for salvaging seed and plants (corms) from areas to be impacted and procedures for
35 transplanting and/or propagation;
36 Identification of suitable (approved) locations for transplants and the means to protect the locations from
37 future development;
38 Maintenance, monitoring, and replacement program to document the success of the transplantation and
39 restoration of Plummer’s mariposa lily and Catalina mariposa lily; and,

1 The number of individuals lost as a result of the proposed project shall be restored in-kind on-site with a 1:1
2 ratMitigation Measure BIO-11: Pre-construction spring botanical surveys shall be conducted by a qualified,
3 County-approved biologist for listed and locally important plant species with the potential to occur within the
4 project site prior to the start of vegetation clearing and grading. To the extent feasible, grading limits shall be
5 adjusted to exclude documented occurrences of listed and locally important plant species, including
6 Plummer’s mariposa lily and Catalina mariposa lily. Because of the concentration of occurrences of
7 Plummer’s mariposa lily along the northwestern grading limits of the property (Figure 3.4-4), relatively slight
8 adjustments in the grading limit could enable large numbers of individuals (up to 520 individuals in 13
9 occurrences) of this species to be avoided. The occurrences of Plummer’s and Catalina mariposa lily and any
10 other listed or locally important plant species located within the buffer zone shall be protected by
11 identification of the area on a map and by placing construction fencing along the limits of grading where
12 appropriate to prevent inadvertent loss or damage as a result of construction or other project-related or
13 property management activities. During years of unfavorable conditions for mariposa lilies, the distributional
14 data from 2005 shall be used to adjust grading limits, because the numbers and local distribution of mariposa
15 lilies may vary considerably from year to year in response to environmental conditions, and conditions in
16 2005 were relatively favorable for identifying the distribution of the mariposa lilies.
17 Pre-construction spring botanical surveys shall be conducted by a County-approvedqualified agency-approved

18 biologist for the Plummer’s mariposa lily, Catalina mariposa lily, and other locally important plant species
19 with the potential to occur within the project site prior to start of grading activities including, but not limited
20 to: initial construction activities, development of each landfill cell, and other project-related activities. To the
21 extent feasible, grading limits shall be adjusted to exclude documented occurrences of Plummer’s mariposa
22 and Catalina mariposa. Because of the concentration of occurrences of Plummer’s mariposa along the
23 northwestern grading limits of the property (Figure 3.4-4), relatively slight adjustments in the grading limit
24 could enable large numbers of individuals (up to 520 individuals in 13 occurrences) of this species to be
25 avoided. The occurrences of Plummer’s and Catalina mariposa lily located within the buffer zone shall be
26 protected by identification of the area on a map and by placing construction fencing along the limits of
27 grading where appropriate to prevent inadvertent loss or damage as a result of construction or other project-
28 related or property management activities. During years of unfavorable conditions for mariposa lilies, the
29 distributional data from 2005 shall be used to adjust grading limits, because the numbers and local distribution
30 of mariposa lilies may vary considerably from year to year in response to environmental conditions and
31 conditions in 2005 would have been relatively favorable for identifying the distribution of the mariposa lilies.
32 Mitigation Measure BIO-12: A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified, County-approved

33 biologist for locally important wildlife species no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of vegetation removal
34 and grading. Prior to vegetation removal, the biologist shall ensure that potential natal badger dens are
35 avoided and that less mobile species, such as coast horned lizard, will be relocated to suitable habitat outside
36 of the construction area. A qualified, County-approved biologist shall be on-site to monitor vegetation
37 removal and topsoil salvaging and stockpiling to minimize injury or mortality to locally important wildlife
38 species.
39 CDFG shall be contacted immediately if burrowing owls or burrowing owl sign are observed. No
40 disturbance shall occur within 50 meters (approx. 160 feet) of occupied burrows during the non-breeding
41 season of September 1 through January 31. No disturbance shall occur within 75 meters (approx. 250 feet) of
42 occupied burrows during the nesting season, February 1 through August 31, unless CDFG verifies that the
43 birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from those burrows are foraging
44 independently and capable of independent survival at an earlier date.
45 When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, the owls shall be passively relocated to alternate
46 burrows, only during the non-breeding season. Occupied burrows during the breeding season shall be
47 avoided. Passive relocation will involve enhancing existing unoccupied burrows or creating artificial
48 burrows in a ratio of 1:1 in adjacent, protected, suitable habitat that is contiguous with the foraging habitat of
1 the affected owls and at least 50 meters from the impacted area. The relocated owls shall be monitored for 90
2 days following relocation, and a report on the status of the relocated owls shall be submitted to the County
3 and CDFG. If the monitoring results show the relocation effort to be unsuccessful, the County and CDFG
4 will require contingency measures, which may include preservation of existing off-site burrowing owl habitat,
5 in accordance with the off-site mitigation recommendations of the California Burrowing Owl Consortium.
6 A pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a County-approvedqualified agency-approved biologist for

7 locally important wildlife species no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of grading including, but not
8 limited to: initial construction activities, development of each landfill cell, and any other project-related
9 activities in vegetated areas. Prior to vegetation removal, the biologist shall ensure that potential natal badger
10 dens are avoided and that less mobile species, such as coast horned lizard, will be relocated to suitable habitat
11 outside of the construction area. A qualified agency-approved biologist shall be on-site to monitor vegetation
12 removal and topsoil salvaging and stockpiling to minimize injury or mortality to locally important wildlife
13 species.
14 Mitigation Measure BIO-13: As part of a Habitat Restoration and Management Plan, the applicant shall
15 develop a plan to revegetate all lands temporarily disturbed by grading as well as intermediate, permanent
16 slopes and closed portions of the landfill as indicated below. Revegetation efforts shall emphasize native plant
17 species and provision of quality habitat for locally important wildlife species and other native wildlife. The
18 plan shall be subject to review and approval by Ventura County prior to the initiation of ground disturbance.
19 The plan shall include the following:
20 • Provisions for salvaging and stockpiling topsoil and seed bank for use in revegetation.
21 • Procedures to stabilize soil and revegetate areas disturbed by site preparation or other grading outside
22 the overall waste boundary with native species from seed or cuttings collected in the immediate
23 project area creating habitat conditions compatible with adjoining habitat not disturbed by the project.
24 • Specifications that native plants and seed stock used in revegetation shall be locally collected or
25 propagated from locally collected seed or cuttings (from the Simi Valley area) to maintain the
26 genetic integrity of the local flora. An attempt shall be made to restore some of the existing native
27 plant diversity by specifically including some of the less common native species currently found on
28 the site.
29 • Specifics for seed mix, seed application, seeding methods, timing of monitoring and reporting and
30 performance criteria.
31 • Provision that non-native, non-invasive species may be used for short-term erosion control (such as
32 barley on temporarily denuded slopes). Where invasive species have persisted after having been used
33 in the past, they shall be removed.
34 • Procedures for maintenance and reduction of non-native invasive plant species on the proposed
35 SVLRC landfill site and adjacent property owned by the applicant. The invasive non-native
36 plants/escaped non-natives listed in the following sources shall be targeted as undesirable plants:
37 Cal-IPC Inventory (http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/invento ry/index.php); CDFA list of Noxious Weeds

38 (http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ PHPPS/IPC/weedinfo/ winfo_list-pestrating.htm); and the Ventura County
39 Landscape Design Criteria (Ventura County RMA 1992). The goal is to reduce their presence at the landfill
40 site and achieve complete eradication, where feasible, and to minimize the likelihood that non-native invasive
41 species would escape into adjacent areas.
42 The applicant shall develop a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan to address losses of habitats of
43 locally important species through revegetation efforts that emphasize native plant species and provision of
44 quality habitat for locally important wildlife species and other native wildlife. This shall be applied to all
1 lands temporarily disturbed by grading as well as intermediate, permanent slopes and closed portions of the
2 landfill as indicated below. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by Ventura County prior to its
3 implementation and be completed and implemented prior to the initiation of ground disturbance. The plan
4 shall include the following:
5 Provisions for salvaging and stockpiling topsoil and seed bank for use in revegetation.
6 Procedures to stabilize soil and revegetate areas disturbed by site preparation or other grading outside
7 the overall waste boundary with native species from seed or cuttings collected in the immediate
8 project area creating habitat conditions compatible with adjoining habitat not disturbed by the project.
9 Procedures for seeding and planting of intermediate slopes, permanent slopes, and closed portions of
10 the landfill expansion area. Intermediate slopes may be seeded or planted with non-native, non-
11 invasive species. Permanent slopes and closed portions of the landfill shall be seeded and planted
12 with native species with the goal of recreating viable native habitats over time.
13 Specifications that native plants and seed stock used in revegetation shall be locally collected or
14 propagated from locally collected seed or cuttings (from the Simi Valley area) to maintain the
15 genetic integrity of the local flora. An attempt shall be made to restore some of the existing native
16 plant diversity by specifically including some of the less common native species currently found on
17 the site.
18 Specifics for seed mix, seed application, seeding methods, timing of monitoring and reporting and
19 performance criteria.
20 Provision that non-native, non-invasive species may be used for short-term erosion control (such as
21 barley on temporarily denuded slopes) or for long-term visual mitigation. Where invasive species
22 have persisted after having been used in the past, they shall be removed.
23 Procedures for maintenance and reduction of non-native invasive plant species on the proposed
24 SVLRC landfill site and adjacent property owned by the applicant. The invasive non-native
25 plants/escaped non-natives listed in the following sources shall be targeted as undesirable plants:
26 California Invasive Plant Council Inventory (http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/invento ry/index.php); CDFA
27 list of Noxious Weeds (http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/PHPPS/IPC/weedinfo/ winfo_list-pestrating.htm);
28 and the Ventura County Landscape Design Criteria (Ventura County RMA 1992). The goal is to
29 reduce their presence at the landfill site and achieve complete eradication, where feasible, and to
30 minimize the likelihood that non-native invasive species would escape into adjacent areas.
31 Mitigation Measure BIO-14. The loss of habitat for locally important wildlife species, including sage scrub,
32 chamise chaparral, grassland, and oak woodland as documented in Table 3.4-4 of the EIR, shall be mitigated
33 through preservation of existing intact plant communities or restoration and preservation of disturbed plant
34 communities at a 1:1 ratio in the project vicinity. This measure can be coordinated with Mitigation Measure
35 BIO-6. If disturbed plant communities are selected to meet this measure, a site-specific habitat restoration and
36 enhancement plan including details of restoration measures appropriate to the site and performance criteria
37 shall be developed by the applicant and approved by the County of Ventura prior to initiation of ground
38 disturbance. Restoration measures could include control of invasive non-native species, increasing the
39 prevalence of wildlife species by planting or use of other management techniques, revegetation of barren
40 surfaces resulting from previous human activities or control of erosion related to human activities (e.g.,
41 originating from concentrated runoff from unpaved roads). Preserved and restored habitat shall be of similar
42 or higher quality and integrity in comparison to the habitat removed and shall be dedicated and managed as
43 vegetation and wildlife habitat in perpetuity through a legal instrument such as a conservation easement. In
44 addition, a biological restrictive covenant shall be recorded with the County of Ventura to protect the habitat
1 in perpetuity.The loss of habitat for locally important wildlife species on-site, including sage scrub, chamise
2 chaparral, grassland, and oak woodland, shall be mitigated by off-site restoration and preservation of an equal
3 or greater acreage of these plant communities in the project vicinity. This measure would ideally be
4 coordinated with the Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Restoration measures would depend on the specifics of the
5 parcel to be preserved but could include control of invasive non-native species, increasing the prevalence of
6 high-value wildlife species by planting or use of other management techniques, revegetation of barren
7 surfaces resulting from previous human activities or control of erosion related to human activities (e.g.,
8 originating from concentrated runoff from unpaved roads). Preserved and restored habitat shall be of similar
9 or higher quality and integrity in comparison to the habitat removed and shall be dedicated and managed as
10 vegetation and wildlife habitat in perpetuity through a legal instrument such as a conservation easement. A
11 site-specific habitat restoration and enhancement plan including details of restoration measures appropriate to
12 the site and performance criteria shall be developed by the applicant and approved by the County of Ventura
13 prior to initiation of ground disturbance. Since many of the locally important wildlife species are also listed
14 by CDFG as state Species of Special Concern. As such, the site specific habitat restoration and enhancement
15 plan shall be reviewed and commented on by the CDFG, as appropriate.
17 Impacts on the Plummer’s mariposa lily and Catalina mariposa lily would be less than significant with the
18 implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-10 and BIO-11. Because impacts on the southwestern spiny rush
19 would be less than significant, no mitigation for that species is required.
20 Impacts on locally important wildlife species would be less than significant with the implementation of
21 Mitigation Measure BIO-3 and Mitigation Measures BIO-12 through BIO-14.
22 Impacts on locally important plant and wildlife communities would be less than significant with the
23 implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-12, BIO-13 and BIO-14.
25 Table 3.4-4 5 summarizes the potentially significant adverse biological resource impacts or less than
26 significant impacts for which mitigation measures would further reduce impacts of the proposed project. For
27 each impact, the table describes any applicable mitigation measures, the significance of the impact following
28 mitigation, and identifies the parties responsible for implementing and overseeing the mitigation as well as the
29 timing of the mitigation. The mitigation measures would be imposed as conditions of approval of the CUP
30 modification for the proposed project.

Table 3.4-45. Mitigation for Biological Impacts

Potentially Significant Significance Responsible
Adverse Impact Mitigation Measure(s) After Parties Timing
Mitigation
BIO-1: Pre-construction botanical surveys shall be conducted by a qualified, USFWS and CDFG-
approved biologist for the Braunton’s milk vetch, San Fernando Valley spineflower, Lyon’s
pentachaeta, and other listed species during the appropriate flowering period prior to start of
vegetation clearing and grading activities within suitable habitat for these species. The applicant
shall notify USFWS for species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and CDFG
for species listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) within 24 hours of locating
any individuals of listed species. In the event of positive survey results, the project applicant will
consult with the USFWS for species listed under the ESA to determine whether formal Section 7
consultation is required and CDFG to obtain an incidental take permit for species listed under the
CESA. Compensatory mitigation for the loss of any listed plant species shall be at least on a 1:1
ratio as described in BIO-10.
BIO-1: Pre-construction botanical surveys shall be conducted by a County-approved biologist for the
Braunton’s milk vetch, San Fernando Valley spineflower, Lyon’s pentachaeta, and other listed species
during the appropriate flowering period prior to start of grading activities (including, but not limited to:
initial construction activities, development of each landfill cell, and other project-related activities)
within suitable habitat for these species. The applicant shall notify USFWS within 24 hours of locating
Impact BIO-1: The any individuals of these species. In the event of positive survey results, the project applicant would
proposed project would consult with the USFWS to determine whether formal Section 7 consultation should be initiated.
directly or indirectly: BIO-2: Prior to removal of coastal scrub habitat or habitat designated as critical habitat by the USFWS
reduce species Project
population; reduce for coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN), a qualified, USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct applicant
species habitat; or protocol surveys for CAGN and provide the results to the County of Ventura, USFWS, and CDFG. Less than Ventura Prior to
restrict reproduction The applicant shall notify USFWS at least 7 days prior to initiation of surveys and within 24 hours of significant County construction
capacity of a species locating any CAGN individuals. In the event of positive survey results, the project applicant will Planning
federally or state listed consult with the USFWS to determine whether formal Section 7 consultation is required or whether a
as endangered, Section 10 permit must be obtained. In addition, should this species be found on-site, a qualified,
threatened, or rare.
USFWS-approved biologist shall do the following:
a. Perform additional surveys once a week during project construction during the breeding season of
CAGN. These additional surveys may be suspended as approved by the USFWS. The applicant
shall notify the USFWS at least 7 days prior to the initiation of surveys, and within 24 hours of
locating any CAGN individuals.
b. Postpone work if a CAGN nest is found within 500 feet of project construction activities. A
qualified, USFWS-approved biologist shall coordinate with USFWS to devise an optimal strategy
of postponing work only in areas where continued construction activities may pose an adverse
impact to the CAGN, thereby allowing work to continue beyond the appropriate buffer determined
for the documented CAGN nests.
Removal of designated critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher within the project site
shall be compensated through preservation of existing intact suitable habitat or improvement and
preservation of disturbed habitat either on- or off-site and approved by USFWS and the County.

Draft EIR - December 2010

Mitigation
Compensation shall be at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio for critical habitat lost due to construction of the
project. Off-site compensation shall be conducted within the critical habitat Unit 13 (Unit 13: Western
Los Angeles and Ventura Counties) as designated by the USFWS. Preservation of critical habitat shall
be ensured through recordation of a biological restrictive covenant with the County of Ventura.
BIO-2: Prior to removal of coastal scrub habitat from construction activities (including initial
construction activities, development of each landfill cell, and any other project-related activities), a
qualified biologist shall conduct protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and the results
provided to the County of Ventura, USFWS, and CDFG. Appropriate coordination with and approval
of agencies would be required. The applicant shall notify USFWS at least 7 days prior to initiation of
surveys and within 24 hours of locating any gnatcatchers. In the event of positive survey results, the
project applicant would consult with the USFWS to determine whether formal Section 7 consultation
should be initiated. In addition, should this species be found on-site a qualified biologist shall do the
following:
a. Perform additional surveys once a week during project construction during the breeding season of
the costal California gnatcatcher. These additional surveys may be suspended as approved by the
USFWS. The applicant shall notify the USFWS at least 7 days prior to the initiation of surveys,
and within 24 hours of locating any coastal California gnatcatchers.
b. Postpone work if a gnatcatcher nest is found within 500 feet of project construction activities. A
qualified biologist shall coordinate with USFWS to devise an optimal strategy of postponing work
only in areas where continued construction activities may pose an adverse impact to the coastal
California gnatcatcher, thereby allowing work to continue beyond the 500 foot buffer beyond
documented gnatcatcher nests.
Removal of designated critical habitat for the costal California gnatcatcher within the project site shall
be compensated through replacement or improvement of habitat either on- or off-site and approved by
USFWS and other appropriate agencies. Compensation shall be at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Off-site
compensation shall be conducted within the critical habitat Unit 13 (Unit 13: Western Los Angeles and
Ventura Counties) as designated by the USFWS.
BIO-3: Removal of vegetation, grading, and/or other land disturbance activities shall be
conducted outside the bird breeding and nesting season (February 1 through August 31) in order
to avoid destruction of bird nests or eggs.
If land disturbance activities cannot be completed outside the February 1 through August 31
breeding season, a breeding and nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
with a CDFG Scientific Collecting Permit within 7 days prior to the land disturbance activity.
The nesting bird survey shall cover the construction footprint and a buffer of 500 feet from the
construction footprint. If active nests are found, land disturbance activities within 300 feet of
the nest (500 feet for raptors) shall be postponed or halted until the nest is vacated and juveniles
have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the
biologist. If the construction area is larger than the buffered nesting bird area(s), then land
disturbance activities can commence outside the restricted area(s). If land disturbance activities
are delayed after the survey has been conducted, then an additional nesting bird survey must be
conducted such that no more than 7 days have elapsed between the last survey and the


Mitigation
commencement of land disturbance activities.
Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for development, the applicant shall provide a signed
contract with one of the Planning Division’s approved biological consultants that guarantees that a
nesting bird survey will be conducted 7 days prior to any land disturbing activities.
BIO-3: Removal of vegetation from construction activities (including initial construction activities,
development of each landfill cell, and any other project-related activities) shall be conducted outside
the breeding season (February 1 through August 15) in order to avoid destruction of bird nests or eggs.
If vegetation removal cannot be completed outside the February 1 through August 15 breeding season,
vegetation removal in areas where suitable nesting habitat for resident or migratory bird species may
occur shall occur only after pre-grading surveys by a County-approvedqualified, agency-approved
biologist show that active nests would not be impacted by the activities. The pre-grading surveys shall
focus on breeding behavior and nesting locations in the proposed work area and immediately adjacent
to that area. Based on the results of the surveys, recommended buffer areas between construction
activities and observed nesting habitat shall be provided to the County and to the project engineer if
the work needs to occur near those locations while nesting is occurring (February 1 through August
15).
BIO-4: The project applicant shall prepare and implement a Wetlands Mitigation Plan
acceptable to the County of Ventura prior to initiation of vegetation clearing and grading
activity within 100 feet of the known seeps. Appropriate mitigation includes enhancing,
expanding, or restoring existing wetlands, or creating/establishment of new wetlands in the
proposed project vicinity. The Wetlands Mitigation Plan shall include the following components
at a minimum:
1. A minimum mitigation ratio of 3:1 for acres of wetlands lost versus acres mitigated as a result
of the Plan.
2. Location(s) of mitigation on suitable portions of the project site or other property that can be
Impact BIO-2: The protected in perpetuity from future development.
proposed project would
result in the direct 3. Timing which shall be initiated prior to acceptance of waste within the proposed expansion
area. Less than Project Prior to
reduction of, or a significant applicant construction
substantial indirect 4. Detailed information on the vegetation, quality, soils, and hydrology of the mitigation site
impact to a significant prior to implementation
wetland habitat. 5. The mitigation shall have a goal of no net loss of wetlands.
7. Baseline information (i.e., a description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed
mitigation site) shall be obtained as a basis for measuring mitigation performance. Baseline
information may include: descriptions of historic and existing plant communities, historic and
existing hydrology, soil conditions, a map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation
site(s) or the geographic coordinates for those site(s), and other characteristics appropriate to
the type of resource proposed as compensation.
8. Monitoring, maintenance, and reporting for a minimum monitoring period, which shall not be
less than 5 years.


Mitigation
9. Performance criteria that are based on replacement of the characteristics and functions of the
wetlands being impacted must be approved by the County and any other appropriate
regulatory agency. Performance criteria shall at a minimum include the following parameters:
percent vegetative cover, plant diversity, percent non-native plant species, target functions and
values, and target hydrological regime.
10. The Plan shall include an adaptive management strategy to address unforeseen changes in
site conditions or other components of the mitigation project, including the party or parties
responsible for implementing adaptive management measures.
Procedures to ensure protection of the mitigation sites in perpetuity, either through the recordation
of a conservation easement, a biological restrictive covenant, or other agreement approved by the
County and other relevant regulatory agencies.
BIO-4: The project applicant shall prepare and implement a wetlands mitigation plan acceptable to
the County of Ventura prior to initiation of grading activity in the vicinity of the known seeps.
Appropriate mitigation would include enhancing, expanding, or restoring existing wetlands,
creating/establishment of new wetlands, or permanently protecting wetlands in the proposed project
vicinity. The wetlands mitigation plan shall include the following components at a minimum:
1. A minimum mitigation ratio of 3:1 for acres of wetlands lost versus acres mitigated as a result
of the Plan.
2. Location(s) of mitigation on suitable portions of the project site or other property that can be
protected in perpetuity from future development.
3. Timing which shall be initiated prior to acceptance of waste within proposed expansion area.
4. Detailed information on the vegetation, quality, soils, and hydrology of the mitigation site prior
to implementation
5. The mitigation shall have a goal of no net loss of wetlands. Additional goals may include
specific functions and values of habitat types to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved.
7. Baseline information (i.e., a description of the ecological characterizes of the proposed
mitigation project site), if applicable, shall be obtained as a basis for measuring mitigation
performance. Baseline information may include: descriptions of historic and existing plant
communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a map showing the locations of
the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic coordinates for those site(s), and other
characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as compensation.
8. Monitoring, maintenance, and reporting for a minimum monitoring period, which shall not be
less than 5 years, if applicable.
9. Performance criteria, if applicable, must be approved by the County and any other appropriate
regulatory agency. Performance criteria shall at a minimum include the following parameters:
percent cover, plant diversity, percent non-native plant species, target functions and values, and
target hydrological regime.
10. The plan shall include an adaptive management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site
conditions or other components of the mitigation project, including the party or parties
responsible for implementing adaptive management measures.


Mitigation
11.1. Procedures to ensure protection of the mitigation sites in perpetuity, either through the
recordation of a conservation easement, a deed restriction, recordation of a development’s
covenants, codes, and restrictions, or other agreements approved by the County and other
relevant regulatory agencies.
BIO-5: The permittee shall implement vector control methods to deter refuse scavenging species
such as gulls and crows from the waste disposal area. In the vicinity of Alamos Canyon, vector
Impact BIO-3: The control methods (such as noisemakers and propane cannons, distress call, and use of falcons and
proposed project would dogs) that could result in the avoidance of wildlife use of Alamos Canyon as a corridor shall be
substantially interfere avoided. Less than Project Prior to
with the use of a BIO-5: The permittee shall implement vector control methods to deter refuse scavenging species significant applicant construction
wildlife migration such as gulls and crows from the waste disposal area. In the vicinity of Alamos Canyon, vector
corridor. control methods (such as noisemakers and propane cannons, distress call, and use of falcons and
dogs) that could result in the avoidance of the use of Alamos Canyon as a wildlife corridor, shall be
avoided.
BIO-6: To ensure the continued availability of the Alamos Canyon Wildlife Corridor for the benefit
of native plants and wildlife, the permittee shall obtain, dedicate, enhance, and manage habitat in
and adjacent to the Alamos Canyon wildlife corridor, including the riparian zone and immediately
adjacent upland habitats. The area to be preserved shall include the bed and banks of Alamos Creek
within the Alamos Canyon Corridor from the SR-118 freeway on the south, including the
underpass, to where the proposed CUP boundary intersects Alamos Creek on the north; and extend
from the CUP boundary on the east to the opposite side of Alamos Canyon at least five feet above
the 100 year flood plain level. Dedication shall be in perpetuity through a legal instrument such as a
conservation easement, and a biological restrictive covenant shall be recorded with the County of
Ventura. Enhancement shall be as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-7.
BIO-6: To ensure the continued availability of the Alamos Canyon Wildlife Corridor for the benefit
of native plants and wildlife, the permittee shall obtain, dedicate, enhance, and manage habitat in
Impact BIO-3: The and adjacent to the Alamos Canyon wildlife corridor (including the riparian zone and adjacent
proposed project would upland habitats) from the SR-118 freeway place extending northward at least to the latitude of the
substantially interfere northernmost portion of buffer area associated with the proposed landfill expansion. Dedication Less than Project Prior to
with the use of a shall be in perpetuity through a legal instrument such as a conservation easement. Enhancement significant applicant construction
wildlife migration shall be as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-7.
corridor.
BIO-7: As part of a Habitat Restoration and Management Plan, the permittee shall design and
implement a plan acceptable to the County of Ventura for habitat enhancements along the channel
in Alamos Canyon in order to improve overstory cover for migrating animals and to increase
potential habitat for species that rely on riparian corridors. The plan must provide for planting and
maintenance of sycamore and coast live oak trees in and adjacent to Alamos Canyon in areas void
of trees. By focusing especially on areas of the canyon near the landfill and areas having direct line
of sight to the landfill, the plan will create a pattern of more continuous tree cover. A minimum of
30 sycamores and 30 coast live oaks shall be established within the area identified above (see also
Figure 3.4-3). In addition, planting of vegetation or other work within or adjacent to the channel
above falls under the regulatory and permitting authority of the Ventura County Watershed
Protection District per Ordinance FC-18 as amended. As such, habitat enhancement plans for
Alamos Canyon shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed Protection District.


Mitigation
BIO-7: The permittee shall design and implement a plan acceptable to the County of Ventura for
habitat enhancements along the channel in Alamos Canyon in order to improve overstory cover for
migrating animals and to increase potential habitat for species that rely on riparian corridors. The
plan must provide for planting and maintenance of sycamore and coast live oak trees in and adjacent
to Alamos Canyon in areas void of trees. By focusing especially on areas of the canyon near the
landfill and areas having direct line of sight to the landfill, the plan will create a pattern of more
continuous tree cover. A minimum of 30 sycamores and 30 coast live oaks shall be established
within the area identified above (see also Figure 3.4-3). Specifications for these habitat
enhancements shall be included in the Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan identified in
Mitigation Measure BIO-13. In addition, planting of vegetation or other work within or adjacent to
the channel above falls under the regulatory and permitting authority of the Ventura County
Watershed Protection District per Ordinance FC-18 as amended. As such, habitat enhancement
plans for Alamos Canyon shall be reviewed and commented on by the Watershed Protection
District.
BIO-8: As part of a Habitat Restoration and Management Plan, the permittee shall design a plan
for and implement at least 2 of the following improvements or enhancements to the Alamos
Canyon crossings (i.e., Alamos Canyon East and West culverts and Alamos Canyon Road
undercrossing) as shown on Figure 3.4-3:
• Replace the paved road with a decomposed granite surface if it is still used for maintenance,
otherwise remove the road surface and base entirely and replace it with native vegetation.
• Installation of fencing by the project applicant to funnel wildlife into the Alamos Canyon
undercrossings,
The permittee shall coordinate with Caltrans to ensure that the improvements selected will not
conflict with any planned Caltrans projects. Prior to initiation of project construction activities,
the permittee shall provide the plan for these improvements to the County and Caltrans for
approval.
Planting of vegetation or other work within or adjacent to Los Alamos Canyon channel falls under
the regulatory and permitting authority of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District per
Ordinance FC-18 as amended. As such, habitat enhancement plans for Alamos Canyon shall be
reviewed and approved by the Watershed Protection District prior to implementation.


Mitigation
BIO-8: The permittee shall construct improvements or enhancements to the Alamos Canyon
crossings (i.e., Alamos Canyon East and West culverts and Alamos Canyon Road undercrossing ) as
shown on Figure 3.4-3) in order to enhance the ability of wildlife in the project vicinity, including
Alamos and Brea canyons, to move under SR-118 thereby helping to maintain wildlife diversity in
Ventura County. Mitigation proposed below was originally described by LSA Associates (2004)
and adopted by the Ventura State Route 118 Wildlife Corridor Multi-Agency Working Group
(2006). These measures were supported and supplemented by Penrod et al. (2006). The permittee
shall work with the County of Ventura, Caltrans, and technical advisors selected by the County to
identify and implement the most effective and feasible measures to increase connectivity across SR-
118 along Alamos Canyon, with final approval of measures from the County prior to commencing
project construction. These may be a combination of measures from the following list of previously
identified measures from studies referenced above. Because it is not known which of these measures
would be technically feasible, the standard for success of this measure will be implementation and
maintenance of three or more of the actions identified below, which have been previously identified
by experts as actions that would facilitate wildlife crossing under SR-118, plus the two measures
identified below that are applicable to all three crossings. Planting of vegetation or other work
within or adjacent to Los Alamos Canyon channel falls under the regulatory and permitting
authority of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District per Ordinance FC-18 as amended.
As such, habitat enhancement plans for Alamos Canyon shall be reviewed and commented on by
the Watershed Protection District.
The following enhancements would decrease the angle of approach, thereby improving access and
line-of-sight for wildlife.
• Enlarge the existing twin culverts into a single undercrossing under SR-118 by re-grading the
existing steep approach and lowering the entrance on the north side of the culvert; or, by
creating a raised 5-foot wide inside “catwalk” running the length of both culverts.
The following changes would enhance the utility of the undercrossing.
• Replace the paved road with a decomposed granite surface if it is still used for maintenance,
otherwise remove the road surface and base entirely and replace it with native vegetation.
• Enlarge undercrossings at the railroad crossing south of SR-118 and at Los Angeles Avenue.
The following enhancements would increase the utility of the undercrossing.
• Enlarge the culvert by means of “tunnel jacking”.
The following measures apply to the three Alamos Canyon corridors/undercrossings identified
above and in Figure 3.4-3:
• Installation of fencing by the project applicant to funnel wildlife into the Alamos Canyon
undercrossings,


Mitigation
• Reporting to the proper authorities (including police or Caltrans) any unauthorized human
activities or trespassing (including homeless encampments) in the vicinity of Alamos
Canyon observed during routine patrols would increase the utility of the undercrossings.
Additionally, collaboration should be done with local groups to secure conservation
easements on properties between the SLVRC and the Simi Hills to provide a continuous
habitat corridor between the Santa Susana Mountains, Oak Ridge, Big Mountain, and the
Simi Hills.
BIO-9: The conditions applicable to minimizing off-site noise and vibration, nighttime lighting,
control of wind-blown refuse, and control of nuisance species of birds (crows, ravens, gulls) and
mammals (non-native rodents) in CUP-3142-7 shall be applied to the expansion project
including:
• Night lighting for the proposed project shall be in accordance with CUP-3142-7 Condition
34 limiting hours of operation to 6 AM to 8 PM and CUP-3142-7 Condition 105 requiring
shielding to ensure that when night lighting is used, natural areas are not lighted. These
measures shall be updated as necessary and applied to the proposed project.
• A revised dust suppression plan shall be implemented as required under CUP-3142-7
Condition 44.
Impact BIO-3: The Litter shall be controlled through the use of portable wind fences to confine waste to the area of the
proposed project would working face and to ensure that adjacent habitats are maintained free of litter. Existing litter control
substantially interfere measures (CUP-3142-7 Condition 45) shall be applied to the proposed project. Less than Project During life of
with the use of a BIO-9. The conditions applicable to minimizing off-site noise and vibration, nighttime significant applicant the project
wildlife migration lighting, control of wind-blown refuse, and control of nuisance species of birds (crows, ravens,
corridor. gulls) and mammals (non-native rodents) in CUP-3142-7 shall be applied to the expansion
project including:
Night lighting for the proposed project shall in accordance with CUP-3142-7 Condition 34
limiting hours of operation to 6 AM to 8 PM and CUP-3142-7 Condition 105 requiring shielding
to ensure that when night lighting is used, natural areas are not lighted. These measures shall be
updated as necessary and applied to the proposed project.
A revised dust suppression plan shall be implemented as required under CUP-3142-7 Condition
44.
Litter shall be controlled through the use of portable wind fences to confine waste to the area of
the working face and to ensure that adjacent habitats are maintained free of litter. Existing litter
control measures (CUP-3142-7 Condition 45) shall be applied to the proposed projec
BIO-10: As part of a Habitat Restoration and Management Plan, the permittee shall develop
Impact BIO-4: The and implement a Sensitive Plant Species Restoration Plan acceptable to the Ventura County
proposed project would Planning Division for Plummer’s and Catalina mariposa lily, and any federal or state listed plant
result in substantial Less than Project Prior to
direct or indirect species found during pre-construction surveys prior to onset of grading in the expansion area.
impacts to locally The goal of the Plan shall be the replacement of these sensitive and/or listed plants on a 1:1 significant applicant construction
important ratio. The Plan shall include:
species/communities • An up to date review of research on the reproductive success of each species and the success
of previous attempts at salvage and transplanting;


Mitigation
• Methodology and timing for salvaging seed and plants (corms) from areas to be impacted
and procedures for transplanting and/or propagation;
• Identification of suitable (approved) locations for transplants and the means to protect the
locations from future development;
• Maintenance, monitoring, and replacement program to document the success of the
transplantation; and,
The number of individuals to be transplanted/propagated in order to meet the goal of the 1:1
replacement ratio.
BIO-10: The project proponent shall develop and implement a Sensitive Plant Species Restoration
Plan for Plummer’s and Catalina mariposa lily acceptable to Ventura County Planning Division
prior to onset of grading in the expansion area. The plan shall include:
• An up to date review of research on the reproductive success of each species and the success of
previous attempts at salvage and transplanting;
• Methodology and timing for salvaging seed and plants (corms) from areas to be impacted and
procedures for transplanting and/or propagation;
• Identification of suitable (approved) locations for transplants and the means to protect the
locations from future development;
• Maintenance, monitoring, and replacement program to document the success of the
transplantation and restoration of Plummer’s mariposa lily and Catalina mariposa lily; and,
• The number of individuals lost as a result of the proposed project shall be restored in-kind on-
site with a 1:1 ratio.
BIO-11: Pre-construction spring botanical surveys shall be conducted by a qualified, County-
approved biologist for listed and locally important plant species with the potential to occur within
the project site prior to the start of vegetation clearing and grading. To the extent feasible, grading
limits shall be adjusted to exclude documented occurrences of listed and locally important plant
species, including Plummer’s mariposa lily and Catalina mariposa lily. Because of the concentration
of occurrences of Plummer’s mariposa lily along the northwestern grading limits of the property
(Figure 3.4-4), relatively slight adjustments in the grading limit could enable large numbers of
individuals (up to 520 individuals in 13 occurrences) of this species to be avoided. The occurrences
of Plummer’s and Catalina mariposa lily and any other listed or locally important plant species
located within the buffer zone shall be protected by identification of the area on a map and by Prior to and
placing construction fencing along the limits of grading where appropriate to prevent inadvertent Less than Project during
loss or damage as a result of construction or other project-related or property management activities. significant applicant
During years of unfavorable conditions for mariposa lilies, the distributional data from 2005 shall be construction
used to adjust grading limits, because the numbers and local distribution of mariposa lilies may vary
considerably from year to year in response to environmental conditions, and conditions in 2005
were relatively favorable for identifying the distribution of the mariposa lilies.
BIO-11: Pre-construction spring botanical surveys shall be conducted by a County-approved
biologist for the Plummer’s mariposa lily, Catalina mariposa lily, and other locally important plant
species with the potential to occur within the project site prior to start of grading activities
including, but not limited to: initial construction
activities, development of each landfill cell, and other project-related activities. To the extent
feasible, grading limits shall be adjusted to exclude documented occurrences of Plummer’s


Mitigation
mariposa and Catalina mariposa. Because of the concentration of occurrences of Plummer’s
mariposa along the northwestern grading limits of the property (Figure 3.4-4), relatively slight
adjustments in the grading limit could enable large numbers of individuals (up to 520 individuals in
13 occurrences) of this species to be avoided. The occurrences of Plummer’s and Catalina mariposa
lily located within the buffer zone shall be protected by identification of the area on a map and by
placing construction fencing along the limits of grading where appropriate to prevent inadvertent
loss or damage as a result of construction or other project-related or property management activities.
During years of unfavorable conditions for mariposa lilies, the distributional data from 2005 shall be
used to adjust grading limits, because the numbers and local distribution of mariposa lilies may vary
considerably from year to year in response to environmental conditions and conditions in 2005
would have been relatively favorable for identifying the distribution of the mariposa lilies.
BIO-12: A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified, County-approved biologist
for locally important wildlife species no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of vegetation
removal and grading. Prior to vegetation removal, the biologist shall ensure that potential natal
badger dens are avoided and that less mobile species, such as coast horned lizard, will be
relocated to suitable habitat outside of the construction area. A qualified, County-approved
biologist shall be on-site to monitor vegetation removal and topsoil salvaging and stockpiling to
minimize injury or mortality to locally important wildlife species.
CDFG shall be contacted immediately if burrowing owls or burrowing owl sign are observed.
No disturbance shall occur within 50 meters (approx. 160 feet) of occupied burrows during the
non-breeding season of September 1 through January 31. No disturbance shall occur within 75
meters (approx. 250 feet) of occupied burrows during the nesting season, February 1 through
August 31, unless CDFG verifies that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that
the juveniles from those burrows are foraging independently and capable of independent
survival at an earlier date. Less than Project Prior to
When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, the owls shall be passively relocated to significant applicant construction
alternate burrows, only during the non-breeding season. Occupied burrows during the breeding
season shall be avoided. Passive relocation will involve enhancing existing unoccupied burrows
or creating artificial burrows in a ratio of 1:1 in adjacent, protected, suitable habitat that is
contiguous with the foraging habitat of the affected owls and at least 50 meters from the
impacted area. The relocated owls shall be monitored for 90 days following relocation, and a
report on the status of the relocated owls shall be submitted to the County and CDFG. If the
monitoring results show the relocation effort to be unsuccessful, the County and CDFG will
require contingency measures, which may include preservation of existing off-site burrowing
owl habitat, in accordance with the off-site mitigation recommendations of the California
Burrowing Owl Consortium.
BIO-12: A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a County-approved biologist for locally
important wildlife species no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of grading including, but not
limited to: initial construction activities, development of each landfill cell, and any other project-


Mitigation
related activities in vegetated areas. Prior to vegetation removal, the biologist shall ensure that
potential natal badger dens are avoided and that less mobile species, such as coast horned lizard,
will be relocated to suitable habitat outside of the construction area. A qualified biologist shall be
on-site to monitor vegetation removal and topsoil salvaging and stockpiling to minimize injury or
mortality to locally important wildlife species.
BIO-13: As part of a Habitat Restoration and Management Plan, the applicant shall develop a
plan to revegetate all lands temporarily disturbed by grading as well as intermediate, permanent
slopes and closed portions of the landfill as indicated below. Revegetation efforts shall
emphasize native plant species and provision of quality habitat for locally important wildlife
species and other native wildlife. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by Ventura
County prior to the initiation of ground disturbance. The plan shall include the following:
• Provisions for salvaging and stockpiling topsoil and seed bank for use in revegetation.
• Procedures to stabilize soil and revegetate areas disturbed by site preparation or other grading
outside the overall waste boundary with native species from seed or cuttings collected in the
immediate project area creating habitat conditions compatible with adjoining habitat not
• Specifications that native plants and seed stock used in revegetation shall be locally collected or
propagated from locally collected seed or cuttings (from the Simi Valley area) to maintain the
Impact BIO-4: The genetic integrity of the local flora. An attempt shall be made to restore some of the existing
proposed project would
result in substantial native plant diversity by specifically including some of the less common native species currently
found on the site. Less than Project Prior to
direct or indirect significant applicant construction
impacts to locally • Specifics for seed mix, seed application, seeding methods, timing of monitoring and reporting
important and performance criteria.
species/communities • Provision that non-native, non-invasive species may be used for short-term erosion control (such
as barley on temporarily denuded slopes). Where invasive species have persisted after having
been used in the past, they shall be removed.
• Procedures for maintenance and reduction of non-native invasive plant species on the proposed
SVLRC landfill site and adjacent property owned by the applicant. The invasive non-native
plants/escaped non-natives listed in the following sources shall be targeted as undesirable plants:
Cal-IPC Inventory (http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/invento ry/index.php); CDFA list of Noxious
Weeds (http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ PHPPS/IPC/weedinfo/ winfo_list-pestrating.htm); and the
Ventura County Landscape Design Criteria (Ventura County RMA 1992). The goal is to reduce
their presence at the landfill site and achieve complete eradication, where feasible, and to
minimize the likelihood that non-native invasive species would escape into adjacent areas.
BIO-13: The applicant shall develop a Habitat Restoration and Revegetation Plan to address losses
of habitats of locally important species through revegetation efforts that emphasize native plant
species and provision of quality habitat for locally important wildlife species and other native


Mitigation
wildlife. This shall be applied to all lands temporarily disturbed by grading as well as intermediate,
permanent slopes and closed portions of the landfill as indicated below. The plan shall be subject to
review and approval by Ventura County prior to its implementation and be completed and
implemented prior to the initiation of ground disturbance. The plan shall include the following:
• Provisions for salvaging and stockpiling topsoil and seed bank for use in revegetation.
• Procedures to stabilize soil and revegetate areas disturbed by site preparation or other grading
outside the overall waste boundary with native species from seed or cuttings collected in the
immediate project area creating habitat conditions compatible with adjoining habitat not
Specifications that native plants and seed stock used in revegetation shall be locally collected or
propagated from locally collected seed or cuttings (from the Simi Valley area) to maintain the
genetic integrity of the local flora. An attempt shall be made to restore some of the existing native
plant diversity by specifically including some of the less common native species currently found on
the site.
• Specifics for seed mix, seed application, seeding methods, timing of monitoring and reporting
and performance criteria.
• Provision that non-native, non-invasive species may be used for short-term erosion control (such
as barley on temporarily denuded slopes) or for long-term visual mitigation. Where invasive
species have persisted after having been used in the past, they shall be removed.
Procedures for maintenance and reduction of non-native invasive plant species on the proposed
SVLRC landfill site and adjacent property owned by the applicant. The invasive non-native
plants/escaped non-natives listed in the following sources shall be targeted as undesirable plants:
Cal-IPC Inventory (http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/invento ry/index.php); CDFA list of Noxious Weeds
(http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ PHPPS/IPC/weedinfo/ winfo_list-pestrating.htm); and the Ventura County
Landscape Design Criteria (Ventura County RMA 1992). The goal is to reduce their presence at the
landfill site and achieve complete eradication, where feasible, and to minimize the likelihood that
non-native invasive species would escape into adjacent areas.
BIO-14: The loss of habitat for locally important wildlife species, including sage scrub, chamise
chaparral, grassland, and oak woodland as documented in Table 3.4-4 of the EIR, shall be
mitigated through preservation of existing intact plant communities or restoration and
preservation of disturbed plant communities at a 1:1 ratio in the project vicinity. This measure
Impact BIO-4: The can be coordinated with Mitigation Measure BIO-6. If disturbed plant communities are selected
proposed project would to meet this measure, a site-specific habitat restoration and enhancement plan including details
result in substantial of restoration measures appropriate to the site and performance criteria shall be developed by Less than Project Prior to
direct or indirect
impacts to locally the applicant and approved by the County of Ventura prior to initiation of ground disturbance. significant applicant construction
important Restoration measures could include control of invasive non-native species, increasing the
species/communities prevalence of wildlife species by planting or use of other management techniques, revegetation
of barren surfaces resulting from previous human activities or control of erosion related to
human activities (e.g., originating from concentrated runoff from unpaved roads). Preserved
and restored habitat shall be of similar or higher quality and integrity in comparison to the
habitat removed and shall be dedicated and managed as vegetation and wildlife habitat in


Mitigation
perpetuity through a legal instrument such as a conservation easement. In addition, a biological
restrictive covenant shall be recorded with the County of Ventura to protect the habitat in
perpetuity.
BIO-14. The loss of habitat for locally important wildlife species on-site, including sage scrub,
chamise chaparral, grassland, and oak woodland, shall be mitigated by off-site restoration and
preservation of an equal or greater acreage of these plant communities in the project vicinity. This
measure would ideally be coordinated with the Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Restoration measures
would depend on the specifics of the parcel to be preserved but could include control of invasive
non-native species, increasing the prevalence of high-value wildlife species by planting or use of
other management techniques, revegetation of barren surfaces resulting from previous human
activities or control of erosion related to human activities (e.g., originating from concentrated runoff
from unpaved roads). Preserved and restored habitat shall be of similar or higher quality and
integrity in comparison to the habitat removed and shall be dedicated and managed as vegetation
and wildlife habitat in perpetuity through a legal instrument such as a conservation easement. A
site-specific habitat restoration and enhancement plan including details of restoration measures
appropriate to the site and performance criteria shall be developed by the applicant and approved by
the County of Ventura prior to initiation of ground disturbance.


1 3.5 Agricultural Resources
2 This section evaluates the potential for project development to result in impacts on existing agricultural
3 resources as a result of converting farmland of local importance to non-agricultural use and potentially
4 impairing air quality/micro-climate for agricultural resources.
7 The area of influence for agricultural resources is the 887-acre proposed project site (proposed CUP
8 boundary) and suitable agricultural lands located within one-half mile of the proposed project site.
9 3.5.1.2 Setting
10 The proposed project site (proposed CUP boundary) is located on approximately 887 acres of open space area
11 that is designated as Open Space-Urban Reserve, and zoned as OS-160 acres (160 acres minimum lot size) and
12 AE-40 acres (40 acres minimum lot size). The proposed project site is largely undeveloped with miscellaneous
13 SVLRC ancillary structures. The proposed project site is not in or part of a Williamson Act Agricultural
14 Preserve contract that would commit it to long-term agricultural uses. A 2,850-acre parcel located north,
15 northwest, and northeast of the proposed project site is under current Agricultural Contract Numbers 85-1.1, 85-
16 1.1A, and 85-1.1B, which self-renews every year unless a Notice of Nonrenewal (NNR) is recorded. An NNR
17 has not been recorded for the property (A. Ozdy, personal communication 2009). No other surrounding lands are
18 in agricultural use or located within designated agricultural preserve contracts. However, there are farmlands of
19 local importance that extend directly west of the proposed project site, in Alamos Canyon (Figure 3.5-1).
20 Soils underlying the site consist of San Benito clay loam, Anacapa sandy loam, Salinas clay loam, and
21 Sorrento loam, which generally consist of very steep, well-drained clay loams and silty clay loams (Figure
22 3.5-1). The majority of the site contains below average soil types with no prime soils, resulting in below
23 average crop suitability. Although the site is not used for agricultural operations or considered unique
24 agricultural land, the site contains approximately 165 acres of farmland of local importance (i.e., lands
25 designated by local agencies) (Figure 3.5-1).
28 California Land Conservation Act
29 The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) of 1965 was created to preserve agricultural and
30 open space lands by discouraging unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The Act enables local governments
31 to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to
32 agricultural and open space uses. In return, landowners receive reduced property tax assessments that are
33 based on farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value.

n
yo
an
sC
o
am
Al

T:\AIR-PLAN-CULTURAL\APC_SimiValley\Projects\APC_Simi-Figure3.5-1.mxd
þ
}
|
·118
Farmland near Proposed CUP Boundary
o
n
Land Type
y
Can
Urban Built Up Land

Grazing Land
ea
Farmland of Local Importance

Br
0 0.5
Miles
Figure 3.5-1. Soils and Farmland of Local Importance

3.5 Agricultural Resources
3 The Ventura County General Plan Resources Appendix (Farmland Resources) sets forth the policies and
4 programs the County will implement to manage agricultural resources and support agricultural economic
5 viability. The General Plan includes regulations that identify and protect existing agricultural resources and
6 ensure the continued availability of these lands for agricultural uses. The General Plan includes policies that
7 discourage the conversion of highly productive agricultural lands and promote programs that encourage the
8 retention of highly productive agricultural lands.
9 Policy 1.6.2-6: Discretionary development adjacent to Agricultural-designated lands shall not conflict with
10 agricultural use of those lands. (This policy is also addressed in Section 3.1.2.3.5, General Plan Consistency
11 Analysis.)
15 Supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines, the threshold criteria for evaluating whether a proposed project
16 may have a significant adverse impact in air quality/microclimate affecting agriculture state:
17 AG-1: Soils. Any project that would result in the direct and/or indirect loss of soils designated Prime,
18 Statewide Importance, Unique, or Local Importance would have an adverse impact. Additionally, any
19 project that would result in the direct and/or indirect loss of agricultural soils meeting or exceeding
20 the following criteria would be considered a significant impact.
Important Farmland
General Plan Land Use
Inventory Acres Lost
Designation
Classification
Agricultural Prime/Statewide; 4 acres
Unique: 10 acres
Local: 15 acres
Open Space/Rural Prime/Statewide; 10 acres
Unique: 15 acres
Local: 20 acres
All others: Prime/Statewide; 20 acres
Unique: 30 acres
Local: 40 acres
21 AG-2: Dust. All projects would cause some increase in dust. Any use that would cause a ten percent or
22 greater increase in dust on agricultural parcels within one-half mile of the proposed project is
23 considered to have a significant impact.
25 3.5.2.2.1 AG-1: Soils
26 The soils underlying the proposed project site were mapped using soil data and information produced by the
27 National Cooperative Soil Survey operated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The
28 proposed project site plans were reviewed to determine how much proposed project area would be directly
29 removed or permanently covered by components of the proposed project, including the landfill cells,
1 buildings, parking areas, and driveways. The General Plan Land Use Maps and Important Farmland Inventory
2 (IFI) Maps were reviewed to determine if the proposed project would exceed the threshold criteria.
3 3.5.2.2.2 AG-2 Dust
4 The IFI Maps were reviewed to determine if the proposed project is located on or within one-half mile (2,640
5 feet) of land currently in, or suitable for, agricultural production. Any project located within one-half mile of
6 suitable agricultural lands would potentially have an impact, and therefore, is evaluated to determine if the
7 project would have a significant adverse impact on air quality/microclimate affecting agriculture. There are
8 farmlands of local importance that extend directly west of the proposed project site in Alamos Canyon (Figure
9 3.5-1).
11 3.5.2.3.1 Impact AG-1: Soils
13 importance to industrial/commercial uses (i.e., the proposed landfill expansion). Although proposed project
14 soils are considered locally important, the site does not currently support agricultural operations and the
15 agricultural viability of on-site soils is dependent upon irrigation. However, the conversion and loss of locally
16 important agricultural soils to industrial/commercial uses would be a significant impact on agricultural
17 resources.
19 No feasible mitigation measures would reduce or avoid the conversion of locally important farmland on-site
20 while meeting the proposed project objectives.
22 As no feasible mitigation exists, impacts on agricultural resources would be significant.
23 3.5.2.3.2 Impact AG-2: Dust
24 Farmlands of local importance extend directly west of the proposed project site, in Alamos Canyon. In addition, a
25 2,850-acre agricultural parcel lies north, northwest, and northeast of the proposed project site. The air quality
26 analysis for this EIR performed dispersion modeling analyses to estimate the ambient impact of proposed project
27 construction and operational emissions. The analysis focused on a peak day of emissions, representing the time
28 period when the proposed project would produce the highest ambient impacts. The results of these analyses were
29 used to evaluate the ambient impact of fugitive dust generated by proposed project construction and operations, as
30 presented in Impacts AQ-5c and AQ-5o in Section 3.2.2.3.
31 Review of the proposed project dispersion modeling results in Table 3.2-12 shows that unmitigated proposed
32 project construction and operational emissions by themselves would produce a maximum ambient 24-hour
33 PM10 impact of 54 µg/m3, which would exceed the 24-hour PM10 CAAQS of 50 µg/m3. The overwhelming
34 majority of this impact, or 49 µg/m3, would occur from fugitive dust generated from proposed earth-moving
35 activities and the operation of mobile sources on paved and unpaved surfaces. Figure B-2.14 in Appendix B-2
36 shows the spatial distribution of ambient 24-hour PM10 impacts estimated for proposed construction and
37 operations. These data show that the maximum ambient impact estimated for proposed project PM10 and
38 therefore fugitive dust emissions would occur within the farmlands of local importance directly west of the
39 proposed project site in Alamos Canyon. While the 24-hour ambient background concentration of fugitive
40 dust within these areas is not known, it is expected to be somewhat less than 49 µg/m3. Therefore, unmitigated

1 proposed construction and operations would increase ambient fugitive dust levels by more than 10 percent
2 from background levels to farmlands within one-half mile of the proposed project site, thereby resulting in a
3 potentially significant impact.
5 Mitigation Measure AG-1: Fugitive Dust. Project construction and operations would comply with VCAPCD
6 Rule 55, Fugitive Dust, which would reduce project PM10 emissions from uncontrolled levels by 50 to 75
7 percent, depending on the source type. Mitigation Measures AQ-2, Additional Fugitive Dust Controls for
8 Construction and AQ-4, Additional Fugitive Dust Controls for Operations (presented in Section 3.2.2.3 of this
9 EIR), would further reduce fugitive dust emissions from these sources to 90 percent from uncontrolled levels.
11 Review of the proposed project dispersion modeling results in Table 3.2-13 shows that mitigated proposed
12 project construction and operational emissions by themselves would produce a maximum ambient 24-hour
13 PM10 impact of 27 µg/m3. The overwhelming majority of this impact, or 25 µg/m3, would occur from fugitive
14 dust generated from proposed earth-moving activities and the operation of mobile sources on paved and
15 unpaved surfaces. This impact would occur within the farmlands of local importance directly west of the
16 proposed project site in Alamos Canyon. As mentioned above, the 24-hour ambient background concentration
17 of fugitive dust within these areas is not known. However, it is expected to be near the value of 25 µg/m3.
18 Therefore, mitigated proposed construction and operation would increase ambient fugitive dust levels by
19 more than 10 percent to farmlands within one-half mile of the proposed project site, thereby resulting in a
22 Table 3.5-1 summarizes the potentially significant adverse agricultural resource impacts of the proposed
23 project or less than significant impacts for which mitigation measures would further reduce impacts. For each
24 impact, the table describes any applicable mitigation measures, the significance of the impact following
Table 3.5-1. Mitigation for Agricultural Resource Impacts
Mitigation Measure(s) After Timing
Adverse Impact Mitigation Parties
Impact AG-1: Soils.
Convert farmland of Not Not
None feasible. Significant
local importance to non- applicable. Applicable.
agricultural uses.
AG-1: Fugitive Dust. Project
construction and operations would
comply with VCAPCD Rule 55,
Fugitive Dust, which would reduce
project PM10 emissions from
Impact AG-2: Dust. uncontrolled levels by 50 to 75
Cause a ten percent or percent, depending on the source
greater increase in dust type. Mitigation Measures AQ-2, Planning Project
on agricultural parcels Additional Fugitive Dust Controls for Significant Division duration
within one-half mile of Construction and AQ-4, Additional
the proposed project. Fugitive Dust Controls for
Operations (presented in Section
3.2.2.3 of this EIR), would further
reduce fugitive dust emissions from
these sources to 90 percent from
uncontrolled levels.


1 3.6 Visual Resources/Glare
2 This section evaluates the potential impacts on visual resources associated with the proposed project,
3 including the project’s effects on visual character, visual quality, and viewing audience, as well as the
4 potential for project-generated glare.
5 Visual Resources
6 Visual resources are generally defined as the natural and built features of the landscape visible from public
7 views that contribute to an area’s visual quality. This section describes the existing visual environment and
8 changes resulting from the proposed project to characterize the aesthetic condition of the project site,
9 including on-site structures and facilities, and assess how the condition would be potentially affected by
10 implementation of the proposed project.
11 The evaluation of visual resources in the context of environmental analysis typically addresses contrast
12 between visible landscape elements. Collectively, these elements comprise the aesthetic environment, or
13 landscape character. The landscape character is compared to the proposed project’s visual qualities to
14 determine the compatibility or contrast resulting from the buildout of the proposed action.
15 Views are defined as visual access to, or visibility of, a natural or built landscape feature from an observer
16 viewpoint. Views may be focal (restricted in scope to a particular object), or panoramic (encompassing a large
17 geographic area with a wide or deep [i.e., distant] field of view). Focal views can be from a number of
18 observer viewpoints compared to the object being viewed: from a lower elevation; at the same level; or from
19 an elevated vantage. Panoramic views are usually associated with an elevated observer viewpoint. Scenic
20 views or vistas are panoramic public views that include natural features including views of the ocean, unusual
21 topographic features, or unique urban or historic structures.
22 Views are characterized by their distance from the viewer: foreground; middle-ground; or background.
23 Foreground views are those immediately perceived by the viewer and include objects at close range that tend
24 to dominate the view. Middle-ground views occupy the center of the view and generally include objects that
25 are the center of a viewer’s attention if they are sufficiently large or visually contrasting with adjacent visual
26 features. Background views include distant objects and other objects that form the horizon. Objects perceived
27 in the background view eventually diminish in their importance with increasing distance. In the context of the
28 background, the skyline can be an important visual context because objects above this point are highlighted
29 against the typically blue background.
30 A viewshed, or visible area, is the total range of views experienced from an observer’s viewpoint. A viewshed is
31 defined by landscape features that define or obstruct sightlines, or the line of sight between an observer and a
32 viewed object. Views may be partially or entirely obstructed by topography, buildings and structures, and/or
33 vegetation. The closer an intervening obstruction is to the observer, the more it will potentially obstruct the
34 viewshed. Accordingly, a small physical obstruction in the foreground of a view will potentially have a more
35 substantial affect on the viewshed compared to a relatively large obstruction perceived in the middle or
36 background.
37 Glare
38 Glare, an indirectly caused phenomenon of lighting or reflection off building materials, can cause a negative
39 impact during the day or night. Daytime glare is caused by the reflection of sunlight from highly reflective
40 surfaces. Reflective surfaces are generally associated with buildings constructed with broad expanses of
41 highly polished or smooth surfaces (e.g., glass or metal) or broad, light-colored paving surfaces such as
42 concrete. Nighttime glare can include direct, intense, focused light, as well as reflected light. Glare can be

3.6 Visual Resources/Glare
1 caused by mobile, transitory sources such as automobiles, or from intense stationary sources including
2 security lighting.
5 The area of influence for consideration of the project’s effects on aesthetics/ visual resources is the portion
6 of the project site and adjacent environment that is observed from public view corridors. Public views
7 include those experienced while stationary (i.e., observed from recreational facilities such as parks and
8 open space areas, and scenic vista points), or while mobile (i.e., traveling on public roads; running or
9 walking on sidewalks or paths). Examples of private views that are not considered in this analysis are
10 from individual residential yards or patios, and private commercial establishments, including visitor
11 serving facilities.
12 3.6.1.2 Setting
13 3.6.1.2.1 Visual Quality
14 The existing SVLRC is located within the lower foothills of the Santa Susana Mountains and is situated
15 between an unnamed canyon to the north, Brea Canyon to the east, SR-118 to the south, and Alamos
16 Canyon to the west. The project site is characterized by several unnamed ridges and valleys, with on-site
17 elevation ranging between 700 to 1,320 feet. The SVLRC’s existing CUP boundary encompasses 297 acres
18 that consists of a waste disposal area (185 acres) and a buffer area (112 acres). Existing on-site facilities
19 include an operation and maintenance facility with fuel stations; a scale house and scales; a LFG flare
20 station; a LFGTE facility; three portable office structures; and a condensate knockout and leachate
21 treatment facility. Under CUP-3142-7, the waste disposal area is authorized to operate to a fill elevation of
22 1,118 feet above msl.
23 The proposed SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project would extend the existing waste disposal area into an
24 unnamed canyon north and northwest of the existing CUP boundary. Open space areas north of the existing
25 CUP boundary are separated from Alamos Canyon by a ridge; intervening topography obstructs views of
26 these open space areas from surrounding areas. The proposed CUP boundary contains a variety of important
27 scenic resources including undulating topography, steep bluffs, canyons, and open grasslands. Adjacent open
28 space areas associated with the surrounding canyons consist of prominent ridgelines, riparian habitats, and
29 ephemeral drainages. Rock escarpments and outcroppings are located east of the project site within Brea
30 Canyon. This contiguous open space is an important rural visual resource.
31 3.6.1.2.2 Project Visibility in Sensitive Viewing Areas
32 The project site is located within one-half mile of SR-118, which is designated as an Eligible State Scenic
33 Highway (Ventura County RMA 2008c). Views of the project site from vehicles traveling along SR-118 at 65
34 miles per hour (the posted speed limit) are relatively ephemeral (lasting no more than 10 seconds).
35 The project site is visible from several surrounding public viewpoints in the project vicinity. Important
36 viewpoints within the project viewshed are illustrated in Figure 3.6-1. Eight Nine representative public views
37 of the project site were taken from prominent public viewpoints including:
38 • East from SR-118 (View 1);

39 • Northwest from the end of Madera Road (View 2);
40 • South from Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail (View 3);
1 • East from Alamos Canyon Trail (View 4);

2 • Northeast from Tierra Rejada Park (View 5);
3 • North from South Crest Place (south of Tierra Rejada) (View 6);
4 • West from the Unocal property near Big Sky Ranch Development (View 7); and
5 • Southeast from North Park Village (planned residential development) (View 8). ); and
6 • North from Reagan Library (Air Force One Pavillion outside terrace) (View 9).
7 These views are presented in Figure 3.6-2 through Figure 3.6-910. The eight nine views present two four
8 near-distance views of the site (Views 1, 2, 3, and 4) and three five long-distance panoramas of the site
9 (Views 5, 6, 7, and 8, and 9). They are considered representative of public views that encompass important
10 visual characteristics of the project site and surrounding areas.
11 State Route (SR)-118: Individuals traveling eastbound on SR-118 experience prominent foreground views of
12 foothills and adjacent canyons adjacent to the northern edge of the proposed CUP boundary. Expansive views of
13 grassland habitats are also visible from this vantage point. The distant foothills and steeper slopes of the Santa
14 Susana Mountain Range are visible across the proposed project site from SR-118 (Figure 3.6-2, Existing
15 View). Intervening topography obstructs views of the proposed project site from motorists traveling
16 westbound on SR-118.
17 Madera Road: Views from the end of Madera Road looking northwest provide expansive foreground and
18 middleground vistas of the steeper slopes and ridgelines of surrounding foothills. Expansive vistas of canyons
19 and grasslands on the southern edge of the proposed SVLRC CUP boundary are also prominent in the foreground,
20 with distant background views of the Santa Susana Mountains (Figure 3.6-3, Existing View).
21 Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail: From the proposed Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop trail looking south,
22 foreground vistas of open grasslands, rolling foothills, and canyons are prominent. Undulating ridgelines of
23 the Santa Susana foothills are visible in the background beyond the project site (Figure 3.6-4, Existing View).
24 Existing support/ancillary structures associated with current landfill operations are visible in the middle
25 ground from this vantage point.
26 Alamos Canyon Trail: Looking east from the proposed Alamos Canyon Trail, rolling hills and canyons
27 northwest of the proposed project site are visible in the foreground. Existing support/ancillary structures
28 adjacent to the northern site boundary and the Santa Susana Mountains are visible beyond the rolling hills
29 from this vantage point (Figure 3.6-5, Existing View).
30 Tierra Rejada Park: Existing industrial development south of the proposed project site is prominent in
31 foreground views from the undeveloped Tierra Rejada Park. Looking east from Tierra Rejada Park, rolling
32 hills and canyons are prominent in the middle ground, with distant views of the Santa Susana Mountains
33 (Figure 3.6-6, Existing View).
34 South Crest Place (south of Tierra Rejada): Looking north from South Crest Place, existing residences
35 south of the proposed project site are visible in the foreground, with distant background views of the Santa
36 Susana Mountains (Figure 3.6-7, Existing View).
37 Big Sky Ranch Development: Views from the Big Sky Ranch property looking westward provide expansive
38 foreground vistas of open grasslands. Undulating ridgelines of the Santa Susana foothills adjacent to the
39 southern edge of the CUP boundary are prominent from this vantage point (Figure 3.6-8, Existing View).
40 Existing topography obstructs distant views of the Santa Susana Mountains.

8
NORTH PARK VILLAGE
3
4
BIG
BIG
SKY
SKY
RANCH
RANCH
7
118
5
S
S IIM
M II V
VAA LL LL E
EYY
Tierra Rejada Rd.
E. Los. Angeles Ave.

6
Madera Rd.
LEGEND
N Existing CUP Boundary

9 Scale 1 View Location
0 1.0 Field of View
Mile
Figure 3.6-1. View Corridor Locations Diagram

Existing View
View at Buildout under Existing CUP
Proposed View at Buildout Source: Psomas 2006
Figure 3.6-2. View 1: Looking East from State Route 118

Existing View
Figure 3.6-3. View 2: Looking Northwest from Madera Road

Existing View
Proposed View at Buildout
Figure 3.6-4. View 3: Looking South from Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail
Existing View
Figure 3.6-5. View 4: Looking East from Alamos Canyon Trail

Existing View
Figure 3.5-6. View 5: Looking Northeast from Tierra Rejada Park

Existing View
Figure 3.6-7. View 6: Looking North from South Crest Place (South of Tierra Rejada)
Existing View
Figure 3.6-8. View 7: Looking West from Big Sky Ranch Development
Existing View
Figure 3.6-9. View 8: Looking Southeast from North Park Village Planned Residential Development
Existing View
Figure 3.6-10. View 9: Looking North from Reagan Library (Air Force One Pavilion outside terrace)
1 North Park Village Residential Development: From the North Park Village planned residential
2 development area looking southeast, expansive foreground vistas of rolling hills and canyons are prominent;
3 oak/riparian woodlands south of the proposed project site are visible in the middle ground (Figure 3.6-9,
4 Existing View). Views from North Park Village looking southeast provide distant background views of the
5 Santa Susana Mountains.
6 North from Reagan Library (Air Force One Pavilion outside terrace): Views from the Reagan Library
7 (Air Force One Pavilion outside terrace) looking north provide expansive foreground and middleground vistas
8 of the surrounding foothills. Distant background views of the Santa Susana Mountains are prominent from this
9 vantage point (Figure 3.6-10, Existing View).
10 In summary, existing public views of the proposed project site and surrounding lands contain several
11 important physical visual attributes: undulating ridgelines, canyons, expansive grasslands, oak/riparian
12 woodlands, and the background Santa Susana Mountain ridges. The combination of these features visible
13 from several public viewpoints enhances the visual quality of the area proposed for development as part of the
14 SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project.
15 3.6.1.2.3 Glare
16 Existing uses within the 297-acre existing CUP boundary and adjacent undeveloped open space to the north,
17 east, and west result in a relatively low degree of on-site glare. Walkways, areas adjacent to the maintenance
18 facility, scale house, LFG flare station, LFGTE facility, office structures, condensate knockout and leachate
19 treatment facility, and parking areas are illuminated for safety and inspection purposes. In addition, pole-
20 mounted floodlights illuminate areas within the existing SVLRC; however, these light fixtures are hooded to
21 direct light downward and prevent spillover onto adjacent areas. As the existing topography and extensive
22 amount of undeveloped area diffuses lighting associated with existing landfill operations, these lights do not
23 collectively generate substantial amounts of glare.
25 Local and regional adopted plans and policies within the County of Ventura General Plan provide the primary
26 regulatory guidance for maintaining aesthetic resources in the project area, although state agencies have also
27 adopted plans that determine allowable changes to visual resources within their jurisdiction (e.g., Caltrans).
28 Areas considered to have the greatest visual sensitivity are typically along scenic highways or other natural
29 areas. The primary areas of concern generally result from changes to prominent topographic features, changes
30 in the character of an area with high visual sensitivity, removal of important vegetation, or obstructing public
31 views of a visually sensitive landscape.
33 California’s Scenic Highway Program was created to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from
34 change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways (Streets and Highways Code
35 §260 et seq.). There are no officially state-designated scenic highways within or in the vicinity of the project
36 area. However, a portion of SR-118 from SR-23 to De Soto Avenue near Browns Canyon is an eligible
37 California Scenic Highway, but has not been officially designated. The County has established the SR-118
38 scenic corridor to within one-half mile on either side of the highway (Ventura County 2006a).

3 The Ventura County General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs (Ventura County 2008c) include Section 1.7,
4 Scenic Resources. The County has identified Scenic Resource Areas of importance to the area and included
5 them on a Resource Protection Map. Scenic resource goals in the Plan include:
6 1. Preserve and protect the significant open views and visual resources of the County.
7 2. Protect the visual resources within the viewshed of lakes and State and County designated scenic
8 highways, and other scenic areas as may be identified by an area plan.
9 3. Enhance and maintain the visual appearance of buildings and developments.
10 Scenic Resource policies include:
11 1. Discretionary development which would significantly degrade visual resources or significantly alter
12 or obscure public views of visual resources shall be prohibited unless no feasible mitigation measures
13 are available and the decisions-making body determines there are overriding considerations.
14 2. Proposed undergrounding of overhead utilities within Scenic Resource Areas or Scenic Highway
15 Areas shall be given first priority by the Public Works Agency in utilizing the County's allocation of
16 Utility Undergrounding Funds.
17 3. The Planning Division shall continue to implement the landscaping requirements of the Zoning
18 Ordinance and the "Guide to Landscape Plans" to enhance the appearance of discretionary
19 development.
22 Based on the criteria identified in the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (Ventura County
23 2006) and Administrative Supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines (Ventura County 1999), the threshold
24 criteria for evaluating whether a proposed project may have a significant adverse impact state:
25 VIS-1: Scenic Highways. A project would have no impact if it would not be visible from a designated or
26 eligible scenic highway. If the project is located a distance of greater than one-half mile away, it
27 would generally have no significant impact. The project could be considered to have a significant
28 visual impact if it is located within one-half mile of the highway.
29 VIS-2: Scenic Areas/Features. A project would have a significant impact if it would degrade scenic areas
30 or features or significantly alter them.
31 VIS-3: Glare. A project would normally be considered to have a significant impact from glare if: (1) any
32 light source in excess of 150 watts directly illuminates adjacent properties; (2) indirect illumination
33 of adjacent properties is in excess of 0.5 foot candles 1; (3) there is a point of overlap between light
34 patterns greater than seven feet for pedestrian lighting systems; and (4) the intensity of lighting
35 within the physical limits of an area required to be lighted is greater than seven foot-candles.
1
A foot candle is the primary measure of light intensity. One foot-candle equals one lumen per square foot.
2 This analysis of potential aesthetic effects of the project was conducted using quantitative Federal Highway
3 Administration (FHWA) Visual Impact Assessment (FHWA 1988) and BLM Visual Resource Management
4 (BLM 1978) techniques, and the Ventura County General Plan (Section 1.7, Scenic Resources) to determine
5 project impacts in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the Ventura
6 County Administrative Supplement to the CEQA Guidelines, and the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment
7 Guidelines.
8 FHWA Visual Impact Assessment requires that a project be assessed as to whether it affects the overall
9 aesthetic character of a project area, as well as the physical compatibility of a project with the site’s existing
10 visual quality. In order to objectively assess a project’s impacts on visual quality, FHWA’s framework
11 requires characterization of the existing level of visual quality associated with the project setting in terms of
12 the following variables (i.e., evaluative criteria):
13 • Vividness. Visual power (i.e., memorability) of landscape components. Vividness includes

14 consideration of landforms and landcover (e.g., vegetation, water, and development);
15 • Intactness. Integrity of the natural or built environment and freedom from encroaching elements.
16 Development could enhance or subtract from otherwise intact urban and pristine landscapes; and
17 • Unity. Visual coherence or harmony of individual landscape elements; compatibility. Although most
18 landscapes exhibit a greater or lesser degree of unity between natural and built landscape elements,
19 entirely natural landscapes and/or predominantly urban landscapes can be visually unified or chaotic.
20 When all three of these criteria are rated highly in a project setting, visual quality is accordingly considered to
21 be high. However, a landscape setting determined to possess low visual quality may nonetheless be sensitive
22 to project-related changes, and be negatively affected by or benefit from project additions to such qualities.
23 The BLM Visual Resource Management methodology employs the contrast rating system, a systematic
24 process for the analysis of potential visual impacts of proposed projects and activities. This methodology
25 assumes that the degree to which a project affects the visual quality of a landscape depends on the degree of
26 contrast created between a project and existing landscape. Similar to FHWA visual attributes, the basic design
27 elements of form, line, color, and texture are considered to make this comparison and to describe the visual
28 contrast created by the project.
29 BLM’s general guidance for assessing contrast is defined as follows (BLM 1978):
30 • Form. Contrast in form results from changes in the shape and mass of landforms or structures. The
31 degree of change depends on how dissimilar the introduced forms are to those that remain in the
32 landscape;
33 • Line. Contrasts in line results from changes in edge types and interruption or introduction of edges,
34 bands, and silhouette lines. New lines may differ in their sub-elements (e.g., boldness, complexity,
35 and orientation) from existing lines;
36 • Color. Changes in value and hue tend to create the greatest contrast. Other factors such as chroma
37 (i.e., color saturation or brilliance), reflectivity, and color temperature (e.g., red is warm, blue is cold)
38 also increase the contrast; and
39 • Texture. Noticeable contrast in texture usually stems from differences in the grain, density, and internal
40 contrast. Other factors such as irregularity and directional patterns of texture may affect the rating.
41 Under the proposed Landfill Expansion Project, the proposed waste disposal area would be filled sequentially
42 in four phases. As the phases reach capacity (i.e., final grade), the final cover would be installed and the area
1 would be revegetated. This EIR uses computer modeling to illustrate the overall visibility of the final landfill
2 contour at closure to establish a base for preparing visual simulations. Topographic data of existing conditions
3 and proposed landfill grading was acquired from recent aerial photography/digital mapping and engineering
4 Computer Aided Drafting and Design (CADD) files. Computer modeling of surrounding topographic areas
5 extending five miles from the landfill was based on USGS 10 meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data
6 extracted from the USGS National Map (Psomas 2006b).
7 Computer simulations were used to present representative views of the existing project site, and then
8 systematically superimpose proposed project design and landscaping details at final closure on the same base
9 photograph to illustrate the potential change to the existing view. This technique involves creating a three
10 dimensional (3D) computer model from engineering data of the final landfill contour to accurately establish
11 scale and slope configuration. The “Existing Views” in Figure 3.6-2 through Figure 3.6-6 10 serve as a
12 background for super-imposing photo-simulations of project at closure (i.e., buildout). Each camera position
13 was carefully recorded when the existing view was shot, including camera tilt perpendicular to targeting axis,
14 camera compass bearing, position, and elevation. As landscape treatments addressing the location and types
15 of species to be planted have not been specifically identified, these details were reasonably projected based on
16 the provisions stipulated in the current VIMP (Carter Romanek Landscape Architects, Inc. 2003) and Joint
17 Technical Document (JTD) for the existing SLVRC, which was prepared in accordance with the CUP-3142-7,
18 Condition 43. The detailed design and landscape plans would be proposed as incorporated into the JTD which
19 would be updated to include the revised fill plan, the increased waste disposal capacity, and the extended site
20 life under the proposed project.
21 The view corridors represented by each of these simulated views are presented in Figure 3.6-1. In order to
22 facilitate comparison and impact assessment, the proposed project buildout computer-simulated view is
23 indicated on Figure 3.6-2 through Figure 3.6-9 10 below the Existing View. The simulated views present
24 near-term (“View at Buildout under Existing CUP”) and long-term (“Proposed View at Buildout”) buildout
25 scenarios: the proposed “near-term” setting illustrates the visual character associated with the permitted final
26 landfill grading and fill elevation under CUP-3142-7 (i.e., closure of the SVLRC as currently permitted); the
27 “long-term” setting depicts the site’s visual character subsequent to closure of the SVLRC under the proposed
28 CUP modification (i.e., closure of the SVLRC as proposed under this expansion project).
29 In addition, the assessment of visual impacts is based on the following regulatory control that would govern
30 various project components and is the basis for County permits that would be required prior to construction:
31 • Visual Impact Mitigation Program (CUP-3142-7, Condition 43) – CUP-3142-7 Condition 43

32 required preparation of a VIMP, which provides a landscape plan for the entire project site. The
33 VIMP landscaping plans are implemented at two levels of detail: a master concept plan; and specific
34 landscape plans. As each fill area reached its final contours, the area is closed, final cover is added,
35 and the final landscaping is installed. The VIMP allows revegetation of the waste disposal area to
36 start mitigating visual impacts concurrent with operations and prior to final closure of the SVLRC.
37 Consistent with County permitting regulations, the VIMP would be updated to include the proposed
38 project.
39 3.6.2.2.1 VIS-1: Scenic Highways
40 If the project is within one-half mile and visible from a designated or eligible scenic highway it is necessary to
41 determine the nature of the project relative to the existing visual environment as seen from the highway. This
42 requires reviewing the location, scale, architectural style, etc. of the proposed project, to ascertain if any
43 scenic views from the highway would be affected.

1 3.6.2.2.2 VIS-2: Scenic Areas/Features
2 To determine if there would be a significant visual impact, it is necessary to determine how many people
3 would see the project, and the nature of the project relative to the existing visual environment. Photographs of
4 the site were taken from eight vantage points, as discussed above, and the final landfill contour of the
5 proposed project was superimposed on the photographs.
6 3.6.2.2.3 VIS-3: Glare
7 A project can cause glare through the type of exterior building materials utilized, the type of activities
8 undertaken and/or the type of exterior lighting employed. The project description should identify:
9 • Building Materials – Potentially reflective exterior building materials, location of the materials in
10 relation to the position of the sun, and to location of motorists and other persons within sight of the
11 project.
12 • Activities – Type of activities to be performed, the hours they would be performed, where within the
13 project site they would be performed, and what types of shielding/screening would be employed.
14 • Lighting – Each exterior light source according to type, location, wattage (measured at 110 volts or
15 the equivalent), height, direction of lighting patterns, type of shielding, when in use, and whether the
16 light is steady or pulsating. For a lighting system, an outline of directly illuminated areas, including
17 points of overlap between lighting patterns, all streets within the lighting system, and all adjacent
18 property lines.
19 Based on this information the proposed SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project was evaluated against the
20 threshold criteria to determine if a significant impact from glare would occur.
22 3.6.2.3.1 Impact VIS-1: Scenic Highways
23 The project site is located within one-half mile of SR-118, which is designated as an Eligible State Scenic
24 Highway. The proposed project would expand the existing SVLRC CUP boundary and waste disposal area,
25 construct a non-disposal support/ancillary facility area, expand and construct new recycling and resources
26 recovery and energy conversion facilities. Since the proposed project does not include future uses of the site, it
27 is assumed that, with the exception of support facilities for closure and post-closure maintenance, these facilities
28 would be removed upon cessation of the landfill and/or transfer operations. The proposed support/ancillary
29 facilities would be located on 30 acres in the southwestern portion of the proposed CUP boundary. Existing
30 topography would obstruct views of these facilities from individuals traveling on SR-118.
31 The proposed CUP boundary would encompass 887 acres that would include a 371-acre waste disposal area
32 and a 516-acre buffer area. The proposed final grades would increase from the currently permitted fill
33 elevation of 1,118 feet above msl to approximately 1,270 feet above msl (i.e., a net increase of 152 feet). The
34 proposed waste disposal area would be located between existing ridgelines that range between 1,000 and
35 1,350 feet above msl; therefore, the proposed waste disposal area would not be visible to motorists traveling
36 westbound on SR-118. However, the proposed landfill footprint and elevations would be visible to individuals
37 traveling eastbound on SR-118. The proposed waste disposal area would be filled sequentially in four phases.
38 As the phases reach capacity (i.e., final grade), the final cover would be installed and the area would be
39 revegetated; site revegetation would consist of native drought-tolerant vegetation. Although the final landfill
40 contour and slopes would not alter existing ridgelines and would be visually compatible with surrounding
41 vegetation, the landfill would obstruct scenic views of the Santa Susana Mountain Range from the SR-118
42 scenic viewshed (Figure 3.6-2, Proposed View at Buildout). As buildout of the proposed waste disposal area
1 (i.e., increased landfill footprint and elevation) would obstruct views of important visual resources
2 experienced from SR-118, impacts on visual resources would be significant.
4 No feasible measures exist to mitigate the obstruction of important scenic views experienced from SR-118.
6 The residual impact on visual resources would be significant.
7 3.6.2.3.2 Impact VIS-2: Scenic Areas/Features
8 The proposed CUP boundary would encompass 887 acres that consists of a waste disposal area (371 acres)
9 and a buffer area (516 acres). The proposed final grades would increase from the currently permitted fill
10 elevation of 1,118 feet above msl to approximately 1,270 feet above msl, resulting in a net increase of 152
11 feet. The proposed waste disposal area would be located in a canyon north of the existing CUP boundary
12 between existing ridgelines that range between 1,000 and 1,350 feet above msl. Proposed operations would
13 use the south slope of the ridge for fill placement; however, grading would not extend over the top of the
14 ridgeline or alter the existing ridgeline separating the proposed waste disposal area from Alamos Canyon to
15 the north.
16 Phase I would include additional fill on the waste disposal area currently permitted under CUP-3142-7 and is
17 shown in Figures 3.6-2, 3.6-3, and 3.6-7 through 3.6-9 10 as View at Buildout under Existing CUP.
18 Subsequent phases would occur in the northern portion of the proposed waste disposal area and progress
19 towards the southwestern CUP boundary (Figure 3.6-1). The proposed increase in elevation would be applied
20 gradually as each phase of the landfill is developed; proposed landfill elevations would blend with the
21 adjacent ridgelines to the extent feasible. Revegetation on finish grade slopes would occur concurrently with
22 ongoing operations. In addition, refuse would be covered at the end of each day and excavated areas and soil
23 stockpiles would be landscaped.
24 Landfill phasing would minimize visual massing of the landfill during active operations. Also, ongoing
25 revegetation of final grade slopes would ensure that the final landfill contour would visually blend with
26 surrounding hillsides as vegetation becomes established and density increases. As the final landfill contour
27 would be vegetated non-irrigated open space (i.e., no supplemental watering is proposed), the proposed slopes
28 would be visually compatible with the seasonal colors of the surrounding topography.
29 Initial excavation of the landfill would occur in a canyon that is screened from surrounding public vantage
30 points. Due to intervening topography, active operations and exposed refuse/barren soil would not be visible
31 from most public view corridors. The visual impacts that would result from the soil excavation and other
32 landfill operations would depend on the specific location and elevation of the observer.
33 Madera Road: Expansion of the landfill would not obstruct expansive foreground and middleground vistas
34 of the surrounding foothill ridgelines and vegetated canyons. As the final landfill contour would extend above
35 the existing horizon defined by the Santa Susana Mountain ridgelines, distant views of the Santa Susana
36 Mountains beyond the site would be partially obstructed (Figure 3.6-3, Proposed View at Buildout). Active
37 landfill operations would be screened by intervening topography from this vantage point. However, as the
38 final landfill contour would obstruct views of the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline, impacts on visual
39 resources from this vantage point would be significant.
40 Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail: Existing expansive views to the south of foreground grasslands,
41 foothills, and canyons would be completely obstructed by expansion of the proposed waste disposal area.
1 Foreground views of the final landfill contour would appear flat and would not contain the undulating
2 appearance of surrounding ridgelines (Figure 3.6-4, Proposed View at Buildout). Due to the elevated slope
3 areas along the Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail and because of the close proximity of the viewer
4 (approximately 800 feet), active landfill operations would also be visible from upper elevations from this
5 vantage point. Although the adverse visual effects of the project along the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline
6 would be minimized because the final landfill contour would not extend above the existing horizon defined by
7 the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline as experienced from the proposed trail, impacts on visual resources
8 would be significant.
9 Alamos Canyon Trail: Buildout of the proposed waste disposal area would be visible from Alamos Canyon
10 Trail eastward. Expansive foreground and middleground vistas of the surrounding foothill ridgelines and
11 vegetated canyons would be completely obstructed from this vantage point. As the final landfill contour
12 would extend above the existing horizon defined by the Santa Susana Mountain ridgelines, distant views of
13 the Santa Susana Mountains beyond the site would be partially obstructed (Figure 3.6-5, Proposed View at
14 Buildout). Individuals would have unobstructed views of active landfill operations (i.e., grading, soil
15 excavation, and soil stockpiles) from this vantage point. Due to the close proximity of the viewer
16 (approximately 2,500 feet) and because the final landfill contour would obstruct views of the Santa Susana
17 Mountain ridgeline, impacts on visual resources from this vantage point would be significant.
18 Tierra Rejada Park: Expansion of the landfill would be visible from Tierra Rejada Park for observers
19 looking northeastward. Buildout of the proposed waste disposal area would not obstruct expansive
20 middleground vistas of the surrounding foothill ridgelines and vegetated canyons. The final landfill contour
21 would not extend above the existing horizon defined by the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline as experienced
22 from Tierra Rejada Park (Figure 3.6-6, Proposed View at Buildout). Furthermore, the adverse visual effects of
23 the project along the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline would be minimized due to the remaining expanse of
24 undulating topography above the proposed landfill and in the viewing background. Active landfill operations
25 would be screened by intervening topography from this vantage point. Impacts on visual resources from this
26 vantage point would be less than significant.
27 South Crest Place (south of Tierra Rejada): Buildout of the proposed waste disposal area would be visible
28 from South Crest Place northward. However, the adverse visual effects of the project along the Santa Susana
29 Mountain ridgeline would be minimized due to the remaining expanse of undulating topography above the
30 proposed landfill and in the viewing background. Also, the final landfill contour would not extend above the
31 existing horizon defined by the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline as experienced from South Crest Place
32 (Figure 3.6-7, Proposed View at Buildout). Due to the distance of the viewer and intervening development,
33 active landfill operations would not be visible from this public view point. Impacts on visual resources from
34 this vantage point would be less than significant.
35 Big Sky Ranch Development: Existing expansive views of foreground grasslands and middleground views
36 of undulating ridgelines would not be obstructed by expansion of the proposed waste disposal area. Although
37 the final landfill contour would appear flat and not contain the undulating appearance of surrounding
38 ridgelines, the proposed landfill would appear subordinate to the surrounding topography from this vantage
39 point (Figure 3.6-8, Proposed View at Buildout). In addition, several proposed residential lots would be
40 located in lower areas (i.e., valleys) that would not provide views of the proposed waste disposal area.
41 However, views of the final landfill contour would be visible looking west from this viewpoint from elevated
42 slope areas on the eastern portion of the canyon. Active landfill operations would also be visible from upper
43 elevations from this vantage point; however, the distance of the observer (two miles) would substantially
44 minimize impacts on visual resources from this viewpoint. Impacts on visual resources would be less than
45 significant.
46 North Park Village Residential Development: The proposed waste disposal area would be visible from the
47 North Park Village residential area southeastward. Expansive vistas of rolling hills, canyons, and oak/riparian
1 woodlands would not be obstructed; however, distant views of the Santa Susana Mountains beyond the site
2 would be partially obstructed (Figure 3.6-9, Proposed View at Buildout). The remaining expanse of
3 undulating topography above the proposed landfill and in the viewing background would minimize the
4 adverse visual effects of the project along the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline. In addition, the final landfill
5 contour would not extend above the existing horizon defined by the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline as
6 experienced from the North Park Village Residential Development (Figure 3.6-9, Proposed View at
7 Buildout).
8 Elevated residential lots located along southeast facing slopes and ridgelines would have unobstructed views
9 of active landfill operations (i.e., grading, soil excavation, and soil stockpiles) from this vantage point. The
10 distance of the viewer (one mile) would minimize adverse visual effects from these areas; however, impacts
11 on visual resources would be significant.
12 Reagan Library (Air Force One Pavilion outside terrace): Buildout of the proposed waste disposal area
13 would be visible from the Reagan Library northward. However, the adverse visual effects of the project along
14 the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline would be minimized due to the remaining expanse of undulating
15 topography above the proposed landfill and in the viewing background. Although the final landfill contour
16 would appear flat and not contain the undulating appearance of surrounding foothills, the proposed landfill
17 would appear subordinate to the surrounding topography from this vantage point (Figure 3.6-10, Proposed
18 View at Buildout). Due to the distance of the viewer and intervening topography, active landfill operations
19 would not be visible from this public view point. Impacts on visual resources from this vantage point would
22 The following measure would address significant impacts on scenic areas/features from the Madera Road,
23 Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail, Alamos Canyon Trail, and North Park Village Residential Development
24 vantage points.
25 Mitigation Measure VIS-1: All landscaping plans shall follow the Ventura County Guide to Landscape
26 Plans guidelines. This shall occur prior to the issuance of the CUP modification. The Plans specify the
27 minimum landscape and irrigation coverage, minimum plant survival rates, and suggested drought tolerant
28 species.
30 Implementation of Mitigation Measure VIS-1 would ensure impacts on scenic areas/features from the Madera
31 Road, Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail, and North Park Village Residential Development vantage points
32 would be reduced to a less than significant level. However, as the final landfill contour would extend above
33 the existing horizon defined by the Santa Susana Mountain ridgelines and due to the close proximity of the
34 viewer, impacts on visual resources from the Alamos Canyon Trail vantage point would be significant.
35 3.6.2.3.3 Impact VIS-3: Glare
36 The proposed project would include lighting on several support and ancillary facilities including: office
37 building; heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance facility; MRF/RTF; SVECC facility; scale house; expanded
38 green waste processing facility; expanded LFGTE facility; and LFGTLNG facility. These facilities would be
39 located in the southwestern portion of the proposed CUP boundary. Additional lighting would be installed at the
40 proposed waste hauling yard and expanded C&D debris recycling processing area and along the new entrance
41 road and scales for safety and inspection purposes. Temporary lighting would be used for up to 30 minutes
42 before sunrise and one hour after sunset to facilitate startup/shutdown operations. Consequently, the number of
43 lighting fixtures would be increased as a result of the need for illumination of proposed structures and exterior
1 areas, and for nighttime maintenance or operations. Additionally, with the exception of support facilities
2 required to support closure and post-closure maintenance activities, proposed facilities would be removed upon
3 cessation of the landfill and/or transfer operations.
4 Proposed buildings would be constructed in accordance with LEED® “green building” design standards that
5 provide for passive solar energy, such as using photovoltaic cells. As these devices are intended to collect
6 solar energy rather than reflect it, their surfaces would not create additional daytime on-site glare.
7 Additionally, they are generally placed on the roofs of facilities, such that they would not be visible from
8 public view corridors.
9 The proposed project would introduce a substantial amount of new night light and glare, representing a
10 significant change in the level of night light illumination when compared to what is presently generated over the
11 project site. Furthermore, the proposed project does not include any specifications identifying the number, type,
12 location, and/or intensity of lighting infrastructure. Although existing topography would screen the proposed
13 facilities area from adjacent public view corridors, impacts on visual resources would be potentially significant.
15 The following measures would address potentially significant illumination and glare as experienced from
16 public view corridors.
17 Mitigation Measure VIS-2: Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the construction of any facilities that
18 include outdoor lighting, the permittee shall develop a Lighting Plan that meets the following requirements:
19 • There shall be no light source in excess of 150 watts that directly illuminates adjacent properties;
20 • Outdoor lighting shall not result in the indirect illumination of adjacent properties in excess of 0.5
21 foot candles;
22 • For pedestrian lighting systems, there shall be no point of overlap between light patterns greater than
23 seven feet; and
24 • There shall be no lighting within the project site that is greater than seven foot-candles.
25 The locations of all exterior lighting fixtures, an arrow showing the direction of light being cast by each
26 fixture, and the height of the fixtures shall be depicted on the Lighting Plan to be reviewed by the Resource
27 Management Agency, Planning Division, prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance. All lighting shall be
28 shielded, shall be directed downwards, and shall avoid being directed towards facilities with reflective
29 services that could produce glare off-site. The Lighting Plan shall be consistent with any mitigation measures
30 that are developed to avoid or reduce impacts to wildlife movement, and shall not result in the illumination of
31 sensitive habitat.
32 Mitigation Measure VIS-3: Prior to the issuance of a Use Inauguration Zoning Clearance for grading
33 activities within the proposed landfill expansion area, the permittee shall submit a lighting plan to the
34 Resource Management Agency, Planning Division for temporary lighting that will be used to facilitate start-
35 up/shutdown operations. The lighting plan shall comply with the following requirements:
36 • There shall be no light source in excess of 150 watts that directly illuminates adjacent properties;
37 • Outdoor lighting shall not result in the indirect illumination of adjacent properties in excess of 0.5
38 foot candles; and
39 • There shall be no lighting within the project site that is greater than seven foot-candles.

1 All lighting shall be shielded, shall be directed downwards, and shall avoid being directed towards equipment
2 with reflective services that could produce glare off-site. The lighting plan shall specify the number, type,
3 intensity, and duration of use of all lighting that will be used for start-up/shutdown operations.
5 Implementation of the Project Lighting Plan (Mitigation Measures VIS-2 and VIS-3) would ensure that the
6 illumination and glare of exterior fixtures would be directed so as to reduce the potential for spillover light
7 onto surrounding areas. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts on visual resources would
10 Table 3.6-1 summarizes the potentially significant adverse visual resource/glare impacts of the proposed
11 project or less than significant impacts for which mitigation measures would further reduce impacts. For each
Table 3.6-1. Mitigation for Visual Resource/Glare Impacts
Responsible
Significant Mitigation Measure(s) After Timing
Parties
Impact VIS-1:
Scenic Highways.
Visual impacts on No feasible mitigation measures
Significant Not Applicable Not applicable
Scenic Highways available.
within one-half mile
of the highway
Prior to issuance
VIS-1: All landscaping plans shall
of Conditional
Impact VIS-2: follow the Ventura County Guide to Less than Project
Use Permit
Scenic Landscape Plans guidelines. This shall significant/ applicant; the
modification
Areas/Features. occur prior to the issuance of the Significant RMA Planning
and after
Degrade scenic areas Conditional Use Permit modification. (Los Division would
installation of
or features or The Plans specify the minimum Alamos be required to
the landscaping
significantly alter landscape and irrigation coverage, Canyon monitor
to ensure the
them. minimum plant survival rates, and Trail) implementation.
success of the
suggested drought tolerant species.
planting
Impact VIS-3: VIS-2: Prior to issuance of a Zoning
Glare. Light source Clearance for the construction of any
in excess of 150 facilities that include outdoor lighting,
watts directly the permittee shall develop a Lighting
illuminates adjacent Plan that meets the following
Project Prior to issuance
properties; indirect requirements:
applicant; the of a Zoning
illumination of
RMA Planning Clearance for
adjacent properties • There shall be no light source in Less than
Division would the construction
exceeds 0.5 foot excess of 150 watts that directly significant
be required to of any facilities
candles; and (3) there illuminates adjacent properties;
monitor that include
is a point of overlap • Outdoor lighting shall not result in
implementation. outdoor lighting
between light the indirect illumination of adjacent
patterns greater than properties in excess of 0.5 foot
seven feet for candles;
pedestrian lighting • For pedestrian lighting systems, there
systems; and the shall be no point of overlap between
Table 3.6-1. Mitigation for Visual Resource/Glare Impacts

Responsible
Significant Mitigation Measure(s) After Timing
Parties
intensity of lighting light patterns greater than seven feet;
within the physical and
limits of an area • There shall be no lighting within the
required to be lighted project site that is greater than seven
is greater than seven foot-candles.
foot-candles. The locations of all exterior lighting
fixtures, an arrow showing the direction
of light being cast by each fixture, and
the height of the fixtures shall be
depicted on the Lighting Plan to be
reviewed by the Resource Management
Agency, Planning Division, prior to
issuance of a Zoning Clearance. All
lighting shall be shielded, shall be
directed downwards, and shall avoid
being directed towards facilities with
reflective services that could produce
glare off-site. The Lighting Plan shall be
consistent with any mitigation measures
that are developed to avoid or reduce
impacts to wildlife movement, and shall
not result in the illumination of sensitive
habitat.
Impact VIS-3: VIS-3: Prior to the issuance of a Use
Glare Inauguration Zoning Clearance for
grading activities within the proposed
landfill expansion area, the permittee
shall submit a lighting plan to the
Resource Management Agency,
Planning Division for temporary
lighting that will be used to facilitate
start-up/shutdown operations. The
lighting plan shall comply with the
Prior to the
following requirements:
issuance of a
• There shall be no light source in
Project Use
excess of 150 watts that directly
applicant; the Inauguration
RMA Planning Zoning
• Outdoor lighting shall not result in Less than
Division would Clearance for
the indirect illumination of adjacent significant
be required to grading
properties in excess of 0.5 foot
monitor activities within
candles; and
implementation. the proposed
• There shall be no lighting within the
landfill
project site that is greater than seven
expansion area
foot-candles.
All lighting shall be shielded, shall be
directed downwards, and shall avoid
being directed towards equipment with
reflective services that could produce
glare off-site. The lighting plan shall
specify the number, type, intensity, and
duration of use of all lighting that will
be used for start-up/shutdown
operations.

1 3.7 Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral Resources, and
5 The area of influence varies for geologic resources, depending on the geologic issue. The area of influence
6 with respect to geologic hazards, such as seismicity, subsidence/settlement, expansive soils, and unstable soil
7 conditions would be confined to the proposed project area, as these impacts are site-specific and relate
8 primarily to construction techniques. The area of influence with respect to mineral resources is areas of
9 known or unknown petroleum reserves in the Simi Valley area. The area of influence with respect to
10 paleontological resources is the Tertiary Sespe Formation, located in the proposed project vicinity, which can
11 be studied and prospected for fossil remains.
12 3.7.1.2 Setting
13 3.7.1.2.1 Topography
14 The proposed project site is located in the Santa Susana Mountains, which are part of the Transverse Ranges
15 geomorphic province. The province is characterized by an east-west trending sequence of ridges and valleys
16 underlain by a similarly aligned sequence of folds and geologic faults. The local hills and valleys were formed
17 by a combination of faulting and folding over a broad area during a period of regional uplift. In general, the
18 mountains north and south of Simi Valley were thrust upward, but the valley itself formed as an alluvial
19 trough that was in-filled later by sediments eroded from adjoining hills. Local mountain ranges include, from
20 north to south, the Oat Mountains, Big Mountains, and Simi Hills, which are separated by Happy Camp
21 Canyon and Arroyo Simi.
22 The landfill is situated on the northern limb of the extensive Simi anticline, an east-west trending regional
23 fold. The surface trace (axis) of the anticline generally coincides with the northern boundary of the Simi
24 Valley. (An anticline is a fold of layered sedimentary rock, the core of which contains the oldest rocks. An
25 anticline is convex upward, the reverse of a syncline). As a result of the anticline, all geologic formations near
26 the landfill and north of Simi Valley dip at inclinations of approximately 30 degrees north back into and
27 beneath the Big Mountain Range north of the valley.
28 The existing landfill is situated in a north-south oriented canyon that opens to the south, toward SR-118,
29 and the proposed adjoining landfill site is situated in a northeast-southwest oriented canyon that opens to
30 the southwest, into Alamos Canyon. The site and immediate vicinity are generally rugged. Canyon sides are
31 steep and slopes of 1:1 (horizontal : vertical) and steeper are common. Local relief ranges up to 250 feet.
32 3.7.1.2.2 Geology and Soils
33 The proposed project site is underlain primarily by the Sespe Formation bedrock. Superimposed on this
34 bedrock are various surficial units, including the upper Pliocene to lower Pleistocene Saugus Formation,
35 which caps subdued ridge tops in the southwest portion of the property; older alluvium, representing erosional
36 remnants of the upper Pleistocene to Holocene alluvial deposits; recent alluvium, occupying the axes of active
37 watercourses; various mass wasting deposits, including translational and rotational landslide masses; and
38 surficial soil and colluvial deposits (GeoSyntec 2005).
39 The Sespe Formation consists of non-marine, alluvial sediments, deposited during the Oligocene epoch (25 to
40 35 million years ago). Alternating sandstone and claystone beds underlie the entire site. The beds, which

3.7 Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources
1 strike east-west and dip north 20 to 30 degrees on the north limb of the Simi anticline, are weakly cemented
2 except for localized, discontinuous well-cemented sandstone lenses. The orientation and weak cementation of
3 the Sespe beds contribute to landslide failures and account for the predominance of landslides on north-facing
4 slopes. The majority of the landslides mapped on the site occurred on north- or northwest- facing slopes.
5 The Sespe Formation in the vicinity of the landfill consists of three separate stratigraphic units, trending east-
6 west across the site, including: 1) a predominantly sandstone section to the south that is greater than 800
7 meters thick, named the Lower Massive Sands; 2) a middle fine-grained section consisting of interbedded
8 claystone, siltstone, and fine sandstone, named the Alternating Series; and 3) another massive sandstone to the
9 north called the Upper Massive Sands. Each unit generally coarsens stratigraphically upward.
10 Hydraulic conductivities for the Sespe beds range from about 3 x 10-5 cm/sec in the coarse-grained portions of
11 the sandstone beds to 1 x 10-8 cm/sec in the claystone beds. In the absence of a geosynthetic clay layer,
12 relatively impermeable soils with hydraulic conductivities less than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec are required for the
13 landfill bottom liner and for a 1-foot barrier layer in the final cover.
14 Sand and gravel alluvium overlies the Sespe within a narrow channel running southwest across the existing
15 landfill site. Most of the alluvium has been buried by the landfill. Based on data collected for the 1988 Final
16 EIR, the alluvium ranges from about 5 to 30 feet thick, and is considered highly permeable with hydraulic
17 conductivities on the order of 10-2 to 10-5 cm/sec. A relatively wide swath of alluvium, approximately 500 to
18 1,000 feet wide, lies at the base of the large, east-northeast trending canyon to be filled as part of the proposed
19 landfill expansion plan. Borings drilled by GeoSyntec (2005) indicate that this alluvium varies in thickness
20 from a few feet to more than 40 feet in the valley axis of the northern expansion area. Unconsolidated
21 alluvium in the landfill expansion area is comprised of sandy clay, clayey sand, and silty sand.
22 The natural terrain in the vicinity of the site is veneered by soils of the San Benito-Nacimiento-Linnen soil
23 association, which generally consists of strongly sloping to very steep, well-drained clay loams and silty clay
24 loams. In the steepest portions of the area, the soils consist of a thin unstable mantle. In flatter areas, the soil
25 consists of clay loams, 40 to 60 inches deep, which support annual grasses and brush.
26 3.7.1.2.3 Faulting
27 In accordance with 27 CCR §21750 and the SWRCB requirements, new Class III landfills cannot be located
28 on an active (Holocene) fault. An active fault shows evidence of movement in the past 11,000 years (the
29 Holocene epoch). In addition, existing units containing Class I waste, approved under previous regulations,
30 must have a 200-foot setback from any known Holocene fault. Numerous faults have been identified in the
31 Simi Valley region, including two potentially active faults that traverse the landfill property; however, no
32 active faults are known within the site (Figures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2) (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1992; William
33 Lettis & Associates 2004a, 2004b). A potentially active fault shows evidence of movement within the last 1
34 million years, but not within the last 11,000 years.
35 As illustrated on Figure 3.7-2, the two potentially active faults that cross the landfill property are the Canada
36 de la Brea and Strathearn faults. These faults are roughly east-west trending reverse faults and are upthrown
37 to the north. A recent investigation of the Canada de la Brea Fault completed for the proposed landfill
38 expansion (William Lettis & Associates 2004a) indicated that this fault is likely too short to generate an
39 independent earthquake of sufficient size to produce fault rupture. However, because this fault is located in
40 the hanging wall of the Holocene active Simi Fault, the Canada de la Brea Fault may experience sympathetic
41 (i.e., triggered) slip during large earthquakes on nearby faults. This sympathetic slip, if it occurs, likely would
42 be minor (i.e., on the order of several centimeters).
43

TOPATOPA
Map MOUNTAINS
Location
Simi Landfill
expansion
1971
Rupture
M
LT SYSTE
A FAU
ROS
N TA SAN FERNANDO
A
I - S
S IM 1994 VALLEY
Northridge
OXNARD Earthquake
PLAIN
Pa
cif S A N TA MONICA M O U N TA I N S
ic
Oc
ean
Scale
N 0 10
Miles
Source: William Lettis & Associates 2004a
Figure 3.7-1. Regional Fault Map

Proposed Waste
Disposal Area
Limits of Grading
Proposed CUP
Boundary
C A N A DA
DE L
A BREA F
A U LT
U LT
N FA
TH EAR
STRA
118
U LT
FA
L EY
AL
I V
SIM LEGEND
Approximate
Fault Location
Source: Dibblee and Ehrenspeck, 1992;

Scale N
William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 2004a; Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., 2005 0 0.5
Basemap Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle; Simi Valley West, Calif. Mile
Figure 3.7-2. Local Faults

1 Numerous inactive faults (no movement within the last 1 million years) scattered throughout the site also have
2 been observed. These minor faults, which were traced over distances of up to several hundred feet, are marked
3 by thin (less than 0.5-inch-thick) clay seams.
4 The nearest large active fault is the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault, which trends east-west about 3,000 feet south of
5 the landfill (Figures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2). The Simi-Santa Rosa Fault is a reverse fault that dips north at about 60
6 to 70 degrees. Thus, the fault plane is projected to be roughly 1 mile beneath the proposed project site.
7 Movement on this fault has displaced sediments as young as Holocene in age, as evidenced by designation of
8 this fault as a California Geological Survey Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. Such fault zones are established to
9 prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults
10 (California Geological Survey 2007).
11 3.7.1.2.4 Seismicity
12 California landfill design standards (27 CCR §20370) require landfills to be capable of withstanding ground
13 accelerations associated with maximum probable earthquakes (MPE) likely to affect the site. However, the
14 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) has been requiring all Class III landfills in
15 this region, including the SVLRC, to be designed to withstand the maximum credible earthquake (MCE), as
16 defined in 27 CCR §20164. The MCE is a stronger earthquake than the MPE. Section E.2 of the current
17 Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) (LARWQCB Order No. R4-2003-0152) specifically indicates that
18 the SVLRC must be designed to withstand an MCE without failure. This requirement is likely to be continued
19 when the LARWQCB adopts WDRs for the proposed expansion of the SVLRC.
20 The Simi Valley area is seismically active. Several potential earthquake sources in the region are capable of
21 generating strong ground motion in the proposed project vicinity. However, no active faults (which would be
22 capable of causing ground rupture) are known within the landfill site. The closest such fault, the Simi-Santa
23 Rosa fault, is located approximately 3,000 feet south of the site (Figures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2).
24 Epicenters for earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 and greater that occurred between 1900 and 1994 in the Simi
25 Valley region, along with regional active faults, are shown on Figure 3.7-3. The nearest instrumentally
26 recorded earthquake with a magnitude equal to or greater than 6.0 was a magnitude 6.0 earthquake, which
27 occurred on January 1, 1940 (prior to landfill construction), approximately 4 miles east of the proposed
28 project site. A more recent substantial earthquake, the Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994 (magnitude
29 6.7), was centered about 20 miles east-southeast of the landfill site and caused significant ground motion in
30 the Simi Valley area. A site inspection one week subsequent to this earthquake revealed no major surface or
31 subgrade damage, including a lack of damage to slopes, liner and leachate collection system, toe barrier,
32 hazardous material storage area, drainage structures, gas flare, condensate containment area, sludge
33 containment pond, or site utilities.
34 Similarly, the San Fernando earthquake of February 9, 1971 (magnitude 6.4), which was centered about 24
35 miles northeast of the landfill, caused significant ground motion in the Simi Valley area. In 1952, a series of
36 major earthquakes occurred about 50 miles north of the landfill site on the White Wolf Fault. The largest of
37 the 1952 earthquakes was recorded with a magnitude of 7.7. A 6.0 magnitude earthquake occurred in 1973
38 near Point Mugu, about 20 miles southwest of the proposed project site, the landfill apparently received no
39 damage. In October 1987, a 5.9 magnitude quake occurred 45 miles east of the landfill in Whittier. WMC and
40 the LEA indicated that the landfill received no damage from this quake (SAIC 2002). No other major
41 earthquakes greater than magnitude 6.0 have occurred within 50 miles of the proposed project site since 1900.
42 Two known pre-1900 earthquakes that affected the landfill site are the great 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake and
43 the 1812 Santa Barbara Channel earthquake. The Fort Tejon earthquake occurred on January 9, 1857 and had
44 an estimated magnitude of 8.25. The earthquake was centered on the San Andreas Fault near Fort Tejon,
45 about 40 miles north of the landfill. The 1812 Santa Barbara Channel earthquake is estimated to have had a
46 magnitude between 7.0 and 7.5. The earthquake epicenter is unknown but was probably located in the Santa
47 Barbara Channel, about 50 to 70 miles west of the landfill.

PROJECT
SITE
LEGEND
Period 1800-1868 1869-1931 1932-1999
Magnitude
>
_7.0
6.5 - 6.9
6.0 - 6.4
5.5 - 5.9
5.0 - 5.4
N Scale
Last two digits of M>
_6.5
earthquake year 0 10 20
Miles
Active Fault
Source: Toppozada, et al 2000
Figure 3.7-3. Earthquake Epicenter Map

1 The alluvium underlying the landfill is prone to liquefaction during seismic shaking (California Geological
2 Survey 1997) (Figure 3.7-4). Liquefaction is a process by which loose, water-saturated granular materials
3 behave for a short time as a dense fluid rather than as a solid mass. In addition, numerous steep hillsides in the
4 proposed project area are subject to seismically induced slope failure. Such seismically-induced ground
5 failure can result in severe damage to structures or facilities located on or adjacent to such failures.
6 3.7.1.2.5 Subsidence
7 Subsidence is any settling or sinking of the ground surface, which typically occurs from excessive extraction
8 of oil, gas, or groundwater. Historically in Ventura County, subsidence has occurred in the Oxnard Plain,
9 where groundwater extraction has exceeded the rate of groundwater replenishment. Subsidence can result in
10 damage to surface infrastructure facilities, which are subject to slight changes in gradient. Drainage courses,
11 wells, and utility lines are potentially the most vulnerable to damage. Although previous oil and gas extraction
12 has occurred in the vicinity of the landfill, most of the production activities have been terminated. In addition,
13 groundwater extraction is not occurring in large quantities in the landfill vicinity. Therefore, subsidence is not
14 expected to occur at the landfill site in association with extraction of oil, gas, or groundwater (Ventura County
15 Resource Management Agency 2000).
16 3.7.1.2.6 Expansive Soil
17 Expansive soils generally result from specific clay minerals that expand when saturated and shrink in volume
18 when dry. Surficial soils at the proposed project site generally consist of clay loams, which are locally up to
19 60 inches deep in the flat-lying areas. In addition, the underlying Sespe Formation contains beds of claystone.
20 These clays could be expansive.
21 3.7.1.2.7 Petroleum Resources
23 former Simi Oil Field (EarthTech 2005; DOGGR 2001). There are no active oil wells, pipelines, or other
24 facilities within the proposed expansion or buffer areas. However, the following abandoned oil wells are
25 located within the proposed buffer area:
26 • Union Oil Canada de la Brea No. 4; and

27 • Union Oil Canada de la Brea No. 5.
28 In addition, the following abandoned oil wells are located within the proposed expansion area:
29 • Union Oil Canada de la Brea No. 8;

30 • Union Oil Canada de la Brea No. 12;
31 • Union Oil Alamos 6-31; and
32 • Union Oil Alamos 7-32.
33 Construction in the immediate vicinity of abandoned oil wells is regulated in accordance with standards and
34 procedures as set forth by the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
35 Resources (DOGGR). Construction over or in proximity to a previously abandoned well may require re-
36 abandonment. Public Resources Code, section 3208.1, authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order re-
37 abandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction over or in proximity to the well could
38 result in a hazard.

Limits of Grading Proposed Waste
Disposal Area
Proposed CUP
Boundary
118
LEGEND
Potential Liquefaction Area
Potential Earthquake Induced
Landslide Area
Scale
N
Source: California Geological Survey 1999 0 0.5
USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle; Mile
Simi Valley West, Calif.
Figure 3.7-4. Potential Liquefaction and Landslide Areas

1 3.7.1.2.8 Paleontological Resources
2 This section summarizes information in a paleontological resources technical report, which accompanied the
3 1988 Final EIR under separate cover to Ventura County. This section also summarizes physical findings and
4 results since 1988. The 1988 technical report contains detailed information on paleontological resources of the
5 proposed project area, paleontological site/resource assessment maps, names of fossil-bearing units, and
6 pertinent references. The report was submitted to Ventura County under separate cover and is held in their
7 confidential files to ensure that paleontological site information is not released to the public. Release of this
8 information could encourage unauthorized fossil collecting by rock hounds, commercial fossil collectors, or
9 proposed project personnel, resulting in the loss of scientifically important fossil remains and associated
10 stratigraphic and locality data.
11 Paleontological resources of the proposed project area include:
12 • Fossil specimens;
13 • Fossil collecting localities;
14 • Fossil-bearing strata; and
15 • Strata with the potential to produce particular types of fossil remains, because they have yielded
16 similar remains nearby.
17 Geologic reports and maps of the proposed project area were reviewed to determine the fossiliferous rock
18 units that would be exposed by the proposed project and to document their respective areal distributions.
19 Geologic contacts were compiled onto topographic/geologic maps.
20 A baseline inventory of paleontological resources was developed for each geologic unit exposed within the
21 proposed project area, as follows:
22 • Paleontological records searches were conducted at the University of California Museum of

23 Paleontology (UCMP), in Berkeley, California, and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
24 County (LACM) in Los Angeles, California, which contain fossil material from the proposed project
25 area. (The LACM also contains the California Institute of Technology collection.) The purpose of the
26 search was to document the geographic and stratigraphic occurrences of known fossil sites and the
27 taxa that these localities have produced.
28 • Published and unpublished paleontological and geologic literature and maps of the proposed project
29 area (including previous EIRs) were reviewed.
30 • Paleontologists conducting research on the paleontological resources of the proposed project area
31 (Mr. Mark A. Mason, UCMP; Dr. Thomas S. Kelly, LACM) were contacted for additional
32 information regarding these resources.
33 • A field survey was conducted with the assistance of Dr. Kelly. Beds that have yielded fossil remains
34 within and adjacent to the proposed project area were identified; the present condition of fossiliferous
35 beds and remaining fossil sites was assessed; and new fossil sites and fossil-bearing horizons were
36 documented.
37 • Paleontological resource inventory maps showing the locations of fossil sites by bed were compiled
38 onto the geologic maps of the proposed project area.
39 The paleontological importance (i.e., high, low, none, unknown) of a rock unit (formation, member, or bed)
40 was used to assess the importance of the fossil remains. The importance of a rock unit reflects its potential
41 productivity and the importance of the fossils it has produced locally.

1 The potential productivity (i.e., high, low, none, undetermined) of a rock unit is based on the densities of fossil
2 specimens and localities in exposures of the unit within or near the proposed project area. Exposures of a
3 particular rock unit within the proposed project area are most likely to yield fossils similar in number and kind
4 to those previously recorded from the unit. The following criteria are used to determine the potential
5 productivity of a unit:
6 • High potential: Strata have produced numerous remains locally and are likely to yield additional
7 remains.
8 • Low potential: Strata have produced no remains locally and are not likely to yield any additional
9 remains.
10 • Undetermined potential: Poorly exposed/studied strata have produced few remains locally, but could
11 yield additional remains. (Note: Elsewhere in southern California, units with no prior recorded fossil
12 locality have proven abundantly fossiliferous during surveying or monitoring for construction projects.)
13 • No potential: Unfossiliferous igneous and metamorphic rocks (these types of rocks do not occur
14 within the proposed project area).
15 Fossil remains are considered highly important if they are well preserved, identifiable, type/topotypic
16 specimens, age diagnostic, useful in environmental reconstruction, represent rare taxa, or represent a diverse
17 assemblage.
18 Using the above definitions, the paleontological importance of a rock unit exposed within the proposed
19 project area can be assessed using the following criteria:
20 • High importance: Rock unit with high potential for yielding highly important fossil remains.
21 • Low importance: Rock unit with low potential for yielding fossil remains.
22 • Unknown importance: Rock unit for which too few data are available to allow an accurate assessment
23 of its potential for yielding fossil remains.
24 • No importance: Unfossiliferous igneous and metamorphic rocks with no potential for yielding fossil
25 remains (do not occur in the proposed project area).
26 The following tasks were completed to establish the paleontological importance of each rock unit exposed
27 within the proposed project area:
28 • The importance of fossil remains from exposures of each unit within the proposed project area and
29 vicinity was assessed.
30 • The potential productivity of each unit was assessed, based on the number of fossil localities and
31 remains that it has produced within and adjacent to the proposed project area.
32 • The paleontological importance of each unit was assessed, based on its fossil content.
33 • Paleontological resource assessment maps showing the importance of each unit were prepared using
34 the paleontological resource inventory maps.
35 Three geologic units, including Quaternary alluvium and the lower and middle members of an underlying
36 Tertiary continental formation, are exposed within the proposed project area.
37 Quaternary alluvium has yielded no fossil remains within or near the proposed project area and has only low
38 potential for producing any remains. This unit is considered to be of low paleontological importance.

1 Numerous on-site localities and other localities near the proposed project site have yielded fossils from the
2 middle member of the Tertiary continental (Sespe) formation. Some of the on-site localities have been
3 destroyed during past landfilling operations. These localities and the beds that contain them have yielded the
4 largest and most diverse middle Eocene nonmarine fossil assemblages from the western United States. Some
5 of the species within these assemblages were endemic, and some are based on type specimens from
6 previously destroyed localities. Existing fossil sites still produce remains, including those representing new
7 species.
8 Fossiliferous beds within the middle member of the Tertiary continental formation are considered highly
9 important paleontologically because of their high potential for yielding additional fossil remains.
10 The remaining beds within the middle member of the Tertiary continental formation are currently yielding
11 fossils (see below). These beds are producing fossils representing new geologic records. The remains from
12 these beds potentially could contribute greatly to the knowledge of the paleontology of the middle member.
13 The lower member of the Tertiary continental formation has yielded fossil specimens within and near the
14 proposed project area. This member is considered to be of high paleontological importance, because it has
15 produced additional remains within the proposed project area. Any such additional remains are highly
16 important, because they represent new geologic records and possibly new species. These remains contribute
17 to knowledge of the paleontology and age of the lower member.
18 Based on the information provided above, the applicant agreed to pay for a paleontological mitigation
19 program, which began in late November 1987. An updated paleontology program was approved by Ventura
20 County on June 5, 1991. The intent of the program is to provide the means for ongoing and consistent
21 monitoring of paleontology specimens. Under this program, paleontological monitors are usually on-site 1.5
22 days a week. During that time, they search for surface remains, and wash and separate soil samples. The
23 monitoring program indicates that these fossils are extremely widespread on-site, occur in beds where they
24 were not expected, and occur in older beds than such fossils have been found before.
25 Recent progress reports submitted to the Ventura County Planning Division indicate that the landfill site
26 continues to yield valuable paleontological information. A progress report dated February 2008, which covered
27 the monitoring period January 31, 2003 to December 31, 2007, indicated recovery of numerous additional
28 highly important fossil specimens from the Sespe Formation on the landfill property. The recovered material is
29 sent to the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History for cataloging of fossil specimens. As a result of the
30 paleontological mitigation program, much larger, statistically significant samples have been compiled for taxa
31 that once were considered rare in the Sespe Formation and incompletely known or even absent. In the case of
32 new taxa that were previously unknown from the fossil record, many of these smaller vertebrate taxa are now
33 considered more common and diverse than previously recognized. These substantially larger samples will allow
34 more detailed scientific studies of their respective taxa (Paleo Environmental Associates 2008).
37 Clean Water Act
38 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also called The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.§1251) governs water
39 pollution prevention and control throughout the United States. Federal water quality regulations are
40 administered by the EPA. The State Water Resourced Control Board and other state agencies implement these
41 regulations via delegations of Federal Authority. The 1972 amendments to the federal Water Pollution
42 Control Act established the NPDES permit program to control discharges of pollutants to water bodies. The
43 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act created a new section of the act devoted to stormwater pollution
1 prevention permitting. Construction activities are regulated under the General Construction Permit, which
2 requires preparation of a SWPPP when the total amount of ground disturbance during construction exceeds
3 one acre. The SWPPP includes pollution prevention measures (erosion and sediment control measures and
4 measures to control non-stormwater discharges and hazardous spills), demonstration of compliance with all
5 applicable local and regional erosion and sediment control standards, identification of responsible parties, a
6 detailed construction timeline, and a BMPs monitoring and maintenance schedule. The Los Angeles Regional
7 Water Quality Control Board enforces the General Construction Permit in this area.
9 California Building Code
10 The California Building Code corresponds to the body of regulations known as CCR, Title 24, Part 2, which
11 is a portion of the California Building Standards Code. Title 24 is assigned to the California Building
12 Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under state law,
13 all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 to be enforceable.
14 The International Building Code (IBC), published by the International Code Council, is a widely adopted
15 model building code in the United States. The California Building Code incorporates the IBC by reference,
16 along with necessary California amendments. About one-third of the text within the California Building Code
17 has been tailored for California earthquake conditions. Section 1610A of the California Building Code
18 contains specific requirements pertaining to site demolition, excavation, and construction, to protect people
19 and property from hazards associated with excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials.
20 Section 1613 of the California Building Code contains specific requirements for seismic safety. Sections
21 1805A and 1808A of the California Building Code regulate footings, pier and pile foundations. Appendix J
22 of the California Building Code regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.
23 Construction activities are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching, as
24 specified in California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Title 8 of the California Code of
25 Regulations) and in Section A33 of the California Building Code.
26 The Uniform Building Code (UBC), published by the International Conference of Building Officials, is a
27 widely adopted model building code in the United States. The California Building Code incorporates the UBC
28 by reference, along with necessary California amendments. About one-third of the text within the California
29 Building Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions. Chapter 23 of the California Building
30 Code contains specific requirements for seismic safety. Chapter 29 of the California Building Code regulates
31 excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. Chapter 33 of the California Building Code contains specific
32 requirements pertaining to site demolition, excavation, and construction, to protect people and property from
33 hazards associated with excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials. Chapter 70 of the
34 California Building Code regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Construction
35 activities are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching, as specified in
36 California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations) and
37 in Section A33 of the California Building Code.
38 The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972
39 The criteria most commonly used to estimate fault activity in California are described in the Alquist-Priolo
40 Special Studies Zones Act, which addresses only surface fault-rupture hazards. These legislative guidelines
41 that determine fault activity status are based on the age of the youngest geologic unit offset by the fault. This
42 legislation prohibits the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on active and potentially active
43 surface faults. However, only those potentially active faults that have a relatively high potential for ground
44 rupture are identified as fault zones. Therefore, not all active or potentially active faults are zoned under the
45 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as designated by the State of California.
1 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
2 The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act regulations were promulgated for the purpose of protecting public safety
3 from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, other ground failures, or other hazards
4 caused by earthquakes. Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
5 California (California Division of Mines and Geology 1999), constitutes the guidelines for evaluating seismic
6 hazards other than surface fault-rupture, as well as for recommending mitigation measures as required by
7 Public Resource Code Section 2695(a).
9 Ventura County Plan
10 Policy 2.2.2-4: Land in Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones and potentially active fault areas should, where
11 feasible, be designated Open Space or Agriculture on the General Land Use Maps. (This policy and those
12 listed below are also addressed in Section 3.1.2.8, Hazards.)
13 Policy 2.2.2-6: No new essential facilities, special occupancy structures, or hazardous materials storage
14 facilities shall be located within active fault zones unless it can be adequately demonstrated that the facilities
15 are not subject to fault rupture hazard.
16 Policy 2.4.2-1: Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for essential facilities, special occupancy
17 structures, two-story single family residences, or hazardous materials storage facilities located within areas
18 prone to liquefaction, a geotechnical report that includes a seismic analysis and evaluation of liquefaction in
19 accordance with the State of California Guidelines shall be prepared in order to assess the liquefaction
20 potential and provide recommendations for mitigation.
21 Policy 2.8.2-3: No habitable structures or individual sewage disposal systems shall be placed on or in
22 expansive soils unless suitable mitigation measures to prevent the adverse effect of these conditions are
23 incorporated into the project.
29 closed before the project is inaugurated. (This policy is also addressed in Section 3.7.1.3.3, Hazardous
30 Materials and Waste).
33 siting criteria.
37 Supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines, the threshold criteria for evaluating whether a proposed project may
38 have a significant adverse impact on geology and seismic hazards, mineral resources, and paleontological resources
39 state:
1 GEO-1: Fault Rupture Hazards. Fault rupture hazards primarily exist along pre-existing faults. These
2 faults are considered to pose a hazard if they have moved within a specific period of time. For
3 almost all projects, the period of interest is the past 11,000 years. Threshold criteria for determining
4 whether a project is potentially at risk with respect to fault rupture is its location within any of the
5 following areas:
6 • A State of California designated Alquist-Priolo Special Fault Study Zone;

7 • A County of Ventura designated Fault Hazard area; or
8 • A County of Ventura designated Potential Fault Hazard Area.
9 GEO-2: Ground Shaking Hazards. Ground shaking hazards are ubiquitous throughout Ventura County
10 and, ground failure phenomena aside, are accommodated by the Ventura County Building Code.
11 The effects of ground shaking hazard are required to be considered within the existing framework
12 of grading and building code ordinances which apply to all sites and projects. Special threshold
13 criteria for ground shaking hazard are thus not established.
14 GEO-3: Liquefaction Hazards. Widespread liquefaction-susceptible areas are represented on geologic

15 hazard maps in the Ventura County General Plan as well as on maps at various scales contained in
16 reports published by the State of California, Division of Mines and Geology and the U.S.G.S.
17 Numerous additional areas in Ventura County are susceptible to liquefaction, depending on local
18 conditions that cannot be represented on large-scale maps. Threshold criteria for determining
19 whether a project is potentially susceptible to liquefaction are:
20 • Project location with respect to mapped liquefaction-susceptible areas on the County General
21 Plan maps, on maps contained in Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 76-5LA;
22 and
23 • Whether the project is located in a shallow bedrock area versus and area underlain by recent
24 or older alluvium.
25 GEO-4: Subsidence. Subsidence studies are required on all new water and oil well projects in Ventura
26 County and for all utility and drainage facility projects in the Oxnard Plain.
27 GEO-5: Expansive Soils. An expansive soil hazard is considered to exist where soils with an expansion
28 index of greater than 20 are present.
29 GEO-6: Landslides/Mudslides. The threshold for landslide/mudflow hazard is determined by the County
30 based on the location of the site or project within, or outside of, hillside terrain. Generally,
31 landslide mudflow hazards exist in and at the base of hillside terrain where channel erosion,
32 weathering, and tectonic movement have caused unstable conditions. A particular threat of
33 landslide/mudflow exists in all areas that have already experienced mass movement and in areas
34 subject to changes in topography and moisture content. This basically includes all hillsides in
35 Ventura County-defined areas with slopes greater than ten percent.
36 GEO-7: Petroleum Resources. Any permit for the extraction of petroleum resources would not have an
37 impact on hampering extraction of, or access to, petroleum resources. Any other type of land use
38 that is proposed to be located in or immediately adjacent to any known petroleum resource area, or
39 adjacent to a principal access road to an existing petroleum CUP, could potentially have an impact.
40 Determinations of significance require a case-by-case determination based on the type of land use
41 being requested and its location relative to petroleum resource areas and CUPs.

1 GEO-8: Paleontological Resources. The geologic formation in the proposed project can be used to
2 establish the likelihood of paleontological resources being present and their relative importance.
3 Fossil remains are considered important if they are well preserved; identifiable; type/topotypic
4 specimens; age diagnostic; useful in environmental reconstruction; represent rare and/or endemic
5 taxa; represent a diverse assemblage; and represent associated marine and nonmarine taxa.
6 Vertebrate and megainvertebrate fossils are considered highly important because they are
7 comparatively rare and allow precise age determinations and environmental reconstructions for the
8 strata in which they occur. Microinvertebrate fossils (microfossils) are much more abundant and,
9 for this reason and because of their small size, would not be adversely impacted to the same degree
10 as vertebrate and megainvertebrate fossils. Direct impacts to fossil sites include grading and
11 excavation of fossiliferous rock, which can result in the loss of scientifically important fossil
12 specimens and associated geological data. Indirect impacts include increased access opportunities
13 and unauthorized collection of fossil materials.
15 3.7.2.2.1 GEO-1: Fault Rupture Hazards
16 If the project lies in a designated fault zone, a fault rupture hazard report would be completed. If an
17 engineering geological report is also necessary by good practice, the Building Code, or other appropriate law
18 or ordinance, the engineering geological report would address potential fault rupture.
19 3.7.2.2.2 GEO-2: Seismic Hazards
20 Within the context of the existing regulatory framework, the proposed project would be reviewed to
21 determine the applicability of the Ventura County Building Code to the seismic design of the proposed
22 project. The review must include an analysis of the risk to the proposed project with respect to both regional
23 and local earthquake sources, the effects of local site conditions, and the sensitivity of the proposed structure
24 to ground shaking. For important, high value, or critical structures such as multistory buildings, large storage
25 tanks and towers, anticipated site-specific ground accelerations should be determined. In cases where Ventura
26 County Building Code requirements do not specify a safety factor for design, a minimum safety factor of 1.1
27 would be used.
28 3.7.2.2.3 GEO-3: Liquefaction Hazards
29 Projects located in mapped liquefaction-susceptible areas or located on a site underlain by recent or older
30 alluvium must be evaluated for liquefaction potential. The liquefaction evaluation must include determination
31 of groundwater levels that is based on at least one soil boring drilled a minimum of 40 feet deep. The soil
32 boring must include standard penetration tests and be summarized on a log classifying earth materials and
33 showing the in-situ dry density of the various strata as determined by laboratory tests of undisturbed samples.
34 The report should include a description and summary of additional laboratory tests that include, as a
35 minimum, particle size distribution and maximum density determinations. The standard penetration tests may
36 be supplemented by cone penetrometer testing or other methods approved by the County. Liquefaction
37 evaluations should also address the type(s) of liquefaction failure considered most likely to occur.
38 3.7.2.2.4 GEO-4: Subsidence
39 The County would conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether a subsidence evaluation is
40 required. Subsidence evaluation reports, if necessary, would be reviewed by the County based on the latest
41 available maps, publications, and field data to determine significance.

1 3.7.2.2.5 GEO-5: Expansive Soils
2 The County would determine the potential for expansive soils based on-site specific soil investigation, if
3 available, as well as expansive soil evaluations prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
4 Conservation Service.
5 3.7.2.2.6 GEO-6: Landslides/Mudslides
6 Evaluation and mitigation of landslide/mudflow hazard is subject to the provisions of the Ventura County
7 Grading Ordinance. Site-specific, detailed geologic investigations are required as a part of all projects in the
8 hillside areas of Ventura County for the purpose of determining development feasibility with respect to all
9 geological hazards. If a site-specific geology report has analyzed this concern, the report would be reviewed
10 to determine the significance of the impact of any potential landslide/mudflow on the project. Additional
11 means of evaluating this hazard include site reconnaissance, review of aerial photographs, and review of
12 published geologic literature and unpublished consultant studies. The County, based on the review of the
13 various available maps, publications, and/or field information, would determine the general potential for
14 landslides/ mudflow and determine significance of the impact to the environment from geologic hazards.
15 3.7.2.2.7 GEO-7: Petroleum Resources
16 Petroleum resource areas have been mapped by DOGGR and are depicted on one inch equals 2,000 feet scale
17 maps. Existing petroleum CUPs are depicted on Map 11 of the Unified Mapping System. If the subject
18 property is not located on or adjacent to land located in an oil field or containing an oil extraction CUP, then
19 the proposed project would have no impact on the extraction of oil resources. If the subject property is located
20 on or adjacent to land located in an oil field or containing an oil extraction CUP, then significance must be
21 determined on a case-by-case basis. If the subject property is not located adjacent to a road used as a principal
22 means of access to an existing CUP for oil extraction, and the proposed use is not sensitive to the effects of
23 truck traffic to and from the oil CUP, then the proposed project would have no impact on access to oil
24 resources. Otherwise, determinations of significance must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
25 Pursuant to the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (County of Ventura 2006), because the
26 proposed project site is located within an oil field, County Planning Division staff consulted DOGGR.
27 Planning Division staff sent a copy of the application materials to DOGGR on May 23, 2007 for review and
28 comment and subsequently Planning Division staff discussed the proposed project with DOGGR staff (Steven
29 A. Fields, Operations Engineer, DOGGR, Personal Communication with Dan Klemann, December 4, 2007).
30 3.7.2.2.8 GEO-8: Paleontological Resources
31 A preliminary assessment should determine the importance of geological formations exposed in the proposed
32 project area by reviewing the County of Ventura’s Paleontological Map Series. For projects proposed in areas
33 of “No Importance” or “Low Importance” in the Paleontological Map Series, no additional assessment is
34 required. In addition, no mitigation measures would be required unless fossil remains are found during
35 construction. The following standard condition should be incorporated into the project to alleviate this
36 unlikely eventuality:
37 “If fossil remains are found during construction, construction activities should halt in the area of disturbance.
38 An approved paleontological consultant shall be called to the site immediately to assess the site and determine
39 further mitigation measures, as appropriate.”
40 If the proposed project is located in areas of “High Importance”, “Moderate Importance”, or “Undetermined
41 Importance”, the following assessment procedures are required:

1 • Conduct literature and archival reviews to document the locations of recorded fossil sites.
2 • Conduct a field survey (not including areas covered by soil or Quaternary Deposits). Collect all
3 vertebrate fossils and representative samples of megainvertebrate fossils. Document all sites on
4 topographic maps of the proposed project area.
5 • If necessary, collect 1,000 pound matrix samples from selected stratigraphic levels, process for
6 microinvertebrate remains, and document sampling locations on topographic maps of the proposed
7 project area.
8 • Based on the above steps, verify or modify the level of paleontological importance assigned to each
9 formation in the proposed project area, and if possible, assign formations of undetermined
10 paleontological importance a low, moderate, or high rating.
12 3.7.2.3.1 Impact GEO-1: Fault Rupture Hazard
13 The proposed landfill expansion area is not located within a: 1) State of California designated Alquist-Priolo
14 Special Fault Study Zone; 2) County of Ventura designated Fault Hazard area; or 3) County of Ventura
15 designated Potential Fault Hazard Area. The nearest large active fault is the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault, which
16 trends east-west about 3,000 feet south of the landfill (Figure 3.7-2).
17 Two potentially active faults traverse the landfill property, including the Canada de la Brea and Strathearn
18 faults (Figure 3.7-2). These faults are roughly east-west trending reverse faults and are upthrown to the north.
19 A recent investigation of the Canada de la Brea fault completed for the proposed landfill expansion (William
20 Lettis & Associates, Inc 2004a) indicated that this fault is likely too short to generate an independent
21 earthquake of sufficient size to produce fault rupture. However, because this fault is located in the hanging
22 wall of the Holocene active Simi Fault, the Canada de la Brea Fault may experience sympathetic (i.e.,
23 triggered) slip during large earthquakes on nearby faults. This sympathetic slip, if it occurs, likely would be
24 minor (i.e., on the order of several centimeters). Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
25 Mitigation Measure
26 As impacts on geological resources would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
28 Impacts on geological resources would be less than significant.
29 3.7.2.3.2 Impact GEO-2: Ground Shaking Hazard
30 A large earthquake on a nearby or regional fault could cause severe ground shaking, resulting in damage to
31 site structures such as buildings, containment structures, leachate and gas collection facilities, and surface
32 drainage facilities. Ground shaking can also cause landfill settlement and trigger landslides. Cracking of the
33 containment structure could result in the exposure of buried waste. In extreme cases, human life may be
34 endangered. The potential for the occurrence of these impacts would be incrementally greater under the
35 proposed project than under existing conditions.
36 The Ventura County Building Code, adopted from the California Building Code for structures, and the State
37 of California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, would require the proposed buildings and finished slope surfaces
38 of the landfill slopes and adjacent graded slopes to be stable under modeled earthquake conditions. Moreover,
39 Californiathe LARWQCB landfill design standards) require Class III landfills to be capable of withstanding
40 ground accelerations associated with the maximum probable earthquakesMCE likely to affect the site, as
1 defined in 27 CCR §20164 (State of California 2006; International Code Council [ICC] 2007; LARWQCB
2 2003).
3 Similar to Condition #49 (Seismic Design) of the CUP-3142-7, imposed by Ventura County, as well as
4 Section E.2 of LARWQCB Order No. R4-2003-0152, for the current phase of landfill expansion, an updated
5 seismic design study would be submitted by Waste Management, Inc. to the County Planning Division,
6 demonstrating that the landfill refuse column, its drainage features, and operating components and
7 appurtenances (i.e., permanent stockpiles, new buildings, etc.) would withstand an MCE a maximum probable
8 earthquake (design earthquake). Design plans would include static and dynamic stability analysis. The
9 geology of the proposed landfill expansion area is similar to the existing permitted landfill; therefore, the
10 analysis would likely be similar to the existing seismic design study. Design and construction in accordance
11 with this updated seismic design study, as well as all relevant aforementioned regulations, would result in less
12 than significant seismic impacts.
14 As seismic impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
15 Residual Impacts
16 Impacts on seismically induced ground failure would be less than significant.
17 3.7.2.3.3 Impact GEO-3: Liquefaction Hazard
18 As illustrated in Figure 3.7-4, alluvial areas in canyon bottoms would be subject to liquefaction in the event of
19 severe seismically induced ground movement, potentially resulting in damage to site structures such as
20 buildings, containment structures, leachate and gas collection facilities, and surface drainage facilities.
21 However, as described for Impact GEO-2, the Ventura County Building Code requires the proposed buildings
22 and finished surfaces to be stable under modeled earthquake conditions. Moreover, California landfill design
23 standards require Class III landfills to be capable of withstanding ground accelerations associated with
24 maximum probable earthquakes likely to affect the site.
25 Similar to Condition #49 (Seismic Design) of CUP-3142-7, imposed by Ventura County for the current phase
26 of landfill expansion, an updated seismic design study would be submitted by Waste Management, Inc. to the
27 County Planning Division, demonstrating that the landfill refuse column, its drainage features, and operating
28 components and would withstand a maximum probable earthquake (design earthquake). Design plans would
29 include static and dynamic stability analysis. The geology of the proposed landfill expansion area is similar to
30 the existing permitted landfill; therefore, the analysis would likely be similar to the existing seismic design
31 study. Design and construction in accordance with this updated seismic design study, as well as all relevant
32 aforementioned regulations, would result in less than significant seismic impacts.
34 As seismic impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
36 Impacts due to liquefaction hazards would be less than significant.

1 3.7.2.3.4 Impact GEO-4: Subsidence Hazard
2 Although previous oil and gas extraction has occurred in the vicinity of the landfill, the oil production
3 activities have been terminated. In addition, groundwater extraction is not occurring in large quantities in the
4 landfill vicinity. Historically, groundwater wells in the Simi Valley area were used for limited domestic and
5 agricultural usage, as well as for stock watering purposes. With the importation of State Project water to the
6 area in the mid-1960s and the gradual urbanization of the area, virtually all of these wells have now been
7 abandoned or destroyed. Therefore, subsidence is not expected to occur at the landfill site in association with
8 extraction of oil, gas, or groundwater. Subsidence within the waste footprint would occur during landfill
9 operations as a result of compaction and settlement of refuse over time. This phenomenon is typical of all
10 landfills and is anticipated during long-term landfill management. No permanent structures that might be
11 adversely affected by subsidence-induced settlement would be constructed over areas of refuse. All proposed
12 structures would be constructed on an area of engineered fill in the southern portion of the proposed project
13 site, where no refuse would be placed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
15 As subsidence impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
17 Subsidence impacts would be less than significant.
18 3.7.2.3.5 Impact GEO-5: Expansive Soils Hazard
19 Surficial soils at the proposed project site generally consist of clay loams, which are locally up to 60 inches
20 deep in the flat-lying areas. In addition, the underlying Sespe Formation contains beds of claystone. These
21 clays could be expansive. Construction on expansive soils could result in damage to foundations, roads,
22 utilities, and other infrastructure as a result of the contracting and expanding clays. However, development of
23 the proposed project site would be subject to the requirements of the Ventura County Building Code, which is
24 adopted from the California Building Code, Chapter 18, §1804.4 (ICC 2007) and which requires mitigation of
25 potential adverse effects of expansive soils for the proposed structures. Compliance with these requirements
26 would ensure that impacts relating to expansive soils would be less than significant.
28 As expansive soil impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
30 Impacts on expansive soil hazards would be less than significant.
31 3.7.2.3.6 Impact GEO-6: Landslide/Mudflow Hazard
32 Soil Excavation Area Slopes
33 Proposed cell construction would involve substantial volumes of cut and fill. In addition, grading for the 30-
34 acre support/ancillary facilities area, located in the southern portion of the proposed project site, would
35 require approximately 861,000 cubic yards of cut and 565,000 cubic yards of fill. The excess 296,000 cubic
36 yards of fill would be used for cover material in the landfill. Disturbance of natural terrain and the removal of
37 vegetative cover can lead to slope instability and increased soil erosion. Previously documented landslides at
38 the site indicate the Sespe Formation is prone to slope failure. However, most of these slides were reportedly

1 caused by slope undercutting. Such oversteepening of natural slopes by excavation can trigger landslides.
2 Because of the dip of the Sespe beds, slope stability problems are more likely to occur on north-facing slopes
3 than on slopes oriented in other directions.
4 Most on-site landslides are not catastrophic and only rarely endanger human life. While grading and other
5 earth-moving activities may have a potential impact on the safety of heavy equipment operators, the risk of a
6 life-threatening landslide is low. Other potential impacts include the cost of correcting slope failures and the
7 possibility that landfill operations may be interrupted. The possibility also exists that a landslide deposit could
8 cause increased loads on underlying fill materials and result in differential settlement. If a slope failure
9 occurs, the slope and landslide deposits would have to be stabilized. A large slide could involve cutting back
10 the head of the slope further than originally intended. If the slide occurs above service roads, site access and
11 landfill operations may be interrupted. Drainage channels could also be blocked, thus preventing proper
12 drainage of the landfill.
13 All of these potential impacts would be minimized or prevented with proper CIWMB and LARWQCB
14 landfill design and operating procedures, as well as in accordance with 27 CCR §21750(f)(5), standard
15 engineering geology and geotechnical engineering principles, and provisions of the Ventura County Grading
16 Ordinance. Such measures would include, but not be limited to:
17 • All cut/fill and excavation activities would meet standards of the CIWMB, the LARWQCB, and the
18 Ventura County Grading Ordinance.
19 • Cut slopes that are not buttressed by waste would be excavated at a slope angle no steeper than 2:1.
20 • The base of cut slopes would be sloped to ensure proper drainage of surface waters.
21 • The final landfill cut slopes would be constructed no steeper than 1.75:1 and most slopes would be
22 flatter.
23 • The applicant would continue to use a California Certified Engineering Geologist and Professional
24 Engineer to review grading plans and to design cut/fill slopes and buttresses.
25 • Slopes would be vegetated with native plants when final grades are achieved to minimize soil
26 erosion. The planting would occur prior to the winter rainy season.
27 • A slope inspection program would be conducted to monitor slope stability conditions. Any large
28 slope failures (larger than 10 cubic yards) would be reported to the LARWQCB. Slope erosion would
29 also be evaluated as part of the slope inspection program. Slopes would be inspected annually during
30 the summer prior to the start of the rainy season. Corrective actions would be implemented if
31 potential slope instability impacts were detected. Such actions may include: removal of combustible
32 material, draining potential slide areas, or other measures approved by the LARWQCB and/or
33 Ventura County Public Works Department.
34 • All grading, drainage, erosion, and slope monitoring control plans would be submitted to the Los
35 Angeles RWQCB and Ventura County Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the
36 start of any landfill expansion activities.
37 With implementation of these standard landfill design and operating procedures and geotechnical engineering
38 principles, potential impacts due to proposed excavations and cut slopes would be less than significant.
39 Waste Fill Slopes
40 Ultimately, the stability and containment of the waste fill depends on the integrity of the final landfill slopes.
41 These slopes must be capable of withstanding loads from earthquakes as well as surcharge from deposited
42 waste. They must also be able to endure rainfall and not be prone to erosion. If final landfill slopes fail or are
43 severely eroded, waste could be exposed and indirect impacts (water infiltration, odor, and vectors) may occur.
1 Such failures could occur gradually over a long period of time or rapidly. However, the final fill slopes would be
2 constructed at a maximum slope gradient of 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) and would be protected from erosion
3 through proper vegetation maintenance and drainage control. The engineering design for the enhanced final fill
4 plan, which would demonstrate stability of this design in accordance with 27 CCR §§21090, 21145, and 21750,
5 would be prepared and submitted as part of the Joint Technical Document, to be prepared during the post-CEQA
6 permit process, for approval by the State Water Resources Control Board. Potential fill slope stability impacts
7 would be minimized or prevented with proper CIWMB and Los Angeles RWQCB landfill design and operating
8 procedures, as well as in accordance with 27 CCR §21750(f)(5), standard engineering geology and geotechnical
9 engineering principles, and provisions of the Ventura County Grading Ordinance, as described above for Soil
10 Excavation Area Slopes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
12 As slope stability impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
14 Impacts on slope stability would be less than significant.
15 3.7.2.3.7 Impact GEO-7: Petroleum Resources
17 former Simi Oil Field. There are no active oil wells, pipelines, or other facilities within the proposed
18 expansion or buffer areas. All wells have been abandoned. Proposed landfill expansion would preclude oil and
19 gas drilling from within proposed project boundaries; however, petroleum reserves beneath the site could be
20 accessed from remote locations, using directional (or slant) drilling techniques. Therefore, the proposed project
21 would not result in the permanent loss of availability of a known petroleum resource that would be of future
22 value to the region and the residents of the state. Mineral resource impacts would be less than significant.
24 As petroleum resource impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
26 Impacts to petroleum resources would be less than significant.
27 3.7.2.3.8 Impact GEO-8: Paleontological Resources
28 The occurrence of a number of previously recorded fossil sites in the middle member of the Sespe Formation
29 and of numerous additional sites in the proposed project area, suggests a high potential for previously
30 unrecorded fossil sites and remains being encountered by earth-moving activities during excavation of the
31 expansion area, excavation of daily cover, and general grading of the site. Additional identifiable fossil
32 remains from the proposed project area would be important scientifically, based on the possibility of age-
33 diagnostic or environmentally sensitive species, new or rare species, geologic and/or geographic range
34 extensions, and/or more complete specimens than are now available for their respective species. The proposed
35 project would cause the loss of scientifically important fossils and associated geologic data, resulting in a
36 significant impact on paleontological resources.
37 Additional adverse impacts could potentially result due to unauthorized fossil collecting by rock hounds,
38 commercial collectors, and project personnel who would be afforded easier access to fossiliferous exposures
39 as a result of the proposed project. This impact could contribute to the loss of highly important fossil

1 specimens and associated scientific data, particularly from the middle member of the Tertiary continental
2 formation. However, this impact would be mitigated to less than significant by normal landfill security
3 measures that prevent unauthorized entry.
5 Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Paleontological Mitigation Program. An updated/expanded Paleontological

6 Mitigation Program shall be submitted by Waste Management, Inc. to the County Planning Division for
7 review and approval.
9 Although the loss of paleontological resources from the proposed project would be a significant adverse
10 impact, the extensive landfill grading and excavation activities would provide an excellent opportunity for
11 paleontologists to recover fossils for scientific study. In addition, the Paleontological Mitigation Program
12 would provide a high degree of mitigation for the existing landfill operation, as this program creates a
13 database necessary to determine the need for additional long-term monitoring. Implementation of such
14 monitoring, as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would mitigate many of the paleontological impacts of
15 the proposed project. However, since any such program would only recover a small sample of the total
16 number of fossils disturbed by landfill operations, the overall impact of the proposed project on
17 paleontological resources would still be considered significant.
19 Table 3.7-1 summarizes the potentially significant geological impacts of the proposed project and less than
20 significant impacts for which mitigation measures would further reduce impacts. For the impact identified, the
22 identifies the parties responsible for implementing and overseeing the mitigation, as well as the timing of the
23 mitigation. The mitigation measures would be imposed as conditions of approval of the CUP modification for
24 the proposed project.
Table 3.7-1. Mitigation for Geological Impacts

Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Significance Responsible Timing
Adverse Impact After Mitigation Parties
GEO-1: Paleontological
Mitigation Program. An
updated/expanded
Impact GEO-8: Paleontological Mitigation Ventura County Prior to issuance
Potential loss of
scientifically important Program shall be submitted Significant Planning of a grading
by Waste Management, Division permit
fossils Inc. to the County Planning
Division for review and
approval.

1 3.8 Cultural Resources
2 This section evaluates the potential impacts on archeological and historical resources associated with the
3 proposed project. The Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines defines archeological resources as,
4 “…the material remains (artifacts, structures, refuse, etc.) produced purposely or accidentally by members of
5 prehistoric human cultures”. In addition, the term historic resources, as defined by the Ventura County Initial
6 Study Assessment Guidelines, includes resources: 1) listed in or determined to be eligible by the State
7 Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (PRC
8 SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et. seq.); 2) included in a local register of historical resources, as
9 defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the
10 requirements; and (3) meeting the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC
11 SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852.
12 A detailed Cultural Resources Technical Report, entitled Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Simi Valley
13 Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion, Simi Valley, California (August 2008) was prepared by Applied
14 EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) on behalf of SAIC. The full text of the technical report can be found in Appendix G.
15 This section summarizes information contained in the report, provides information on the regulatory
16 framework guiding the treatment of historic resources, outlines methods employed, and evaluates the impacts
17 of the proposed project on historical resources and archaeological deposits.
18 The Phase-I cultural resources survey was conducted on approximately 250 acres of land located within the
19 northern boundary of the proposed expanded footprint of the SVLRC in an unincorporated portion of
20 southeast Ventura County. The Project includes expanding the existing disposal footprint from 185 acres to
21 371 acres and the buffer area around the disposal footprint to 516 acres. The proposed waste expansion area is
22 north of and adjacent to the existing landfill and is the subject of the Phase-I cultural resources survey
23 performed on July 2 and July 3, 2008. The buffer area was previously surveyed (Blood 2005; SAIC 2002;
24 Greenwood and Associates 1998 [Toren 1998]; Singer 1980) and recorded sites within the buffer area were
25 revisited and assessed for eligibility to the CRHR as part of the current study. The revisited sites include five
26 prehistoric sites, two historic sites, and two locations defined as “unrecorded areas of interest” (Blood 2005).
27 The latter sites were identified by Psomas in 2005 and for the purposes of this study were considered
28 potentially culturally sensitive and were subject to reassessment during this study.
31 The area of influence for cultural resources consists of the areas within the project site that could be affected
32 by construction- or operations-related ground disturbance within natural landforms.
33 3.8.1.2 Setting
34 The setting of Simi Valley in Ventura County and an overview of its prehistory and history provide a context
35 for understanding the nature and significance of cultural properties within the project are. For centuries,
36 inhabitants of the area utilized the natural environment in various ways. The nature and distribution of these
37 human activities in the region have left traces of past resource exploitation. The expansion area includes
38 Alamos Canyon to the west, Brea Canyon to the east, and a broad unnamed tributary drainage to the north and
39 is bounded by the SR-118 to the south. Within this region, soils belong to the San Benito-Nacimento-Linnen
40 soil association which generally consists of strongly sloping to very steep, well drained clay loams and silty
41 clay loams which compose the dissected uplands. Geologic formations include sandstone and claystone beds
42 of the Sespe Formation and Quaternary alluvial sediments. The Sespe formation consists of non-marine,
43 alluvial sediments. Alternating sandstone and claystone beds underlie the entire site. The Quaternary alluvium

3.8 Cultural Resources
1 consists of sand and gravel alluvium that overlies the Sespe Formation within a narrow channel running
2 southwest across the floor of the valley (SAIC 2002). The buffer zone is generally located in Brea Canyon
3 where soils are similar. Vegetation in both areas includes California buckwheat, sagebrush, chaparral, yucca,
4 coast live oak, and non-native grasses. Brea Canyon contains a denser vegetative cover than the expansion
5 area and includes willow, coyote brush, tobacco, and elderberry.
6 3.8.1.2.1 Prehistoric Resources
7 12,000 To 7500 B.P. Interval (Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Period)
8 The earliest evidence for human occupations in southern California dates to the Terminal Pleistocene/Early
9 Holocene period. This interval is characterized by a long period of adaptation to environmental changes
10 brought about by the transition from the late Pleistocene to the early Holocene. Between 13,000 and 10,000
11 B.P., climatic conditions became warmer and more arid and Pleistocene megafauna (large animals) gradually
12 disappeared. The early occupants of southern California are believed to have been nomadic large-game
13 hunters whose tool assemblage included percussion-flaked scrapers and knives; large, well-made stemmed,
14 fluted, or leaf-shaped projectile points (e.g., Lake Mojave, Silver Lake); crescentics; heavy core/cobble tools;
15 hammerstones; bifacial cores; and choppers and scraper planes.
16 The 7500 To 5000 B.P. Interval (Middle Holocene Period)
17 In the coastal and inland regions of southern California, this period of cultural development is marked by the
18 technological advancements of seed grinding for flour and the first use of marine resources, such as shellfish
19 and marine mammals. Adaptation to various ecological niches, further population growth, and an increase in
20 sedentism typify the subsequent periods of cultural history in southern California. This subsistence
21 orientation, with a heavy dependence on both hunting and plant gathering, continued into the historic period.
22 The artifact assemblage of this period is similar to that of the previous period and includes crude
23 hammerstones, scraper planes, choppers, large drills, crescents, and large flake tools plus large leaf-shaped
24 points and knives, manos and milling stones used for grinding hard seeds, and nonutilitarian artifacts such as
25 beads, pendants, charmstones, discoidals, and cogged stones (Kowta 1969; True 1958; Warren et al. 1961).
26 Aside from the sites in Topanga Canyon, the only evidence of prehistoric occupation of the Los Angeles
27 Basin dating to this interval is an occasional discoidal or cogged stone recovered from sites dating to more
28 recent periods of prehistory.
29 The 5000 To 1500 B.P. Interval (Middle to Late Holocene)
30 In general, cultural patterns remained similar in character to those of the preceding horizon. However, the
31 cultural material at many coastal sites became more elaborate, reflecting an increase in sociopolitical
32 complexity and efficiency in subsistence strategies (e.g., the introduction of the bow and arrow for hunting).
33 Within the Los Angeles Basin, few sites have been identified that can be placed within this interval of
34 prehistory.
35 The Post 1500 B.P. Interval (Late Holocene)
36 Reliance on the bow and arrow for hunting along with the use of bedrock mortars and milling slicks mark the
37 beginning of the tradition denoted as the “Late Prehistoric Horizon” by Wallace (1955) and the “Shoshonean
38 Tradition” by Warren (1968), dating from about 1500 B.P. (A.D. 500) to the time of Spanish contact
39 (approximately A.D. 1769). Late prehistoric coastal sites are numerous. Diagnostic artifacts include small
40 triangular projectile points, mortars and pestles, steatite ornaments and containers, perforated stones, circular
41 shell fishhooks, and numerous and varied bone tools, as well as bone and shell ornamentation. Elaborate

1 mortuary customs along with generous use of asphaltum and the development of extensive trade networks are
2 also characteristic of this period.
3 3.8.1.2.2 Ethnographic Resources
4 The Simi Valley region was occupied by native peoples of Ventureño Chumash language and cultural
5 affiliation. The Ventureño Chumash occupied coastal and interior areas of Ventura County, their settlement
6 extending as far inland as Piru and Castaic Lake near Frazier Park. The Santa Clara River Valley west of
7 Camulos was occupied by the Ventureño, with the Tataviam living in settlements to the east in the Santa
8 Clarita region (Johnson and Earle 1990). Further to the south, the eastern boundary of Ventureño Chumash
9 territory ran roughly from north to south between Simi Valley on the west and the San Fernando Valley on the
10 east, the latter occupied by native people speaking the Fernandeño dialect of Gabrielino/Tongv.
11 The three principal winter villages of the Ventureño Chumash in the Simi Valley region were Ta'apu, Shimiyi,
12 and Kimishax. Ta'apu was located in Tapo Canyon, on the north side of the Simi Valley. The site of Shimiyi
13 was probably located near the Simi Rancho headquarters in the western part of the modern city of Simi
14 Valley. The 1842 diseño for Rancho Simí depicts several springs and marshes in the western part of the Simi
15 Valley north and south of the Arroyo de Simí, and the village site was probably associated with one of these.
16 However, as is discussed further below, all three settlements or rancherias had their populations brought to the
17 missions at a late date, around 1802–1805, in the final several years of the Franciscan's missionization of the
18 Chumash. Both prior population loss and some non-mission employment of Simi Valley Chumash in the local
19 rancho economy account for totals of baptized natives from these places being substantially lower than the
20 total size of the original village populations. Johnson (1997) estimates that the original total valley population
21 composing these communities would have fallen in the 250–400 range.
22 3.8.1.2.3 Historical Resources
23 The proposed project area was originally part of the Distrito de Santa Barbara as Ventura County was not
24 officially established until 1873. Settlement of the region began with the founding of the Santa Barbara
25 presidio in 1782 and the mission four years later. Mission San Buenaventura also was founded in 1782. Only
26 a relatively small number of native people from the Simi Valley area were recruited as neophytes to Mission
27 San Buenaventura at Ventura. Only after the establishment of Mission San Fernando Rey in 1797 was the
28 bulk of the native population in Simi Valley converted.
29 The landholding later known as Rancho San José de Nuestra Señora de Altagracia y Simí was granted in
30 usufruct by the Spanish Crown in 1795 to Santiago de la Cruz Pico, a mestizo from San Javier de Cabazán,
31 Sinaloa (Mason 1998). Pico and other military retirees in the Simi-San Fernando region had established
32 farming and stock operations before the founding of Mission San Fernando in 1797; native people from local
33 Indian villages were hired as farm laborers and herders (Earle 2004). Pico's operation included the Simi
34 Valley region but the rancho boundaries at this early date may have differed from those recognized later.
35 The rancho as it existed in the 1830s encompassed the Simi and Little Simi valleys from the Santa Susana
36 Mountains westward to modern Moorpark, with the Camino Real from Mission San Fernando to Mission San
37 Buenaventura passing by the rancho headquarters. However, it appears that in the early mission era, at least,
38 the Tapo Canyon area where the Chumash village of Ta'apu had been located was occupied by Mission San
39 Fernando livestock. The village site of Ta'apu was used as a shepherds' camp by Indian drovers and their
40 families operating out of the mission. After the demise of the Franciscan Mission system in the early 1830s,
41 both surviving ex-mission-neophyte Indians and native laborers who had avoided the missions continued to
42 work for ranches such as Rancho Simí (Earle 2004). Such ranching activity expanded as southern California's
43 cattle-based hide and tallow economy continued to prosper.

1 In 1834, José de La Guerra, head of a prominent Santa Barbara family, was considering purchasing Rancho
2 Simí from Rafael Pico (Robinson 1947). In addition to the purchase, De la Guerra requested a “regranting”
3 under the Colonization Act of 1828 to establish the ranch boundaries in the 1840s. The De la Guerra family
4 raised cattle on the rancho, residing in the Simi Adobe. Later the family moved the ranch headquarters to
5 Tapo Canyon, and constructed another adobe house there. In 1887, the De La Guerra family sold Rancho
6 Simí to a syndicate of eastern developers (Dumke 1944). The Simi Land and Water Company was formed to
7 sell parcels as a commercial venture. The California Mutual Benefit Colony of Chicago purchased a
8 significant acreage on which to develop “Simiopolis,” later shortened to Simi. The construction of the
9 Southern Pacific Railroad through the Simi Valley facilitated its development. The Robert P. Strathearn
10 family purchased land to the west of Simi, which included the original ranch adobe. Strathearn granted the
11 railroad a right-of-way through his land; Strathearn Siding was located at the mouth of Brea Canyon. Thus,
12 Ventura County followed the pattern of the rest of southern California: large Spanish or Mexican land grants
13 being sold and developed for small-scale agriculture in the 1880s.
14 In addition, exploration for oil was another late nineteenth/early twentieth-century enterprise throughout
15 Ventura County. The Simi Valley Oil Field included the northern end of Brea Canyon, which was located on
16 the Tapo Tract. Several oil companies drilled in the area, including Union Oil Company, Pan American
17 Petroleum Company, Tapo Oil Company, Century Oil Company and E. L. Doheny (California State Mining
18 Bureau Division of Petroleum and Gas 1921).
19 Brea Canyon angles to the northeast from Simi Arroyo. The northern end of the canyon was part of Rancho
20 Tapo. The mouth of the canyon was part of Rancho Simi that had been purchased by the Simi Land and Water
21 Company in the 1880s. In the early twentieth century it was owned by the Strathearn family.
22 In 1910, Brea Canyon was the location of the Dickerson Ranch, owned by Thomas Hamilton Dickerson
23 (Haigh 1975). In 1875, Dickerson was listed as a stockman in the county directory, while living in Ventura
24 (Ventura County Genealogical Society 2008). Between 1910 and 1920, the Dickersons were listed as having a
25 butcher shop and general store in Simi and a hotel in Moorpark, while leasing the ranch land to Guy Dyer,
26 who had married Sophia, Dickerson’s daughter (Haigh 1975).
27 While Dickerson owned the land, the Union Oil Company leased the mineral rights, and, beginning in 1891,
28 drilled for oil in Brea Canyon. The first productive well was drilled in 1910 (Kew 1919). By 1921 there were
29 three such oil wells in Brea Canyon, and others in the area. This was considered to be an economically
30 “flourishing” time for Simi Valley, because the salaries of the oil well workers were higher than for farm
31 laborers, bringing more money into the town (Haigh 1975). Local citizens also earned money by hauling oil
32 drilling equipment into the canyons.
33 Around 1929 Albert Buckman Wharton moved to California from Texas. Wharton, originally from
34 Philadelphia, had married Electra Waggoner, heiress to the Waggoner Ranch in northern Texas. The marriage
35 did not last, and after the death of his oldest son, Wharton relocated to the Los Angeles area. He owned
36 property in Sherman Oaks and the Wharton Ranch in Brea Canyon (Rhodes, personal communication 2008;
37 Wharton, personal communication 2008).
38 In the 1930s, the Wharton Ranch was composed of a house, a barn and corrals, along with smaller
39 outbuildings. All of the flat land, like extended fingers, was planted, some to groves, some to other crops.
40 Wharton’s son, B. Wharton, Jr., also owned land in the Simi Valley. By the 1950s Union Oil owned the area
41 of Wharton Ranch. The property was later sold to Waste Management of California, Inc.

1 3.8.1.2.4 Site-Specific Setting
2 Summary of Cultural Resource Investigations
3 The South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton, houses the records for
4 Ventura County. A search of these records was made on June 24, 2008 and revealed 46 cultural resources
5 studies have been previously conducted within a one-mile radius of the project site. Seven archaeological sites
6 have been reported within the proposed CUP boundary. All seven occur in the buffer zone south and east of
7 the proposed waste disposal area, an area that is not proposed to be disturbed by the project. Within the one-
8 mile search radius, two sites, VEN-000341 and VEN 00346/H (located in the Robert P. Strathearn Historical
9 Park), are listed on the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility (DOE) list. Strathearn Historical Park is
10 located approximately two miles south of SVLRC. Thirteen isolates have been recorded within the one-mile
11 search radius and two isolates are recorded within the project are.
12 As part of the cultural resources investigation, Æ performed an intensive Phase I archaeological pedestrian
13 survey of specific locations within the project site. Prior survey of the area included studies by SAIC in 2002,
14 RMW Paleo Associates Inc. in 1999 (Bissell 1999), Greenwood and Associates in 1998 (Toren 1998), and
15 Singer in 1980. These studies are summarized in the technical report provided in Appendix G.
16 The intensive archaeological pedestrian survey of the sensitive areas within the proposed waste expansion
17 area was performed by Æ staff archaeologists on July 2 and 3, 2008. The area considered is bordered to the
18 north by the upper reaches of Brea Canyon, to the south by open land stretching to State Route 118, and to the
19 east and west by steep to very steep slopes. A dirt road traverses the project area from northeast to southwest.
20 In most areas the visibility through ground cover was less than 10 percent.
21 The previously identified historical resources (The Wharton Ranch, Unocal 18 [Designation 56-001582],
22 Unocal 21 [Designation 56-001581], were visited on July 2, 2008. The remaining previously recorded
23 prehistoric sites were inspected on July 3, 2008. (Unocal 13 [Designation 56-100112], Unocal 14
24 [Designation 56-001590], Unocal 15 [Designation-100113], Unocal 16 [Designation 56-001591], Unocal 17
25 [Designation 56-001592]. The Unrecorded Areas of Interest G and H were visited on July 3, 2008. The
26 previously identified historical resources site of the Wharton Ranch, or Unocal 18 [Designation 56-001582]
27 was inspected on July 2, 2008 by an architectural historian. The three extant structures were documented and
28 notes and photographs are on file at Æ.
29 As part of the records search the listings in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California
30 Historical Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (PHI), the CRHR, and the California
31 State Historical Resources Inventory (HRI) were reviewed. The Simi Adobe-Strathearn House (56-152239)
32 and the Colony House (56-152381) are listed in the NRHP, CRHR, and HRI. Both are located in the Robert P.
33 Strathearn Historical Park, 137 Strathearn Place, Simi Valley, which is about two miles south of the project
34 are. In addition, the Simi Adobe is CHL No. 979, known as Rancho Simi Headquarters.
35 Background research utilized to prepare the historic context focused on the history of agricultural and
36 ranching activities and oil exploration in Brea Canyon. Repositories visited or consulted include:
37 • The Huntington Library, San Marino, California (visited July 1, 2008);

38 • University of California, Santa Barbara, Map and Imagery Library (visited July 7, 2008);
39 • Fairchild Aerial Survey, Whittier College, Whittier, California (visited July 1, 2008);
40 • Ventura County Historical Museum Library, Ventura, California (visited June 11, 2008);

1 • Simi Valley Historical Society, Robert P. Strathearn Historical Park, Simi, California (visited July 3,
2 2008);
3 • Union Oil Company Museum, Santa Paula, California (visited July 6, 2008);
4 • Thistle Hill, Fort Worth, Texas (emailed July 11, 2008); and
5 • Hemet Public Library Heritage Room, Hemet, California (visited July 9, 2008).
6 Summary of Known Cultural Resources
7 The results of the Phase I survey and re-visit of previously recorded archaeological resources and historic
8 structures are summarized below.
9 Unocal 13 (Designation 56-100112)
10 Unocal 13 is located along Brea Canyon Road from Madera Road. The site was recorded in 1999 by RMW
11 Paleo Associates and described as containing a quartzite core and a solitary quartzite primary flake. The site
12 location as reported previously was found a top of a ridge between two north-south trending canyons. While
13 the location was identified, the artifacts previously observed were not rediscovered. Visibility at the time of
14 the survey was approximately 50 percent and several unmodified cobbles were observed. However, no other
15 artifacts were identified at the location and the potential for subsurface culturally modified artifacts or buried
16 horizons appeared minimal. Per the Office of Historic Preservation (1995) instruction manual for recording
17 historical resources, sites which contains three or fewer artifacts should be considered an isolated find and do
18 not qualify as historical resources. Further, the potential for archaeological data recovery appeared to be
19 limited and prior recordation fully realized the resource potential. Unocal 13 is not considered to be an
20 archaeological resource for the purposes of CEQA, as it does not meet the criteria of the CRHR.
22 Unocal 14 is located north on Brea Canyon Road from Madera Road on a south-facing slope below a crest.
23 The site was recorded in 1999 by RMW Paleo Associates and described as a site containing numerous
24 quartzite assayed stones and flakes. While the site location was identified, the artifacts previously observed
25 were not rediscovered. Visibility was approximately 50 percent and no other artifacts were identified at the
26 location. The slope location suggests a low potential for the occurrence of subsurface artifacts or buried
27 cultural horizons. This type of site cannot be assigned to any period of prehistory and the potential for
28 archaeological data recovery at this possible quarry site appears extremely limited. Unocal 14 is not
29 considered to be an archaeological resource for the purposes of CEQA, as it does not meet the criteria of the
30 CRHR.
32 Unocal 15 is located on Brea Canyon Road northeast from Madera Road along a ridgeline. The site was
33 recorded in 1999 by RMW Paleo Associates and described as a scatter of approximately 10 high-quality
34 quartzite flakes. While the site location was identified, the artifacts were not rediscovered. Visibility was
35 approximately 50 percent, but no other artifacts were identified at this location. The soil deposition along the
36 ridge suggests a low potential for the occurrence of subsurface artifacts or buried cultural deposits. This type
37 of site cannot be assigned to any period of prehistory and the potential for archaeological data recovery
38 appears extremely limited. Unocal 15 is not considered to be an archaeological resource for the purposes of
39 CEQA, as it does not meet the criteria of the CRHR.

2 Unocal 16 is located northeast from the gate at the southern terminus of Brea Canyon Road, surrounding a
3 peak on the ridge. The site was recorded in 1999 by RMW Paleo Associates and described as a scatter of
4 numerous assayed stones and flakes. While the site location was identified, the artifacts were not
5 rediscovered. Visibility was approximately 50 percent and whereas abundant cobbles were observed at the top
6 of the ridge and on the slopes of the peak, no artifacts were identified at the site location. The steep slope and
7 soil deposition on the ridge suggests a low potential for subsurface artifacts or buried cultural deposits. This
8 type of site cannot be assigned to any period of prehistory and the potential for archaeological data recovery
9 of this possible quarry site appears extremely limited. Unocal 16 is not considered to be an archaeological
10 resource for the purposes of CEQA, as it does not meet the criteria of the CRHR.
12 Unocal 17 is located on Brea Canyon Road near the highest point of the ridge in a naturally occurring cobble-
13 covered are. The site was recorded in 1999 by RMW Paleo Associates and described as a scatter of assayed
14 quartzite stones and flakes and a quartzite hammerstone. Although the site location was identified, the
15 artifacts were not rediscovered. Visibility was approximately 50 percent and while the previously recorded
16 abundant cobbles and some naturally fire-altered rock were observed, no culturally modified cobbles or
17 detritus were identified at the location. The soil deposition on the ridge suggests a low potential for subsurface
18 artifacts or buried cultural horizons. This type of site cannot be assigned to any period of prehistory and the
19 potential for archaeological data recovery of this possible quarry site appears extremely limited. Unocal 17 is
20 not considered to be an archaeological resource for the purposes of CEQA as it does not meet the criteria of
21 the CRHR.
23 Unocal 21 is located on Brea Canyon Road northeast from Madera Road within the buffer zone. The site was
24 recorded in 1999 by RMW Paleo Associates and described as scattered loose artifacts including bricks, cans,
25 bottles, concrete and asphalt. A debris-filled concrete ring was also discovered (RMW Paleo Associates
26 1999).
27 The debris-filled ring was not relocated during the recent study (Applied EarthWorks Inc. 2008). Vegetative
28 growth is very dense over most of the site and the feature location is at the base of an east-trending slope.
29 Sediments have washed down slope and may have covered the feature which has become overgrown since the
30 last survey. The reported brick scatter, concrete and rebar, and road segment were relocated. Many of the
31 approximately 25 brick fragments are marked “Simons.” The Simons Brick Company was based in Los
32 Angeles between 1902 and 1941. One large lump of slag and braided steel cables that were not recorded
33 previously were noted during the current study. No other artifacts were observed during the current study; but
34 this may have been due to the dense vegetative cover. The asphalt road segment remains extant and appears to
35 trend west into the canyon. No evidence of a road was identified connecting this segment with Brea Canyon
36 Road. A dirt road that was not recorded during the previous study has been cut into the slope south of the site.
37 The site is believed to be the location of Union Oil Well #2, which was drilled between 1919 and 1921
38 (California State Mining Bureau Division of Petroleum and Gas 1921). The location of Well #2 was
39 correlated with historic maps to determine its association. Artifact-bearing deposits directly associated with
40 oil drilling activities are unlikely to have developed and no evidence suggesting their presence was observed.
41 The potential for archaeological data recovery appears limited. The recordation of surface artifacts and
42 landscape elements has exhausted the data potential at this site.

1 Unrecorded Areas of Interest (Areas G & H)
2 Two Unrecorded Areas of Interest were also re-evaluated during the current study. Neither area was
3 previously recorded as a site. Reviewed by Psomas, the areas were considered noteworthy (Blood 2005).
4 Clearly they represented previous activity in the region and are possibly related to historical use of the area.
5 Area G is located north west of Unocal 13 and consists of a 12-inch diameter riveted pipe extruded from the
6 base of an east-facing slope. Area H is located in a canyon east of Unocal 13 and Area G. Area H was
7 previously described as a scatter of milled wood and tile, an earthen platform, and the remains of gravel roads.
8 Backhoe teeth marks were also noted on a vertical cliff face (Blood 2005). The Area G pipe was identified but
9 no other features or artifacts were observed in this area. The earthen “platform,” which appears to be a
10 mechanically created mound rather than a purposely built platform, and the backhoe teeth marks were
11 identified at Area H. The milled wood and tile were not observed. However, visibility was less than 10
12 percent due to dense vegetation.
13 Historical research did not reveal any information about these locations and prior use of these areas. No
14 structures or features appear at this location on the 1939 aerial photograph or early USGS maps. The locations
15 were plotted on the 1919 and 1921 map of the Piru-Simi–Newhall Oil Fields (California State Mining Bureau
16 of Petroleum and Gas 1921) and appear too far east to be associated with the Scarab oil wells and lease. Areas
17 G and H may be associated with each other as the pipe may be a supply line to Area H. However, clear
18 association with the oil or agriculture industries in the area is unsubstantiated and presence of subsurface
19 artifact-bearing deposits appears unlikely. The use of mechanized equipment to create the mound and the
20 teeth marks on the vertical cliff face suggest associated activities in the canyon are relatively recent. The lack
21 of historical association and limited potential for archaeological data recovery suggest these locations are not
22 eligible for listing on the CRHR. Hence, they are not considered to be archaeological resources for the
23 purpose of CEQA.
24 The Wharton Ranch (Unocal 18) (Designation 56-001582)
25 The Wharton Ranch, both a historical and archaeological resource, is located on Brea Canyon Road northeast
26 from Madera Road within the buffer zone. The site was recorded in 1999 by RMW Paleo Associates and
27 described as a complex of features including a root cellar, kitchen shed, fused shale walls, foundations, dam
28 and sediment-filled pond, and water pipes. Agricultural machinery and artifacts were also noted on the surface
29 (RMW Paleo Associates 1999).
30 Three structures are still extant from the time of use as Wharton Ranch. A concrete block root cellar is set into
31 the hill to the south of the house location. Stepped wingwalls provide an entrance to the cellar, which was
32 wired with electric lighting. The roof form is a shallow gable. The interior was furnished with shelves on both
33 sides; the floor is concrete. The date of construction, 1938, is incised above the door. Wharton Ranch is
34 incised into the concrete wingwalls, as is a large W.
35 The stone retaining wall is east of the root cellar. It is constructed of uniform-sized pieces of local burnt oil
36 shale. The pieces are laid in concrete with the layered shale at different angles. The date of construction, 1939,
37 is etched in one of the stones. Concrete steps, near the location of the house, pierce the wall and lead to a
38 terrace on which there is a second wall, constructed of cobblestones, a small depression with a foundation of
39 the same stone, and a concrete standpipe.
40 The earthen dam runs north-south; a remnant of fence, with charred posts, still stands along its top. Brush
41 covers this structure, making it difficult to delineate the width. The east side slopes down to the valley floor,
42 where other structures relating to the ranch have been removed. Two foundations are located further north in
43 the canyon.

1 The main buildings on the ranch—the house and barn and other outbuildings—have been torn down. Nothing
2 remains in the flat lands to indicate that they were once productive agricultural land. Only slab foundations,
3 the root cellar and the well-constructed wall indicate a former ranching enterprise was located in Brea
4 Canyon.
5 The recent survey discovered that some of the features recorded in 1999 are no longer extant. The kitchen
6 shed, sinks and floor, and the wood piles depicted on the site map have been removed. Similar items were
7 discovered in the canyon immediately east of the site and may have been cleared from the site and dumped at
8 this location. The area once occupied by the shed and wood piles is relatively clear of mature vegetation and
9 their removal may have been somewhat recent. The grain drill and paddle wheel depicted on the original site
10 map also were not found. Few artifacts were noted on the surface. However, vegetation is dense across the
11 site with the exception of the shed/woodpile are. a Artifacts noted include cut and burned mammal bone and
12 metal strapping in the former shed area, a metal drum and concrete standpipe adjacent to the fused shale
13 walls, concrete and tile fragments in the area of the root cellar, and a concrete trough or sink, also in the area
14 of the root cellar. The trough or sink may have been relocated from the shed area and placed in the area of the
15 root cellar. No evidence of possible artifact-filled features that may provide data for site usage was discovered
16 during either survey. However, archaeological deposits from the historical use of this site, between the 1930
17 and 1950s may exist below the surface.
20 Archaeological and Historic Architectural Resources
21 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a.3) and PRC Section 21084.1 define the following criteria used to
22 determine the significance of cultural resources, characterized as “historic resources”.
23 Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
24 determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific,
25 economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may
26 be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by
27 substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the
28 lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the
29 California Register of Historical Resources (PRC SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).
30 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) (revised October 26, 1998) states that “…a project with an effect
31 that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may
32 have a significant effect on the environment”.
33 1. Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition,
34 destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the
35 significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
36 2. The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
37 A. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a

38 historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or
39 eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR;

1 B. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that

2 account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section
3 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in a historical resources survey
4 meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the
5 public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence
6 that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
7 C. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a

8 historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for
9 inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency
10 for purposes of CEQA.
11 When an archaeological resource is listed in, or is eligible to be listed in, the CRHR, PRC Section 21084.1
12 requires that any substantial adverse effect to that resource be considered a significant environmental effect.
13 PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 operate independently to ensure that potential effects on archaeological
14 resources are considered as part of the environmental analysis for a project. Either of these benchmarks may
15 indicate that a proposal may have a potential adverse effect on archaeological resources.
16 State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 guide the evaluation of impacts to prehistoric and
17 historic archaeological resources. Section 15064.5(c) provides that, to the extent an archaeological resource is
18 also a historical resource, the provisions regarding historical resources apply. These provisions endorse the
19 first set of standardized mitigation measures for historic resources by providing that projects following the
20 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties be considered as mitigated to a less
21 than significant level.
22 Other state-level requirements for cultural resources management are written into the California PRC, Chapter
23 1.7, Section 5097.5 (Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites).
24 Ethnographic Resources
25 The disposition of Native American burials is governed by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety
26 Code, and Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 of the PRC, and falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American
27 Heritage Commission (NAHC). Section 7052 of the Health and Safety Code establishes a felony penalty for
28 mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.
29 Penal Code Section 622.5 provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historical or
30 archaeological interest located on public or private lands, but specifically excludes the landowner. PRC
31 Section 5097.5 defines as a misdemeanor the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, or
32 historical, resources located on public lands.
35 Policy 1.8.2-3: Mitigation of significant impacts on cultural or paleontological resources shall follow the
36 Guidelines of the State Office of Historic Preservation, the State Native American Heritage Commission, and
37 shall be performed in consultation with professionals in their respective areas of expertise.
38 Policy 1.8.2-5: During environmental review of discretionary development the reviewing agency shall be
39 responsible for identifying sites having potential archaeological, architectural or historical significance and
40 this information shall be provided to the County Cultural Heritage Board for evaluation.

4 Supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines, the threshold criteria for evaluating whether a proposed project
5 may have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources state:
6 CUL-1: Cultural Resources. CEQA requires the protection of unique archaeological resources that may be
7 damaged or destroyed by a project. For the purposes of CEQA, a unique archaeological resource is
8 an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that it meets
9 any of the following requirements: (1) contains information need to answer important scientific
10 research question and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; (2) has a
11 special and particular quality such as oldest of its type or best available example of its type; (3) is
12 directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
13 A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
14 historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change in
15 the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or
16 alternation of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical
17 resource would be materially impaired. The significance of a historical resource is materially
18 impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
19 characteristics of a historical resource that:
20 • Convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion
21 in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
22 • Account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section
23 5020.1(k) requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public
24 agency reviewing the effects of the project established by a preponderance of evidence that
25 the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
26 • Convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California
27 Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
29 3.8.2.2.1 CUL-1: Cultural Resources
30 The Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines and Administrative Supplement to the State CEQA
31 Guidelines, requires that a preliminary assessment be made to determine the importance of archaeological
32 resources in the project area by reviewing the County of Ventura’s Archaeological Survey maps. These maps
33 indicate whether or not an area has been surveyed for archaeological resources, and if the survey results are
34 positive (archaeologically sensitive) or negative (not sensitive). If the project is in an area shown as
35 “sensitive” on the Archaeological Survey Map, or is in an area whose sensitivity has not been determined, a
36 copy of the Cultural Resources Reply Form must be sent to the University of California, Los Angeles
37 (UCLA) Archaeological Information Center (now located at California State University, Fullerton), and to
38 local Native American groups, as appropriate. UCLA (Cal State Fullerton) may recommend further research,
39 such as a Phase I or Phase II cultural resource assessment.
40 Such an assessment was recommended and completed for the proposed project. According to the Guidelines,
41 site significance evaluations of previously recorded sites have been made. In-situ preservation of a site is the

1 preferred manner of avoiding damage to archaeological resources. Avoidance may be mandatory depending
2 on site significance criteria, as determined by State and Federal law, and/or by the County General Plan.
3 Mitigation measures are provided where avoidance is not possible in order to reduce project impacts to site
4 which are deemed a “significant archaeological resource.”
5 Where historical resources are identified and the project involves physical changes in anything (land,
6 building, structure, object), the resources must be evaluated to determine if the affected item has any historical
7 merit. No items of historical merit were identified within the project site, so no resources were referred to the
8 Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) to evaluate the historic significance of the site.
10 3.8.2.3.1 Impact CUL-1: Cultural Resources
11 Possible project impacts include the physical destruction of archaeological resources during the landfill
12 expansion. Due to a lack of potential for data recovery, none of the five prehistoric sites described in Section
13 3.8.1.2.4 are considered a unique archaeological resource; nor are they considered eligible for listing on the
14 CRHR. Therefore, these sites are not historical resources for the purpose of CEQA. This would be a less than
15 significant impact. Although no prehistoric sites that are eligible for listing on the CRHR have been recorded
16 within the expansion area, the presence of previously recorded prehistoric sites in close proximity shows that
17 regional site utilization during prehistoric times did occur and unidentified, subsurface deposits may exist in
18 some areas. Heavy vegetation could be masking the presence of prehistoric habitation and procurement sites.
19 If significant archaeological deposits are discovered during grading or construction, the project would have a
20 significant impact on these archaeological resources.
21 The Unrecorded Areas of Interest have no clear historic association and lack the potential for data recovery.
22 Therefore, these locations do not appear eligible for listing on the CRHR and are not considered to be
23 historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. This would be a less than significant impact.
24 Wharton Ranch has the potential to contain subsurface unique archaeological deposits in the form of artifact-
25 filled features such as privies, wells, cisterns, and refuse pits. The Wharton Ranch is considered to possess the
26 potential for subsurface historical archaeological deposits that would qualify the site for eligibility to the
27 CRHR. However, visibility is poor, hampering the identification of such resources. Construction and
28 operation of the proposed project is not expected to occur in this area. However, any project-related clearing,
29 grubbing, and grading in this area would have the potential to result in a significant adverse effect on any
30 significant archaeological deposits.
31 The Wharton Ranch also contains remnants of three standing structures, which are the only standing
32 structures within the project site. The main buildings on the ranch—the house and barn and other
33 outbuildings—have been torn down. Only slab foundations, the root cellar and the well-constructed masonry
34 wall indicate a former ranching enterprise was located in Brea Canyon. The Wharton Ranch building complex
35 does not retain sufficient integrity to qualify for the CRHR. Therefore, it is not a historical resource for
36 purposes of CEQA. While the stone retaining wall is not a historical resource for the purpose of CEQA, it is
37 of local interest. This would be a less than significant impact.
39 Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Construction and operation of the proposed project shall avoid Wharton
40 Ranch, if feasible. If avoidance is not possible, Phase II testing and evaluation of potential archaeological
41 deposits within the Wharton Ranch areas shall be conducted prior to any surface disturbance in the vicinity of
42 the ranch. Provisions must also be made for consultation with the County for approval of reporting of the

1 findings of the Phase II testing, and, if need be, follow-on Phase III data recovery. Provision must also be
2 made for curation of artifacts collected.
3 Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Due to the poor visibility over much of the survey area and the lack of final
4 construction plans such as depth of excavation and extent of maintenance activities, a full time archeological
5 monitor shall be on-site during all brush clearance and disturbance of the first one foot of soil in areas that
6 have not previously been disturbed.
7 In the event that potentially significant archaeological materials are encountered during project-related ground
8 disturbance, all work must be halted within the vicinity of the discovery until an assessment of the
9 significance by a qualified archaeologist is completed. If significant resources are determined to be present,
10 sufficient time must be allotted for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigations
11 measures such as Phase II testing and/or Phase III Data Recovery of significant archaeological deposits.
12 Treatment plans must be developed in consultation with the County and local Native Americans. Provisions
13 must also be made for reporting of the findings of any testing/data recovery effort and curation of any
14 significant artifact collections made.
15 Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code
16 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the unlikely event of an unanticipated discovery of any human
17 remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. If human remains are found at the proposed project
18 site, the following measures shall be implemented per the California Office of Historic Preservation Technical
19 Assistance Bulletin 10 (46):
20 …ground-disturbing activities in the area of the discovery shall immediately be halted or redirected.
21 A temporary construction exclusion zone will be established surrounding the site to allow for further
22 examination and treatment of the find. A project representative shall immediately notify the Ventura
23 County Coroner’s office by telephone. By law, the Coroner will determine within two working days
24 of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the coroner recognizes the
25 remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
26 who will appoint the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Additionally, if the bones are determined to be
27 Native American, a plan will be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated
28 burial objects and the plan will be implemented under the direction of the MLD [California Office of
29 Historic Preservation 2001].
31 Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 though CUL-3 would ensure that potential impacts to
32 subsurface archaeological deposits would be less than significant.
34 Table 3.8-1 summarizes the potentially significant adverse cultural resource impacts of the proposed project
35 and less than significant impacts for which mitigation measures would further reduce impacts. For each

Table 3.8-1. Mitigation for Cultural Resource Impacts

Potentially Significance Responsible
Significant Adverse Mitigation Measure(s) Timing
Impact After Mitigation Parties
CUL-1: Construction and operation
of the proposed project shall avoid
Wharton Ranch. If avoidance is not
possible, Phase II testing and During
evaluation of potential archaeological
deposits within the Wharton Ranch Applicant/ grading and
Contractor excavation
areas shall be conducted prior to any activities
surface disturbance in the vicinity of Less than
the ranch. Provisions must also be significant Ventura within the
County Wharton
made for consultation with the Planning Ranch.
County for approval of reporting of
the findings of the Phase II testing, Division
and, if need be, follow-on Phase III
data recovery. Provision must also be
made for curation of artifacts
collected.
CUL-2: Due to the poor visibility
over much of the survey area and the
lack of final construction plans such
as depth of excavation and extent of
Impact CUL-1: maintenance activities, a full time
Project grading and archeological monitor shall be on-
excavation would site during all brush clearance and
have an adverse effect disturbance of the first one foot of
on any significant soil in areas that have not previously
archaeological sites been disturbed.
within the project site. In the event that potentially
significant archaeological materials
are encountered during project- During
related ground disturbance, all work Applicant/ grading and
must be halted within the vicinity of Contractor excavation
the discovery until an assessment of activities
Less than
the significance by a qualified Significant Ventura within the
archaeologist is completed. If County CUP
significant resources are determined Planning boundary.
to be present, sufficient time must be Division
allotted for implementation of
avoidance measures or appropriate
mitigations measures such as Phase
II testing and/or Phase III Data
Recovery of significant
archaeological deposits. Treatment
plans must be developed in
consultation with the County and
local Native Americans. Provisions
must also be made for reporting of
the findings of any testing/data
recovery effort and curation of any
significant artifact collections made.

Table 3.8-1. Mitigation for Cultural Resource Impacts

Potentially
Significant Adverse Mitigation Measure(s) After Mitigation Parties Timing
Impact
CUL-3: Health and Safety Code
7050.5, CEQA 15064.5(e) and
Public Resources Code 5097.98
mandate the process to be followed
Applicant/
in the unlikely event of an Contractor; If human
unanticipated discovery of any
human remains in a location other remains are
Ventura found at the
than a dedicated cemetery. If human County proposed
remains are found at the proposed
project site, the following measures Planning project site.
Division
shall be implemented per the
California Office of Historic
Preservation Technical Assistance
Bulletin 10 (46)


1 3.9 Hazards
2 The following sections are modified based on the hazard analysis prepared for the newly proposed Landfill
3 Gas to Liquefied Natural Gas (LFGTLNG) facility provided in Appendix N for the Recirculated DEIR.
6 The area of influence with respect to hazards varies depending on the type of hazard. The area of influence
7 regarding fire hazards is the greater Simi Valley area, as a fire started at the SVLRC could potentially spread
8 extensively throughout the valley. The area of influence regarding plant upset conditions is the CUP
9 boundary. The area of influence regarding hazardous materials/waste is the area encompassing the
10 downgradient surface water and groundwater flow regime, as potential spills or leaks of hazardous
11 materials/waste could migrate into nearby surface waters and/or underlying groundwater. Downstream
12 surface waters include the adjacent Alamos Canyon and Brea creeks, as well as Arroyo Simi and the more
13 distant Calleguas Creek. Potential groundwater affected by a spill is the underlying Simi Valley Groundwater
14 Basin and to a lesser extent, the downgradient Las Posas Basin. The area of influence with respect to
15 abandoned oil wells is the immediate vicinity of the oil wells, as potential soil contamination associated with
16 such oil wells is primarily a health and safety issue during landfill grading and construction. The area of
17 influence with respect to Valley Fever is the area encompassing the SVLRC that is subject to blowing dust as
18 a result of disturbance of previously undisturbed soil, as Valley Fever occurs as a result of inhalation of a
19 specific wind-blown fungus present in the soil. See Figure B.2-13 in Appendix B, Air Quality, for a map of
20 areas susceptible to blowing dust as a result of the project. [Note: moved to Air Quality]
21 3.9.1.2 Setting
22 3.9.1.2.1 Fire Hazard
23 Surface Fires
24 The SVLRC is located in a high wildfire hazard area, as it is surrounded by uncultivated, flammable
25 vegetation in the form of coastal sage scrub and grassland, shrubs with scattered chaparral, and oaks. The area
26 receives an average of less than 20 inches of rainfall annually. Vegetation in the area is very dry and fire
27 prone during May through October. In addition, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
28 (Cal Fire) Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) classifies the landfill area as a Very High Fire
29 Hazard Severity Zone (Cal Fire 2007).
30 Local wind conditions determine the direction and rate of spread of wildfires. The general project area is
31 characterized by prevailing southwest winds during the daytime and southeast winds during the nighttime
32 (except during Santa Ana conditions).
33 Potential fuels for surface fires are combustible waste, litter, or vegetation ignited by any of the following
34 sources:
35 • Tipping of "hot" or smoldering loads, or loads that contain hot cinders buried in the material
36 (containing hot embers such as charcoal briquettes or fireplace ashes).
37 • Sparks from vehicles or machinery, hot exhaust, mufflers, or brakes.
38 • Lighted cigarettes or matches thrown from vehicles.
39 • Petroleum products stored on-site.
3.9 Hazards
1 • Waste fires that occasionally occur in haul trucks typically are caused by discarded coals from
2 barbecues.
3 In October 1967 and October 1970, large off-site brush fires encroached onto the site. In October 1985, a
4 brush fire burned to the north of the site, and in late April 1987, a brush fire in Brea Canyon also entered the
5 site. Reportedly, none of these fires caused injury or major property damage.
6 Waste fires were reported at the site during 1997, 1998, and 1999 and were recorded in the Log of Special
7 Occurrences. Primarily, the fires occurred at the open face or on the ADC. The fires were brought under
8 control by SVLRC personnel and equipment, with the assistance of the Fire Department.
9 Subsurface Fires
10 Landfills contain combustible materials and have insulating characteristics and other attributes necessary to
11 allow subsurface combustion. The ignition and propagation of subsurface landfill fires are a function of
12 several factors, including waste composition and moisture content, available oxygen, and ambient pressure in
13 the area of combustion. Subsurface landfill fires can occur as combustible waste materials are heated, either
14 through biological decomposition or chemical oxidation. A continuous source of oxygen (i.e., air) is
15 necessary for this process; oxidation of the waste materials can generate heating to the point of combustion.
16 As temperatures within the landfill increase, pyrolytic reactions may also occur. Subsurface fires are typically
17 triggered by either of the following mechanisms:
18 • Burial of "hot loads" with other waste materials.

19 • Improper operation of landfill gas collection systems. Overdrawing landfill gas extraction wells,
20 especially those near the landfill perimeter or slope face, or breaks in the subsurface collection header
21 pipe that could occur due to landfill settlement, creates a situation where air can be inadvertently
22 drawn into the waste mass. Open cracks and fissures in the landfill surface may facilitate drawing air
23 through the cover.
24 The potential for a subsurface fire as a result of a surface fire is remote due to several factors:
25 • Cover soils isolate the surface fire from igniting subsurface waste materials.
26 • The amount of subsurface waste materials available above the surface is limited to the daily deposit
27 of waste materials only.
28 • SVLRC personnel can quickly extinguish surface fires with earth-moving equipment and/or water
29 trucks.
30 Subsurface fires may also occur within a hazardous waste disposal area, following corrosion and/or rupture of
31 buried containers used to store incompatible or reactive materials. Waste cells containing peroxides,
32 explosives, or chemical oxidizers represent a possible explosion hazard. Such waste can be reactive to shock
33 (e.g., jolted by impact with heavy machinery or severe seismically induced ground shaking), organic
34 substances, acids, heat, and even water. One or more of these compounds are contained in 13 cells of the
35 former Class I area. Another factor is the potential presence of incompatible wastes in the same disposal cell
36 or adjacent cells.
37 3.9.1.2.2 Risk of Upset
38 The SVLRC Expansion Project includes the construction and operation of a LFGTLNG facility, located just
39 north of the existing landfill gas flare station Figure 2.4-3). This facility would treat landfill gas to remove
40 impurities, condense the gas to liquid phase by chilling, and store the gas in cryogenic tanks for use as a
41 transportation fuel to power heavy-duty landfill vehicles, including sanitation trucks. The LNG facility would
42 produce up to 18,000 gallons of LNG per day. The final LNG product would be stored in four 15,000 gallon
3.9 Hazards
1 cryogenic tanks. An LNG fueling station would be installed at SVLRC to fuel the existing fleet of disposal
2 trucks with LNG. The remainder of the LNG produced would be exported by tanker truck (typically 10,000 –
3 12,000 gallon capacity trucks) for use off-site.
4 Improper handling and use of LNG could result in spills, as well as health and safety impacts to facility
5 personnel. An LNG spill or leak could evaporate and disperse into the air and the surrounding area. If the
6 leak were large, such that the release rate and duration is adequate to cool the ground surface and immediate
7 evaporation does not occur, liquid LNG would pool in the immediate vicinity of the facility. If certain
8 conditions are reached, the vapors could ignite and present a fire hazard.
9 3.9.1.2.3 Hazardous Waste
10 As described in Section 2.2.1, Ownership and Permitting History, from 1971 through mid-1982, the Simi
11 Valley Landfill accepted hazardous wastes. Approximately 29,000 tons of hazardous wastes were received.
12 The types of hazardous waste included toxics, flammable/ignitable wastes, corrosive wastes, highly reactive
13 wastes, and explosive wastes. The former Class I area has since been capped with a clay layer and covered
14 with MSW.
15 Like any MSW landfill, the SVLRC unavoidably receives small amounts of hazardous waste mixed in with
16 the daily waste loads. These materials may come from industrial and commercial generators and from
17 households. Industries and commercial businesses dealing with hazardous waste are closely regulated and the
18 volume of hazardous waste entering the waste stream from these activities is believed to be much smaller than
19 that from households.
20 Many products found in the home are potentially hazardous substances that can poison, corrode, explode, or
21 ignite easily when handled improperly. When discarded, such substances are considered household hazardous
22 waste (HHW). Since HHW may threaten human health or the environment when inappropriately disposed,
23 HHW is not exempt from California hazardous waste laws. Thus, it is illegal for residents to dispose of HHW
24 along with their MSW (CIWMB 2009). Many common household products are considered HHW when they
25 are discarded, including the following examples:
26 • Adhesives
27 • Latex and oil-based paints
28 • Paint thinners and strippers
29 • Grease and rust solvents
30 • Wood and metal cleaners
31 • Nail polish and removers
32 • Cosmetics
33 • Household polishes and cleaners
34 • Oven cleaners
35 • Drain openers
36 • Lighter fluids
37 • Fungicides and wood preservatives
38 • Insecticides, herbicides, and rodenticides
39 • Used oil and oil filters
3.9 Hazards
1 • Fuel injection and carburetor cleaners

2 • Antifreeze
3 • Batteries
4 Each county and city in the state is required to prepare and implement an HHW Element of their Integrated
5 Waste Management Plan that identifies a program to provide for the safe collection, recycling, treatment, and
6 disposal of hazardous wastes generated by households within the jurisdiction (14 CCR 18750-18751.8). The
7 purpose of the HHW Element is to keep HHW separated from MSW and out of MSW landfills. Ventura
8 County and each of the ten cities in the county have adopted HHW Elements.
9 3.9.1.2.4 Petroleum Wastes
10 The Project site lies within the Alamos area and immediately west of the Canada de la Brea area of the Simi
11 Oil Field (DOGGR 2001). Several oil wells of the Simi Oil Field are located within the northern expansion
12 area (Figure 3.9-1). Based on a report by Earth Tech, Inc. (2005), these two former oil producing sections of
13 the Simi Oil Field were owned by Unocal and served as producing oil fields from the 1940s through the mid
14 1990s.
15 The following abandoned oil field infrastructure is located within the landfill expansion area:
16 • Abandoned oil wells and related production sumps: Canada de la Brea (CDLB) #8, CDLB #12,
17 Alamos 6-31, and Alamos 7-32;
18 • Oil field sump CDLB #12, located adjacent to well CDLB #12; and
19 • Miscellaneous abandoned oil field piping and/or other residual oil field infrastructure equipment.
20 Each of the on-site wells, which produced economically viable quantities of oil prior to being abandoned, has
21 been abandoned in accordance with DOGGR standards, as of December 18, 1997 (Earth Tech, Inc. 2005).
22 Well abandonment procedures have generally remained the same since the 1920s; however, rules and
23 regulations pertaining to well abandonment have become stricter. Because the wells were abandoned in
24 accordance with 1997 standards, subsequent to producing oil, it is likely that the wells have been abandoned
25 in accordance with today’s standards. However, DOGGR decides on a well-by-well basis whether additional
26 well abandonment should be completed for any construction or development in the vicinity of an active, idle,
27 or abandoned well.
28 Based on soil sampling completed along oil field access roads, the upper two feet of soil beneath the roads is
29 contaminated with heavy hydrocarbons, with concentrations ranging from 1,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg)
30 to 60,000 mg/kg. Sampling did not detect residual hazardous materials in association with the remaining oil
31 field infrastructure, as described above (Earth Tech, Inc. 2005).
32 Valley Fever
33 Soils in arid areas, such as portions of Ventura County, may contain a fungus known as coccidioides immitis.
34 Spores from the fungus can be released during earthmoving operations, such as agricultural plowing, grading,
35 and excavation. Upon release, the spores may cause a disease known as coccidioicomycosis in susceptible
36 individuals. The disease is also known as Valley Fever, based on its being found in large areas of the
37 California Central Valley. The disease is considered to be endemic throughout Ventura County. [Note: moved
38 to Air Quality]

Scale
N 0 0.5
Mile
Proposed Waste
Disposal Area
Limits of Grading
Proposed CUP
Boundary
Alamos 4-31 NORTHERN CDLB #14

EXPANSION CDLB #13
Alamos 3-31 CDLB #12
Alamos 7-32
CDLB #10
Alamos 6-31 CDLB #8
CDLB #2
CDLB #4 CDLB #11
CDLB #7
CDLB #5
CELL
D CDLB #3
WESTERN
EXPANSION
EXISTING
LANDFILL
118
Source: EarthTech 2005

2005;
Basemap Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle; Simi Valley West, Calif.
Figure 3.9-1. Oil Well Location Map

3.9 Hazards
1 In a typical year, only a small number of cases of Valley Fever are reported to the Ventura County Public
2 Health Services. In 1994, however, an increase in Valley Fever cases was reported in the weeks and months
3 following the January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake. The U.S. Department of Health Services, Center for
4 Disease Control (CDC) hypothesized that the earthquake and its aftershocks caused soil to become airborne,
5 releasing coccidioides immitis spores. At least 170 people in Ventura County were diagnosed with Valley
6 Fever. Fewer than 5 percent of those infected became seriously ill and one fatality was reported. Once
7 infected, most victims become immune, according to the CDC (World News Digest, June 1994).
8 From 1994 to 2002, the number of cases of Valley Fever decreased markedly (SAIC 2002). The number of
9 cases reported annually during that time period averaged less than 19. However, cases of Valley Fever
10 increased by 600 percent in Spring 2004, following major wildfires in Ventura County in Fall 2003. About 14
11 cases per month were reported from Fall 2003 to Spring 2004, compared to an average of two cases per
12 month before the October fires. At least 70 cases were reported during that time period, with two thirds of
13 them in the eastern part of the county (Daily News 2004). [Note: moved to Air Quality]
16 Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.)
17 Also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Emergency
18 Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted by Congress as the national legislation
19 on community safety. This law was designated to help local communities protect public health, safety, and the
20 environment from chemical hazards. To implement EPCRA, Congress required each state to appoint a State
21 Emergency Response Commission (SERC). The SERCs were required to divide their states into Emergency
22 Planning Districts and to name a Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) for each district. EPCRA
23 provides requirements for emergency release notification, chemical inventory reporting, and toxic release
24 inventories for facilities that handle chemicals.
25 Department of Transportation, Transportation of Hazardous Materials
26 The Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates the transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous
27 wastes. The regulations set forth requirements to be observed in preparing hazardous materials for shipment
28 by air, highway, rail, or water, or any combination thereof. DOT regulations pertaining to hazardous
29 materials may be found in 49 CFR §100-199. DOT regulations include HM181 and HM126F which regulate
30 hazardous material labeling and training requirements. In addition, LNG is regulated under the following:
31 • Code of Federal Regulations Title 49 Chapter I

32 • Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law (U.S Code Title 49 Chapter 51)
33 LNG is not a regulated material under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Risk Management Plan regulations.
35 Hazardous Material Release Response Plans and Inventory Law (California Health
36 and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95)
37 This state right-to-know law requires businesses to develop a Hazardous Material Management Plan or a
38 “business plan” for hazardous materials emergencies if they handle more than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200
39 cubic feet of hazardous materials. In addition, the business plan includes an inventory of all hazardous materials
3.9 Hazards
1 stored or handled at the facility above these thresholds. This law is designed to reduce the occurrence and
2 severity of hazardous materials releases. The Hazardous Materials Management Plan or business plan must be
3 submitted to the CUPA, which is, in this case, the Ventura County Environmental Health Department. The state
4 has integrated the federal EPCRA reporting requirements into this law; and, once a facility is in compliance with
5 the local administering agency requirements, submittals to other agencies are not required.
6 DOGGR Regulations
7 The DOGGR regulates production of oil and gas, as well as geothermal resources, within the State of
8 California. DOGGR regulations, which are defined in CCR Title 14, Division 2, Chapters 2 and 4, include
9 well abandonment procedures and guidelines.
10 California Highway Patrol
11 LNG is not a regulated material under Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations California Accidental
12 Release Prevention Program.
14 Ventura County Codes
15 Fire hazards are regulated in accordance with Ventura County Building Code, Chapter 7A, Section 701-704.
16 Hazardous materials use and storage in the County of Ventura are required to comply with the Ventura
17 County Uniform Fire Code, Article 80, as adopted and amended by the Ventura County Fire Protection
18 District.
19 In general, unrefined petroleum is exempt from being considered a hazardous material (California Health and
20 Safety Code, Section 25250.3). Crude oil, as a natural material, is not defined as a hazardous waste under
21 current state hazardous waste control laws. However, crude oil and materials used to process crude oil may be
22 profiled as a hazardous material for disposal purposes.
24 The Safety Element, Hazards Appendix, of the Ventura County General Plan, addresses the issue of
25 protection of its people from unreasonable risks associated with natural disasters (e.g., fires, floods, and
26 earthquakes), as well as releases of hazardous materials/waste. The Safety Element provides a contextual
27 framework for understanding the relationship between hazard mitigation, response to a natural or man-
28 induced disaster, and initial recovery from a disaster.
34 closed before the project is inaugurated.
37 siting criteria.

3.9 Hazards
3 Based on the criteria identified in the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines, the threshold
4 criteria for evaluating whether a proposed project may have a significant adverse impact from fire hazards and
5 hazardous materials/waste state:
6 HAZ-1: Fire Hazards. Projects located within a high fire hazard area may have a significant impact.
7 Ventura County Building Code, Article IV Section Uniform Building Code 1601 identifies high
8 fire hazard areas as any area within 500 feet of uncultivated brush, grass, or forest covered land,
9 wherein an authorized representative of the Fire District determines that a potential fire hazard
10 exists due to the presence of such flammable growth.
11 HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials. Section 2.15 of the County General Plan covers goals and policies for
12 hazardous materials and waste. Whether the hazardous materials impacts of a project are
13 significant are decided on a case-by-case basis and depend on:
14 • Individual or cumulative physical hazard of material(s);

15 • Amounts of materials on-site, either in use or storage;
16 • Proximity of hazardous materials to populated areas and compatibility of materials with
17 neighboring facilities;
18 • Federal, State, and local laws, and ordinances, governing storage and use of hazardous
19 materials;
20 • Potential for spill or release; and
21 • Proximity of hazardous materials to receiving waters or other significant environmental
22 resources.
23 In addition, impacts associated with the storage, handling, and disposal of potentially
24 hazardous materials would be significant in the absence of conformance with the requirements
25 set forth in the following regulations:
26 • Underground storage tanks: California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.7 and
27 the California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16;
28 • Business Plan: California Health and Safety Code, Section 25504;
29 • Risk Management Plan: California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article
30 2; and
31 • CUPA: California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.11.
32 • With regard to the LNG facilities, an impact would be significant if an upset resulting in fire
33 or explosion would result in death or injury to members of the public.
34 HAZ-3: Hazardous Wastes. Impacts associated with the storage, handling, and disposal of potentially
35 hazardous wastes would be significant in the absence of in conformance with the requirements set
36 for in the following regulations:
37 • Enabling Legislation: CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5;

38 • California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5; and

3.9 Hazards
1 • Permit Requirements: Ventura County Ordinance Chapter 5 (Hazardous Substances), Article

2 1 (CUPA).
3 HAZ-4: Petroleum Wastes. Impacts would be considered significant in the event that exposure of soils (or
4 associated soil gas) containing toxic substances and petroleum hydrocarbons, associated with prior
5 oil field operations, would be deleterious to humans, based on regulatory standards established by
6 the lead agency for the site.
7 HAZ-5: Valley Fever. Impacts would be considered significant in the event that the project causes adverse
8 impacts to public health. [Note: moved to Air Quality]
10 3.9.2.2.1 HAZ-1: Fire Hazard
11 The potential for surface and subsurface landfill fires were evaluated as a result of the proposed SVLRC
12 Landfill Expansion Project. The level of significance would be based on whether the proposed landfill
13 expansion increases the potential for wildfires to occur in adjacent, off-site areas.
14 3.9.2.2.2 HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials
15 Hazardous materials impacts were evaluated with respect to compliance with applicable County, State, and
16 Federal regulations. LNG impacts were evaluated with respect to processing, storage and transportation.
17 Potential hazards were evaluated based on US Department of Transportation regulations.
18 3.9.2.2.3 HAZ-3: Hazardous Wastes
19 Hazardous waste impacts were evaluated with respect to potential exposure of operations personnel to
20 hazardous waste. Human health and safety impacts would be significant pursuant to exposure levels established
21 by OEHHA. In addition, hazardous waste impacts were evaluated with respect to compliance with applicable
22 County, State, and Federal regulations.
23 3.9.2.2.4 HAZ-4: Petroleum Wastes
24 Petroleum waste impacts were evaluated with respect to potential exposure of construction and operations
25 personnel to contaminated soil and associated soil gas. Human health and safety impacts would be significant
26 pursuant to exposure levels established by OEHHA.
27 3.9.2.2.5 HAZ-4: Valley Fever
28 Valley Fever impacts were evaluated by: 1) determining whether the project is in compliance with applicable
29 State regulations, County ordinance, or other guidelines or policies; and 2) determining whether there are
30 impacts that are not covered by existing regulations, but have been included in recent data or industry
31 recognized studies. The degree of impact would be determined using current available information. [Note:
32 moved to Air Quality]

3.9 Hazards
2 3.9.2.3.1 Impact HAZ-1: Fire Hazard
3 Surface Fires
4 The SVLRC is located in a high wildfire hazard area, as it is surrounded by uncultivated, flammable vegetation
5 in the form of coastal sage scrub and grassland, shrubs with scattered chaparral, and oaks. However, landfill
6 surface fires are typically small and of short duration. In the event of fire, the excavation areas would tend to act
7 as a firebreak. Surface fires are usually limited to the working face and tipping area. An exception would be
8 where a waste delivery truck catches fire elsewhere at the site or burning waste falls from a truck. The waste
9 subject to burning would be limited to the material deposited prior to daily application of cover. The primary
10 nuisance and potential hazard caused by a landfill fire is the potential for burn injuries and smoke exposure to
11 people near the fire area, and the visible smoke emanating from the site. As a nuisance, smoke causes eye and
12 throat irritation, creates unpleasant odors, and detracts from the aesthetics of the location.
13 Because surface fires on active landfill faces could occur in proximity (i.e., less than 500 feet) to uncultivated,
14 flammable brush or grass, there is the potential for wildfires to be ignited on adjacent, off-site areas, especially
15 during high easterly (i.e., dry) wind events. However, similar to the existing County-approved CUP-3142-7,
16 Sections 14(l) and 56, the SVLRC would respond to fires through implementation of the site specific Simi
17 Valley Landfill Emergency Procedures Manual, which includes procedures to contain potential fire hazards,
18 such as use of on-site fire suppression capabilities. In addition, the SVLRC maintains a fire response training
19 program for site personnel. SVLRC personnel are trained to extinguish waste fires and to detect trucks with “hot
20 loads”. If such a load is deposited in the active face, personnel are instructed to: 1) move all equipment and
21 trucks away from the burning waste; 2) spread the burning waste over a large area, using bulldozers; and 3)
22 douse the waste with water from the water trucks until the hot load is extinguished. Once the waste is completely
23 cooled, it is to be disposed with other waste in the active face.
24 The Ventura County Fire Protection District, Battalion 4, provides fire protection services to the Simi Valley
25 area. This battalion maintains seven fire stations within 10 miles of the SVLRC, with the closest being two
26 miles away. The seven stations house seven first run engines, one ladder truck, two brush engines, a
27 Hazardous Incident Response Team, a water tender, a specialized fire fighting foam unit, and a small light
28 fleet. Battalion 4 is staffed with 26 uniformed personnel.
29 In the eastern portion of Simi Valley, there is a regional shortage of water pressure, which potentially affects
30 fire-fighting capabilities. Specifically, the lack of sufficient water pressure occurs in the Knolls area, as a
31 result of insufficient water storage in the Alta Vista Zone storage tank. Water supply at the SVLRC, which is
32 located along the northwest perimeter of Simi Valley, is not derived from the Alta Vista water storage tank.
33 Therefore, sufficient water pressure is available for fire-fighting purposes at the SVLRC (L. Williams,
34 personal communication 2009).
35 The SVLRC is surrounded by a fire break to reduce the potential for off-site migration of landfill fires. In
36 addition, the proposed SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project would not increase the potential risk of a landfill
37 surface fire over existing condition. Therefore, surface fire impacts are considered less than significant.
38 Subsurface Fires
39 As discussed in Section 3.9.1.2.1, the potential for subsurface fire as a result of a surface fire is remote. In the
40 event of a subsurface fire, open flames typically do not occur. However, a subsurface fire may result in
41 accelerated local settlement in the vicinity of a fire. Venting of smoke or combustion by-products may occur
42 through the landfill cover. These by-products may include particulates, unburned hydrocarbons, carbon

3.9 Hazards
1 monoxide, and various volatile organic compounds (depending on the types of buried waste) that would
2 rapidly oxidize in the atmosphere into harmless products.
3 Because open flames typically do not occur during a subsurface fire, the potential for wildfires to be ignited
4 on adjacent, off-site areas is low. Therefore, subsurface fire impacts are considered less than significant.
6 As fire hazard impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
8 Impacts on fire hazards would be less than significant.
9 3.9.2.3.2 Impact HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials
10 The proposed SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project includes the use of hazardous materials. Improper storage,
11 handling, and disposal of these materials could result in contamination of on-site soils, as wells as adverse
12 impacts to health and safety of on-site personnel.
13 Liquid Natural Gas Facility
14 The SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project includes the construction and operation of a LFGTLNG facility,
15 located just north of the existing landfill gas flare station (Figure 2.4-3). This facility would treat landfill gas
16 to remove impurities, condense the gas to liquid phase by chilling, and store the gas in cryogenic tanks for use
17 as a transportation fuel to power heavy-duty landfill vehicles, including sanitation trucks. The LNG facility
18 would produce up to 13,000 18,000 gallons of LNG per day. The final LNG product would be stored in two
19 25,000 four 15,000 gallon cryogenic tanks. A LNG fueling station would be installed at SVLRC, to fuel the
20 existing fleet of disposal trucks, using LNG. The remainder of the LNG produced would be exported by
21 tanker truck (typically 10,000 gallon capacity trucks) for use off-site. It is anticipated that no more than two
22 truckloads would be exported daily.
23 The LNG production plant is designed to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year. The
24 LNG facility would be manned part time and a remote access programming system would be installed such
25 that the facility could be monitored (including shutdown and startup) by modem access through dedicated
26 phone lines.
27 Improper handling and use of LNG could result in spills into on-site soils, as well as health and safety impacts
28 to facility personnel. LNG is not explosive as a liquid, but could be explosive in vapor form if within the
29 flammable range of 5 to 15 percent, when heated and mixed with air. A large array of laws, regulations,
30 standards, and guidelines are currently in place to assure the safety of LNG facility design, construction,
31 operation, and maintenance. The LNG system and associated storage tanks and piping would be designed and
32 constructed in accordance with the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association, California
33 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Uniform Building Code, and other applicable standards.
34 A Hazard Study was conducted for the LFGTLNG facility by BWD Consulting dated May 7, 2010 entitled
35 Hazards Study for Bio-LNG Facility Simi Valley Landfill and is included in Appendix N. A landfill gas
36 recovery system is currently in place at the facility for collection of the LFG. Gas compression and cooling
37 processes would be added to liquefy and separate the LFG constituents. The final LNG product would be
38 stored in four 15,000 gallon cryogenic tanks equipped with safety systems designed to industry standards. A
39 sump and drainage system would also be installed to contain LNG in the event of a release. The drainage
40 trenches would be designed to minimize contact surface area and to move LNG rapidly to the sump which
41 would have dimensions that minimize vaporization to ensure the hazard limit area in the event of a potential
42 release remains within the project boundary. The sump would be lined with materials which have low heat
3.9 Hazards
1 conductivity and low heat content such as insulated concrete (IPC). The sump would be located in a safe area
2 and all ignition sources within the hazard limit area would be eliminated.
3 LNG is natural gas that has been condensed into a liquid by cooling to approximately -260°F. With a
4 methane content of approximately 95%, LNG and LNG vapors have essentially the same properties as
5 methane. LNG vapors are colorless, odorless, non-toxic, and non-corrosive. In order to burn, the LNG
6 vapors must be mixed with air within the flammable mixture limits which are a 5% lower flammability
7 limit (LFL) and a 15% upper flammability limit (UFL). LNG vapors that are cold will cause atmospheric
8 moisture to condense forming a visible fog. In the event of a release the fog will typically extend beyond the
9 LFL limits giving a conservative visual indication of the hazard area. The primary hazards associated with
10 LNG are the dispersion of potentially flammable vapors resulting from an LNG release and radiant heat
11 intensity from a fire resulting from an LNG release.
12 Flammable Vapors
13 LNG evaporates very rapidly on warm surfaces and will evaporate completely such that the flammable vapor
14 generation is essentially the same as the release rate, and an accumulation of liquid does not occur. However,
15 if the release is large or quick enough it could have a release rate and duration adequate to cool the ground
16 surface such that immediate evaporation does not occur and liquid can accumulate. If a liquid release does
17 occur, drainage to a sump would be provided for safe containment.
18 If a flammable vapor cloud develops, it can disperse or accumulate depending on vapor density, wind,
19 atmospheric stability, and topography. LNG has a vapor density of 0.55 meaning that it is lighter than air and
20 vapors will disperse upwards as well as horizontally, reducing the risk of accumulation. An unignited vapor
21 cloud is not injurious and can only be ignited when the concentration of LNG is between 5% (LFL) and 15%
22 (UFL). Outside of this range the vapors will not burn. As the vapors are dispersed in the air, the mixing with
23 air decreases the concentration with increasing distance from the source until the concentration is below the
24 LFL of 5% and it will no longer be capable of igniting.
25 BWD Consulting modeled vapor dispersion based on a release rate of 330 gallons per minute which is an
26 assumed truck loading flow rate and both a large and small concrete lined sump with dimensions. The LFL
27 and ½ LFL isopleths are shown in Figures 3.9-2 and 3.9-3 respectively. In order to be conservative, the ½
28 LFL isopleth is considered the limit of the hazard footprint. At this concentration, the vapors will not burn.
29 Based on the modeled sump dimensions, the distance to the ½ LFL isopleth from the source is calculated at
30 175 feet for the small sump and 210 feet for the large sump. Insulated sumps would have smaller footprinets
31 (refer to Appendix N). These distances are well within the project boundary. Furthermore, while the hazard
32 footprint is depicted as a circle on the figures, it would be constrained by topography (surrounding hillsides)
33 to smaller distances in some directions. Therefore, impacts from flammable vapors are considered less than
34 significant.
35 Radiant Heat
36 If an LNG release is immediately ignited, a stable fire will develop at the point of release. If the ignition is
37 delayed, the LNG will drain to the spill collection sump. If it is then ignited, a stable fire will develop over the
38 sump which creates radiant heat near the sump. This fire will be fed by vapors off the surface of the liquid in
39 the sump. The amount of vapor available is dependent on the liquid surface area. The intensity of the radiant
40 heat depends on the size of the fire and the distance from the fire. Radiant heat calculations based on the
41 proposed sump design which has a liquid surface area of 148.8 square feet result in the radiant distances of 37
42 feet for public exposure, 25 feet for public buildings, and 20 feet for the property line. These distances are
43 well within the project boundary and the LFL isopleth. The radiant heat analysis indicates that the radiant
44 heat hazard distance of the LNG facility is entirely within the project boundary and less than half the distance
45 of the flammable vapor footprints depicted on Figures 3.9-2 and 3.9-3. The public would not be exposed.
46 Therefore, radiant heat impacts are considered less than significant.

SUMP LFL 100 Ft.
1/2-LFL 175 Ft.
TIPPING ENV. COLLECTION CTR

FLOOR
PHASE 1
TIPPING FLOOR
EMPLOYEE FACILITIES
MMRF
STORMWATER
DETENTION

& SCALES
PROPOSED
TWO-STORY OFFICE
EMPLOYEE/VISITOR
PARKING 465 SPACES
INCL. 9 ADA
EMPLOYEE/
VISITOR
ENTRANCE EMPLOYEE
OPEN
SPACE
PACKAGED
PLANT DETENTION
BASIN
AREA 1
Scale
N
0 300
Feet
Source: BWD Consulting 2010
Figure 3.9-2. Small Sump Concrete Lined Flammable Vapor Hazard Footprint
SUMP LFL 125 Ft.
1/2-LFL 210 Ft.
COMMINGLED
RELOAD
TIPPING ENV. COLLECTION CTR
FLOOR
PHASE 1
TIPPING FLOOR
EMPLOYEE FACILITIES
MMRF
STORMWATER
DETENTION

& SCALES
PROPOSED
TWO-STORY OFFICE
EMPLOYEE/VISITOR
PARKING 465 SPACES
INCL. 9 ADA
EMPLOYEE/
VISITOR
ENTRANCE EMPLOYEE
OPEN
SPACE
PACKAGED
PLANT DETENTION
BASIN
AREA 1
Scale
N
0 300
Feet
Source: BWD Consulting 2010
Figure 3.9-3. Large Sump Concrete Lined Flammable Vapor Hazard Footprint
3.9 Hazards
1 Catastrophic Tank Failure
2 A survey of available data regarding catastrophic failure of individual LNG tanks was conducted to document
3 potential failure rates (see addendum to Appendix N). The purpose was to estimate event likelihood based on
4 possible causes and the damage and hazard which could result in each situation. Typical causes are over
5 pressure, corrosion (external and internal), stress corrosion cracking, stress cycling, age, fatigue, externally
6 caused deformation, thermally induced stresses, external fire exposure, miss-operation, soil movements,
7 foundation failure and third party damage. All of these were considered relative to the proposed LNG tanks.
8 Only overpressure appears to be a potential cause for a major, catastrophic release that could lead to an
9 explosion. Overpressure is a concern for all pressure vessels.
10 The LNG tanks would be cryogenic (cold storage) tanks constructed on the design of a thermos bottle with a
11 double wall design containing a near-vacuum between the inner and outer wall to reduce thermal loss. The
12 proposed tanks would also be equipped with redundant pressure relief valves which have their isolation valves
13 sealed open and are regularly tested. A control system would monitor the pressure with alarms and emergency
14 shutdown devices. Failure of the relief valve along with the associated alarms and shut down would be
15 required for a catastrophic tank failure to occur and cause a release and potential fire or explosion.
16 If there were an inner vessel failure from over pressure, a catastrophic failure could occur, but it is highly
17 unlikely. A BLEVE (boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion) type failure occurs because of the loss of
18 strength in the fire-exposed top of a pressure vessel that is not cooled by the liquid contents. As a vacuum
19 jacketed LNG vessel is protected from fire exposure and at very low temperature, a BLEVE type failure is not
20 credible.
21 The survey found no LNG releases attributable to failure of relief valve function. There being no recorded
22 incidents of catastrophic LNG tank failure found during the survey, an estimate was made to establish a
23 reasonable cause/vulnerability probability that would provide insight into the order of magnitude probability
24 for a catastrophic failure rate.
25 This effort involved the following considerations. The industrial gas industry reached a degree of maturity
26 representative of current cryogenic vessels after World War II. LNG vessel use could be considered as having
27 reached maturity in 1970. To establish a reasonable probability, an estimate was made of the number of
28 storage, process, transport and portable LNG vessels in service for the last 20 years. This estimate results in
29 an experience base of 1.2 x 105 vessel years. As there have been no catastrophic failures during this 20 year
30 time period, a conservative assumption can be made that there is a probability of 100% that a failure could
31 occur in double that time period, resulting in a probability of occurrence of 2.4 x 10-5 per year. Considering
32 the degree of conservatism in the assumptions, a reasonable conclusion is that the failure rate is in the range
33 of 2.4 x 10-5 to 1 x 10-6 per year or between once in about 42,000 years to once in 1,000,000 years. This is a
34 very low event probability.
35 Even for low probability events, if the consequences are sufficiently adverse, the effect may be considered
36 potentially significant. However, from a risk assessment basis, even a catastrophic LNG tank release would be
37 contained within the property lines and no members of the public would likely be adversely affected.
38 Therefore, the hazard of a catastrophic LNG tank release is less than significant.
39 Secondary Hazards
40 The low temperature of LNG can pose a hazard for contact with the skin and to the respiratory system. The
41 rate of cooling of tissue would be slow and obvious and direct contact with skin can cause discomfort but
42 rarely causes frostbite. In theory, injury could occur from direct skin contact with a very cold surface, but a
43 cold surface in an LNG facility would be covered with frost and probably ice in which case the surface would
44 be a non-hazardous 32oF
3.9 Hazards
1 Explosion hazards were analyzed in the Hazards Study completed by BWD Consulting, which is included in
2 Appendix N. Four categories of explosions were evaluated: sudden mechanical failure, internal chemical
3 reaction, Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion (BLEVE), and vapor cloud explosion. The results
4 indicate that an explosion related to LNG is unlikely. Sudden mechanical failure is unlikely because LNG
5 vessels are protected by redundant pressure relief valves and the pressure vessel materials are stronger at low
6 temperatures. An internal chemical reaction is extremely unlikely because the LNG vessels are always kept
7 above atmospheric pressure which precludes any entry of air or consequent chemical reaction. The BLEVE is
8 prevented by the steel vacuum insulating jacket of the vessels. A vapor cloud explosion will not occur with
9 LNG because it has a low energy release density and high ignition temperature which will only produce a
10 slow flame that does not accelerate. None of these events poses a hazard to the public. The secondary hazards
11 impacts are considered less than significant.
12 Transport
13 LNG is typically transported using a standard 10,000 to 12,000 gallon LNG highway trailer, which is a
14 subclass of cryogenic trailers used to transport low temperature liquefied industrial gases including liquid
15 nitrogen, argon, and oxygen which are colder than LNG. Cryogenic transporters have a 60-year history of use
16 and the fleet of cryogenic trailers in the US is now more than 3,200 units of which approximately 250 – 300
17 are LNG trailers.
18 The trailers are double walled, which provides low heat transfer and a strong structure resistant to mechanical
19 damage like penetration or rollover and direct flame impingement from an external fire. Over pressure of an
20 LNG trailer is prevented by redundant pressure relief equipment which is designed to more than
21 accommodate a loss of vacuum in the insulated space. The overpressure protection includes a failsafe device
22 which backs up the pressure relief systems. If the pressure buildup caused the vessel to burst, the resulting
23 failure could cause the container or container pieces to be propelled some distance. However, this scenario is
24 highly unlikely due to the pressure relief valves and burst disc requirements that are in the design codes.
25 There has not been an LNG trailer containment failure in over 40 years of LNG trailer transport in the US.
26 LNG trailers are designed to the Department of Transportation’s MC338 specifications and the operations
27 require a holding time of at least trip time plus 100 hours. If the relief valve pressure is reached, the relief
28 valve will bleed off enough vapors to prevent further pressure buildup. Elevated vent stack turbulence dilutes
29 the vapor to below the LFL within a very few feet above the top of the trailer. To avoid holding time
30 problems, trailers would be loaded the same day they are scheduled to travel.
31 LNG trailers are designed according to strict safety standards and LNG transport by highway trailer has an
32 excellent safety record established over 45 years. There have been no incidents involving the public. Impacts
33 related to LNG transport are considered to be less than significant.
35 As hazardous materials would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
37 Hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant.
38 The Ventura County Fire Protection District has one Hazardous Materials Incident Response Team on-duty at
39 all times and multi-aid response is available locally from surrounding cities. This response team is trained to
40 contain spills, conduct rescue operations, and perform emergency mitigation procedures. They are also
41 equipped with portable decontamination units to accommodate any personnel contaminated with
42 hazardous/toxic materials. The fire department has available an extensive library of hazardous materials,
3.9 Hazards
1 toxicology, and other references covering the materials present at the SVLRC, to be used as needed. In
2 addition, information and assistance can be obtained through the EHD. In the event of a hazardous materials
3 incident, an Environmental Specialist is also available to the SVLRC General Manager, through Waste
4 Management, Inc. Therefore, LNG related health and safety impacts are considered less than significant.
5 Heavy Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance Facility
6 The SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project includes the construction of a heavy equipment and vehicle
7 maintenance facility, which would be up to 30,000 square feet. This facility would be used for routine vehicle
8 and heavy equipment maintenance and repair, but would also include an equipment wash rack, a paint booth
9 for containers and vehicles, and fueling facilities for vehicles. This facility would store, handle, and use
10 various petroleum products and hazardous materials used to fuel, repair, and maintain the vehicles.
11 Improper handling and use of hazardous materials could result in spills into on-site soils, as well as health and
12 safety impacts to facility personnel. However, hazardous materials would be stored, handled, and disposed in
13 accordance with the Ventura County Uniform Fire Code, as well as all other relevant County, State, and
14 Federal regulations. In addition, facility operations would be completed in accordance with a State-mandated
15 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, which includes site-specific Best Management Plans that are
16 designed to prevent incidental hazardous materials spills from entering drains and emanating into on-site
17 soils. Therefore, hazardous materials related impacts associated with the heavy equipment and vehicle
18 maintenance facility are considered less than significant.
20 As hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
22 Impacts on hazardous materials would be less than significant.
23 3.9.2.3.3 Impact HAZ-3: Hazardous Waste
24 The proposed SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project includes storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous
25 waste. Improper storage, handling, and disposal of these wastes could result in contamination of on-site soils
26 and adverse impacts to health and safety of on-site personnel.
27 Previous Disposal of Hazardous Materials in the Class I Area
28 Excavation in areas adjacent to the former Class I hazardous waste area would not occur in association with
29 the proposed SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project. Phase I of the expansion would be the only area that would
30 coincide with the footprint of the Class I hazardous waste area (Figure 2.4-2). No excavations would be
31 completed during earthwork operations in Phase I; rather only fill would be placed in this area. The risk of
32 exposure to persons on the surface of the landfill is insignificant as long as the hazardous wastes remain
33 undisturbed.
34 Hazardous Materials in Municipal Solid Waste
35 Like any MSW landfill, the SVLRC unavoidably receives small amounts of hazardous waste mixed in with
36 the daily waste loads. Similar to Condition 54 (Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program) of the Conditions for
37 CUP-3142-7 – Simi Valley Landfill, a Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program would be prepared for SVLRC to
38 comply with federal Subtitle D operating criteria. The facility does not accept hazardous wastes or PCB
39 waste, as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, or Title 22 CCR Chapter 11. Additional unacceptable non-hazardous

3.9 Hazards
1 wastes are also listed in the site permits and are included under this program. The Hazardous Waste Exclusion
2 Program would be kept on-site within the operating record. Personnel at the active disposal area, including
3 spotters and equipment operators, would be trained and made responsible for monitoring incoming loads for
4 HHW and other unacceptable materials. The proposed SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project would not increase
5 the potential health risk due to HHW and other hazardous materials in MSW; therefore, potential impacts
6 related to HHW within the municipal waste are considered less than significant.
7 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility
8 The SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project includes the construction and use of a public HHW collection facility
9 (i.e., the SVECC). This facility would provide a convenient and safe location for residents to drop off their
10 household paints, solvents, antifreeze, flammables, and electronic waste. A 1,000 square foot building would
11 house the SVECC and contain two to four skid-mounted units specified for storage of materials collected
12 from the public.
13 Improper handling and use of HHW at the SVECC could result in spills into on-site soils, as well as health
14 and safety impacts to facility personnel. However, the SVECC would be operated by personnel licensed to
15 properly handle the discarded wastes and insure proper transport to off-site permitted facilities, for recycling
16 or disposal of all materials. The HHW would be stored, handled, and disposed in accordance with the Ventura
17 County Uniform Fire Code, as well as all other relevant County, State, and Federal regulations. In addition,
18 facility operations would be completed in accordance with a State-mandated Storm Water Pollution
19 Prevention Plan, which includes site-specific Best Management Plans that are designed to prevent incidental
20 hazardous waste spills from entering drains and emanating into on-site soils. Therefore, HHW related impacts
21 associated with the SVECC are considered less than significant.
23 As hazardous waste impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
25 Impacts on hazardous wastes would be less than significant.
26 3.9.2.3.4 Impact HAZ-4: Petroleum Wastes
27 Residual concentrations of petroleum products and hazardous substances may be present in on-site soil as a result
28 of oil and gas drilling operations. Grading and landfill operations in the immediate vicinity of the existing oil wells
29 could create significant adverse health and safety impacts, such as organic vapor emissions and exposure of
30 contaminated soils. In addition, elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons are present beneath oil field
31 service roads, to a depth of approximately two feet. Grading in the vicinity of these roads could similarly result in
32 adverse health and safety impacts.
33 In general, unrefined petroleum is exempt from being considered a hazardous material (Section 25250.3 of the
34 California Health and Safety Code). Crude oil, as a natural material, is not defined as a hazardous waste under
35 current state hazardous waste control laws. However, crude oil and materials used to process crude oil may be
36 profiled as a hazardous material for disposal purposes.
37 Substances commonly found in soils of producing oil fields include petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, and semi-
38 volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). Petroleum hydrocarbons associated with crude oil production, storage,
39 processing, and transport are the primary substances potentially present in on-site soils. The most frequently
40 occurring VOCs found in soils at oil fields are xylenes and ethylbenzene, followed by toluene and benzene
41 (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes together are referred to as "BTEX"), all of which are commonly
3.9 Hazards
1 found in crude oil. The most frequently occurring SVOCs found in crude oil are phenanthrene, 2-
2 methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene. Other SVOCs that could be found include acenaphthene, acenaphthylene,
3 benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzyl
4 alcohol, chrysene, fluoranthene, ideno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, and pyrene. In addition, metals may also be present in
5 association with oil production, most notably in waste sumps located on or near drilling sites.
6 Organic vapors may also be detected in an oil field. Petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soils associated with oil
7 fields and abandoned wells are capable of generating methane gas through biodegradation. Other vapors, such
8 as benzene and hydrogen sulfide, may also be generated.
9 Contaminated soil associated with oil wells and oil field waste must be remediated to applicable local, state,
10 and federal regulations, as determined by the LARWQCB, and if necessary, the California DTSC. Ventura
11 County Environmental Health Division is the lead agency at the landfill site, with respect to soil
12 contamination. The RWQCB is the lead agency at the site with respect to protection of groundwater quality.
13 However, if hazardous wastes were detected in subsurface soils (rather than in groundwater), a human health
14 risk to SVLRC employees would be a concern; and the DTSC could become involved.
15 Although these wells were abandoned in accordance with 1997 standards, PRC, section 3208.1, authorizes the
16 State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order re-abandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction in
17 proximity to the well could result in a hazard. If reabandonment is necessary, such work must be completed in
18 accordance with standards and procedures set forth by the California DOGGR Construction Project Site Review
19 and Well Abandonment Procedures, as well as site-specific instructions from the DOGGR.
20 Because the DOGGR only began keeping records in 1915, it is possible that wells drilled prior to 1915 could
21 be encountered during grading associated with landfill construction. If any abandoned or unrecorded wells are
22 discovered or damaged during grading, remedial activities may be required. The district office of the DOGGR
23 must be contacted to procure abandonment or re-abandonment requirements.
24 Abandoned oil wells are typically cut off five feet below grade and may not be visible during excavation
25 activities for landfill construction. Excavations could cause damage to the abandoned oil well casings,
26 potentially resulting in an oil and/or gas leak. The possibility of damage to the abandoned oil wells during
27 grading is considered a potentially significant, but mitigable impact. In addition, health and safety impacts
28 associated with a potential release of hazardous substances or petroleum products as a result of landfill
29 construction, in the vicinity of on-site abandoned oil wells, is considered a potentially significant, but mitigable
30 impact.
32 Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Compliance with DOGGR Standards. Grading associated with landfill
33 expansion shall include the following requirement:
34 • All on-site oil wells shall be abandoned pursuant to current abandonment/re-abandonment

35 requirements, and all grading shall be completed, in accordance with DOGGR Construction Project
36 Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedures, as well as site-specific instructions from the
37 DOGGR.
38 Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Locate and Mark Abandoned Wells. On-site abandoned wells shall be
39 accurately located through surveying and marked with a post visible to equipment operators.
40 Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Grading/Excavation Monitor. A qualified environmental engineer or

41 environmental geologist shall be present during grading/excavations in the vicinity of on-site oil wells, to
42 direct proper excavation and characterization of potentially contaminated materials. The qualified
3.9 Hazards
1 environmental engineer shall observe excavations for potential signs of contaminated soil, such as
2 discoloration, unusual odors, and/or positive readings with a PID or OVA. The environmental engineer or
3 environmental geologist shall be 40-hour Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) trained
4 with respect to handling of hazardous substances.
5 Contaminated soil shall be excavated and disposed off-site at a facility permitted for disposal of such waste.
6 Alternatively, the contaminated soil may be remediated in-situ (i.e., in-place) by bioremediation or other
7 methods acceptable to the Ventura County Environmental Health Division.
9 Health and safety impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1
10 through HAZ-3.
11 3.9.2.3.5 Impact HAZ-5: Valley Fever
13 significant impact. Landfill-relate activities have the potential for release of coccidioides immitis spores at the
14 landfill. However, it is assumed that the majority of the population of Ventura County has already been
15 exposed to Valley Fever and would continue to be exposed from the various earthmoving activities that occur
16 throughout the region. Given the endemic nature of the disease and the number of earthmoving activities in
17 the County (e.g., grading and excavation for new residential, commercial, and industrial development, and
18 surface mining operations), it is not possible to attribute a specific case of Valley Fever to a specific
19 earthmoving activity.
20 Based on the following, no significant impacts with regard to Valley Fever are expected from the proposed
21 expansion at the SVLRC:
22 • Numerous ground-disturbing activities occur continually throughout the County as part of a variety of
23 activities that include, but are not limited to, major and minor construction projects, surface
24 mining/quarrying operations, and agricultural operations. Such ground-disturbing activities are
25 considered baseline and represent a continual source of spores that contribute to the low number of
26 Valley Fever cases reported each year. The proposed project would fall within these operations that
27 occur continually within the County.
28 • Based on analysis by the CDC of the Valley Fever outbreak associated with the January 1994
29 Northridge earthquake, as well as a subsequent outbreak following the wildfires of Fall 2003 it
30 requires a major ground-disturbing event (i.e., another major earthquake or wildfire) to release a large
31 number of spores over a wide area for a significant outbreak of Valley Fever to occur.
32 • Since ground-disturbing activities, such as at the proposed SVLRC Landfill Expansion Project, are
33 continuous throughout the County and the number of cases of Valley Fever reported in the County
34 each year is low, the proposed expansion would not represent an increased risk to public health.
35 In addition to the above, the SVLRC has an ongoing, aggressive dust control program to minimize dust at the
36 landfill due to vehicular movement, earthmoving, and other onsite activities. This dust program would
37 continue with implementation of the proposed project. The impact due to the potential for exposure to Valley
38 Fever would therefore be less than significant.
40 As Valley Fever impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
42 Impacts from Valley Fever would be less than significant. [Note: moved to Air Quality]

3.9 Hazards

2 Table 3.9-1 summarizes the potentially significant adverse hazards impacts of the proposed project or less
Table 3.9-1. Mitigation for Hazards Impacts
Mitigation Measure(s) After Timing
Adverse Impact Mitigation Parties
HAZ-1: Compliance with DOGGR
Standards. Grading associated with
landfill expansion shall include the DOGGR,
following requirement: Ventura
• All on-site oil wells shall be County Water
abandoned pursuant to current &
abandonment/re-abandonment Environmental Prior to
requirements, and all grading shall Phase III
Resources grading
be completed, in accordance with Less than Division,
DOGGR Construction Project Site significant Groundwater and
Review and Well Abandonment operations
Section,
Procedures, as well as site-specific Waste
instructions from the DOGGR. Management,
HAZ-2: Locate and Mark Abandoned Inc.
Wells. On-site abandoned wells shall be
accurately located through surveying
and marked with a post visible to
equipment operators.
HAZ-3: Grading/Excavation Monitor.
Impact HAZ-4: A qualified environmental engineer or
Potential damage to oil environmental geologist shall be present
wells during grading. during grading/excavations in the
Potential exposure of vicinity of on-site oil wells, to direct
personnel to proper excavation and characterization
contaminated soil and of potentially contaminated materials.
organic vapors. The qualified environmental engineer
shall observe excavations for potential
signs of contaminated soil, such as DOGGR,
discoloration, unusual odors, and/or Ventura
positive readings with a photo- County Prior to
ionization detector (PID) or organic Environmental Phase III
vapor analyzer (OVA). The Health grading
environmental engineer or Division, and
environmental geologist shall be 40- Waste operations
hour OSHA trained with respect to Management,
handling of hazardous substances. Inc.
Contaminated soil shall be excavated
and disposed off-site at a facility
permitted for disposal of such waste.
Alternatively, the contaminated soil may
be remediated in-situ (i.e., in-place) by
bioremediation or other methods
acceptable to the Ventura County
Environmental Health Division.

3.9 Hazards

1 3.10 Noise
2 Noise is defined as unwanted sound that interferes with human speech and hearing, or is intense enough to
3 damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Because the effects of noise accumulate over time, it is necessary
4 to deal not only with intensity of sound but also the duration of exposure to the sound.
5 This noise and vibration analysis presents an evaluation of the potential noise impacts associated with the
6 planned expansion of waste handling and disposal practices of the proposed SVLRC Expansion Project.
7 Section 3.10.1 includes a discussion of the Environmental Setting which details the results of a noise survey.
8 Section 3.10.2 includes an Impacts Analysis which evaluates the effects on Simi Valley noise levels that
9 could accompany the proposed project.
12 The area of influence with respect to noise related to the proposed project is the area proximate to the
13 proposed landfill location plus streets and highways on which additional truck trips associated with the project
14 would travel. These roadways include SR-118 and streets in Simi Valley. Because noise attenuates
15 significantly with distance (reducing to one quarter of its original intensity with a factor of twice the distance
16 from the source for a point source and one half its original intensity from a “line” source (e.g., a highway),
17 noise is an essentially local phenomenon. Also, truck traffic associated with the increase in project activities
18 would be distributed onto the local Simi Valley street network in such a way that most truck traffic would
19 localized near the facility and would rapidly disburse farther from the landfill. Key noise sensitive locations
20 were identified within the City of Simi Valley and near to the landfill within this area of influence and
21 ambient noise measurements were made to assess existing conditions.
22 3.10.1.2 Setting
23 3.10.1.2.1 Noise Characteristics
24 Sound Level and Frequency
25 There are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise. The decibel (dB) is a unit of
26 measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. Zero on the decibel scale is based on the
27 lowest sound pressure that a healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are
28 calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy,
29 while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a
30 relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its level. Each 10-decibel increase in
31 sound level is perceived by the healthy human ear as approximately a doubling of loudness over a wide range
32 of amplitudes. Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels are not added arithmetically. When
33 two sounds of equal sound pressure level are added, the result is a sound pressure level that is three dB higher.
34 For example, if the sound level were 70 dB when 100 cars pass by in a certain time period, then it would be
35 73 dB if 200 cars pass the observer during the same period. Doubling the amount of energy would result in a
36 three dB increase to the sound level.
37 Frequency relates to the number of pressure oscillations per second, or Hz. The range of sound frequencies
38 that can be heard by healthy human ears is from about 20 Hz at the low end of the frequency spectrum to
39 20,000 Hz at the high end.

3.10 Noise
1 There are several methods for characterizing sound. The most common is the A-weighted sound level or dB(A).
2 This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Studies
3 have shown that the A-weighted level is closely correlated with annoyance caused by noise sources such as
4 traffic and construction activity. Table 3.10-1 provides definitions for acoustical terms throughout this chapter.
5 Table 3.10-2 shows typical A-weighted noise levels that occur in various indoor and outdoor environments.
Table 3.10-1. Definitions of Acoustical Terms

Term Definition
Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base
10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The
reference pressure for sound in air is 20 micro Pascals.
Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or
micro Newtons per square meter), where one Pascal is the pressure resulting from a
force of one Newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The sound pressure
level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio
between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20
micro Pascals in air). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by
a sound level meter.
Frequency (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below
atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.
Infrasonic sounds are below 20 Hz and ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.
A-Weighted Sound The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-
Level (dB(A)) weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very
high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response
of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.
Equivalent Noise Level The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. The hourly Leq
(Leq) used for this report is denoted as dB(A) Leq[h].
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of
environmental noise at a given location.
Table 3.10-2. Typical Noise Levels in the Environment

Noise Level
Common Outdoor Noise Source Common Indoor Noise Source
(dB(A))
120
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet –––
110 ––– Rock concert
100
Pile driver at 100 feet ––– ––– Night club with live music
90
Large truck passby at 50 feet –––
80 ––– Noisy restaurant
Gas lawn mower at 50 feet –––
70 ––– Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial/Urban area daytime ––– ––– Normal speech at 3 feet
60
Suburban daytime ––– ––– Active office environment
50
Urban area nighttime ––– ––– Quiet office environment
40
Suburban nighttime –––
Quiet rural areas ––– 30 ––– Library
––– Quiet bedroom at night
Wilderness area ––– 20
10 ––– Quiet recording studio
Threshold of human hearing ––– 0 ––– Threshold of human hearing

3.10 Noise
1 Noise Descriptors
2 Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, environmental sounds are described in
3 terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.
4 This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. A common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can
5 describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the
6 sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within
7 approximately plus or minus 1 dB(A).
8 Human Response to Noise
9 It is widely accepted that sound pressure level changes of three dB(A) are considered just noticeable to most
10 people. A change of five dB(A) is readily perceptible. An increase in sound pressure level of 10 dB(A) is
11 perceived as being twice as loud; a decrease of 10 dB(A) is perceived as being half as loud.
12 Sound Propagation
13 When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in both level and frequency content. The manner in which
14 noise is reduced with distance depends on several factors related to geometric spreading and shielding, which
15 are discussed below.
16 Sound from a single source (i.e., a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the
17 source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or drops off) at a rate of six dB(A) for each doubling
18 of distance. When the source is linear, like a highway, it does not behave as a single stationary point source of
19 sound. The movement of vehicles on a highway makes the source of the sound to appear to emanate from a
20 line (i.e., a “line” source) rather than from a point. This results in cylindrical spreading rather than the
21 spherical spreading resulting from a point source. The change in sound level from a line source is three dB(A)
22 per doubling of distance.
23 A large object or barrier, whether natural or man-made, in the path between a noise source and a receptor can
24 substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by this shielding
25 depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain and man-made
26 buildings and walls can often serve as effective noise barriers. Very thick vegetation (hedges, etc.) can also
27 attenuate sound somewhat, though not as effectively as solid barriers.
28 3.10.1.2.2 Existing Noise Environment
29 The proposed project is located within the vicinity of a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. In
30 order to gain a better understanding of the environmental setting, a survey of noise levels at the SVLRC and
31 in the adjacent community was conducted to between July 7 and 9, 2008. The data were collected to support
32 completion of the Preliminary Assessment called for in the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment
33 Guidelines (Ventura County 2006). The scoping survey collected sound level measurements from
34 representative locations at the SVLRC and within the City of Simi Valley. Data were collected to characterize
35 current conditions and to serve as the basis for assessing potential impacts.
36 Noise data were collected in order to characterize the following:
37 • Site-specific noise levels measured at select Simi Valley locations;

38 • Traffic related noise levels measured in the vicinity of SR-118; and,
39 • Landfill activity-related noise levels measured on the landfill property.

3.10 Noise
1 These measurements were obtained using a sound level meter capable of integrating all sources of noise over
2 time. Additional details of the instrumentation and survey are included in Appendix H. The results of these
3 measurements are reported as Time Average Sound Levels. The County Guidelines define Time Average
4 Sound Levels as:
5 Time Average Sound Level (LeqT - dB) - The level, in decibels, of the mean sound pressure
6 averaged over time period T. This is often referred to as "equivalent sound level" and hence the "eq"
7 subscript. The "equivalence" is to a sound of constant level that has the same total acoustic energy
8 content.
9 All measurements were made using the A-scale weighing and all time average sound levels are reported as
10 LAeq. For example an integrated measurement of 55 dB(A) is reported as 55 LAeq. and interpreted as the time
11 weighted average equivalent continuous sound pressure level (SPL), based on A-scale weighting.
12 Measurements were made of landfill equipment and haul trucks heading to and from the land fill from a fixed
13 location. The observer location for trucks was at the traffic control light at the “T-Intersection” on Madera
14 Road where the SR-118 off- and on-ramps converge. All noise measurement locations are shown on Figure
15 3.10-1. Appendix H contains additional information regarding measurements, locations, and recorded sound
16 pressure levels for the study.
17 3.10.1.2.3 Ambient Noise
18 As mentioned, all measurement locations are shown on Figure 3.10-1. The ambient survey results are
19 provided in Table 3.10-3. An assessment of Table 3.10-3 yields the following summary: with one exception,
20 all measurements were made between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM. The single exception was a highway
21 overpass measurement made to gauge late rush hour traffic noise. This time frame is consistent with the
22 current landfill operating hours of 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Furthermore, this time frame corresponds to the
23 Guidelines assessment criterion for day time noise level assessment. As a result none of the ambient
24 measurements have been adjusted to provide Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 1.
25 Table 3.10-3 segments the ambient noise measurements into the three general groupings discussed previously.
26 Within the General Community Grouping are Residential and Commercial (e.g., Wal-Mart Parking Lot)
27 measurements. In order to facilitate interpretation of the data in Table 3.10-3, the Ventura County General
28 Plan community noise exposure guidelines are provided below.
Land Use Category Normally Acceptable 1 Conditionally Acceptable 2

Residential Up to 60 dB(A) Up to 75 dB(A)
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional Up to 70 dB(A) Up to 75 dB(A)
Source: Ventura County General Plan, Hazards Appendix, Figure 2.16.1
Notes:
1. Conventional building construction is sufficient to ensure satisfactory conditions.
2. May require additional consideration including study and subsequent construction to ensure satisfactory conditions.
1
The CNEL is a used to evaluate noise levels outside of the 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. time frame. CNELs are 24 hour measures that include
adjustments to LAeq measurements to address evening (adding 5 dB) and night time (adding 10 dB) noise levels to account for when sounds are
likely to be more intrusive.

3.10 Noise
3.10-1 Locations of Vibration Sensors near Simi Valley Landfill
1 Inspection of Table 3.10-3, viewing Figure 3.10-1, and referring to the Guidelines indicate that:
2 • Noise levels at the nearest residence, measured as the LAeq, exceed the 60 dB(A) “Normally
3 Acceptable” Residential guideline. Noise levels measured at the Nearest Residence location were
4 influenced by the cross street traffic (Madera Road) and adjacent commercial industrial activities to
5 the east. Noise levels at two other residential locations (i.e., the Quiet Residence and the Line of Sight
6 Location East of the SVLRC) were within guidelines.
7 • Noise levels measured at commercial locations (Wal-Mart and Mall Parking Lots) were generally less
8 than the 70 dB(A) guideline. However, the guideline was exceeded during the Cargo Loading
9 operation at the Wall-Mart Parking lot during one three minute period. It is not unusual for individual
10 activities to produce temporary short duration increases in noise levels.

3.10 Noise
Table 3.10-3. Summary of Ambient Noise Measurements

General Community LeqA (dB(A)) Date (2008) Time Duration1
Nearest Residence # 1 (116 Aristotle) 64.7 07/08 11:21 ~ 5 min.
Nearest Residence # 2 (116 Aristotle) 64.2 07/09 08:25 ~ 5 min.
Quiet Residence #1 (1121 Athens) 49.1 07/08 11:31 ~ 5.5 min.
Quiet Residence #2 (1121 Athens) 59.3 07/09 08:35 ~ 5 min.
Line of Sight Location East of Landfill
42.5 07/08 12:34 ~ 5 min.
(Erringer at Lost Canyon Dr.)
Wal-Mart Parking Lot 62.8 07/08 11:01 ~ 7 min.
Wal-Mart Parking Lot (Cargo Loading) 73.7 07/08 11:09 ~ 3 min.
Wal-Mart Parking Lot 59.3 07/09 08:14 ~ 5 min.
Mall Parking Lot (Near Union Bank) 57.2 07/08 12:50 ~ 5 min.
Traffic
Highway Overpass #1 77.3 07/07 18:39 ~ 5 min.
Highway Overpass #2 79.6 07/08 14:38 ~ 5.5 min.
Highway Overpass #3 80.5 07/09 07:19 ~ 5 min.
T-Intersection 2 74.7 07/09 07:30 ~ 30 min.
Landfill
Landfill Face #1 85.1 07/08 09:40 ~ 0.5 min.
Landfill Face #2 75.1 07/08 09:45 ~ 7 min.
Landfill Face #3 79.9 07/08 14:11 ~ 7 min.
Landfill Sorting Area 78.3 07/08 10:05 ~ 5.5 min.
Notes:
1. Duration = the total duration of the noise measurement over which the Leq was determined.
2. See also individual vehicle measurements summary.
3. Additional Ambient Noise measurement information is found in Appendix H.
1 Table 3.10-3 also includes measurements of traffic conditions in the vicinity of the SVLRC. Figure 3.10-1
2 shows where the measurements were taken. Traffic related measurements fell in the range of approximately
3 75 dB(A) to 81 dB(A) (LAeq). For comparison, commonly referenced traffic sound noise levels are:
Diesel Truck at 50 feet ~88 dB(A)
Passenger Car at 50 feet ~74 dB(A)
Source: FTA 2006
4 Therefore, traffic related noise in the vicinity of the landfill is typical of urban and suburban settings.
5 Table 3.10-3 also includes noise measurements taken on the SVLRC during normal operations. These
6 operations included truck unloading, material handling and sorting, compaction, and grading. Landfill
7 operation related measurements fell in the range of approximately 78 dB(A) to 85 dB(A) (LAeq) . For
8 comparison, commonly referenced sound noise levels associated with construction and landfill activities are:
Dozer at 50 feet ~ 85 dB(A)
Compacter at 50 feet ~ 82 dB(A)
Source: FTA 2006
9 Therefore, noise levels from landfill operations are typical of heavy earth moving and construction equipment
10 operations.
11 3.10.1.2.4 Truck Traffic Noise
12 Real-time measurements of haul trucks heading to and from the SVLRC were obtained adjacent to the traffic
13 control light at the “T-Intersection” on Madera Road where the SR-118 off- and on-ramps converge. The

3.10 Noise
1 maximum A-weighted SPL was recorded as each truck passed by. The observer location was typically 3 to 10
2 meters (10 to 33 feet) from the passing vehicle, depending on the individual truck’s route. The data represent
3 a range of trucks and operating conditions. These were measurements of opportunity which captured
4 conditions ranging from standing starts as the traffic light change to green, deceleration to stops as the light
5 changed from green, and throttled “pass throughs” typical of a truck approaching and moving though on a
6 green light. A profile of the types of vehicles that were measured is provided below.
Truck Profile Count Percent

Private Hauler 8 10%
Residential Side Loader 2 2%
Roll Off 9 11%
Commercial Front Loader 21 26%
Transfer Haul 42 51%
Total 82 100%
7 As indicated, the majority of the passing vehicles measured were the Transfer Haul type. A summary of the
8 82 maximum noise measurements is provided in Figure 3.10-2 for Madera Road where the SR-118 off- and
9 on-ramps converge.
Figure 3.10-2. Summary of Individual Truck Passing Measurements
Statistic Value (dBA)

Mean 81.3
Median 82
Mode 82
Standard Deviation 5.9
Sample Variance 35.0
Minimum 69
Maximum 95
Upper 95% CImean 82.4
Cumulative Probability
Plot of dBAmax - Trucks
99.9
99
95
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
0.1
60 70 80 90 100
dBAmax

3.10 Noise
Figure 3.10-2 indicates that the measurements ranged from 69 dB(A) to 95 dB(A). The central tendency or
most likely value, as measured by the mean, median and mode was approximately 82 dB(A). The maximum
single truck passage noise level was 95 dB(A). The cumulative probability plot shows that there was a cluster
of higher noise level measurements of about 90 dB(A).
1 A portion of the 82 individual measurements (47 of the 82) were actually captured in the T-Intersection Traffic
2 Noise integrated measure reported in Table 3.10-3. Note that the LeqA, which was integrated over 30 minutes,
3 was recorded as 74.7 dB(A) by the instrument. This contrast (74.7 LeqA, versus a measurement central tendency
4 of 82 dB(A)) demonstrates the effect of integration in noise levels over time inherent in the LeqA measurement.
5 Specifically, the LeqA integrated measurement accounts for all sounds recorded during the period of measurement
6 including when there is very low noise as well as when a louder noise source is impacting the instrument’s
7 microphone 2. While it was not uncommon for trucks to pass the light frequently, there was also time when there
8 was no traffic (e.g., a red light or simply no traffic). The T-Intersection measurement location is also directly
9 adjacent to SR-118 and the associated background noise produced by a freeway. While the 82 individual
10 measurements are useful for understanding the influence of individual trucks as contributors to the overall noise
11 level, the Highway Overpass LeqA data should be considered in this context.
14 FHWA Noise Standards

15 The FHWA has adopted standards, regulations and policies related to traffic noise. While these standards
16 apply only to Type 1 federally-funded highway improvement projects, they do identify Noise Abatement
17 Criteria, which are another useful measure of the potential noise impacts of the project.

20 The Ventura County General Plan Section 2.16.2 Policies establishes criteria for both noise sensitive
21 (receptor) and noise producing (generator) land uses.
22 The criteria that would apply to the SVLRC are those for generators of noise as follows:
23 (1) Noise generators, proposed to be located near any noise sensitive use, shall incorporate noise control
24 measures so that ongoing outdoor noise levels received by the noise sensitive receptor, measured at
25 the exterior wall of the building, does not exceed any of the following standards:
26 a. Leq1H of 55dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is greater, during any hour
27 from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
28 b. Leq1H of 50dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is greater, during any hour
29 from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM.
30 c. Leq1H of 45dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is greater, during any hour
31 from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
32 This standard is not applicable to increased traffic noise along any of the roads identified within the 2020
33 Regional Roadway Network … [in the] Public Facilities Appendix of the Ventura County General Plan …. In
34 addition, State and Federal highways, all railroad line operations, aircraft in flight, and public utility facilities
35 are noise generators having Federal and State regulations that preempt local regulations.
2
Stated simply, the LA-eq averages all noise impacting the microphone.

3.10 Noise
1 (2) Construction noise shall be evaluated and, if necessary, mitigated in accordance with the County
2 Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan.
3 Discretionary development which would be impacted by noise or generate project related noise which cannot
4 be reduced to meet the above standards, shall be prohibited. This policy does not apply to noise generated
5 during the construction phase of a project if a statement of overriding considerations is adopted by the
6 decision-making body in conjunction with the certification of a final EIR.
7 Simi Valley General Plan and Municipal Code Ordinance
8 The noise background document for Simi Valley General Plan revisions (in process), Section 7.5, discusses
9 ambient noise in the vicinity of the City. Table 7.5-2 of the section provides existing daytime noise levels
10 measured in 2007 for eight selected locations within the city. Title 5, Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code
11 Ordinances addresses limitations on noise permitted for various activities and times of day within the City.
12 The following two provisions are relevant to the SVLRC project:
13 (1) Pile drivers, hammers, and the like. The operation between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM of any
14 pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, hoist, or other appliance, the use of which is
15 attended by loud or unusual noise; and
16 (2) Construction and repair of buildings. The erection, excavation, demolition, alteration, construction,
17 or repair of any structure or building, other than between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, except
18 when the urgent necessity, in the interests of the public health and safety, requires and the City
19 Engineer consents thereto. When substantial loss or inconvenience would result to any party denied
20 permission to do so, the City Engineer may grant permission for such work on any day or at such
21 times within such hours and on such conditions as he or she shall fix in accordance with his or her
22 findings.
23 No specific noise level prohibitions are provided. Table 3.10-4 contains a copy of Table 10.1 from the 1988
24 Simi Valley General Plan Noise Element.
Table 3.10-4. Interior and Exterior Noise Standards from 1988 Simi Valley General Plan
Noise Element Table 10.1
Land Use Categories Energy Average LDN
Categories Uses Interior1 Exterior2
Residential Single Family, Duplex, Multiple Family 45 63
Mobile Home 454 634
Commercial, Institutional Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 __
Hospital, School’s classrooms 45 __
Church, Library 45 __
Interpretation:
1. Indoor environment excluding: Bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors.
2. Outdoor environment limited to:
Private yard of single family
Multi-family private patio which is served by means of an exit from inside
Mobile home Park
3. Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other means of natural ventilation shall
be provided as of Chapter 12, Section 1205 of UBC. [note: not used in original table]
4. Exterior noise level should be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL.
25 The Simi Valley noise standards are based on LDN, which is an average of noise levels for a 24 hour period
26 including a 10 dB(A) penalty for nighttime hours between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Generally, hourly noise
27 levels during the day exceed the LDN levels because the nighttime penalty brings the 24 hour average up. The
28 analyses that follow are based on hourly levels at exterior locations and are more conservative than the 63
29 dB(A) LDN standards above.

3.10 Noise
2 According to the methodology set forth by the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines, Noise
3 and Vibration Considerations include an assessment of whether the proposed project is Noise Sensitive or a
4 Noise Generator. If the project is a Noise Generator, the assessment should include a determination as to
5 whether or not a project will result in a significant noise impact. The proposed project qualifies as a “Noise
6 Generator” and is analyzed accordingly below.
8 Based on the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines and the County Construction Noise
9 Threshold Criteria and Control Plan, the SVLRC Expansion Project qualifies as a potential noise generator.
10 Accordingly, the potential for an impact related to project-generated noise is evaluated as follows:
11 NOI-1: Construction Noise: The project would have a significant construction noise impact if it would
12 result in noise levels exceeding the following:
13 • Leq1H of 55dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is greater, during any hour
14 from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. (Note, this criterion is the same as the applicable criterion for
15 construction lasting longer than eight weeks as presented in Figure 4 of the Construction Noise
16 Threshold Criteria and Control Plan (Ventura County 2005a).
17 As stated in the applicant’s construction schedule, construction will be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 3:30
18 PM. and will therefore not involve activities during the evening and nighttime hours that could cause noise to
19 exceed the lower standards applicable within those timeframes.
20 NOI-2: Operational Noise: The project would have a significant noise impact if it would result in noise
21 levels exceeding the following:
23 from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
25 from 7:00 PM. to 10:00 PM.
26 The landfill will typically operate (i.e. receiving trucks or operating machinery) between 6:00 AM and 8:00
27 PM. Therefore, the 50 dB(A) criterion would only apply for an hour in the evenings on days when later
28 operations occur. The 55 dB(A) criterion would apply to the nearest residential district. Noise levels at the
29 nearest residence, measured as the LeaA actually exceeded the 55dB(A) criterion as well as the Ventura County
30 60 dB(A) “Normally Acceptable” Residential guideline. As indicated in Table 3.10-3, the current conditions
31 actually exceed 55 dB(A) in a number of locations.
32 NOI-3: Operational Vibration: The project would have a significant vibration impact if it would result in
33 detectable vibration at sensitive land uses.
35 Based on the physical configuration of the SVLRC and proximity to potential noise receptors, it is likely that
36 vehicle traffic noise will be the most significant source of noise impact. In order to estimate the potential
37 impacts of increased vehicle volume (i.e., trucks to and from the SVLRC) a simple noise impact model was
38 used. Important inputs into the model included:
39 • Truck noise levels measured at the T-Intersection

3.10 Noise
1 • Assumed increase truck traffic on state highways and streets in Simi Valley commensurate with the
2 planned expansion. The estimated increase in truck traffic volume is approximately 625 trucks per
3 day.
4 • Distances from the T-Intersection and the SVLRC to receptor locations.
5 • Measured current conditions at receptor locations.
6 The model uses existing data, simple noise propagation equations, and widely recognized sound pressure
7 level combining functions. The model had six steps:
8 Step 1 Estimate total sound pressure level at the source (SPLsource 1)
9 Step 2 Scale-up total sound pressure level based on increased truck volume (SPLsource 2)
10 The Scale up calculation was performed by computing the total SPL from all 82 T-Intersection
11 truck measurements (∑SPL82 trucks) , then multiplying by a vehicle increase scaling factor which
12 considered that 75 percent of the truck traffic would occur in the first and last two hours of the
13 landfill’s operating day. This effectively concentrates the noise sources(s), results in a higher LAeq
14 for that period, and produces more realistic expression than if the traffic load were averaged over
15 the entire operating period. Note these are logarithmic computations which are not the same as
16 multiplying a SPL by truck traffic ratio.
17 Taking the ratio of the ∑SPL higher traffic rate to the ∑SPL82 trucks yields the traffic increase volume
18 scale up-factor.
19 Computed in this manner, the 82 truck passing measurements were used as representative of
20 the current noise level and the ratio of sound pressure level represents the noise expected
21 from increased truck traffic in the future. The scaled up source term for future projected truck
22 trips is SPLsource 2
23 Step 3 Subtract SPLsource 1from SPLsource 2 to obtain the net increase in SPL (SPLincrease)
24 Step 4 Propagate SPLincrease to receptor of interest using the standard equation:
25 SPLincrease @ receptor = SPLincrease @ source – 20 log10 (distant to receptor)
26 Note ¼ hemispherical radiation was assumed to emulate a reemission from the ground and a
27 backing surface (e.g., the hillside north of the intersection) and a receptor façade effect was
28 applied to account for reverberation at the point of exposure. This method assumes noise
29 radiates away from the moving vehicles as a line source, but that some is reflected back from
30 the façade so the SPL at the receptor is higher than it would be if there were no backdrop to
31 reflect the sound waves.
32 Step 5 Combine SPLincrease @ receptor with the lowest measured SPL at the receptor. This provides the
33 estimated future receptor noise level under the future conditions.
34 Again log scale computations are employed here. One cannot simply add two SPLs directly.
35 Step 6 Compare the estimated future receptor noise level under the future conditions with threshold
36 criteria and other benchmarks, as appropriate.

3.10 Noise
1 The technique above is a simplification of the actual noise generation and propagation likely to occur if the
2 project is implemented. Though simplified, it probably over predicts future noise levels. This is because
3 factors that would provide additional noise attenuation (e.g., absorption by intervening structures and foliage)
4 are not considered and the use of ¼ hemispherical radiation and the “receiver façade” effect (described
5 above), which would tend to exaggerate noise propagation at the source and to inflate the resulting computed
6 sound levels. On the other hand, the model does not account for aspects that could result in occasional higher
7 sound levels (e.g., atmospheric inversion, low cloud deck, and direction wind effects, all of which are
8 intermittent and confined to limited circumstances). Overall, the approach provides a reasonable tool for
9 gauging the magnitude of future conditions.
11 3.10.2.3.1 Impact NOI-1: Construction Noise
12 Construction for the proposed project would not result in an Leq1H of 55dB(A) or ambient noise level plus
13 3dB(A), whichever is greater, during any hour from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Therefore, the construction noise
14 increase impact of the project would be less than significant.
15 Construction-related project noise would be generated either on the landfill itself or in the geographic
16 depression near the present landfill entrance. Construction would be confined to between the hours of 7:00
17 AM and 3:30 PM. Noise-generating activities of construction would be comparable to those involved in
18 operation of the landfill as multiple units of heavy construction equipment would be operational
19 simultaneously (Section 3.10.2.3.2). Therefore, noise measures from the landfill area are representative also
20 of the construction of the new office and maintenance facilities near the facility entrance.
21 Because of the topography of the landfill site and the location of the proposed new support facilities within a
22 bowl surrounded by hills on nearly all sides, potential noise impacts from construction of those facilities within
23 the bowl would be reduced substantially by the barrier effect of the surrounding hills. The only direct line-of-
24 sight between public areas and the new facility construction location is through the canyon draining the landfill
25 site to the south. SR-118 is the closest public location to the landfill. Across SR-118 from the landfill are several
26 commercial buildings approximately 600 meters from the locus of construction activity. Because of the
27 significant traffic-generated noise along the freeway and the minimal time window within which they could be
28 exposed, travelers on the freeway are not expected to be impacted by construction related noise.
29 The noise levels from project generated construction would be approximately 89 dB(A) 50 feet (15 meters) from
30 the source and approximately 57 dB(A) at 600 meters distant. Table 7.5-2 from the City of Simi Valley General
31 Plan identifies eight locations at which ambient noise measurements were made in 2007. Location 1 (Viewline
32 Road between Madera and SR-118 Ramps) is the closest to the commercial receptor location and had an
33 ambient level of 71.1 Leq. This location, which is close to the freeway and similar to the location of ambient
34 measurements made for this analysis, is probably not very representative of the commercial site which is farther
35 from the freeway and in an area of lower traffic. Location 3 (First Street between Dennis and Royal) is farther
36 away, but had an ambient level of 67.4 Leq and is likely to be somewhat more representative of the commercial
37 location. Assuming this more conservative level is representative of the commercial location, the combined
38 ambient and project noise would be 67.8 dB(A), an increment of 0.4 dB. The increase in noise would be much
39 less than 3 dB(A) and at a level that is essentially inaudible to the normal human ear, although the ambient noise
40 level exceeds the 55 dB(A) criterion by a considerable margin. Based on this low increase in noise levels due to
41 project construction, the impacts of construction are considered less than significant.
43 As impacts of construction noise would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.

3.10 Noise
2 Impacts of construction noise would be less than significant.
3 3.10.2.3.2 Impact NOI-2: Operational Noise
4 The proposed project would not result in an Leq1H of 55dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A),
5 whichever is greater, during any hour from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM nor would it result in an Leq1H of 50dB(A) or
6 ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is greater, during any hour from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM. Therefore,
7 the noise increase impact of the project would be less than significant.
8 Using the method described above, potential noise impacts were calculated for:
9 • Nearest Residence (116 Aristotle). Technically, this is the location of prime interest for evaluation
10 because it is the closest residence to the project site.
11 • Quiet Residence (1121 Athens). A residential location of interest.
12 • Line of Sight Residence (Erringer at Lost Canyon Dr). Another residential location of interest.
13 Landfill equipment noise level data was used for this estimation.
14 For comparison, the following locations are included in Table 3.10-4 although none is technically a sensitive
15 receptor:
16 • Wal-Mart parking lot. Technically a commercial location near the project site.
17 • Mall Parking Lot (Near Union Bank). A commercial location of interest.
18 • Office Park near Madera Rd. Another commercial location of interest.
19 The results are provided in Table 3.10-4. Readers may wish to refer to Figure 3.10-1 (Measurement
20 Locations).
Table 3.10-4. Project Noise Impacts at Nearby Receptors
Estimated LA-eq
Distance Current Increment
1 Noise based on 625
Receptor Location (m) from Daytime al Increase
Source O2 Additional
Source Lowest LA-eq (dB LA-eq)
Trucks per Day
Truck
Nearest Residence (116 Aristotle) 900m 64.2 64.8 0.6
Traffic
Truck
Quiet Residence (1121 Athens) 1100m 49.1 49.7 0.8
Traffic
Line of Sight Residence (Erringer Landfill
2800m 42.5 43.0 0.5
at Lost Canyon Dr.) Equipment
Truck
Wal-Mart 500m 59.3 59.9 0.6
Traffic
Mall Parking Lot (near Union Truck
2300m 57.2 57.8 0.6
Bank) Traffic
Truck
Office Park near Madera Rd. 350m 603 60.5 0.5
Traffic
Notes:
1. See Figure 3.10-1 for a map that identifies each receptor location.
2. Truck Traffic – at T intersection of SR-118 off ramp and Madera Rd. during peak traffic. Landfill equipment on landfill
proper.
3. Estimated

3.10 Noise
1 A review of the table reveals that the net increase in estimate SPLs (as LA-eq) is generally small; less than one
2 decibel. Specific points of interest include:
3 • At the Nearest Residence (116 Aristotle), the estimated noise level increase with maximum truck
4 traffic volume at the T-intersection would be 0.6 dB, substantially less than ambient plus 3 dB(A).
5 This increase would be imperceptible to the normal human ear. A sound level increase (or decrease)
6 of approximately 3 dB is barely recognized by a person with normal hearing.
7 Technically, this location is the locale of prime interest for the evaluation. The criterion is 55 dB(A)
8 between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM. However, as indicated in the table and discussed previously, the
9 current daytime LA-eq at this locale already exceeds the threshold criterion. Since the increase would
10 be less than 3 dB(A), the impact is less than significant.
11 Night time ambient noise at most residential locations is lower than the daytime level. While it is
12 difficult to assess how much lower, and measurements were not made at night, a reduction of 5
13 dB(A) would not be unusual. Assuming the ambient level at this location were 5 dB lower (59.2
14 dB(A)), the impact for the one hour of potential operation between 7:00 PM and 8:00 PM., assuming
15 full daytime equipment operations (a very conservative assumption) would be approximately 2 dB(A)
16 above ambient, still below the 3 dB(A) increment. Therefore, even for the one hour between 7:00 PM
17 and 8:00 PM, the impact of project operations would be less than significant.
18 • At the Quiet Residence (1121 Athens), a residential location of interest that is deeper into the
19 neighborhood (approximately 200 meters south from 116 Aristotle), the estimated noise level is 49.7
20 LAeq for maximum truck volume increases. The current daytime LA-eq at this locale is 42.5 LA-eq. Thus,
21 in this case, the noise impact at this location would be less than significant.
22 • A similar result is predicted for the Line of Sight Residence (Erringer at Lost Canyon Dr). The
23 estimated noise level is 43 LAeq for the maximum landfill equipment activity. This is the only
24 residential locale within proximity of the landfill that has an actual line of site relationship with the
25 Landfill operations. The line of sight distance (2,300 meters, well over 1 mile), however, is great
26 enough that increases in activity at the SVLRC are not likely to produce perceptible differences in the
27 noise neighborhood noise levels and the impact of project generated noise is less than significant.
28 • Other commercial locations of interest (i.e., the Wal-Mart and Mall Parking lots, and the Nearby
29 Office Park) show similar small scale noise level increases. None of the noise levels predicted at
30 these locations exceed Ventura County’s “Up to 70 dB(A)” normally acceptable guideline. The
31 impact of increased noise is less than significant.
33 As impacts of operational noise would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.

35 The impacts of operational noise would be less than significant.
36 3.10.2.3.3 Impact NOI-3: Operational Vibration

37 The project would not result in detectable vibration at sensitive land uses. The impacts would be less than
38 significant.
39 The vibration associated with the increased truck traffic is not likely to be detectable at the sensitive receptor
40 locations identified in Table 3.10-4. As indicated, the actual increases in noise levels, estimated as LAeq, are
41 relatively small and not likely to be perceived by receptors. Similarly, air-borne vibrations from the incident
42 increase in pressure (i.e., SPL) would not be noticeable. Moreover, vibrations transmitted through structural

3.10 Noise
1 connection (e.g., road to ground to structures) generally do not travel far and are considered insignificant
2 when contrasted to the existing vibration associated with present traffic on SR-118 and associated traffic on
3 surface streets. The project’s incremental contribution to transportation-related ground-transmitted vibration
4 would be undetectable at locations adjacent to a roadway on which project vehicles travel.
6 As impacts of operational vibration would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
8 The residual impacts of operational vibration would be less than significant.
10 Since noise impacts of both construction and operations were determined to be less than significant, no
11 mitigation is proposed and no monitoring would be required.

3.10 Noise

1 3.11 Traffic and Circulation
2 A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of morning and
3 evening peak hour traffic generated by the proposed expansion of the existing SVLRC and the nearby waste
4 hauling yard which are to be consolidated at the project site. The project is located within Ventura County,
5 but immediately adjacent to and within the sphere of influence of the City of Simi Valley. The SVLRC is
6 bounded generally by Alamos Canyon Road to the west, Brea Canyon Road to the east, a ridge north of the
7 broad tributary drainage to Alamos Canyon to the north, and the SR-118 to the south. An existing recycling
8 center/waste hauling yard, which is proposed to be relocated to the project site, is located at 195 West Los
9 Angeles Avenue in Simi Valley, south of SR-118. The proposed project would expand the existing site north
10 encompass the valley containing the tributary to Alamos Canyon. The proposed project would increase
11 permitted daily disposal capacities at SVLRC through expansion of the existing facility and the relocation of
12 the recycling center/waste hauling yard to the project site.
13 Pursuant to the City of Simi Valley’s traffic study guidelines, LOS calculations have been prepared for the
14 following scenarios:
15 • Existing Scenario – Existing traffic with existing intersection lane geometrics.

16 • Existing with Proposed Project Scenario – Existing traffic plus proposed project traffic with
17 existing intersection lane geometrics and proposed mitigation.
18 • Future without Proposed Project Scenario – City Traffic Model future traffic without the
19 proposed project traffic and with future roadway conditions.
20 • Future with Proposed Project Scenario – City Traffic Model future traffic with the increase of the
21 proposed project site-related trips and future roadway conditions. Environmental Setting
24 This Traffic Impact Study includes the roadways and intersections near the project site and those locations
25 where project-generated traffic could cause a significant impact. Based on multiple discussions with County
26 of Ventura and City of Simi Valley staff in late 2008 and 2009, a total of 15 locations are evaluated during the
27 AM and PM peak period (7-9 AM and 4-6 PM) as potentially being significantly impacted by the proposed
28 project. This analysis provides key traffic information regarding existing traffic volumes, an analysis of
29 impacts at study intersections, and a determination of intersection LOS using the Intersection Capacity
30 Utilization (ICU) method.
31 The locations of the 15 study locations assessed in the traffic analysis are listed in Table 3.11-1 and are shown
32 in Figure 3.11-1.

3.11 Traffic and Circulation
Table 3.11-1. Locations and Types of Study Intersections

Intersection Type of Control
#1 Phaceton at Simi Valley Landfill Entrance * N/A
#2 W Los Angeles Ave. / W Easy St. (unsignalized) Stop
#3 View Line Dr. / SR-118 WB Ramps Signal
#4 Madera Rd. / View Line Dr. Signal
#5 Madera Rd. / SR-118 WB Off-Ramp (unsignalized) + Yield
#6 Madera Rd. / SR-EB Ramps Signal
#7 Madera Rd. / Cochran St. Signal
#8 Madera Rd. / Easy St. Signal
#9 Madera Rd. / Tierra Rejada Rd. / E Los Angeles Ave. Signal
#10 Madera Rd. / Royal Ave. Signal
#11 1st St. / Enchanted Wy. / SR-118 WB Ramps Signal
#12 1st St. / SR-118 EB Ramps Signal
#13 1st St. / Cochran St. Signal
#14 1st St. / Easy St. Signal
#15 1st St. / E Los Angeles Ave. Signal
* Not an intersection
+ Intersection with free flow right-turn as the only minor street movement
1 3.11.1.2 Setting
2 Figure 3.11-2 shows the location of the proposed project site in relation to the surrounding street network.
3 Traffic counts were conducted during the AM and PM peak periods at study locations #1 through #7 on
4 Tuesday, December 9, 2008. For study locations #8 through #15, the traffic counts were conducted during the
5 AM and PM peak periods on December 3, 2008, with the exception of study location #13, which was
6 conducted during the AM and PM peak periods on June 3, 2009. The TIA is based on the highest single hour of
7 traffic during each peak period observed at the above locations.
8 A field inventory was conducted at the 15 study area locations (Table 3.11-1 and Figure 3.11-1). The
9 inventory included review of intersection geometric layout, traffic control, lane configuration, posted speed
10 limits, transit service, land use and parking. Existing lane configurations and traffic control for the study
11 locations are provided in Figure 3.11-3.
12 3.11.1.2.1 Existing Roadway Conditions
13 Existing Freeways
14 Los Angeles Ave (SR-118) – SR-118 extends in an east/west direction for 33 miles through Ventura County,
15 from the Los Angeles County Line in the east to SR-126 in Saticoy on the west. From the Los Angeles
16 County Line, through Simi Valley, to the Madera Road interchange, SR-118 is a freeway with three lanes in
17 each direction. From Madera Road to the New Los Angeles Avenue exit in Moorpark, the freeway is two
18 lanes each way. SR-118 exits the freeway at New Los Angeles Avenue, and becomes Los Angeles Avenue,
19 varying from four to six lanes through the City of Moorpark. Beyond Moorpark, the route becomes a
20 conventional two-lane highway, widening out again to four lanes between Vineyard Avenue (SR-232) and the
21 SR-126 Freeway. In the City of Ventura, SR-118 is called Wells Road. Near the project study area, SR-118 is
22 a six lane facility and provides access to the project site via the Madera Road interchange. A freeway ramp
23 connection exists for eastbound traffic at Madera Road and for westbound traffic at Viewline Drive in the
24 vicinity of the project.
25 Existing Roadways
26 Local commuter access to the proposed project area is provided by Madera Road to Viewline Drive. Other
27 roadways in the area include Cochran Street, Easy Street, Tierra Rejada Road/Los Angeles Avenue, and
28 Royal Street.
d
nR
*
yo
an
C
ea
Br
Ph
ac
e to
n
Vie
w lin
e Dr
W
es
eles Ave th
W Los Ang ill
s
Ct
WC Enchante
och d Wy Simi Town Center Wy
ran
St
*
W
Ea
sy
St Cochran St
1st St
Erringer Rd
N Madera Rd EE
Tierra Rejada Rd asy
St
E Los Angeles Ave

Madera Rd
LEGEND Royal Ave
* Project Site
Railway
N
Not to Scale
Source: Iteris 2009
Figure 3.11-1. Project Study Area

d
nR
*
yo
an
C
ea
Br
1
Ph
ac
e to
n
Vie
w lin
e Dr
W
es 3
ve th
ngeles A ill 4
W Los A s
Ct 5
WC Enchante
och d Wy 11 Simi Town Center Wy
ran 6
St
2 7
* 12
W
Ea
sy 13
St Cochran St
8
1st St
Erringer Rd
N Madera Rd
EE
St
14
E Los Angeles Ave

9 15
Madera Rd
LEGEND
*1
Project Site
Count Locations
N 10
Royal Ave
Railway
Not to Scale
Source: Iteris 2009
Figure 3.11-2. Project Study Intersections

#1 Phaceton / #2 W Los Angeles Ave / #3 SR-118 WB Ramps / #4 Madera Rd / #5 Madera Rd /
Landfill Entrance Easy St View Line Dr View Line Dr SR-118 WB Off Ramp
Free
#6 Madera Rd / #7 Madera Rd / #8 Madera Rd / #9 Madera Rd / Tierra Rejada Rd / #10 Madera Rd /

SR-118 EB Ramps Cochran St Easy St E Los Angeles Ave Royal Ave
Free
Free
#11 1st St / Enchanted Wy / #12 1st St / #13 1st St / #14 1st St / #15 1st St /
SR-118 WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps Cochran St Easy St E Los Angeles Ave
Free
Free
Rd
*
on
ny
Ca
ea
Br
1
Ph
ac
et
on
Vie
wli
ne
Dr
W
es 3
e th
geles Av 4
W Los An i ll
s
Ct 5
WC Enchanted
och Wy 11 Simi Town Center Wy
ra nS 6
t
2 7
LEGEND * 12
Study Intersection
W
Ea 13
1 sy
St Cochran St
8
1st St
Erringer Rd
One-Way Stop
N Madera Rd
Two-Way Stop Tierra Rejada Rd

EE
asy
St
14
4-Way Stop/All-Way Stop 9

E Los Angeles Ave
15
Yield (Minor Street)

Signalized Intersection N
Madera Rd
Free Free Right Turn

Royal Ave
10
Source: Iteris 2009 Not to Scale
Figure 3.11-3. Existing Intersection Control and Lane Configuration

1 Madera Road: Madera Road is a north-south primary arterial roadway located east of the SVLRC. Two
2 through travel lanes are provided in each direction on Madera Road in the vicinity of the SVLRC. Separate
3 left-turn lanes, a raised center median, 'protected-permissive' left turn phasing and a southbound right turn
4 overlap phase are provided on Madera Road at its intersection with Tierra Rejada Road/Los Angeles Avenue.
5 Separate left-turn lanes are provided at its intersections with Easy Street, Cochran Street and Viewline Drive.
6 Parking is not permitted on Madera Avenue in the vicinity of the SVLRC and the posted speed limit on
7 Madera Avenue is 45 mph. Madera Road continues to extend southerly and becomes Olson Road
8 approximately 3.5 miles south of SR-118.
9 Viewline Drive: Viewline Drive is an east-west collector roadway located adjacent to the SVLRC and
10 provides direct access to the westbound SR-118 freeway. Two through travel lanes are provided in each
11 direction on Viewline Drive in the vicinity of the SVLRC. A separate eastbound left-turn lane and two right-
12 turn lanes are provided on Viewline Drive at its intersection with Madera Road. Parking is not permitted on
13 Viewline Drive in the vicinity of the SVLRC and the posted speed limit on Viewline Drive is 40 mph.
14 Cochran Street: Cochran Street is an east-west secondary arterial roadway with two through travel lanes
15 provided in each direction in the vicinity of the SVLRC. Separate left-turn lanes are provided on Cochran
16 Street at its intersection with Madera Road. Parking is not permitted on Cochran Street in the vicinity of the
17 SVLRC, and there is no posted speed limit on Cochran Street in this area.
18 Easy Street: Easy Street is an east-west collector roadway located south of the SVLRC. Approximately one
19 mile west of Madera Road it changes its name to West Los Angeles Avenue. One through travel lane is
20 provided in each direction on Easy Street in the vicinity of the SVLRC. Separate left-turn lanes are provided
21 on Easy Street at its intersection with Madera Road. Parking is not permitted westerly of Madera Road and is
22 posted “No Parking” from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM easterly of Madera Road. The posted speed limit on Easy
23 Street is 40 mph in the landfill vicinity.
24 Tierra Rejada Road/Los Angeles Avenue: Tierra Rejada Road/Los Angeles Avenue is an east-west
25 primary arterial roadway located south of the SVLRC. Three through travel lanes are provided for the
26 westbound direction and two through travel lanes are provided for the eastbound direction on Tierra Rejada
27 Road/Los Angeles Avenue in the vicinity of the SVLRC. Separate left-turn lanes are provided on Tierra
28 Rejada Road/Los Angeles Avenue at its intersection with Madera Road. Parking is not permitted on Tierra
29 Rejada Road/Los Angeles Avenue in the vicinity of the SVLRC. The posted speed limit on Tierra Rejada
30 Road/Los Angeles Avenue is 50 mph from Madera Road to Mandan and 55 mph from Mandan westerly.
31 Royal Avenue: Royal Avenue is an east-west secondary arterial roadway located south of the SVLRC. Two
32 travel lanes are provided in each direction on Royal Avenue in the vicinity of the SVLRC. A separate left-turn
33 lane is provided on Royal Avenue at its intersection with Madera Road. The posted speed limit on Royal
34 Avenue is 45 mph within the study area.
35 Existing Transit Service
36 There are several public transportation systems available in Ventura County which include: South Coast Area
37 Transit (SCAT), Ventura Intercity Service Transit Authority (VISTA), Camarillo Area Transit (CAT),
38 Moorpark Transit, the City of Ojai trolley, Simi Valley Transit and Thousand Oaks Transit (TOT). For this
39 project the only transit services are VISTA, Simi Valley Transit, the Los Angeles Department of
40 Transportation (LADOT), and Metrolink. The existing public transit services are shown in Figure 3.11-4.
41 Bus service in the SR-118 corridor is provided by the City of Simi Valley, the City of Moorpark, VISTA, and
42 LADOT.

d
nR
*
yo
an
C
ea
Br
Ph
ac
e to
n
Vie
w lin
e Dr
W
es
ve th
ngeles A ill
W Los A s
Ct
WC Enchante
och d Wy Simi Town Center Wy
ra nS
t
*
W
Ea
sy
St Cochran St
1st St
Erringer Rd
N Madera Rd
EE
St
E Los Angeles Ave
LEGEND
*
Madera Rd
Project Site
VISTA-EAST
LADOT Commuter Express
Simi Valley Transit Route A
N Royal Ave
Simi Valley Transit Route B
Simi Valley Transit Route D
Railway Not to Scale
Source: Iteris 2009
Figure 3.11-4. Existing Transit Service

1 VISTA is a public transit agency providing bus service in Ventura County, California. It is intended to
2 provide an intercity bus service between Simi Valley and Westlake via Moorpark College, Moorpark, and
3 Thousand Oaks and operates from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM., Monday through Friday, and from 7:00 AM to 6:00
4 PM on Saturday.
5 Simi Valley Transit provides local bus service between Simi Valley and Chatsworth, running on one-hour
6 fifteen-minute intervals between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. The City of Los Angeles runs
7 Commuter Express buses between Simi Valley and Warner Center, on 20-minute headways during rush hour,
8 Monday through Friday, running inbound to Warner Center in the morning rush, outbound in the evening rush.
9 The City of Simi Valley has four bus routes providing service six days a week on or parallel to SR-118. In
10 addition to providing local transportation on the SR-118 corridor in the City of Simi Valley, the service
11 provides bus service between Chatsworth and Simi Valley using SR-118 every hour and fifteen minutes from
12 6:00 AM until 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday. Simi Valley Transit also provides passengers with
13 connections to the VISTA EAST and Metrolink and Amtrak services at the Simi Valley train station. The City
14 of Moorpark also provides local bus service in the SR-118 corridor, with two routes. The Moorpark service
15 also connects with the VISTA EAST service, and with the Metrolink and AMTRAK services at the Moorpark
16 train station. The Moorpark buses provide service in the SR-118 corridor from Moorpark College and Villa
17 del Arroyo Mobile Home Park in the east to SR-118 and Tierra Rejada Road/Gabbert Road in the west. The
18 service operates Monday through Friday.
19 Rail service provided by Metrolink’s Ventura County Line consists of a single track with passing tracks every
20 few miles, running parallel to SR-118 into Los Angeles County, with stops in Camarillo, Moorpark, and Simi
21 Valley. There are 10 trains each way on weekdays only. Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trains traveling between
22 Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego use the same tracks as Metrolink, with four trains per day
23 weekdays and five per day weekends and holidays. The Coast Main Line is a single-track rail line with
24 limited sidings for trains to pass due to the shared use of the track with freight trains.
25 The existing conditions scenario consists of the existing 2008 weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection
26 operating conditions.
27 Existing Traffic Volumes
28 New traffic counts were conducted during the AM and PM peak periods (7-9 AM and 4-6 PM) for all 15 study
29 locations. AM and PM peak period counts were conducted at study locations #1 through #7 on Tuesday,
30 December 9, 2008. For study locations #8 through #15, the traffic counts were conducted during the AM and
31 PM peak periods on December 3, 2008, with the exception of study location #13, which was conducted during
32 the AM and PM peak periods on June 3, 2009. The TIA is based on the highest single hour of traffic during
33 each observed peak period at the above locations.
34 Existing Traffic Operations Analysis
35 The AM and PM peak hour LOS analyses were conducted at 13 of the 15 existing study locations based on the
36 existing traffic volume counts and the methodologies described previously. Location #1 is the project site
37 entrance with only two-way traffic, and location #5 is an uncontrolled free flow off ramp, thus no intersection
38 LOS analysis was conducted for the two locations. The LOS analysis was performed using TRAFFIX
39 software, version 7.9. The existing condition was analyzed according to the City of Simi Valley’s traffic study
40 guidelines, with a saturation flow rate of 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour.
41 According to the City of Simi Valley Traffic Study Guidelines, LOS C is the lowest acceptable LOS. Table
42 3.11-2 summarizes the LOS calculations for the study intersections under existing conditions during the AM
43 and PM peak hours. Existing AM and PM peak hour volumes are illustrated in Figure 3.11-5.
914 (1630)
120 (411)
46 (785)
98 (37)
6 (151)
0 (10)
18 (3) 50 (4)
101 (27) 155 (455) 609 (44)
32 (13) 4 (0)
10 (20)
118 (11)
230 (159)
36 (3)
855 (835)
202 (301)
1004 (76)
588 (332)
17 (15) 887 (845)
AM LOS 0.0s D E
PM LOS 0.0s D E
AM LOS 11.6s D E
PM LOS 12.9s D E
AM LOS 0.32 D E
PM LOS 0.38 D E
AM LOS 0.38 D E
PM LOS 0.45 D E
AM LOS 0.0s D E
PM LOS 0.0s D E
B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B C
n/a n/a B B A A A A n/a n/a

A A A A A A A A A A
#6 Madera Rd / #7 Madera Rd / #8 Madera Rd / #9 Madera Rd / #10 Madera Rd /

SR-118 EB Ramps Cochran St Easy St Tierra Rejada Rd / E Los Angeles Ave Royal Ave
865 (1002)
809 (1304)
739 (760)
256 (348)
123 (324)
180 (261)
557 (863)
756 (940)
179 (360)
159 (110)
41 (579)
73 (335)
74 (25)
188 (228) 33 (114) 207 (275) 185 (158)
5 (21)
90 (173) 48 (70) 478 (663) 32 (27)
245 (345) 42 (167) 320 (200) 861 (494)
202 (10) 92 (369) 94 (272) 401 (436) 19 (20)

383 (325)
777 (1182)
291 (469)
1181 (1237)
168 (74)
157 (183)
148 (232)
876 (894)
136 (93)
850 (707)
196 (318)
2 (7)
877 (1039)
497 (990)
260 (440) 37 (236) 42 (82) 391 (619) 66 (28)
55 (324) 83 (166) 128 (222) 8 (9)
AM LOS 0.25 D E
PM LOS 0.31 D E
AM LOS 0.33 D E
PM LOS 0.48 D E
AM LOS 0.36 D E
PM LOS 0.48 D E
AM LOS 0.57 D E
PM LOS 0.76 D E
AM LOS 0.40 D E
PM LOS 0.66 D E
A A A A A A A C A B
A A A A A A A A A A
#11 1st St / #12 1st St / #13 1st St / #14 1st St / #15 1st St /
Enchanted Wy / SR-118 WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps Cochran St Easy St E Los Angeles Ave
893 (1085)
759 (1042)
885 (1377)
174 (180)
286 (104)
165 (585)
269 (446)
503 (815)
128 (320)
115 (177)
49 (199)
55 (109)
19 (18)
91 (96) 141 (82) 117 (185) 216 (239)

126 (35) 301 (250) 50 (28) 747 (813)
798 (783) 241 (258) 12 (44) 171 (292)
1 (15) 143 (215) 72 (235) 83 (315) 446 (455)

149 (64)
177 (518)
264 (169)
452 (542)
202 (95)
629 (701)
142 (175)
878 (906)
172 (280)
1211 (965)
64 (97)
210 (117)
813 (457)
233 (281)
94 (267) 162 (187) 159 (504) 9 (77) 739 (841)
75 (258) 63 (271) 83 (113)
AM LOS 0.34 D E
PM LOS 0.40 D E
AM LOS 0.34 D E
PM LOS 0.42 D E
AM LOS 0.29 D E
PM LOS 0.45 D E
AM LOS 0.47 D E
PM LOS 0.64 D E
AM LOS 0.47 D E
PM LOS 0.61 D E
A A A A A A A B A B
A A A A A A A A A A
Rd
*
on
ny
Ca
ea
Br
1
Ph
ac
et
on
Vie
wli
ne
Dr
W
es 3
les Ave th
4
W Los Ange i ll
s
Ct 5
WC Enchanted
ra nS 6
t
2 7
LEGEND * 12
W
1 Study Intersection Ea
sy
St
8
13
Cochran St
1st St
Erringer Rd
XX(XX) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes

N Madera Rd
AM LOS 0.429
D E
Peak Hr V/C or Del/Veh (seconds) Tierra Rejada Rd
EE
asy
St
14
A B C
A Level of Service (LOS)
E Los Angeles Ave
9 15
LOS A through D
LOS E N
Madera Rd
Los F
Royal Ave
10
Figure 3.11-5. Existing Peak Hour Volumes & Level-of-Service

Table 3.11-2 Existing Peak Hour LOS Summary

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection V/C or V/C or
LOS Delay/Vehicle LOS Delay/Vehicle
#1 Phaceton at Simi Valley Landfill Entrance * n/a n/a n/a n/a
#2 W Los Angeles Ave. / W Easy St. (unsignalized) B 11.6sec B 12.9sec
#3 View Line Dr. / SR-118 WB Ramps A 0.32 A 0.38
#4 Madera Rd. / View Line Dr. A 0.38 A 0.45
#5 Madera Rd. / SR-118 WB Off-Ramp (unsignalized) + n/a n/a n/a n/a
#6 Madera Rd. / SR-EB Ramps A 0.25 A 0.31
#7 Madera Rd. / Cochran St. A 0.33 A 0.48
#8 Madera Rd. / Easy St. A 0.36 A 0.48
#9 Madera Rd. / Tierra Rejada Rd. / E Los Angeles Ave. A 0.57 C 0.76
#10 Madera Rd. / Royal Ave. A 0.40 B 0.66
#11 1st St. / Enchanted Wy. / SR-118 WB Ramps A 0.34 A 0.40
#12 1st St. / SR-118 EB Ramps A 0.34 A 0.42
#13 1st St. / Cochran St. A 0.29 A 0.45
#14 1st St. / Easy St. A 0.47 B 0.64
#15 1st St. / E Los Angeles Ave. A 0.47 B 0.61
Notes:
v/c ratios are rounded to the nearest two decimal places
1 The results indicate that all of the study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM
2 and PM peak hours. The LOS analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix I.
4 This project is subject to the TIA requirements of the County of Ventura, City of Simi Valley and Ventura
5 County Congestion Management Program (CMP) TIA if the project is not determined to be exempt under the
6 guidelines for the County of Ventura. The project is not exempt.
8 Caltrans
9 Caltrans requires analyses of freeway roadway segments and ramp connections where the project contributes
10 100 two-way peak hour trips (PHTs) to a freeway. Mitigation is required of the proposed project if the
11 proposed project causes the LOS of the study area freeway roadway segments or ramp connections to
12 decrease below LOS C as described in Table 3.11-3.

Table 3.11-3 Caltrans TIA Guidelines:

Basic Freeway Segments @ 65 mi/hr
Maximum Service
Maximum Density Minimum Speed
LOS (pc/mi/ln) (mph) Maximum V/C Flow Rate
(pc/hr/ln)
A 11 65.0 0.30 710
B 18 65.0 0.50 1170
C 26 64.6 0.71 1680
D 35 59.7 0.89 2090
E 45 52.3 1.00 2350
Signalized Intersections and Ramp Terminals
Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh)
A 10
B ≤10-20
C >20-35
D >35-55
E >55-80
F >80
Urban Streets
Street Class I II III IV
Range of FFS 55 to 45 mi/hr 45 to 35 mi/hr 35 to 30 mi/hr 35 to 25 mi/hr
Typical FFS 50 mi/hr 40 mi/hr 35 mi/hr 30 mi/hr
Average Travel Speed (mi/hr)
A > 42 > 35 > 30 > 25
B > 34 - 42 > 28 - 35 > 24 – 30 > 19 – 25
C > 27 – 34 > 22 – 28 > 18 – 24 > 13 – 19
D > 21 – 27 > 17 – 22 > 14 – 18 > 9 – 13
E > 16 – 21 > 13 – 17 > 10 – 14 >7–9
F ≤ 16 ≤ 13 ≤ 10 ≤7
Note: Dotted line represents the transition between LOS ‘C’ and LOS ‘D’
2 Significant traffic impacts are determined based on threshold criteria established by respective agencies.
3 There are three agencies with jurisdiction over project roadways: Caltrans, County of Ventura, and the City of
4 Simi Valley.
5 Ventura County General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
6 Policy 4.2.2-4: Except as otherwise provided in the Ojai Area Plan, County General Plan land use designation
7 changes and zone changes shall be evaluated for their individual and cumulative impacts, and discretionary
8 development shall be evaluated for its individual impact, on existing and future roads, with special emphasis
9 on the following:
10 (a) Whether the project would cause existing roads within the Regional Road Network or Local Road
11 (b) Whether the project would add traffic to existing roads within the Regional Road Network or the
12 Local Road Network that are currently functioning below an acceptable LOS; and
13 (c) Whether the project could cause future roads planned for addition to the Regional Road Network or
14 the Local Road Network to function below an acceptable LOS.
15 Policy 4.2.2-5: Except as otherwise provided in the Ojai Area Plan and below, County General Plan land use
16 designation changes and zone changes that would cumulatively cause any of the impacts identified in
17 subparagraphs (a) through (c) of Policy 4.2.2-4 shall be prohibited unless the Board of Supervisors adopts a
18 Statement of Overriding Considerations. County General Plan land use designation changes, zone changes
19 and discretionary development that would individually cause any of the impacts identified in subparagraphs
1 (a) through (c) of Policy 4.2.2-4 shall be prohibited unless feasible mitigation measures are adopted that
2 would ensure that the impact does not occur or unless a project completion schedule and full funding
3 commitment for road improvements are adopted which ensure that the impact will be eliminated within a
4 reasonable period of time. This policy does not apply to city thoroughfares, city-maintained local roads, or
5 Federal or State highways located within a city unless the applicable city has formally adopted General Plan
6 policies, ordinances, or a reciprocal agreement with the County (similar to Policies 4.2.2-3 through 4.2.2-6)
7 respecting development in the city that would affect the LOS of County thoroughfares, County-maintained
8 local roads, and Federal and State highways located within the unincorporated area of the County. If a
9 Specific Plan for a project has been determined to be consistent with this policy, any subsequent development
10 that is consistent with the Specific Plan will also be determined to be consistent with this policy.
11 In other words, if a project would generate new traffic to a road segment or intersection that is currently
12 operating at an unacceptable LOS (and the project does not qualify for one of the three exemptions listed
13 above), the project shall be denied unless:
14 a. The project’s traffic impact is fully mitigated; or
15 b. A full funding commitment for road improvements is reasonably available to ensure that the impacts
16 will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time.
17 Policy 4.2.2-6: Development that would generate additional traffic shall pay its pro rata share of the costs of
18 necessary improvements to the Regional Road Network per the County’s Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee
19 Ordinance, including reciprocal agreements, as amended from time to time.
20 Policy 4.1.2-4: Area Plan land use designation changes, zone changes and discretionary development which
21 would individually or cumulatively cause any of the impacts identified in subparagraphs (a) through (c) of
22 Policy 4.1.2-3 …(same as policy 4.2.2-4 of the Goals, Policies and Programs)… shall be prohibited unless
23 feasible mitigation measures are adopted which would ensure that the impact does not occur or unless a
24 project completion schedule and full funding commitment for road improvements are adopted which ensure
25 that the impact will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time. This policy does not apply to city
26 thoroughfares, city-maintained local roads or State highways located within the city unless the City of Ojai
27 has formally adopted General Plan policies, ordinances or a reciprocal agreement with the County …
28 respecting development in the city that would affect the LOS of the County thoroughfares, County maintained
29 local roads, and State highways located within the unincorporated area of the County.
30 A traffic study is required for projects that generate 10 or more PHTs. The project impact threshold criteria
31 per the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines for roadway links and intersections are described
32 in the following paragraphs.
33 Ventura County Roadway Segments
34 Minimum Acceptable Level of Service – The minimum LOS for road segments within the Regional Road
35 Network (Ventura County General Plan Public Facilities and Services Appendix, Last Amended November
36 15, 2005) and the Local Road Network (all other County maintained roads) is shown in Table 3.11-4:

Table 3.11-4 Minimum Level Of Service For Roadway Segments

Minimum
LOS Description
LOS C LOS C All County maintained local roads.
LOS D All County thoroughfares and state highways within the unincorporated area of the County, except
as provided in case b.
LOS E SR-33 between the end of the freeway and the City of Ojai.
SR-118 between Santa Clara Avenue and the City of Moorpark
SR-34 (Somis Road) north of the City of Camarillo
Santa Rosa Road between Camarillo city limit line and Thousand Oaks city limit line
Moorpark road north of Santa Rosa road to Moorpark city limits line
VARIES The LOS prescribed by the applicable city for all state highways, city thoroughfares, and city
maintained local roads located within that city, if the city has formally adopted General Plan
policies, ordinances, or a reciprocal agreement with the County, pertaining to development in the
city that would individually or cumulatively affect the LOS of state highways, county thoroughfares
and county-maintained local roads in the unincorporated area of the County.
County LOS standards are applicable for any City that has not adopted its own standards or has not
executed a reciprocal agreement with the county pertaining to impacts to County roads.
Note: At any intersection between two roads, each of which has a prescribed minimum acceptable LOS, the less stringent LOS
of the two shall be the minimum acceptable LOS of that intersection.
1 Project Specific Impacts - A potentially significant adverse project specific traffic impact is assumed to
2 occur on any road segment if the project would:
3 a. Cause the existing LOS on a roadway segment to fall to an unacceptable level as defined in Table
4 3.11-4; or
5 b. Add one or more PHT to a roadway segment that is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS
6 Cumulative Impacts - A potentially significant adverse cumulative traffic impact is assumed to occur on any
7 road segment if any one of the following results from the project:
8 a. If the project will add one or more PHT to a roadway segment that is part of the regional road
9 network and the roadway segment is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS as defined in Table
10 3.11-3.
11 b. If the project will add 10 or more PHT to a roadway segment which is part of the regional road
12 network and is projected to reach an unacceptable LOS as defined in Table 3.11-4 by the year 2020.
13 c. All projects that generate traffic contribute to cumulative traffic impacts. The analysis of cumulative
14 traffic impacts is contained in the Final Subsequent EIR prepared for the County General Plan Update
15 (2005c) and subsequent addendum (2007), would normally be considered sufficient cumulative
16 analysis of traffic impacts. In such cases, payment of County’s Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF)
17 is intended to mitigate the project’s contribution to the cumulative traffic impacts for road segments
18 outside of the Ojai Valley.
19 Ventura County Intersections
20 Minimum Acceptable LOS - Minimum LOS for intersections on the Regional Road Network (Ventura
21 County General Plan Public Facilities and Services Appendix, Last Amended November 15, 2005) is shown
22 in Table 3.11-5.

Table 3.11-5 Threshold Of Significance-Intersection

Significant Changes In LOS
Intersection LOS (Existing) Increase in V/C or Trips greater than
LOS A 0.20
LOS B 0.15
LOS C 0.10
LOS D 10 PHT*
LOS E 5 PHT*
LOS F 1 PHT*
Notes:
To critical movements. These are the highest combination of left and opposing through/right
turn PHTM
PHT = Peak Hour Trip
1 Cumulative Impacts - A potentially significant adverse cumulative traffic impact is assumed to occur at any
2 intersection if the project would add:
3 a. One or more PHT to the critical movements at an intersection that is part of the regional road
4 network and which is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS as defined in Table 3.11-5 by
5 the year 2020; or,
6 b. 10 or more PHT to an intersection that is part of the regional road network, which is projected to
7 operate at an unacceptable LOS defined in Table 3.11-5 by the year 2020.
8 All projects that generate traffic contribute to cumulative traffic impacts. The analysis of cumulative traffic
9 impacts, as contained in the Final Subsequent EIR prepared for the County General Plan Update (2005c) and
10 subsequent addendum (2007), would normally be considered sufficient cumulative analysis of traffic impacts.
11 In such cases, payment of TIMFs is intended to mitigate the project’s contribution to cumulative traffic
12 impacts for intersections outside of the Ojai Valley.
13 Ventura County Congestion Management Program
14 The CMP for Ventura County was created as a result of Proposition 111 and has been implemented by the
15 Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). The CMP for Ventura County requires that the traffic
16 impact of individual development projects of potential regional significance be analyzed.
17 Specified arterial roadways plus all freeways comprise the CMP system. This analysis has been conducted
18 according to the guidelines set forth in the current CMP for Ventura County adopted March 2005.
19 In order to create a manageable monitoring program for the freeway and conventional highway portion of the
20 CMP network, it was necessary to identify a reasonable number of specific segments to be monitored. Based on
21 information provided by Caltrans, 33 segments were defined for Ventura County. The segments were based on
22 their relationship to the overall highway and local street system, basic road characteristics, availability of
23 Caltrans traffic count data, and traffic volumes. For example, SR-23 was broken into three segments:
24 A. Los Angeles County Line to Potrero Road;

25 B. US-101 to Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118); and
26 C. High Street to SR-126.
27 Method for Calculating Level of Service
28 For signalized intersections on the CMP road system, the ICU method is used to compare the volume of
29 traffic on the road to its capacity. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is used to measure LOS for
30 highways and intersections without traffic lights.
1 LOS for signalized intersections on the CMP network shall be calculated using the ICU method. LOS on
2 freeway and select road segments will be measured using methods in the HCM. The ICU method, including
3 the types and values of specific variables, is summarized as follows:
4 ICU method - The ICU method includes a number of variables which, depending on the value
5 assigned to each, can have a dramatic effect on the LOS. For CMP monitoring purposes, the
6 following guidelines are to be used in calculating LOS using the ICU method:
7 Phasing/split phasing - Shared left/through lanes will be treated as split phased.
8 Right turn overlap - The overlapping left-turn volume will be subtracted from the right-turn volume
9 and then compared to the through volume to determine the critical move.
10 LOS threshold - LOS will be calculated to two decimal points.
11 Intersection proximity - Each intersection will be analyzed separately.
12 Multiple left-turn lanes - Assume uniform lane distribution.
13 Saturation flow rate - 1,850 vehicles per lane per hour with an adjustment factor of 14 percent to 15
14 percent (the adjustment factor represents a combination of start-up delay, unequal lane distribution,
15 and lost time during clearance. Application of this factor effectively reduces the saturation flow rate
16 to approximately 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour).
17 Traffic Level of Service
18 One of the most important elements of the CMP is to establish traffic LOS standards to decide how much
19 traffic, during the rush hour, is acceptable on the roads. LOS is a way of measuring the amount of traffic
20 congestion on the roads. There are six grades of LOS. Like grades in school - "A" is the best grade, or free-
21 flowing traffic and "F" is failing, or gridlock.
22 As mentioned above, the traffic LOS standards and monitoring included in the CMP are directed toward the
23 "typical" peak commute period (7-9 AM and 4-7 PM). However, there are sometimes events (traffic accidents,
24 mudslides, flooding, etc.) both during and outside the peak periods that create congestion and significant
25 traffic delays. These types of problems are not addressed through the LOS standards and monitoring, but
26 rather through programs such as the roadside call boxes, tow patrols, and changeable message signs (CMS).
27 Adopted Level of Service Standard
28 LOS "E" has been chosen as the minimum system-wide LOS traffic standard in the Ventura County CMP.
29 Those roads with worse traffic congestion when the first CMP was adopted in 1991 have been accepted at
30 their existing traffic level, LOS "F". In this way cities and the county will not be penalized, by losing gas tax
31 funds, for not meeting the CMP LOS "E" standard at locations with a pre-existing problem. The only
32 remaining pre-existing LOS "F" location is the SR-1/Wooley Road/Saviers Road Intersection.
33 The LOS "F" designation at SR-1/Wooley Road is temporary. As improvements are built, and congestion
34 reduced, the designation will be upgraded. It is important to note that improvements are currently being
35 planned that will improve the LOS at this location.
36 There are now two new LOS “F” locations just identified as a result of year 2004 traffic counts: the Harvard
37 Boulevard/SR-150 intersection in Santa Paula; and the Santa Rosa Road/Moorpark Road intersection in the
38 County unincorporated area. These two locations may need to go through the adopted deficiency plan process.

1 In addition to the LOS standards in the CMP, all of the cities and the County have adopted policies to help them
2 maintain their own LOS standards. In most cases, these local policies are aimed at maintaining LOS C or D
3 depending on the Agency. The CMP standards do not replace local policies and allow greater congestion.
4 City of Simi Valley
5 The relative impact of the added project traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project during
6 the AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of existing and future operating conditions at the 15
7 key study locations and three freeway segments without and then with the proposed project.
8 The significance of the potential impacts of the proposed project at each key intersection was evaluated using
9 the traffic impact criteria contained in the City of Simi Valley Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
10 Reports. The procedure for analysis of intersection capacity and LOS is based on the sum of critical lane
11 volumes for signalized intersections. The City’s sum of critical movements criteria and corresponding LOS
12 values and v/c ratios are presented in Table 3.11-6. This capacity analysis procedure was utilized to evaluate
13 the future volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each of the study area
14 intersections. The City of Simi Valley utilizes a saturation flow rate of 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour when
15 calculating the volume-to-capacity ratio for the intersection analysis. According to the City’s traffic impact
16 criteria, project impact occurs when the generated traffic brings an intersection to LOS D or worse and the
17 project trips exceed 50 percent of the remaining capacity at the study intersection.
Table 3.11-6 City of Simi Valley Critical Movements & LOS Values
Level of Volume-to-Capacity Sum of Critical
Service Movements
A .00 - .60 0 to 1.088
B .61 - .70 1.089 to 1.268
C .71 - .80 1.269 to 1.448
D .81 - .90 1.449 to 1.628
E .91 – 1.00 1.629 to 1.800
F Exceeds 1.00 Exceeds 1.800
Source: City of Simi Valley’s Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies
19 Roadways in the project area are within the jurisdiction of three agencies: Caltrans, County of Ventura, and
20 the City of Simi Valley. Therefore, criteria appropriate for each jurisdiction are used to assess impacts within
21 their respective areas. Where there are conflicting criteria, the most conservative criterion is used in the
22 following analyses.
24 A project is considered to have a significant transportation impact if the project would result in exceeding the
25 applicable thresholds as identified by the State of California, the County of Ventura, and the City of Simi
26 Valley as listed below. For the purpose of this study, the more stringent criterion is used for the transportation
27 impact analysis if there is disagreement among the thresholds identified by the State of California, the County
28 of Ventura, and the City of Simi Valley. The relevant analysis thresholds are as follows:
29 TR-1: Under Caltrans Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, the project would have a
30 significant impact if it would cause the LOS of the study freeway or roadway segment to fall below
31 LOS C, or, if already below C, to fall to a lower LOS.
32 TR-2: Under City of Simi Valley TIA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if it would
33 cause the LOS of a study intersection to fall below LOS C and the project trips to exceed 50 percent
34 of the remaining capacity at the study intersection.
1 TR-3: Under the County of Ventura analysis guidelines, the project would have a significant impact if it
2 could potentially add one future PHT to the intersection of Somis Road and SR-118 unless there is a
3 commitment to road improvements that ensure that the impact will be reduced to an acceptable LOS
4 in a reasonable period of time.
6 Depending on the impact, different methodologies are employed in the TIA. For freeways, the analysis
7 focuses on the LOS of the relevant freeway segments. For surface streets, the analysis addresses both
8 intersections and selected roadway segments. The impacts of the project are assessed based on the estimated
9 PHTs generated by project activities placed in the context of the current and projected future levels of traffic
10 without the project. Changes in LOS resulting from increased traffic related to the project are then compared
11 to threshold criteria to determine whether there would be a significant impact.
12 3.11.2.2.1 Traffic Operations Analysis
13 Traffic operations in the vicinity of the project were analyzed using an intersection capacity-based
14 methodology known as the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method for the signalized locations, per
15 County of Ventura standards. At stop-controlled intersections, the HCM methodology for unsignalized
16 locations is used to calculate the average delay and corresponding LOS. Freeway roadway segments were
17 analyzed using the guidelines from the Caltrans Guide for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, State of
18 California, December 2002.
19 In most traffic studies, roadway performance criteria are based on two primary measures. The first is
20 “capacity”, which establishes the vehicle carrying ability of a roadway and the second is “volume.” The
21 volume measure is either a traffic count (in the case of existing volumes) or a forecast for a future point in
22 time. The ratio between the volume and the capacity gives a volume/capacity (V/C) ratio and based on that
23 V/C ratio, a corresponding LOS is defined (Table 3.11-6).
24 The estimated impact is based on specific performance criteria which are outlined in the following
25 paragraphs. The efficiency of traffic operations at a location is measured in terms of LOS. The LOS concept
26 is a measure of average operating conditions at intersections during an hour. It is based on a V/C ratio for
27 signalized locations and delay (in seconds) for stop-controlled intersections. Levels range from A to F with A
28 representing excellent (free-flow) conditions and F representing extreme congestion. The ICU methodology
29 compares the amount of traffic an intersection is able to process (the capacity) to the amount of traffic in the
30 intersection during the peak hours (volume) to derive a LOS.
31 A V/C ratio is calculated to determine the LOS. The HCM method for stop-controlled intersections calculates
32 the average delay, in seconds, per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. The delay for
33 the intersection corresponds to a LOS value which describes the intersection operations. Intersections with
34 vehicular volumes that are at or near capacity experience greater congestion and longer vehicle delays. Table
35 3.11-7 describes the LOS concept and the operating conditions for signalized and stop-controlled
36 intersections.

Table 3.11-7. Intersection Level of Service Definitions

Stop-
Signalized
Controlled
Intersection
Level of Service Description Intersection
Volume to
Delay (seconds
Capacity Ratio
per vehicle)
Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear
A quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly 0.00-0.60 < 10
all drivers find freedom of operation.
Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat
restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable
B flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be >0.60-0.70 >10 and < 15
fully utilized and traffic queues start to form.
Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more
C than 60 seconds, and back-ups may develop behind turning >0.70-0.80 >15 and < 25
vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.
Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more

D than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long- >0.80-0.90 >25 and < 35
standing traffic queues.
Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues

E develop on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may >0.90-1.00 >35 and < 50
be up to several minutes.
Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups form
locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or
F prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection > 1.00 > 50
approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not
predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow.
Source: HCM 2000, Transportation Research Board , Washington, D.C., 20040.
Notes: LOS for signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections. Signalized locations are defined in terms of ICU. (Stop
controlled locations are defined in terms of seconds of control delay as seen above.
1 3.11.2.2.2 Truck Trip Estimates
2 The first step in analyzing Existing with project traffic conditions is to estimate the number of new trips
3 expected to be generated by the proposed project. This section describes the estimation methods used to
4 estimate the of future traffic generation of the proposed project.
5 Future truck traffic associated with landfill receipts was estimated based on actual trucks recorded at the
6 landfill in the first quarter of 2008 (January through March). Actual total truck trips for the quarter were
7 allocated to an average day by observing that Saturdays typically received 60 percent of the average volume
8 on weekdays. The one Sunday a month the facility is open to the public was ignored as being unrepresentative
9 of actual truck trip generation since virtually all Sunday trips are much smaller household loads and do not
10 occur during weekday traffic periods.
11 Based on the average tons per day received during the first quarter of 2008 and the numbers of trucks
12 associated with each type of waste (municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris, clean dirt,
13 greenwaste, and auto shredder waste representing alternative daily cover) and total tonnage by type, an
14 average truck load was calculated for each waste type for wastes from within Ventura County and wastes
15 from outside the County. The average tons per load differ for waste originating in Ventura County versus
16 waste from outside the County with the average load associated with in-county waste being smaller than those
17 from out-of-county. This can readily be explained by the fact that in-county hauls involve more smaller waste
18 packer trucks delivering waste directly to the landfill whereas out-of-county hauls involve a larger fraction of
19 transfer trucks which have roughly twice or more the capacity of the smaller packer trucks.

1 Using California Department of Finance (CDF) population projections for Ventura County, actual average
2 daily receipts for the first quarter 2008 were projected forward to future years. Based on CDF data, Ventura
3 County waste receipts in all waste types were inflated at a growth rate of 1.7 percent per year to the year 2020
4 and by 1.05 percent per year thereafter based on a projected flattening of the population growth curve in the
5 CDF projections. In the first quarter of 2008, average Ventura County waste represented 1,276 tons per day
6 out of average total receipts of 3,681 tons per day. For future years, the projected Ventura County waste
7 tonnage was deducted from the proposed project’s assumed 9,250 tpd permitted level (6,000 tpd of MSW and
8 3,250 tpd of recyclable or beneficially used materials) to determine the tonnages received from out-of-county
9 sources. Assuming that the maximum tons per day would be received in the future, the balance of the
10 available receipts that would not be used by the projected Ventura County tonnages was allocated to all other
11 sources. Total truck trips were then calculated based on the average tonnage per truck, by waste type and
12 source location (i.e. in-county vs. out-of-county), received in the first quarter of 2008.
13 Average daily truck trips for the first quarter of 2008 were 501vehicles per day. Based on the above projection
14 methodology, future daily trips related solely to landfill operations (that is, not to commuter trips) were
15 calculated to be 1,173 trips per day. This is larger than the 892 trucks per day projected in Waste
16 Management’s application for the proposed project and, therefore, considerably more conservative. The
17 reason for the difference appears to be that the projections in the application assumed a higher tonnage per
18 truck for future truck trips than the above methodology used. However, for the purposes of estimating
19 potential future impacts, the more conservative methodology described above which results in a larger
20 number of truck trips is considered appropriate for a reasonable worst case analysis and is therefore the basis
21 for the following analyses.
23 The Existing with project peak hour volumes were derived from the number of new trips generated by the
24 project added to existing intersection volumes identified in the previous section. The trip generation for the
25 proposed project was calculated using the existing SVLRC trip rates and accounting for the projected growth
26 in waste tonnage and associated truck trips from the SVLRC expansion.
27 Project Trip Generation
28 In addition to the truck trips described in Section 3.11.2.2.2 , the proposed project also includes the relocation of
29 the recycling operations from the existing waste-hauling site at 195 W. Los Angeles Avenue to the SVLRC, and
30 expanding the landfill municipal solid waste capacity entitlement by 3,000 tpd beyond the current entitlement.
31 The derivation of the proposed project trip generation is described in the following sections.
32 Waste Hauling Yard
33 The existing recyclable/waste hauling operations at the existing yard, located at 195 W. Los Angeles Avenue,
34 will be relocated to the SVLRC as part of the proposed expansion of the proposed project.
35 The waste-hauling yard is the staging area for the waste collection operations. Trucks from this site typically
36 leave early in the morning and collect waste and recyclables from designated service zones. The collected
37 waste is deposited at the landfill and the recyclables are deposited at the refuse hauling facility. At the end of
38 the day, the trucks return to this site. Trucks may make more than one round trip per day.
39 Employees arrive at this site at 5:00 AM to begin the workday and leave at 5:00 PM at the end of the workday.
40 AM and PM peak hour counts at the entrance to the waste hauling yard were conducted by Wiltec in December
41 of 2008. Truck values were adjusted to Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) for this analysis using a PCE factor
42 of 2.0 (that is, one truck equals two PCEs). Table 3.11-8 summarizes the adjusted AM and PM PHTs
43 generation for this site.
Table 3.11-8. Waste Hauling Yard Existing Trip

Generation (PCE)
In Out Total In Out Total
Autos 2 9 11 4 26 30
Trucks 8 110 118 26 4 30
Total 10 119 129 30 30 60
1 A typical trip for a waste hauling vehicle begins with the truck leaving the site, collecting waste and/or
2 recyclables from a collection zone, depositing waste at the landfill, returning to the waste hauling yard with
3 recyclables, or making another collection trip. Hence, many outbound trips from the waste-hauling yard are
4 inbound trips to the SVLRC throughout the day. Conversely, many inbound trips to the waste-hauling yard
5 (after 7:00 AM) are outbound trips from the SVLRC returning from collection zones.
6 The TIA analyzes the AM and PM peak hours for levels of service and impacts from traffic during these two
7 periods. The proposed project will relocate the recyclable operations from the waste-hauling yard to the
8 SVLRC. No adjustment to the AM and PM peak hour volumes is necessary for the relocated trips because the
9 AM and PM peak hour volumes associated with the recycling operations are already included in the existing
10 volumes observed at the SVLRC.
11 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center
12 The current weekday hours of operation for the SVLRC are from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. For analysis purposes,
13 it was assumed that the hours of operation for the landfill would be from 7 AM to 7 PM on weekdays to extend
14 later operations into evening rush hour. AM and PM peak hour counts at the entrance to the SVLRC were
15 conducted by Wiltec in December of 2008 and summarized in Table 3.11-9. Truck values were adjusted to
16 Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) for this analysis using a PCE factor of 2.0 (that is, one truck is equal to two
17 passenger vehicles).
Table 3.11-9. Landfill Existing Trip Generation (PCE)

AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour
Autos 30 24 54 5 13 18
Trucks 88 74 162 6 24 30
Total 118 98 216 11 37 48
18 The existing count data (Appendix I) provides information on the number of vehicles entering and exiting the
19 site during the AM and PM peak hours. The proposed expansion is forecast to increase the number of truck
20 trips from 501 to 1,173 daily inbound trips at Year 2050 for an overall increase of 134 percent as shown in
21 Table 3.11-10. For this analysis, the number of additional peak hour truck trips generated by the expansion
22 was derived from the existing truck trips by increasing them by 134 percent.
Table 3.11-10. Landfill Existing & Future Truck Trips

Existing 2008 Buildout 2050
Inbound Trucks 501 1,173
Difference - 672
% Difference 134%
Truck Trips (PCE)
Existing 2008 88 74 162 6 24 30
Buildout 2050 118 99 217 8 32 40
Total at Buildout 206 173 379 14 56 70

1 Total Project Trip Generation
2 The total project trip generation consists of the existing auto and trucks trips at the SVLRC, the projected
3 additional truck trips generated by the proposed project, and the relocation of the existing auto and truck trips
4 at the recycling/waste hauling yard. The relocation of the hauling yard requires that all auto and truck trips be
5 shifted to the SVLRC and be counted as part of the landfill trip generation during buildout.
6 The existing AM and PM peak hour counts show that the SVLRC is currently generating 54 AM and 18 PM
7 peak hour auto trips, and 162 AM and 30 PM peak hour PCE truck trips for a total of 216 AM peak hour PCE
8 trips and 48 PM peak hour PCE trips. The proposed project is forecast to generate an additional 217 AM and
9 40 PM peak hour PCE truck trips at the project site at buildout. The relocation of the recyclable/waste hauling
10 yard to the SVLRC will add 11 AM and 30 PM peak hour auto trips, and 118 AM and 30 PM peak hour PCE
11 truck trips to the project site. The total new trips from the proposed expansion is 562 AM peak hour PCE trips
12 (246 inbound and 316 outbound) and 148 PM peak hour PCE trips (49 inbound and 99 outbound). Table 3.11-
13 11 provides a summary of the total project trip generation.
Table 3.11-11. Total Project Trip Generation

Autos Only Trucks Only (PCE) Total Vehicles
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Landfill 30 24 54 5 13 18 88 74 162 6 24 30 118 98 216 11 37 48
New Proposed
Landfill - - - - - - 118 99 217 8 32 40 118 99 217 8 32 40
Expansion
Relocated Waste
2 9 11 4 26 30 8 110 118 26 4 30 10 119 129 30 30 60
Hauling Yard
Total 32 33 65 9 39 48 214 283 497 40 60 100 246 316 562 49 99 148
14 Trip Distribution and Assignment
15 Trip distribution assumptions are used to determine the origin and destination of the new vehicle trips
16 associated with the project trucks. Project trip distribution is based on the assumed origin and destination of
17 new truck trips as noted in Table 3.11-11 and shown in Figure 3.11-6. The new truck trips associated with the
18 expansion of the SVLRC are assumed in this analysis to be 10 percent local (within the City of Simi Valley)
19 and 90 percent from other regions via the SR-118 Freeway. The non-local trips are directed to/from the west
20 and east via SR-118 with 54 percent from the west and 36 percent from the east. The description of the waste
21 collection zones are included in Appendix I.
22 These new trips generated by the project are then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the
23 distribution shown in Figure 3.11-6 to estimate the project-related peak-hour traffic at each of the study
24 intersections. Figure 3.11-7 illustrates the project only trips assigned to the surrounding roadway network
25 during the AM and PM peak hours.
26 Existing With Project Level of Service
27 The Existing with project conditions were analyzed and account for the reassigned trips from the relocation of
28 the recycling center and the new trips associated with the expansion of the landfill.
29 Figure 3.11-8 illustrates the Existing With Project peak hour traffic volumes at study area intersections. A
30 LOS analysis was conducted to evaluate projected intersection operations. Table 3.11-12 shows the Existing
31 and Existing With Project peak hour intersection LOS summary. The results indicate that all of the study
32 intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS under the Existing With Project scenario for both
33 the AM and PM peak hours. The LOS analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix I.

54%
d
nR
*
yo
an
C
ea
Br
1
Ph
ac
e to
n
Vie
36%
w lin
e Dr
W
es 3
ve th
ngeles A ill 4
W Los A s
Ct 5
WC Enchante
och d Wy 11 Simi Town Center Wy
ra nS 6
t
2 7
* 12
W
Ea
sy 13
St Cochran St
8
1st St
Erringer Rd
N Madera Rd EE
St
14
E Los Angeles Ave

9 15
Madera Rd
LEGEND 10%*
*
1
Project Site
Count Locations Royal Ave
XX% 10
Regional Distribution N
XX%* Local Distribution
(within Simi Valley)
Figure 3.11-6. Project Trip Distribution

218 (62)
99 (28)
1 (0)
1 (0)
74 (22)
100 (29) 1 (0)

128 (38)
2 (1)
54 (16)
74 (22)
74 (22)
118 (33) 99 (28)

SR-118 EB Ramps Cochran St Easy St Tierra Rejada Rd / Los Angeles Ave Royal Ave
92 (26)
8 (2)
1 (0)
7 (2)
2 (1)
4 (1)
2 (1)
2 (1)
2 (1)
69 (21) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0)
4 (1)
4 (1)
3 (1)
1 (0)
1 (0)
Enchanted Wy / SR-118 WB Ramp SR-118 EB Ramps Cochran St Easy St E Los Angeles Ave
9 (2)
1 (0)
2 (1)
7 (2)
2 (1)
4 (1)
2 (1)
1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0)
2 (1)
2 (1)
5 (2)
6 (2)
6 (2)
4 (1)
3 (1)
11 (3)
Rd
*
on
ny
Ca
ea
Br
1
Ph
ac
et
on
Vie
wli
ne
Dr
W
es 3
e th
geles Av 4
W Los An i ll
s
Ct 5
WC Enchanted
ra nS 6
t
2 7
* 12
W
Ea
sy 13
St Cochran St
8
1st St
Erringer Rd
N Madera Rd
EE
St
14
LEGEND 9
E Los Angeles Ave
15
1 Study Intersection
N
Madera Rd
XX(XX) AM (PM) Peak Hour

Project Trips
Royal Ave
10
Figure 3.11-7. Project Trip Assignment

1013 (1658)
121 (411)
316 (99)
46 (785)
7 (151)
124 (26)
155 (455) 609 (44)
132 (42) 5 (0)

246 (49)
232 (160)
90 (19)
855 (835)
276 (323)
1004 (76)
662 (354)
135 (48) 986 (873)
AM LOS 0.0s D E
PM LOS 0.0s D E
AM LOS 0.0s D E
PM LOS 0.0s D E
AM LOS 0.46 D E
PM LOS 0.42 D E
AM LOS 0.38 D E
PM LOS 0.46 D E
AM LOS 0.0s D E
PM LOS 0.0s D E
n/a n/a n/a n/a A A A A n/a n/a

A A A A A A A A A A

873 (1004)
813 (1305)
133 (605)
746 (762)
257 (348)
123 (324)
182 (262)
559 (864)
758 (941)
179 (360)
161 (111)
73 (335)
74 (25)
188 (228) 33 (114) 207 (275) 185 (158)
5 (21)
90 (173) 48 (70) 478 (663) 32 (27)
245 (345) 42 (167) 320 (200) 861 (494)
271 (31) 93 (369) 95 (272) 402 (436) 19 (20)

387 (326)
777 (1182)
291 (469)
148 (232)
880 (895)
136 (93)
1184 (1238)
168 (74)
157 (183)
851 (707)
196 (318)
2 (7)
878 (1039)
497 (990)
260 (440) 37 (236) 42 (82) 391 (619) 66 (28)
55 (324) 83 (166) 128 (222) 8 (9)
AM LOS 0.26 D E
PM LOS 0.31 D E
AM LOS 0.33 D E
PM LOS 0.48 D E
AM LOS 0.36 D E
PM LOS 0.48 D E
AM LOS 0.57 D E
PM LOS 0.76 D E
AM LOS 0.40 D E
PM LOS 0.66 D E
A A A A A A A C A B
A A A A A A A A A A
893 (1085)
768 (1044)
892 (1379)
174 (180)
286 (104)
166 (585)
269 (446)
507 (816)
130 (321)
117 (178)
49 (199)
57 (110)
19 (18)
91 (96) 142 (82) 118 (185) 217 (239)

126 (35) 301 (250) 50 (28) 747 (813)
798 (783) 241 (258) 12 (44) 171 (292)
1 (15) 145 (216) 72 (235) 83 (315) 446 (455)

149 (64)
179 (519)
270 (171)
458 (544)
629 (701)
142 (175)
883 (908)
172 (280)
202 (95)
1215 (966)
64 (97)
210 (117)
816 (458)
233 (281)
94 (267) 173 (190) 159 (504) 9 (77) 739 (841)
75 (258) 63 (271) 83 (113)
AM LOS 0.34 D E
PM LOS 0.40 D E
AM LOS 0.34 D E
PM LOS 0.42 D E
AM LOS 0.29 D E
PM LOS 0.45 D E
AM LOS 0.47 D E
PM LOS 0.64 D E
AM LOS 0.48 D E
PM LOS 0.61 D E
A A A A A A A B A B
A A A A A A A A A A
Rd
*
on
ny
Ca
ea
Br
1
Ph
ac
et
on
Vie
wli
ne
Dr
W
es 3
les Ave th
4
W Los Ange i ll
s
Ct 5
WC Enchanted
ra nS 6
t
2 7
LEGEND * 12
W
Ea 13
Study Intersection
sy
1 St Cochran St
8
1st St
Erringer Rd

N Madera Rd
EE
AM LOS 0.429
D E
Peak Hr V/C or Del/Veh (seconds) Tierra Rejada Rd asy
St
14
A B C
A Level of Service (LOS) 9
E Los Angeles Ave
15
LOS A through D
LOS E N
Madera Rd
Los F
Royal Ave
10
Figure 3.11-8. Existing with Project Peak Hour Volumes & Level-of-Service
Table 3.11-12. Existing With Project Peak Hour Level of Service Summary
Existing Existing With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection V/C
V/C or V/C or V/C or Δ V/C Sig Impact Δ V/C or Sig Impact
LOS or LOS LOS LOS
Delay Delay Delay or Del/Veh Yes/No Del/Veh Yes/No
Delay
#1 Phaceton at Simi Valley Landfill Entrance * n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
11.6 12.9
#2 W Los Angeles Ave. / W Easy St. (unsignalized) - B B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
sec sec
#3 View Line Dr. / SR-118 WB Ramps A 0.32 A 0.38 A 0.46 A 0.42 0.10 No 0.04 No
#4 Madera Rd. / View Line Dr. A 0.38 A 0.45 A 0.38 A 0.46 0.00 No 0.01 No
#5 Madera Rd. / SR-118 WB Off-Ramp
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
(unsignalized) +
#6 Madera Rd. / SR-EB Ramps A 0.25 A 0.31 A 0.26 A 0.31 0.01 No 0.00 No
#7 Madera Rd. / Cochran St. A 0.33 A 0.48 A 0.33 A 0.48 0.00 No 0.00 No
#8 Madera Rd. / Easy St. A 0.36 A 0.48 A 0.36 A 0.48 0.00 No 0.00 No
#9 Madera Rd. / Tierra Rejada Rd. / E Los Angeles Ave. A 0.57 C 0.76 A 0.57 C 0.76 0.00 No 0.00 No
#10 Madera Rd. / Royal Ave. A 0.40 B 0.66 A 0.40 B 0.66 0.00 No 0.00 No
#11 1st St. / Enchanted Wy. / SR-118 WB Ramps A 0.34 A 0.40 A 0.34 A 0.40 0.00 No 0.00 No
#12 1st St. / SR-118 EB Ramps A 0.34 A 0.42 A 0.34 A 0.42 0.00 No 0.00 No
#13 1st St. / Cochran St. A 0.29 A 0.45 A 0.29 A 0.45 0.00 No 0.00 No
#14 1st St. / Easy St. A 0.47 B 0.64 A 0.47 B 0.64 0.00 No 0.00 No
#15 1st St. / E Los Angeles Ave. A 0.47 B 0.61 A 0.48 B 0.61 0.01 No 0.00 No
Notes: v/c ratios are rounded to the closest two decimal places
- Existing Recycling Center driveway, relocated with proposed project

1 Existing and Existing With Project Scenarios-Freeway Segments
2 Existing (2008) peak hour and annual average daily volumes along SR-118 from Caltrans were used for the
3 Existing freeway segment analysis. The Existing With Project conditions were derived by adding the project
4 volumes to the existing freeway volumes. According to the Caltrans TIA guidelines, all of the study freeway
5 segments are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS D during the existing AM peak hour, and the
6 segments on SR-118 between Collins Drive and Madera Road, and First Street and Erringer Road are
7 currently operating at an unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour. The freeway segments are projected
8 to continue operate at the same LOS during the Existing With Project scenario. Table 3.11-13 summarizes the
9 HCM analysis results for the freeway segments in the study area under Existing and Existing With Project
10 conditions.
Table 3.11-13. Existing Freeway Segment Peak Hour Los Summary

Without Proposed Project With Proposed Project
Freeway No. of Peak Hr/ Average Average
Density Flow Rate Density Flow Rate
Segment Lanes Direction Speed Vol. LOS Speed Vol. LOS
(pc/mi/ln) (pc/hr/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/hr/ln)
(mph) (mph)
SR-118 - 2 AM/EB 62.4 3,491 31.1 1,939 D 61.8 3,560 32.0 1,978 D
Collins to
2 PM/WB 62.2 3,512 31.4 1,951 D 61.9 3,545 31.8 1,969 D
Madera
SR-118 - 4 AM/WB 65.0 4,761 20.4 1,323 C 65.0 4,815 20.6 1,338 C
Madera to
3 PM/EB 63.2 4,786 27.7 1,773 D 64.0 4,812 27.8 1,782 D
First
SR-118 - 3 AM/WB 62.2 5,263 31.3 1,949 D 62.0 5,309 31.7 1,966 D
First to
3 PM/EB 62.1 5,290 31.5 1,959 D 62.0 5,312 31.7 1,967 D
Erringer
11 Future With Project Level of Service
12 The Future Without Project conditions were analyzed based on model output intersection volumes from the
13 General Plan Buildout 2030 of City of Simi Valley Travel Demand Forecasting Model which is based on the
14 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Travel Demand Model.
15 Figure 3.11-9 and Figure 3.11-10 illustrate the Future Without Project and Future With Project peak hour
16 traffic volumes at the study area intersections. A LOS analysis was conducted to evaluate projected
17 intersection operations. According to the City of Simi Valley Traffic Study Guidelines, LOS C is considered
18 to be the lowest acceptable LOS. The Future Without Project and Future With Project conditions were
19 analyzed according to the City of Simi Valley’s traffic study guidelines, with a saturation flow rate of 1,800
20 vehicles per lane per hour. Table 3.11-14 shows the Future Without Project and Future With Project peak
21 hour intersection LOS summary.
22 Existing and Existing With Project Scenarios-Roadway Segments
23 Existing (2008) peak hour traffic counts were used for the Existing roadway segment analysis. The Existing
24 With Project conditions were derived by adding the project volumes to the Existing roadway volumes.
25 According to the Caltrans TIA guidelines, for the Existing scenario, all the study segments along Madera
26 Road and First Street are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during the peak hour. All the study
27 roadway segments are projected to continue to operate at the same LOS during the Future With Project
28 scenario. Table 3.11.15 summarizes the HCS analysis results for the roadway segments in the study area
29 under Existing and Existing With Project conditions.
30

1922 (3041)
562 (1761)
459 (833)
118 (550)
98 (37)
0 (10)
18 (3) 120 (100)
101 (27) 448 (920) 1201 (288)
40 (100) 180 (100)

118 (11)
870 (460)
10 (20)
50 (50)
1450 (1450)
410 (670)
2855 (944)
2064 (1326)
20 (70) 1360 (1280)
AM LOS 0.0s D E
PM LOS 0.0s D E
AM LOS 53.6s D E
PM LOS 28.0s D E
AM LOS 0.59 D E
PM LOS 0.78 D E
AM LOS 0.79 D E
PM LOS 0.68 D E
AM LOS 0.0s D E
PM LOS 0.0s D E
n/a n/a F D A C C B n/a n/a

A A A A A A A A A A

1380 (1742)
1414 (1736)
1248 (2219)
1250 (1970)
1182 (2193)
160 (860)
390 (400)
146 (436)
350 (190)
226 (150)
270 (500)
246 (576)
120 (450)
20 (60)
290 (339) 100 (220) 399 (288) 200 (270)
560 (500) 170 (100) 690 (620) 40 (60)
380 (430) 100 (250) 500 (680) 1100 (1170)
798 (205) 140 (330) 250 (350) 560 (420) 40 (40)

1266 (1121)
1120 (1350)
430 (230)
1640 (1502)
290 (480)
360 (190)
1948 (1580)
320 (150)
250 (250)
1289 (1520)
350 (770)
10 (35)
2010 (1420)
590 (1150)
580 (370) 120 (510) 160 (140) 630 (750) 100 (50)
150 (540) 150 (370) 230 (350) 10 (10)
AM LOS 0.51 D E
PM LOS 0.43 D E
AM LOS 0.58 D E
PM LOS 0.80 D E
AM LOS 0.75 D E
PM LOS 0.79 D E
AM LOS 0.62 D E
PM LOS 0.80 D E
AM LOS 0.65 D E
PM LOS 0.78 D E
A A A D C C B D B C
A A A A A A A A A A
1296 (1865)
1197 (1634)
768 (1349)
600 (1510)
820 (2450)
293 (200)
340 (790)
220 (183)
120 (280)
200 (550)
460 (110)
74 (308)
90 (20)
180 (285) 257 (163) 100 (200) 450 (340)

160 (180) 630 (580) 50 (30) 1100 (1290)
1010 (1000) 380 (490) 20 (90) 200 (320)
10 (110) 318 (458) 120 (407) 110 (510) 700 (700)

300 (150)
400 (1273)
470 (400)
879 (1396)
980 (1080)
320 (210)
1524 (1995)
340 (310)
210 (100)
2120 (1270)
70 (140)
240 (150)
1190 (540)
270 (370)
140 (300) 480 (490) 400 (740) 30 (90) 980 (1240)
180 (500) 60 (400) 130 (150)
AM LOS 0.60 D E
PM LOS 0.67 D E
AM LOS 0.60 D E
PM LOS 0.73 D E
AM LOS 0.56 D E
PM LOS 0.78 D E
AM LOS 0.54 D E
PM LOS 0.80 D E
AM LOS 0.67 D E
PM LOS 0.80 D E
A B A C A C A D B C
A A A A A A A A A A
Rd
*
on
ny
Ca
ea
Br
1
Ph
ac
et
on
Vie
wli
ne
Dr
W
es 3
e th
geles Av 4
W Los An i ll
s
Ct 5
WC Enchanted
ra nS 6
t
2 7
LEGEND * 12
W
Ea 13
1 Study Intersection sy
St
8 Cochran St
1st St
Erringer Rd

N Madera Rd
EE
AM LOS 0.429
D E
St
14
A B C
A Level of Service (LOS) E Los Angeles Ave
9 15
LOS A through D
LOS E N
Madera Rd
Los F
Royal Ave
10
Figure 3.11-9. Future without Project Peak Hour Volumes & Level-of-Service
2021 (3069)
562 (1761)
460 (833)
119 (550)
316 (99)
194 (122)
448 (920) 1201 (288)
140 (129) 181 (100)

246 (49)
872 (461)
104 (66)
1450 (1450)
484 (692)
2855 (944)
2138 (1348)
138 (103) 1459 (1308)
AM LOS 0.0s D E
PM LOS 0.0s D E
AM LOS 0.0s D E
PM LOS 0.0s D E
AM LOS 0.74 D E
PM LOS 0.82 D E
AM LOS 0.80 D E
PM LOS 0.69 D E
AM LOS 0.0s D E
PM LOS 0.0s D E
n/a n/a n/a n/a C D C B n/a n/a

A A A A A A A A A A

1388 (1744)
1421 (1738)
1252 (2220)
1252 (1971)
1184 (2194)
252 (886)
391 (400)
146 (436)
352 (191)
226 (150)
272 (501)
246 (576)
120 (450)
20 (60)
290 (339) 100 (220) 399 (288) 200 (270)
560 (500) 170 (100) 690 (620) 40 (60)
380 (430) 100 (250) 500 (680) 1100 (1170)
867 (226) 141 (330) 251 (350) 561 (420) 40 (40)

1270 (1122)
1120 (1350)
290 (480)
320 (150)
250 (250)
430 (230)
1644 (1503)
360 (190)
1951 (1581)
1290 (1520)
350 (770)
10 (35)
2011 (1420)
590 (1150)
580 (370) 120 (510) 160 (140) 630 (750) 100 (50)
150 (540) 150 (370) 230 (350) 10 (10)
AM LOS 0.53 D E
PM LOS 0.43 D E
AM LOS 0.58 D E
PM LOS 0.80 D E
AM LOS 0.76 D E
PM LOS 0.79 D E
AM LOS 0.62 D E
PM LOS 0.80 D E
AM LOS 0.65 D E
PM LOS 0.78 D E
A A A D C C B D B C
A A A A A A A A A A
1305 (1867)
1197 (1634)
769 (1349)
827 (2452)
604 (1511)
293 (200)
340 (790)
222 (184)
122 (281)
202 (551)
460 (110)
74 (308)
90 (20)
180 (285) 258 (163) 101 (200) 451 (340)

160 (180) 630 (580) 50 (30) 1100 (1290)
1010 (1000) 380 (490) 20 (90) 200 (320)
10 (110) 320 (459) 120 (407) 110 (510) 700 (700)

300 (150)
402 (1274)
476 (402)
885 (1398)
1529 (1997)
980 (1080)
320 (210)
340 (310)
210 (100)
2124 (1271)
70 (140)
240 (150)
1193 (541)
270 (370)
140 (300) 491 (493) 400 (740) 30 (90) 980 (1240)
180 (500) 60 (400) 130 (150)
AM LOS 0.60 D E
PM LOS 0.67 D E
AM LOS 0.61 D E
PM LOS 0.73 D E
AM LOS 0.56 D E
PM LOS 0.78 D E
AM LOS 0.54 D E
PM LOS 0.80 D E
AM LOS 0.68 D E
PM LOS 0.80 D E
A B B C A C A D B C
A A A A A A A A A A
d
nR
*
ny o
Ca
ea
Br
1
Ph
ac
et
on
Vie
wli
ne
Dr
W
es 3
les Ave th
4
W Los Ange i ll
s
Ct 5
WC Enchanted
ra nS 6
t
2 7
LEGEND * 12
W
Ea 13
Study Intersection
sy
1 St Cochran St
8
1st St
Erringer Rd

N Madera Rd
EE
AM LOS 0.429
D E
St
14
A B C
A Level of Service (LOS) 9
E Los Angeles Ave
15
LOS A through D
LOS E N
Madera Rd
Los F
Royal Ave
10
Figure 3.11-10. Future with Project Peak Hour Volumes & Level-of-Service
Table 3.11-14. Future With Project Peak Hour Level of Service Summary
Future Without Project Future With Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Hour Hour Hour Hour
V/C Δ V/C Sig
V/C or V/C or V/C or Δ V/C or Sig Impact
LOS Delay LOS or LOS Delay LOS Delay or Impact Del/Veh Yes/No
Delay Del/Veh Yes/No
#1 Phaceton at Simi Valley Landfill Entrance * n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
53.6s 28.0s
#2 W Los Angeles Ave. / W Easy St. (unsignalized) - F ec D ec n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
#3 View Line Dr. / SR-118 WB Ramps A 0.44 A 0.50 A 0.56 A 0.53 0.12 No 0.03 No
#4 Madera Rd. / View Line Dr. C 0.79 B 0.68 C 0.80 B 0.69 0.01 No 0.01 No
#5 Madera Rd. / SR-118 WB Off-Ramp (unsignalized) + n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
#6 Madera Rd. / SR-EB Ramps A 0.51 A 0.43 A 0.53 A 0.43 0.02 No 0.00 No
#7 Madera Rd. / Cochran St. A 0.58 D 0.80 A 0.58 D 0.80 0.00 No 0.00 No
#8 Madera Rd. / Easy St. C 0.75 C 0.79 C 0.76 C 0.79 0.01 No 0.00 No
#9 Madera Rd. / Tierra Rejada Rd. / E Los Angeles Ave. B 0.62 D 0.80 B 0.62 D 0.80 0.00 No 0.00 No
#10 Madera Rd. / Royal Ave. B 0.65 C 0.78 B 0.65 C 0.78 0.00 No 0.00 No
#11 1st St. / Enchanted Wy. / SR-118 WB Ramps A 0.60 B 0.67 A 0.60 B 0.67 0.00 No 0.00 No
#12 1st St. / SR-118 EB Ramps A 0.60 C 0.73 B 0.61 C 0.73 0.01 No 0.00 No
#13 1st St. / Cochran St. A 0.56 C 0.78 A 0.56 C 0.78 0.00 No 0.00 No
#14 1st St. / Easy St. A 0.54 D 0.80 A 0.54 D 0.80 0.00 No 0.00 No
#15 1st St. / E Los Angeles Ave. B 0.67 C 0.80 B 0.68 C 0.80 0.01 No 0.00 No
Notes: v/c ratios are rounded to the closest two decimal places
- Existing Recycling Center driveway, relocated with proposed project

Table 3.11-15. Existing Roadway Segment Peak Hour Los Summary

Ave. Ave.
Peak Hr/ No. of Travel Travel
Roadway Segment Class Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS
Direction Lanes Speed Speed
(mi/hr) (mi/hr)
Madera Btw SR-118 & I PM/NB 3 1,627 13.1 0.40 F 1,629 13.1 0.40 F
Road Easy St
Btw Easy St
& Tierra Rejada
Rd/Los Angeles I PM/SB 3 1,648 18.1 0.42 E 1,649 18.0 0.42 E
Ave
Btw Tierra
Rejada Rd/Los I PM/SB 3 1,327 19.2 0.41 E 1,327 19.2 0.41 E
Angeles Ave &
Royal Ave
South of Royal
Ave I PM/NB 3 2,052 26.7 0.46 D 2,053 26.7 0.46 D
First Btw SR-118 & I PM/SB 3 1,339 9.1 0.45 F 1,342 9.1 0.46 F
Street Cochran St
Btw Cochran St
& Los Angeles I PM/SB 3 1,665 18.1 0.60 E 1,667 18.1 0.60 E
Ave
Tierra Btw SR-23
Rejada Ramps & I PM/EB 2 1,287 42.4 0.40 A 1,277 42.4 0.40 A
Road Madera Rd
Btw Madera Rd
I PM/EB 3 1,415 30.3 0.37 C 1,415 30.3 0.37 C
& 1st St
East of 1st Street I PM/EB 3 1,452 30.3 0.38 C 1,453 30.3 0.38 C
1 Future and Future With Project Scenarios-Freeway Segments
2 Future peak hour and annual average daily volumes along SR-118 from the City of Simi Valley Travel
3 Demand Forecasting Model were used for the Future freeway segment analysis. The Future With Project
4 conditions were derived by adding the project volumes to the Future Without Project freeway volumes.
5 According to the Caltrans TIA guidelines, for the Future Without Project scenario, all of the study freeway
6 segments are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM peak hour, and two of the three study
7 freeway segments are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during the PM peak hour. The freeway
8 segment on SR-118 between Collins Drive and Madera Road is projected to operate at LOS E during both the
9 AM and PM peak hours. The freeway segment on SR-118 between Madera Road and First Street is projected
10 to operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. The freeway segment on
11 SR-118 between First Street and Erringer Road is projected to operate at LOS D during both the AM and PM
12 peak hours. All the study freeway segments are projected to continue to operate at the same LOS during the
13 Future With Project scenario. Table 3.11.16 summarizes the HCM analysis results for the freeway segments
14 in the study area under Future and Future With Project conditions.

Table 3.11-16. Future Freeway Segment Peak Hour Los Summary

Freeway No. of Peak Hr/ Average Average
Density Flow Rate Density Flow Rate
Segment Lanes Direction Speed Vol. LOS Speed Vol. LOS
(pc/mi/ln) (pc/hr/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/hr/ln)
(mph) (mph)
SR-118 - 3 AM/EB 56.6 5,985 39.2 2,217 E 55.8 6,054 40.2 2,242 E
Collins to
3 PM/WB 56.2 6,020 39.7 2,230 E 55.8 6,053 40.2 2,242 E
Madera
SR-118 - AM/W
5 65.0 6,917 23.7 1,537 C 65.0 6,971 23.8 1,549 C
Madera to B
First 4 PM/EB 62.5 6,952 30.9 1,931 D 62.4 6,978 31.1 1,938 D
SR-118 - AM/W
4 63.0 6,816 30.1 1,893 D 62.8 6,862 30.3 1,906 D
First to B
Erringer 4 PM/EB 62.9 6,852 30.3 1,903 D 62.8 6,874 30.4 1,909 D
1 Future and Future With Project Scenarios-Roadway Segments
3 Future local roadway segment analysis. The Future With Project conditions were derived by adding the
4 project volumes to the Future Without Project roadway volumes. The Caltrans acceptable threshold for
5 roadway segments is more conservative than the threshold used by the City of Simi Valley. Therefore, the
6 Caltrans threshold for roadway segments is used in this analysis to identify impacts from the addition of
7 project traffic. According to the Caltrans TIA guidelines, for the Future Without Project scenario, all the study
8 segments along Madera Road and First Street are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during the peak
9 hour. All the study roadway segments are projected to continue to operate at the same unacceptable LOS
10 during the Future With Project scenario. However, the contribution of project traffic does not result in an
11 impact that is considered significant a reduction in LOS. Table 3.11.17 summarizes the HCS analysis results
12 for the roadway segments in the study area under Future and Future With Project conditions.
Table 3.11-17. Future Roadway Segment Peak Hour LOS Summary

Ave. Ave.
Peak Hr/ No. of Travel Travel
Roadway Segment Class Direction Lanes Vol. Speed V/C LOS Vol. Speed V/C LOS
(mi/hr) (mi/hr)
Madera Btw SR-118 & I PM/SB 3 2,728 7.4 1.03 F 2,730 7.4 1.03 F
Road Easy St
Btw Easy St
Madera & Tierra Rejada I PM/SB 3 3,274 14.5 0.95 F 3,276 14.5 0.96 F
Road Rd/Los Angeles
Ave
Btw Tierra
Madera Rejada Rd/Los I PM/SB 3 3,223 8.5 1.11 F 3,224 8.5 1.11 F
Road Angeles Ave &
Royal Ave
Madera South of Royal I PM/SB 3 3,172 15.0 1.09 F 3,172 15 1.09 F
Road Ave
First Btw SR-118 & I PM/SB 3 2,267 7.5 0.82 F 2,270 7.8 0.82 F
Street Cochran St
Btw Cochran St
& Los Angeles I PM/SB 3 2,943 17.7 0.68 E 2,945 17.7 0.68 E
Ave
Tierra Btw SR-23
Rejada Ramps & I PM/EB 3 1,524 42.8 0.32 A 1,524 42.8 0.32 A
Road Madera Rd
Btw Madera Rd I PM/WB 3 2,244 30.3 0.38 C 2,244 30.3 0.38 C
& 1st St
East of 1st I PM/EB 3 2,172 29.1 0.56 C 2,173 29.1 0.56 C
Street

1 3.11.2.3.1 Impact TR-1: Freeway or Roadway Segments
2 Using the Caltrans TIA guidelines, under the Future With Project scenario, all of the study freeway segments
3 are projected to continue to operate at unacceptable LOS D and E during the AM peak hour, and two of the
4 three study segments are projected to continue to operate at unacceptable LOS D and E during the PM peak
5 hour. However, the additional traffic from the proposed project will not trigger a change in the LOS during
6 the Future With Project scenario, therefore the proposed Project does not have an impact that is considered
7 significant. According to the Caltrans TIA guidelines, under the Future With Project scenario, the study
8 roadway segments along Madera Road and First Street are projected to continue to operate at unacceptable
9 LOS during peak hour. However, the additional traffic from the proposed project will not trigger a change in
10 the LOS during the Future With Project scenario,. tTherefore the proposed roadway segment project impact is
13 The trips from the proposed project do not trigger a change in the LOS level during both the AM and PM
14 peak hours at the study freeway and roadway segments. As the impact is less than significant, no mitigation is
15 required.
17 The proposed project impact that is considered less than significant and no mitigation is proposed.
18 3.11.2.3.2 Impact TR-2: Intersections
19 According to the City of Simi Valley TIA guidelines, the results of the analyses indicate that impacts from the
20 addition of the traffic from the proposed project will not reach a level considered significant at any of the
21 study area intersections. The LOS remains C or better on all segments even with project traffic.
23 All of the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS levels during both the AM and PM
24 peak hours under the Future With Project scenario. Therefore the impact is less than significant and no
25 mitigation measure is proposed.
27 The proposed project impact that is considered less than significant and no mitigation is proposed.
28 3.11.2.3.3 Impact TR-3: Somis Road and SR-118 Intersection
29 The LOS at the intersection of SR-118 and SR-34 operates at a LOS “F”. Ventura County General Plan
30 Policy 4.2.2-5, requires that discretionary development that would individually cause impacts at an
31 intersection operating at LOS F be prohibited unless feasible mitigation measures are adopted that would
32 ensure that the impact does not occur or unless a project completion schedule and full funding commitment
33 for road improvements are adopted which ensure that the impact will be eliminated within a reasonable time
34 period.. The County of Ventura has noted historically interpreted the prohibition in General Plan Policy 4.2.2-
35 5 to say “any project which generate or contributes one peak hour vehicle trip through an intersection or road
36 segment that has been determined to be operating at an unacceptable LOS, (as specified in the General Plan),
37 shall be prohibited”. According to this interpretation, that the addition of one PHT to the intersection of
38 Somis Road and SR-118 would beis considered a significant impact. However, Caltrans is currently in the
39 process of environmental review for a project to improve mobility, achieve an acceptable level of traffic

1 operations, and improve safety conditions along State Route (SR)-118 at the intersections with SR-34 and
2 Donlon Road. Independently, the County of Ventura Public Works Agency, Transportation Department has
3 developed a separate project for realignment of Donlon Road. The effect of the State project is anticipated to
4 improve the LOS of this intersection to LOS ‘D.’ If the State project is delayed, the effect of the County
5 project alone should improve the LOS of this intersection to a satisfactory level. As such the County has
6 determined that a project completion schedule and full funding commitment for road improvements that
7 ensure that the impact will be reduced to an acceptable LOS at this intersection within a reasonable period of
8 time is in place. Accordingly, tThe Transportation Department haswill no longer determined that a project
9 that generates or contributes one peak hour trip through the intersections of SR-118 and SR-34 are not
10 consistent with County General Plan Policy 4.2.2-5. A project’s impacts and determination of General Plan
11 consistency willis still be required on an individual project and case basis, but one peak hour trip should no
12 longer be considered an absolute or blanket restriction.
13 Although the project trip distribution does not direct forecast or assume project trips using that intersection, it
14 is possible that one project-related vehicle may use that intersection during peak hour traffic prior to
15 improvements being made. The probability of an added vehicle associated with the project using the
16 intersection at peak hour is difficult to estimate. To provide a conservative evaluation, this analysis assumes
17 that the project contributes one PHT to a critical movement at this location resulting in an impact that is
18 considered significant. Nevertheless, with the previously noted commitment to road improvements that ensure
19 that the impact will be reduced to an acceptable LOS in a reasonable period of time, projected impacts under
20 the Future With Project scenario would not adversely affect the LOS and would therefore be considered less
21 than significant.
23 The intersection of Somis Road and SR-118 is projected to operate at acceptable LOS levels during both the
24 AM and PM peak hours under the Future With Project scenario with currently proposed improvements.
25 Therefore no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure TR-1: Sufficient alternate routes are available for
26 trucks to access the project site without using the intersection of Somis road at SR-118. Landfill trucks
27 operating under contract to Waste Management shall be required by applicable contract agreements to use
28 routes to and from the project site that do not involve SR-118 or Somis Road at this intersection.
30 Impacts to traffic resources at the intersection of Somis Road and SR-118 would be less than significant with
31 the implementation of the Mitigation Measure TR-1currently proposed improvements.
33 No significant transportation-related impacts are anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation monitoring for

34 transportation impacts is required.


1 3.12 Water Supply
4 The area of influence with respect to water supply would be the area encompassing the CMWD.
5 3.12.1.2 Setting
6 The proposed project site is served by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8, which is a retail customer
7 of the CMWD. The main source of water for District No. 8 is imported State San Joaquin Delta water,
8 supplied by CMWD, which originates from the MWD, as part of their State Water Project annual contract
9 rights. At least a portion of the water supply includes recycled water from the City of Simi Valley Wastewater
10 Treatment Plant, which is supplied via an existing pipeline installed by the City of Simi Valley and the
11 CMWD, as well as groundwater extracted from the Las Posas Basin.. The Ventura County Waterworks
12 District No. 8 has plans to develop a pump and treat system for the groundwater from existing dewatering
13 wells, operated by the City of Simi Valley, to produce potable water supply to supplement its imported water
14 supply purchased from the CMWD. The pump and treat system will rely on the regional brine line that is
15 currently under construction and that will ultimately extend to the Simi Valley Water Quality Control Plant.
17 The California Urban Water Management Planning Act, Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656, which
18 were added by Statute 1983, Chapter 1009, requires urban water suppliers to initiate planning strategies that
19 make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service, sufficient to meet the needs
20 of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry-water years. The Urban Water
21 Management Planning Act requires that all California urban suppliers providing water to more than 3,000
22 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet per year, or both, develop an Urban Water Management
23 Plan (UWMP) with prescribed requirements and file it with the State Department of Water Resources.
24 Because Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 supplies approximately 16,000 acre-feet of water
25 annually, through approximately 19,000 metered connections, it is required to prepare an UWMP.
26 Consistent with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, Ventura County has prepared the
27 Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 UWMP, to describe how water resources are used and to present
28 strategies that will be used to meet the current and future water needs of the County. To meet the objectives of
29 the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8
30 UWMP focuses primarily on reliability of the water supply and efficiency measures for water use.
31 Ventura County General Plan Policies relevant to water supply are described below:
32 Policy 4.3.2-1: Development that requires potable water shall be provided a permanent potable water supply
33 of adequate quantity and quality that complies with applicable County and State water regulations. Water
34 systems operated by or receiving water from Casitas Municipal Water District, the Calleguas Municipal
35 Water District or the United Water Conservation District will be considered permanent supplies unless an
36 Urban Water Management Plan (prepared pursuant to Part 2.6 of Division 6 of the Water Code) or a water
37 supply and demand assessment (prepared pursuant to Part 2.10 of Division 6 of the Water Code) demonstrates
38 that there is insufficient water supply to serve cumulative development within the district’s service area.
39 When the proposed water supply is to be drawn exclusively from wells in areas where groundwater supplies
40 have been determined by the Environmental Health Division or the Public Works Agency to be questionable
41 or inadequate, the developer shall be required to demonstrate the availability of a permanent potable water
42 supply for the life of the project.
3.12 Water Supply
1 Policy 4.3.2-2: Discretionary development as defined in section 10912 of the Water Code shall comply with
2 the water supply and demand assessment requirements of Part 2.10 of Division 6 of the Water Code.
3 Policy 4.3.2-3: Discretionary development shall be conditioned to incorporate water conservation

4 techniques and the use of drought resistant native plants pursuant to the County's Guide to Landscape
5 Plans.
8 Based on the criteria identified in the Ventura County Initial Study Guidelines and Administrative Supplement
9 to the State CEQA Guidelines, the threshold criteria for evaluating water supply impacts state:
10 WS-1: Water Supply-Quality. The quality of domestic water available to development must be in
11 compliance with the applicable State Drinking Water Standards, as described in Title 22 CCR
12 §65521 et eq.
13 WS-2. Water Supply-Quantity. A project is considered significant if it does not provide a permanent
14 supply of water. A permanent supply of water is defined as at least a 60 year supply. A spring does
15 not meet the requirement for a permanent source of water supply.
17 3.12.2.2.1 WS-1: Water Supply-Quality
18 The County would review the proposed project application, project description, questionnaire, and required
19 materials to: 1) determine if the proposed project requires a supply of domestic water; 2) determine if
20 domestic water would be provided by a water purveyor or from an individual source (i.e., water well); 3) if
21 water is provided by a public water purveyor, a water availability letter must be submitted with the proposed
22 project application. The State Department of Health Services regulates and issues permits for public water
23 systems with 15 or more connections. Public water purveyors with fewer than 15 connections are regulated
24 and permitted by the County Environmental Health Division; 4) If domestic water is obtained from an
25 individual source (a water well or wells), applicable water quality analysis must be submitted with the
26 proposed project application. Compliance with state drinking water standards must be demonstrated before
27 the application for the proposed project is deemed complete.
28 3.12.2.2.2 WS-2: Water Supply-Quantity
29 The following sources of supply are considered to have a permanent source of water: 1) Calleguas Municipal
30 Water District, 2) United Water Conservation District (UWCD); 3) Casitas Municipal Water District; 4)
31 cities, water companies districts, mutual water companies, public sources (unless there is a special known
32 adverse situation); 5) groundwater in an area where it is certain that a properly designed and constructed well
33 would produce a long-term supply; and 6) wells that have successfully completed the Water Resource
34 Division’s pump test. Projects not conforming to the above permanent sources of supply would be considered
35 potentially significant.

3.12 Water Supply
2 3.12.2.3.1 Impact WS-1: Water Supply-Quality
3 The proposed project would be served by the CMWD, which is considered by Ventura County to be a
4 permanent source of water. The CMWD provides water that is compliance with the applicable State Drinking
5 Water Standards, as described in CCR Title 22, §65521 et eq. Therefore, impacts would be less than
6 significant.
8 As impacts on water quality would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
10 Impacts on water quality would be less than significant.
11 3.12.2.3.2 Impact WS-2: Water Supply-Quantity
12 The annual water demand for the proposed project would be 174 acre-feet per year (Psomas 2007b). The
13 proposed project would be served by the CMWD, which is considered by Ventura County to be a permanent
14 source of water. A water availability letter from Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 has been
15 submitted by CMWD with the proposed project application, verifying that adequate water supplies are
16 available. In addition, similar to Condition #14 (Master Development Plan) of CUP-3142-7, imposed by
17 Ventura County for the current phase of landfill expansion, an updated water supply plan would be included
18 as part of a Master Development Plan, which is designed to ensure that the landfill is operated in an
20 EIR. The water supply plan would describe improvements to be made to assure adequate potable and non-
21 potable water for landfill operations, dust control, fire protection, landscaping, human consumption, and
22 hygiene. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
23 Table 3.12-1 provides a summary of projected water demand for the Calleguas Municipal Water District from
24 the District’s current 2005 Urban Water Management Plan as well as placing the project demand in the
25 context of total projected demand. Note that the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan has not been finalized
26 at this time.
27 The table demonstrates that total demand is expected to increase from 200,570 acre feet in 2015 to 234,267
28 acre feet in 2030. Future project demand is expected to be steady at 174 acre feet per year. Total project
29 demand never exceeds 0.9 percent of total demand. Note that the baseline project demand of 97.4 acre feet per
30 year is inherently accounted for in the existing demand, so only the incremental project demand represents
31 additional demand for water. The incremental project demand (increase from the baseline of 97.5 acre feet per
32 year to 174 acre feet per year) represents less than 0.04 percent of total projected demand in all future
33 projection years. The minimal (and declining) fraction of incremental demand represented by the future
34 project and the designation of the Calleguas Water District as a permanent source of supply further
35 demonstrate that impacts to water quantity will be less than significant.
36 Also see Section 3.9.2.3.1, Fire Hazards, regarding available water pressure, for firefighting purposes, in the
37 Simi Valley area.

3.12 Water Supply
Table 3.12-1. Projected Water Demand vs Project Demand

Average Water Year Acre Feet per year
Source/Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Local Supplies
Imported Reclaimed 1,544 1,550 1,581 1,597 1,619 1,635
Potable Groundwater 32,914 25,306 25,941 26,117 18,744 23,883
Desalinated Groundwater 4,750 16,050 19,775 20,500 28,700 28,950
Reclaimed Wastewater 2,132 7,321 11,500 15,683 19,864 20,021
Untreated Surface Water 2,150 2,703 3,409 4,115 5,190 6,265
Non-Potable Groundwater 6,772 7,649 8,135 8,656 8,797 8,976
Total 50,262 60,579 70,341 76,668 82,914 89,730
IMPORTED 122,865 125,762 130,229 135,571 139,881 144,537
TOTAL DEMAND 173,127 186,341 200,570 212,239 222,795 234,267
Simi Valley Landfill 97.5 97.5 174 174 174 174
PERCENT OF TOTAL DEMAND 0.056% 0.052% 0.087% 0.082% 0.078% 0.074%
Simi Valley Landfill Increment (AF) 0 0 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5
Increment of total demand (percent) 0.038% 0.036% 0.034% 0.033%
Source: 2005 Callequas Urban Water Management Plan (Black and Veatch Inc. 2005)
2 As impacts on water supply would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
4 Impacts on water supply would be less than significant.
6 With no mitigation required, mitigation monitoring would not be required.

1 3.13 Waste Treatment/Disposal
2 This section evaluates the potential waste treatment and disposal impacts associated with the proposed
3 project. Specifically, this section evaluates impacts of the proposed project associated with the use of a waste
4 treatment and disposal system. In addition, this section evaluates impacts of the proposed project on the
5 ability of Ventura County to maintain 15-years of disposal capacity as mandated by the State of California
6 under AB 939.
9 The area of influence with respect to sewage treatment and disposal is defined as the area served by the
10 Ventura County Service Area 32 and the groundwater basin affected by the proposed project. The area of
11 influence (i.e., wasteshed) with respect to solid waste disposal is defined as jurisdictions from which SVLRC
12 currently receives waste.
13 3.13.1.2 Setting
14 3.13.1.2.1 Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
15 The SVLRC is not currently connected to a public sewer system. Wastewater generated by existing SVLRC
16 operations is currently disposed via an on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank). Outdoor portable toilets,
17 which are cleaned out weekly by a sanitary services vendor, are provided for public use. Employees use
18 sanitary facilities connected to the septic system in the maintenance building, scale house, and office trailer.
19 An employee shower is also available in the maintenance building. Domestic wastewater generated by the
20 employee sanitary facilities is disposed via a septic system located behind the maintenance facility. The
21 system is operated in compliance with applicable sections of the Ventura County Building Code as enforced
22 by the Ventura County EHD. In addition, there is a permitted leach field located north of the gas flare station.
23 For informational purposes, the closest wastewater treatment facility to the SVLRC is the City of Simi Valley
24 Wastewater Treatment Plant that provides tertiary treatment of wastewater for the City of Simi Valley and
25 surrounding areas. The City’s treatment plant is located at 600 West Los Angeles Avenue. The plant has a
26 design capacity of 12.5 million gallons per day and can handle peak flows of up to 18 million gallons per day
27 (City of Simi Valley 2009).
28 3.13.1.2.2 Solid Waste Disposal
29 Ventura County has two permitted solid waste disposal sites, SVLRC and Toland Road Landfill. The Toland
30 Road Landfill has a total capacity of 30 million cubic yards and a permitted daily limit of 1,500 tpd. It is
31 scheduled to close by May 2027. This facility directly serves residents of the Santa Clara River Valley,
32 including Fillmore, Santa Paula, Piru, and unincorporated areas of the Santa Clara Valley and indirectly
33 serves other areas of Ventura County and the City of Carpinteria in Santa Barbara County through transfer
34 stations. As discussed in Section 2.3, Existing Landfill Design and Operation, the SVLRC is currently
35 permitted to accept 3,000 tpd of MSW and has a maximum permitted capacity of 43.5 million cubic yards.

3.13 Waste Treatment/Disposal
3 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.)
4 The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act and its subsequent amendments, collectively known as the
5 CWA, established national water-quality goals and the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants
6 into the waters of the United States. Section 402 of the CWA also created NPDES permits that specified
7 minimum standards for the quality of discharged waters. It required states to establish standards specific to
8 water bodies and designated the types of pollutants to be regulated, including total suspended solids and oil.
9 The CWA authorized the EPA to issue the NPDES permits. Section 404 of the CWA requires permits for
10 discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States, and this section is administered by the
11 USACE. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required for issuance of a Section 404 permit.
13 California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)
14 The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) provides specific waste diversion
15 mandates to local jurisdictions in California. The Act requires cities and counties to identify and implement a
16 schedule to divert 25 percent of their total solid waste stream from landfill disposal by the year 1995, and 50
17 percent of the total waste stream by 2000. This Act requires cities and/or counties to prepare and adopt a
18 Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) that provides a summary of: the significant waste
19 management problems facing the county; an overview of the specific steps that its local agencies will take to
20 meet the goals of the Act; and a statement of countywide goals and objectives relative to waste management.
21 In addition, the Act requires that 15 years of remaining landfill capacity be demonstrated by each of the
22 state’s counties vial annual reports to the CIWMB.
23 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
24 The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the SWRCB and the RWQCBs to regulate water
25 quality throughout the state. The Act specifically designates the SWRCB as “state water pollution control
26 agency for all purposes stated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and any other federal act, heretofore
27 or hereafter enacted….” Since 1973, the California SWRCB and its nine RWQCBs have been delegated the
28 responsibility for administering permitted discharge into the waters of California. The Porter-Cologne Water
29 Quality Act provided a comprehensive water-quality management system for the protection of California
30 waters. Under the Act “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that
31 could affect the quality of the waters of the state” must le a report of the discharge with the appropriate
32 RWQCB. In April 1991, the SWRCB and other state environmental agencies were incorporated into the
33 California Environmental Protection Agency. This Act is the primary state regulation addressing water quality
34 and waste discharges on land. Permitted discharges must be in compliance with the regional Basin Plan that
35 was developed by the Los Angeles RWQCB, which includes Ventura County and the proposed project area.
36 Each Regional Board implements the Basin Plan to ensure that projects consider regional beneficial uses,
37 water quality objectives, and water quality problems.
39 Ventura County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP)
40 In accordance with AB 939, Ventura County approved a CIWMP in April 2000. The CIWMP and its
41 Countywide Siting Element are documents that express the intent of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors
1 regarding goals, policies, and short-, medium-, and long-range objects, and sitting criteria for solid waste
2 disposal or transformation facilities in Ventura County. AB 939 requires that the Countywide Siting Element
3 demonstrate that there is a county- or region-wide minimum of 15 years of combined permitted disposal
4 capacity, through exiting or planned solid waste disposal and transformation facilities or through additional
5 strategies (14 CCR §18755). The Public Facilities and Services Appendix of the General Plan complements
6 the adopted polices of these documents.
8 Policy 4.1.2-4: Within a City’s Sphere of Influence, annexation to the City is preferable to the formation of
9 new or expansion of existing County Services Areas. Generally, therefore, annexation of a property to an
10 existing service area is favored over establishing a new service area.
11 Policy 4.4.2-1: Community sewage treatment facilities and solid waste disposal sites shall be deemed
12 consistent with the General Plan only if they are designated on the Public Facilities Map. On-site septic
13 systems (i.e., individual sewage disposal systems), on-site wastewater treatment facilities, waste transfer
14 stations, off-site waste treatment facilities and on-site storage facilities are consistent with the General Plan if
15 they conform to the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan.
16 Policy 4.4.2-2: Ventura County Sewer Policy. Any subdivision, or discretionary change in land use having a
17 direct effect upon the volume of sewage, shall be required to connect to a public sewer system. Exceptions to
18 this policy to allow the use of septic systems may be granted in accordance with County Sewer Policy if
19 approval is made subject to three conditions including:
20 1. That the maximum density of private sewage disposal systems (septic systems), as defined in the
21 Ventura County Building Code, shall be as follows: each affected lot shall contain at least 20,000
22 square feet gross area and, further, shall be sized so that the ratio of aggregate private sewage
23 disposal system capacity in gallons (determined in conformance with the Ventura County Building
24 Code) to the gross area of the lot in square feet does not exceed 1,500 to 20,000.
25 2. That the character of the soil, geology and hydrology are such that a private sewage disposal system
26 can be expected to function properly and have no adverse effects on soil stability or underground
27 water supplies. Such determination shall be made by a qualified engineering geologist and/or soils
28 engineer at no expense to the county. The findings of the geologist and soils engineer shall be subject
29 to review and approval by the Division of Environmental Health, the Division of Building and Safety,
30 and the Public Works Agency.
31 When it has been adequately demonstrated that the character of the soil, geology or hydrology is such
32 that neither a septic tank-leach line nor a seepage pit nor a seepage bed ("conventional") private
33 sewage disposal system can be expected to function properly, then and only then other ("alternate")
34 private sewage disposal systems may be considered provided they conform with applicable county
35 codes and standards, if any, and provided further that the Division of Environmental Health is
36 satisfied such alternate systems will function properly.
37 3. That a public sewer system with capacity for additional wastewater load is not available within one-
38 half mile, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Agency, that – (i) in
39 cases where a conventional private sewage disposal system is proposed for the site, the total cost of
40 such conventional private system could be no more than one-half the total cost of connecting to the
41 public sewer system, or (ii) in cases where an alternate private sewage disposal system is proposed
42 for the site, the total cost of such alternate private system would be both – less that the total cost of
43 connecting to the public sewer system, and at least twice the total cost of a conventional private
44 sewage disposal system for the site.
1 Installation and maintenance of septic systems shall be regulated by the County Environmental Health
2 Division in accordance with the County's Sewer Policy, County Building Code, and County Service Area 32.
3 Policy 4.4.2-3: In order to reduce the need for additional wastewater treatment capacity, the County shall:
4 require new discretionary development to utilize water-conserving design features; encourage the retrofitting
5 of existing uses and buildings with water-conserving devices; require that new wastewater lateral and trunk
6 collection lines be designed to allow the minimum feasible amount of inflow and infiltration into the
7 wastewater collection system; and periodically inspect existing lateral and trunk collection lines to identify
8 areas subject to excessive inflow and infiltration and remedy identified problems as feasible.
9 Policy 4.4.2-5: Waste treatment and disposal operations shall be designed and conducted in a manner that is
10 compatible with surrounding land uses such that the potential impacts are mitigated to less than significant
11 levels, or, where no feasible mitigation measures are available, a statement of overriding considerations
12 consistent with CEQA shall be adopted. At the end of such operations, the site shall be restored to a use
13 compatible with surrounding land uses.
14 Policy 4.4.2-6: Applicants for discretionary development shall be encouraged to employ practices that reduce
15 the quantities of wastes generated and shall be requested to engage in recycling activities to further reduce the
16 volume of waste disposed of in landfills.
17 Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance
18 The Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance provides standards relating to waste handling, waste
19 disposal, and recycling facilities in Section 8107-36.3.1 through 8107-36.3.12.
20 Ventura County Building Code Ordinance
21 The Ventura County Building Code provides minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property,
22 and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and
23 occupancy, location, relocation, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within the County. The
24 Ventura County Building Code incorporates by reference, specified portions of the California Building
25 Standards Code (Title 24 Parts 2 through 6, 8, and 10) and model codes referenced in the California Building
26 Standards Code including the International Building Code, the National Electrical Cod, the Uniform
27 Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the International Existing Building Code, the Uniform
28 Housing Code, and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, along with necessary
29 amendments. Chapter 7 and Appendix K of the Ventura County Building Code contain specific requirements
30 for sanitary disposal systems. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems must be in conformance with the
31 California Plumbing code as adopted with amendments by the Ventura County Building Code Ordinance.
35 Supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines, the threshold criterion for evaluating waste treatment/disposal
36 impacts state:
37 WT-1: Individual Sewage Disposal System. A project impact would be significant if it would not
38 conform with the requirements of the LARWQCB’s Basin Plan concerning development utilizing
39 septic systems and would not comply with the applicable sections of the Ventura County Building
40 Code, enforced by the Ventura County Environmental Health Division.

1 WT-2: Solid Waste Facility. A project impact would be significant if it would fail to comply with
2 statues, regulations, ordinances, and policies for solid waste facilities; or if it would impact the
3 demand for solid waste disposal capacity in Ventura County such that there would be less than 15
4 years of disposal capacity available for county disposal.
6 3.13.2.2.1 WT-1: Individual Sewage Disposal System
7 Impacts associated with the use of an individual sewage disposal system (i.e., package wastewater treatment
8 plant) were evaluated by reviewing the analysis and conclusion contained in the Simi Valley Landfill
9 Recycling and Expansion Project Water and Sewer Study (Appendix J) prepared by Psomas (Psomas 2007b)
10 and evaluating other required information submitted with the project application to determine if individual
11 sewage treatment and disposal system feasibility has been adequately demonstrated. A determination that an
12 impact is less than significant will be made if the sewage disposal feasibility conforms to the requirements of
13 the Los Angeles RWQCB’s Basin Plan concerning development utilizing septic systems and is in compliance
14 with applicable sections of the Ventura County Building Code enforced by the Ventura County
15 Environmental Health Division. A determination that an impact is significant will be made when the criteria
16 listed above have not been met or have not been demonstrated.
17 3.13.2.2.2 WT-2: Solid Waste Facility
18 A capacity study (provided in Appendix K) was prepared to assess potential impacts on the overall landfill
19 capacity in Ventura County due to the proposed project. The study extrapolates future waste disposal rates
20 based on a factor related to projected population growth using the current distribution of sources that deliver
21 waste to the facility. The analysis is based on a model that addresses a number of scenarios for future landfill
22 disposal capacity demand.
24 3.13.2.3.1 Impact WT-1: Individual Sewage Disposal System
25 The proposed project would result in an increase in generation of domestic wastewater due to the increased
26 number of employees. Additional industrial wastewater would be generated from proposed truck and
27 equipment washing facilities. In total, the proposed project is expected to generate an average of 7,000 gallons
28 of wastewater (2,500 gallons of domestic and 4,500 gallons of industrial) per day and a peak of 24,500
29 gallons of wastewater (8,750 gallons of domestic and 15,750 gallons of industrial) per day.
30 As indicated in Section 3.13.1.3, projects qualify for exemption from the Ventura County Sewer Policy if they
31 meet three exception conditions. The Ventura County Environmental Health Division determined that because
32 the public sewer system with capacity for additional wastewater load is not available within one-half mile of
33 the SVLRC, the proposed project would meet exception criteria requirement #3 of the Ventura County Sewer
34 Policy (Personal communication, Melinda Talent 2008). The distance between the proposed project and the
35 nearest sewer line is 2,828 feet – greater than one-half mile (2,640 feet) and therefore meets the criterion. Due
36 to the size of the facility, the proposed project is expected to meet exception criteria requirement #1. Finally,
37 the proposed project would be required to meet exception criteria #2 prior to project approval. As such, the
38 proposed project would be expected to meet the three Ventura County Sewer Policy exception criteria and
39 would not be required to connect to a public sewer system. Ventura County Environmental Health Division
40 would determine compliance with these criteria during the Individual Sewage Disposal System permitting
41 process.

1 Under the proposed project, a self-contained wastewater treatment package plant, consisting of a combination
2 of wastewater processing equipment, would be installed on-site to treat wastewater generated at SVLRC. It
3 should be noted that while the package wastewater treatment plant is a type of individual sewage disposal
4 system, it is not a septic system. The existing septic system and existing buildings that currently use the
5 system would be removed as part of the proposed project. The proposed layout for the on-site wastewater
6 treatment system is shown in Figure 2.4-10. The packaged treatment plant would be located either near the
7 stormwater detention basin near the employee/visitor entrance or within the proposed employee/visitor
8 parking lot. The exact treatment system would be determined during final project design. However, the Water
9 and Sewer Study prepared for the project (Appendix J) indicates that the treatment equipment would be
10 contained in a common rectangular metal tank, with an estimated footprint of 400 square feet, and would be
11 housed in a building or installed underground. Other mechanical and electrical equipment would be located
12 outside the treatment equipment tank. A schematic drawing of an appropriate above-ground and a below-
13 ground packaged treatment plant is provided in Figure 2.4-12.
14 Domestic wastewater generated by the employee sanitary facilities would be collected via a gravity sewer
15 collection system and delivered to the packaged treatment plant. The system would process wastewater by
16 physical separation (primary treatment); biological treatment (secondary treatment); and coagulating,
17 filtration, and disinfection (tertiary treatment). A pump station would be constructed near the packaged
18 treatment plant to pump the treated effluent from the packaged treatment plant to the proposed leachate
19 storage facility, to be located north of the existing LFG Flare Station and adjacent to the existing
20 Cogeneration Plant, where it would commingle with treated leachate for on-site reuse as landscape irrigation
21 and/or dust control.
22 The California Water Code, Chapter 4, Article 5, sets forth criteria for regulating individual disposal systems.
23 The LARWQCB has delegated local health or public works departments jurisdiction to permit septic systems,
24 such as those for single family dwellings. It is expected that the RWQCB would likely take jurisdiction over
25 permitting the proposed on-site wastewater treatment plant under an individual WDR. The level of treatment
26 required and permitted reuse would be specified in the WDR issued by the LARWQCB. As such, the
27 proposed project would conform to the requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB’s Basin Plan concerning
28 development utilizing individual sewer systems (LARWQCB 1994). However, it should be noted that the
29 individual sewer system proposed is a package treatment plant, not a septic system. There would be no
30 discharge to the ground. In addition, the proposed on-site wastewater treatment facility must meet operation
31 and maintenance guidelines required by the Ventura County Environmental Health Division; and meet
32 requirements outlined in the Ventura County Building Code, Ventura County Ordinance. The proposed
33 project would also require a revised permit issued by the LARWQCB to allow commingled treated leachate
34 and treated wastewater to be beneficially reused for dust control and irrigation as discussed above. Issuance of
35 these permits and compliance with applicable State and County regulations with respect to design and
36 operation of the treatment plant would reduce potential impacts from on-site sewage disposal to a level
39 As sewage treatment and disposal impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
41 The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on waste treatment and disposal.
42 3.13.2.3.2 Impact WT-2: Solid Waste Management
43 The proposed project would be required to comply with statues, regulations, ordinances, and policies for solid
44 waste facilities.
1 A capacity study was completed to assess the future landfill capacity in Ventura County as it would be
2 affected by the proposed SVLRC Expansion Project. An overview of the capacity study and its findings is
3 provided as Appendix K to this document. The proposed project would provide substantial additional waste
4 disposal capacity. The capacity study assumed that waste continues to be received from out of county sources
5 and that there are no disincentives or fees that do not currently exist to limit receipts. A key factor in the
6 lifespan of SVLRC would be how much additional waste would be assumed to be disposed at the SVLRC
7 when other regional landfills, such as Puente Hills, close as required by their respective SWF permits. A
8 graduated percentage was assumed ranging from 15 percent for the closest and largest currently active
9 landfills, to two percent for the most distant and smaller landfills, to estimate the amounts of material that
10 would likely be diverted to the SVLRC from other closed landfills. However, after about 2027 or 2028, the
11 limiting factor would not be other landfill closures, but the daily capacity permit limit proposed for the
12 expanded SVLRC. Subsequent to that time, the daily permit limit of 6,000 tons per day for MSW would not
13 allow any additional waste from any other landfill to be deposited at the SVLRC regardless of subsequent
14 closures. As a consequence, the lifespan of the SVLRC would only moderately affected by landfill closures
15 for a period of about ten years before the capacity limit becomes the dominant constraining factor. The results
16 of the capacity study indicated that the SVLRC would result in the County reaching its 15 year capacity in
17 approximately 2060 based on the assumptions used in the model. As such, the proposed project would not
18 substantially impact the demand for solid waste disposal capacity in Ventura County such that there would be
19 less than 15 years of disposal capacity available for county disposal.
21 As impacts to solid waste management would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
23 The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on solid waste management.
25 As waste treatment and disposal impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.


1 3.14 Recreational Facilities
2 Recreational facilities include facilities and services that provide recreation on a countywide basis, consisting
3 of local parks/facilities, regional parks/facilities, and regional trails/corridors (Ventura County 2006). This
4 section identifies the existing recreational facilities in the project vicinity and addresses potential impacts to
5 recreational facilities that could result from the proposed project.

8 The area of influence of the proposed project on local and regional recreational facilities and services, such as
9 parks and trails/corridors, is within a two-mile radius of the proposed project site. Recreational facilities
10 within the area of influence are described in Section 3.14.1.2, Setting.
11 3.14.1.2 Setting
12 The project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks
13 District (RSRPD). The RSRPD is a special district that acquires, constructs, operates, and maintains parks and
14 open space areas in Simi Valley and surrounding unincorporated areas (PRC Division 5; §-5780 and §5791;
15 Chapters 4 and 5). The Ventura County Parks Department maintains recreational facilities in unincorporated
16 portions of Ventura County, including facilities within the area of influence. Recreational facilities include
17 local parks/facilities, regional parks/facilities, and regional trails/corridors (Ventura County 2006). Table
18 3.14-1 and Figure 3.14-1 identify the recreational facilities located within the project’s area of influence.
Table 3.14-1. Parks/Facilities and Trails/Corridors Within the Project Vicinity

Park/Trail1 Location Distance to Project Site (miles)
Local Parks/Facilities
Tierra Rejada Park Llevarancho Road 0.8
Arroyo Park 2105 Socrates Avenue 0.8
Mayfair Park 2550 Caldwell Street 1.1
Stargaze Park 355 Stargaze Avenue 1.2
Willowbrook Park 1786 Willowbrook Lane 1.4
Lincoln Park 1215 First Street 1.8
Citrus Grove Park 2100 N. Marvel Avenue 1.9
Rancho Simi Community Park 1765 Royal Avenue 1.9
Regional Parks/Facilities
Strathearn Historical Park and Museum 137 Strathearn Place 0.9
Oak Park 901 Quimisa Drive 1.5
Sinaloa Public Golf Course 980 Madera Road 1.9
Regional Trails/Corridors
Arroyo Simi Bicycle Path Madera Road to Ralston Street 0.6
Mt. McCoy Trail West End of Simi Valley 1.6
Future Development
Trail #3 – Alamos Canyon Arroyo Simi to Alamos Canyon 0.0
Trail #4 – Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Brea Canyon to Alamos Canyon 0.2
Future Parksite Within Proposed CUP boundary na2
Source: Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District 2008a, 2008b; Ventura County 2008a.
Notes:
1. All parks/facilities and trails/corridors listed above are managed by the RSRPD, except for Oak Park, which is managed by
Ventura County Parks Department.
2. The RSRPD’s 1986 General Plan for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space included a future park site that would be located
within the CUP boundary of the proposed Project The General Plan did not identify an exact location, size, or program for
this park site.

LEGEND
Existing Trail/Corridor
Future Trail/Corridor
LOCAL PARKS/FACILITIES
1 Tierra Rejada Park
2 Arroyo Park
14 3 Mayfair Park
4 Stargaze Park
15 5 Willowbrook Park
6 Lincoln Park
7 Citrus Grove Park
8 Rancho Simi Community Park
REGIONAL PARKS/FACILITIES
14 Proposed Waste 9 Strathearn Historical Park and Museum
Disposal Area
10 Oak Park
11 Sinaloa Public Golf Course
Existing Waste REGIONAL TRAILS/CORRIDORS
Disposal Area 12 Arroyo Simi Bicycle path
13 Mt. McCoy Trail
Existing CUP FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Boundary 14 Trail #3 - Alamos Canyon
10 Proposed CUP 15 Trail #4 - Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop
Boundary
1 118
3
9 2
4 12
7
8
5 12
13 6 Scale N
11 0 1
Mile
Source: Psomas 2008
Figure 3.14-1. Recreational Facilities

3.14 Recreation Facilities
1 3.14.1.2.1 Local Parks/Facilities
2 A local park/facility serves the daily needs of a neighborhood or groups of neighborhoods within
3 unincorporated urbanized areas of the County (Ventura County 2006). There are eight local parks/facilities
4 within a two-mile radius of the proposed project that offer a variety of recreational opportunities, including
5 Tierra Rejada Park, Arroyo Park, Mayfair Park, Stargaze Park, Willowbrook Park, Lincoln Park, Citrus Grove
6 Park, and Rancho Simi Community Park (Table 3.14-1 and Figure 3.14-1). Each of these local park/facilities is
7 managed by the RSRPD.
8 3.14.1.2.2 Regional Parks/Facilities
9 A regional park/facility offers recreation opportunities that attract users outside the local vicinity, by its
10 unique, natural character, or unusual or extensive development (Ventura County 2006). There are three
11 regional parks/facilities within a two-mile radius of the proposed project site including Strathearn Historical
12 Park and Museum, Oak Park, and Sinaloa Public Golf Course (Table 3.14-1 and Figure 3.14-1). Each of these
13 regional parks/facilities is managed by the RSRPD, except for Oak Park, which is managed by the Ventura
14 County Parks Department. RSRPD acquired 158 acres of land for open space in Tapo Canyon in May 2006.
15 3.14.1.2.3 Regional Trails/Corridors
16 Regional trails/corridors are designed to accommodate non-motorized recreational travel, such as biking and
17 walking, and should link major park and recreation facilities (Ventura County 2006). There are two regional
18 trails/corridors in the project vicinity: the Arroyo Simi Bicycle Path and the Mt. McCoy Trail (Table 3.14-1
19 and Figure 3.14-1). The Arroyo Simi Bicycle Path is a paved roadway for bicyclists and pedestrians that
20 commences at the Metrolink station in Simi Valley and travels approximately seven miles along Arroyo Simi
21 ending at Madera Road in Simi Valley, 0.6 miles south of the project site. The Mt. McCoy Trail is located 1.6
22 miles south of the project site. It traverses two miles through an 80-acre open space area in the western
23 portion of Simi Valley.
24 3.14.1.2.4 Future Development
25 The RSRPD’s 1986 General Plan for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space includes plans for acquisition and
26 development of future recreational facilities in the Simi Valley area. The Plan includes the future
27 development of two multi-purpose trails (Alamos Canyon Trail [Trail #3] and Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop
28 Trail [Trail #4]) and several future park sites within a two-mile radius of the project site (Table 3.14-1 and
29 Figure 3.14-1). Alamos Canyon Trail would be located within the western portion of the proposed CUP
30 boundary. It would extend 6.1 miles from Arroyo Simi north through Alamos Canyon, then through Getty
31 Ranch to the RSRPD’s northern boundary (RSRPD 1986). This trail has not been acquired by RSRPD.
32 The Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail would begin at the future Brea Canyon trail, also proposed in the
33 Plan, and extend 2.5 miles northeast connecting back into Alamos Canyon trail at the northern end (RSRPD
34 1986). The connection to Alamos Canyon trail would be located 0.2 miles north of the proposed project site.
35 This trail has not been acquired by RSRPD.
36 The Plan also identified several future park sites that would be located north of State Route 118. One of these
37 sites would be located within the CUP boundary of the proposed project (RSRPD 1986). The Plan did not,
38 however, identify an exact location for this park site. RSRPD has indicated that this future community park
39 would comprise 20 acres and provide a minimum of four outdoor recreation facilities (i.e., soccer fields,
40 softball fields, and football fields), restrooms, and a parking area (Walker, personal communication 2008).

4 The Ventura County General Plan Parks and Recreation Element sets forth the goals, policies, and programs
5 for recreational facilities in the County. This Element includes provisions for acquiring, developing, and
6 operating a system of recreation facilities to meet the recreation needs of County residents. Recreation
7 policies are aimed to promote a coordinated effort by all government entities to assure the provision of a
8 complete range of recreational opportunities in the County. This Element also includes stipulations for
9 establishing a network of multi-use trails throughout the County.
10 The Ventura County General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs (Ventura County 2008a) contain Parks and
11 Recreation policies that are relevant for this project. These policies are addressed further in Section 3.1.2.7,
12 General Plan Consistency Analysis.
13 Policy 4.10.2-1: Parkland dedication shall be based on a standard of five acres of local parkland per thousand
14 population, including neighborhood and community parks.
15 Policy 4.10.2-3: Developers shall be encouraged to make unused open space available for recreation.
16 Policy 4.10.2-4: The County shall require reservation of land for public purchase, pursuant to the County
17 Subdivision Ordinance, where requested by a recreation agency.
18 Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District 1986 General Plan
19 The RSRPD General Plan (1986) describes considerations used to determine park and recreation needs of the
20 community with regard to: 1) acquisition and development of facilities; 2) setting policies for the protection
21 of open space and wilderness areas; and 3) advising the City, County and State agencies of important quality-
22 of-life issues related to the District’s primary areas of responsibility. The RSRPD’s General Plan includes
23 sections addressing purposes and principles, design standards, goals and priorities, economic policies and a
24 financial overview. The RSRPD Plan identifies population-based standards for neighborhood parks (2 acres
25 per 1,000 persons) and for community parks (3 acres per 1,000 persons). When combined, these requirements
26 are similar to the County’s local parks/facilities standard, which is 5 acres per 1,000 persons. The RSRPD’s
27 General Plan does not identify population-based requirements or standards for regional parks, regional trails,
28 or other types of recreation areas, though it does address additional types of uses.
31 Based on the criteria identified in the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines, the threshold
32 criteria state that a project may have a significant adverse impact on recreation if it would cause an increase in
33 the demand for recreation when measured against the following standards:
34 REC-1: Local Parks/Facilities. Five acres of developable land (less than 15 percent slope) per 1,000
35 population.
36 REC-2: Regional Parks/Facilities. Five acres of developable land per 1,000 population.
37 REC-3: Regional Trails/Corridors. Two-and-a-half miles per 1,000 population.

1 Additionally a project would have a significant impact on recreation if it would:
2 REC-4: Future Development. Impede future development of recreation parks/facilities and/or regional
3 trails/corridors.
4 Ventura County recreation standards were used for this analysis because they are more conservative than
5 RSRPD standards.
7 The type and quantity of recreational facilities within the project’s area of influence were identified and
8 evaluated to determine if the needs of the proposed project could be adequately served by existing resources,
9 or if the proposed project would result in an increase in demand for recreational facilities. This analysis
10 assumed each of the 150 (net) new employees at SVLRC resulting from the proposed project would represent
11 one new household living in Ventura County. This is a conservative assumption given that a portion of the
12 workers may already live in the County or may live in other counties and commute to work in Ventura
13 County.
14 Proposed trail/corridor systems and park sites within the area of influence were evaluated to determine
15 whether the proposed project would preclude future development of these recreational facilities.
17 3.14.2.3.1 Impact REC-1: Local Parks/Facilities
18 The proposed project would increase the existing CUP boundary from 297 acres to 887 acres (i.e., a net
19 increase of 590 acres) on adjacent open space areas. The nearest local park/facility is located 0.8 miles from
20 the proposed project site. No local parks/facilities are located within the proposed CUP boundary such that no
21 existing facilities would be directly impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project would, however,
22 result in an overall increase of 150 (net) employees (Section 2.4.4.3, Landfill Personnel), thereby creating the
23 potential for an increase in population and a corresponding increase in the demand for local parks/facilities.
24 Based on the current Ventura County standard of five acres of developable land per 1,000 people (Ventura
25 County 2008b) and assuming an average household size of 3.1 persons (SCAG 2009), the project would
26 increase the demand for local parks/facilities by 2.3 acres.
27 Because project-related employees and worker households would increase the demand for local
28 parks/facilities by 2.3 acres,. and no ordinance is in place to require payment of fees or dedication of
29 parkland for a landfill expansion project (i.e., the Quimby Act only applies to subdivisions), the proposed
30 project would create a significant impact on local parks/facilities.
32 Mitigation Measure REC-1: The applicant shall pay in lieu fees for local parks/facilities that would ensure
33 that the applicant would offset costs of developing and/or making improvements to local recreation amenities
34 associated with increased recreational demands from the proposed project. These fees shall be paid prior to
35 the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.TBecause the County does not have a policy or ordinance in place
36 requiring an applicant to pay a recreation impact fee or dedicate public easementsparkland. As such, there is
37 no legal authority to impose a fee or a mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts to
38 recreation. There is therefore no feasible mitigation for the recreation demand created by additional project
39 employees.

2 Mitigation Measure REC-1, in lieu payment of fees, would ensure that impacts on local parks/facilities would
3 be less than significant. SSince there are no measures that would feasibly mitigate significant project impacts
4 to local parks and facilities, impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
5 3.14.2.3.2 Impact REC-2: Regional Parks/Facilities
6 The nearest regional park/facility is located 0.9 miles from the proposed project site. As discussed under
7 Impact REC-1, expansion of the SVLRC would not directly impact regional parks/facilities because none are
8 located within the proposed CUP boundary. However, the net increase of 150 employees associated with the
9 proposed project would increase the demand for regional parks/facilities by 2.3 acres, based on the County
10 standard of five acres of developable land per 1,000 people (Ventura County 2005d).
11 Because project-related employees and worker households would increase the demand for regional
12 parks/facilities by 2.3 acres and no ordinance is in place to require payment of fees or dedication of parkland
13 for a landfill expansion project, the proposed project would create a significant impact on regional
14 parks/facilities.
16 General Plan Program 4.10.3-5 states that, “The General Services Agency shall prepare, for consideration by
17 the Board of Supervisors, a Regional Recreation Facilities Fee Ordinance to fund regional recreational
18 facilities. The proposed funds would finance acquisition of land and construction of a variety of facilities
19 along the regional trails within the General Services Agency’s jurisdiction, including equestrian, hiking, and
20 backpacking trails.” (Ventura County 2008c). However, no ordinance is currently in place to require an
21 applicant toMitigation Measure REC-2: The applicant shall pay in lieu fees for regional parks/facilities that
22 would offset costs of developing and/or making improvements to regional recreation amenities associated
23 with increased recreational demands from the proposed project. These fees shall be paid prior to the issuance
24 of a Conditional Use Permit. Because the County does not have a policy or ordinance in place requiring an
25 applicant to pay a recreation impact fee or dedicate public easementsparkland. As such, there is no legal
26 authority to impose a fee or a mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts to recreation.
27 There is therefore no feasible mitigation for the recreation demand created by additional project employees.
29 Implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-2, in lieu payment of fees, would ensure that impacts on regional
30 parks/facilities would be less than significant.Since there are no measures that would feasibly mitigate
31 significant project impacts to regional parks and facilities, impacts remain sSignificant and unavoidable.
32 3.14.2.3.3 Impact REC-3: Regional Trails/Corridors
33 Two regional trails/corridors are located within a two-mile radius of the proposed project site, including the
34 Arroyo Simi Bike Path and the Mt. McCoy Trail. Neither of these trails are located within the proposed CUP
35 boundary, therefore, no regional trails/corridors would be directly impacted by the proposed project. Based on
36 the County standard of 2.5 miles of trail per 1,000 people (Ventura County 2005d), the increase of 150
37 employees under the proposed project would result in an increased trail demand of 1.2 miles.
38 Because project-related employees and worker households would increase demand for regional
39 trails/corridors by 1.2 miles and no ordinance is in place to require payment of fees or dedication of land, the
40 proposed project would create a significant impact on regional trails/corridors.

2 Mitigation Measure REC-3: The applicant shall dedicate public easements for the Alamos Canyon Trail that
3 would link the trail with the proposed trail network for Simi Valley. New trail easements shall be aligned with
4 existing dirt roads/trails to the greatest extent feasible. Development adjacent to the Alamos Canyon Trail
5 shall include, where appropriate, the construction and assurance of the fitness of designated trails for two
6 years, at which time the agency(ies) being dedicated the public easements would assume maintenance
7 responsibility. Where immediate construction is not required, a construction bond shall be required. If
8 dedication of the trail link easement comprises less than the project related-demand, the applicant shall pay in
9 lieu fees to offset the remainder of the increased demand for trail miles. Any in lie fees shall be paid prior to
10 the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
11 General Plan Program 4.10.3-5 states that, “The General Services Agency shall prepare, for consideration by
12 the Board of Supervisors, a Regional Recreation Faculties Fee Ordinance to fund regional recreational
13 facilities. The proposed funds would finance acquisition of land and construction of a variety of facilities
14 along the regional trails within the General Services Agency’s jurisdiction, including equestrian, hiking, and
15 backpacking trails.” (Ventura County 2008c). However, no ordinance is currently in place to require an
16 applicant to pay a recreation impact fee or dedicate parkland. As such, there is no legal authority to impose a
17 fee or a mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts to recreation. There is therefore no
18 feasible mitigation for the recreation demand created by additional project employees.
19 Because the County does not have a policy or ordinance in place requiring an applicant to pay a recreation
20 impact fee or dedicate public easements, there is no legal authority to impose a fee or a mechanism to ensure
21 that fees collected would mitigate impacts to recreation. There is therefore no feasible mitigation for the
22 recreation demand created by additional project employees.
24 Since there are no measures that would feasibly mitigate significant project impacts to regional parks and
25 facilities, impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
26 Implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-3, dedication of easements for trails and payment of in lieu fees,
27 would ensure that impacts on regional trails/corridors would be less than significant.
28 3.14.2.3.4 Impact REC-4: Future Development
29 Two planned multi-purpose trails are located in the project vicinity, including the Alamos Canyon Trail and
30 the Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail. As the Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail is not located within the
31 proposed CUP boundary, the proposed project would not directly impede the future development of this
32 regional trail/corridor. However, the Alamos Canyon Trail would be located within the western portion of the
33 proposed CUP boundary. In addition, a planned 20-acre community park site is located within the proposed
34 CUP boundary. Although the exact location of the facility has not been determined, it is reasonable to assume
35 the footprint for the community park would be located within the proposed 516-acre buffer area. As the
36 proposed project does not include provisions for on-site recreational facilities, the proposed development
37 would impede future development of recreation parks/facilities and regional trails. Therefore, impacts on
38 future development of recreational resources would be significant.
40 Mitigation Measures REC-1 through REC-3 would address potentially significant impacts associated with the
41 loss of planned recreational opportunities in the project vicinity.

1 Because the County does not have a policy or ordinance in place requiring an applicant to pay a recreation
2 impact fee or dedicate public easements, there is no legal authority to impose a fee or a mechanism to ensure
3 that fees collected would mitigate impacts to recreation. There is therefore no feasible mitigation for the
4 recreation demand created by additional project employees.
6 Since there are no measures that would feasibly mitigate significant project impacts to future development of
7 recreational facilities, Implementation of Mitigation Measures REC-1, REC-2 and REC-3, payment of in-lieu
8 fees and dedication of easement for public trails, would ensure that impacts on planned recreational facilities
9 and multi-use trails would be less than significant.Signficantimpacts remain significant and unavoidable.
11 Table 3.14-2 summarizes the potentially significant adverse recreation impacts of the proposed project or less
Table 3.14-2. Mitigation for Recreation Impacts

Adverse Impact Mitigation Measure(s) After Mitigation Parties Timing
Impact REC-1: Project- Mitigation Measure REC-1: The
related demand for local applicant shall pay in lieu fees for
parks/facilities would be local parks/facilities that would
2.325 acres; no ensure that the applicant would offset
ordinance is in place to costs of developing and/or making
require payment of fees improvements to local recreation
or dedication of parkland amenities associated with increased
for a landfill expansion recreational demands from the
project. proposed project. These fees shall be Project Prior to
paid prior to the issuance of a Less than applicant;
Conditional Use Permit. Because the significant Planning issuance of
Conditional
County does not have a policy or Significant and Division and Use Permit
ordinance in place requiring an unavoidable RSRPD
applicant to pay a recreation impact oversight modification
fee or dedicate public easements,
there is no legal authority to impose a
fee or a mechanism to ensure that
fees collected would mitigate
impacts to recreation. There is
therefore no feasible mitigation for
the recreation demand created by
additional project employees.


Mitigation Measure REC-2: The
applicant shall pay in lieu fees for
regional parks/facilities that would
offset costs of developing and/or
making improvements to regional
recreation amenities associated with
Impact REC-2: Project- increased recreational demands from
related demand for the proposed project. These fees shall
regional parks/facilities be paid prior to the issuance of a Project Prior to
Less than applicant;
would be 2.325 acres; no Conditional Use Permit. Because the significant Planning issuance of
ordinance is in place to County does not have a policy or Conditional
require payment of fees ordinance in place requiring an Significant and Division and Use Permit
unavoidable RSRPD
or dedication of parkland applicant to pay a recreation impact oversight modification
for a landfill expansion fee or dedicate public easements,
project. there is no legal authority to impose a
Mitigation Measure REC-3: The
applicant shall dedicate public
easements for the Alamos Canyon
Trail that would link the trail with
the proposed trail network for Simi
Valley. New trail easements shall be
aligned with existing dirt roads/trails
to the greatest extent feasible.
Development adjacent to the Alamos
Canyon Trail shall include, where
appropriate, the construction and
assurance of the fitness of designated
trails for two years, at which time the
agency(ies) being dedicated the
Impact REC-3: Project- public easements would assume
maintenance responsibility. Where
related demand for immediate construction is not Project Prior to
regional trails/corridors Less than applicant;
would be 1.1625 miles; required, a construction bond shall be significant Planning issuance of
required. If dedication of the trail Conditional
no ordinance is in place link easement comprises less than the Significant and Division and Use Permit
to require payment of unavoidable RSRPD
fees or dedication of project related-demand, the applicant oversight modification
shall pay in lieu fees to offset the
land, for trails. remainder of the increased demand
for trail miles. Any in lie fees shall
be paid prior to the issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit. Because the
County does not have a policy or
ordinance in place requiring an
applicant to pay a recreation impact
fee or dedicate public easements,
there is no legal authority to impose a


Mitigation Measures REC-1
through REC-3. Because the County
does not have a policy or ordinance
in place requiring an applicant to pay Project
Impact REC-4: Future a recreation impact fee or dedicate Prior to
Development. Preclude public easements, there is no legal Less than applicant; issuance of
significant Planning
planned development of authority to impose a fee or a Significant and Division and Conditional
a community park and mechanism to ensure that fees Use Permit
multi-use trails. collected would mitigate impacts to unavoidable RSRPD modification
oversight
recreation. There is therefore no
feasible mitigation for the recreation
demand created by additional project
employees.

4 Cumulative Analysis
1 This chapter contains the cumulative impact analysis, along with an analysis of the potential for the proposed
2 project, together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in each resource area’s
3 cumulative geographic scope, to have significant cumulative effects. Following the presentation of the
4 requirements related to cumulative impact analysis and a description of the related projects (Section 4.1 and
5 4.2, respectively), the analysis in Section 4.3 addresses each of the resource areas for which the proposed
6 project may make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts, when combined with other
7 reasonable and foreseeable projects in the area.
8 Abbreviated and revised cumulative impact analyses were prepared for the Recirculated DEIR (RDEIR).
9 Only Land Use, Air Quality, Hazards, and Recreation were included in the RDEIR as these issue areas were
10 the only ones affected by significant changes in information since the distribution of the Draft EIR. Revised
11 sections from the RDEIR are included below and replace those sections from the DEIR that are no longer
12 applicable.
13 4.1 Requirements for Cumulative Impact Analysis

14 The State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, CCR, Section 15130), the Ventura County Initial Study Assessment
15 Guidelines, and the Administrative Supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines, require a reasonable analysis of
16 the significant cumulative impacts of a proposed project. A cumulative impact is defined by CEQA as “two or
17 more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase
18 other environmental impacts” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). Cumulative impacts are further
19 defined by the County of Ventura as:
20 “…the adverse change to the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project
21 when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable projects.
22 ‘Related’ means that another projects will have an adverse impact on one or more of the same
23 specific environmental issue(s) as the proposed project. Cumulative impacts can result from
24 individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” (Ventura
25 County 2006)
26 According to Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the
27 project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. The discussion of cumulative impacts needs to
28 reflect the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion does not need to
29 provide as great a detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. According to the State
30 CEQA Guidelines, the following elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of significant cumulative
31 impacts:
32 • A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts,
33 including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or
34 • A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a
35 prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated
36 regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document
37 shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency; and
38 • A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific
39 reference to additional information stating where that information is available, and a reasonable
40 analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. The EIR shall examine reasonable options
41 for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project.

1 Therefore, the following cumulative impact analysis focuses on whether the impacts of the proposed project
2 are cumulatively considerable within the context of impacts caused by other past, present, or future projects.
3 The cumulative impact analysis considers other projects proposed within the geographic area defined for each
4 resource that have the potential to contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts. For purposes of
5 thresholds, the concept of “cumulatively considerable” effects, as derived from the CEQA, Ventura County
6 Initial Study Assessment Guidelines, and Administrative Supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines, is used.
7 For this EIR, related area projects with a potential to contribute to cumulative impacts were identified using
8 one of two approaches: the “list” methodology or the “projection” methodology. Most of the resource areas
9 were analyzed using a list of closely related projects, provided by the County of Ventura, City of Simi Valley,
10 and City of Moorpark that would be constructed within the cumulative geographic scope (Table 4.21-1).
11 4.2 Projects Considered for Cumulative Analysis

12 For the purpose of this EIR, the timeframe of current and/or reasonably foreseeable projects extends from
13 December 2007 to 2054, the projected closure date for the facility, if permitted. A list of the cumulative
14 projects is provided in Table 4.21-1 and the corresponding location of these projects are shown on Figures
15 4.12-1 through 4.12-1b . Residential and non-residential (i.e., commercial, industrial, professional, and
16 institutional) projects are included in the analysis of potential cumulative impacts. These projects have been
17 identified because they are either in proximity to the proposed project and/or have similar characteristics and
18 therefore could contribute cumulatively to environmental impacts. These projects include projects for which
19 an application has been submitted for development, but have not been approved, and recently-approved
20 projects that have not been completed as of December 2007 (i.e., at the time the NOP was published) within
21 the project vicinity that could contribute to cumulative impacts.
Table 4.12-1 Related Projects

No. in
Figure Project Description Address/Location Residential/ Status
Non-Residential
4.21-1
County of Ventura
1 Development of a manufactured housing Santa Susana Area Residential Pending
community (100 units).
Tierra Rejada Golf Club
2 Construction of 3,700 square foot Tierra Rejada Valley Non-Residential Pending
building for use in tournament events at
the golf course.
Butler Ranch Tierra Rejada Valley Residential Unknown
2127 Olsen Road
3 Proposed equestrian center. Tierra Rejada Valley Non-Residential Pending
Expand wholesale propagation nursery to 19 N. Mustang Lane
4 include 25,625 square feet of additional North Simi Hills Non-Residential Pending
shade houses and accessory structures.
Develop 63 acres of a 138 parcel with a
5 college, a church, athletic fields, and a Tierra Rejada Valley Non-Residential Pending
non-profit charitable distribution
warehouse facility.
Development of an agricultural contractor 8255 Grimes Canyon Rd.
6 service and storage yard. North Moorpark Non-Residential Pending
Modification to allow adjacent mine,
Gillibrand, to extend their CUP into APN Tapo Rock and Sand
7 615-0-080-85 to follow a vein of sand Non-Residential Pending
that is deeper than the CUP 4609 mining North Simi Valley
depths.


No. in Residential/
Figure Project Description Address/Location Status
4.21-1 Non-Residential
County of Ventura (continued)
Colton Lee Manufactured Housing
Community Corner of Katherine
8 Develop a leasehold manufactured Road and Pepper Tree Residential Pending
housing community consisting of 100 Lane West
dwelling units on a 21-acre site.
City of Simi Valley
9 Construct 25 townhome units with 3 1260 and 1270 Patricia Residential Pending
affordable units. Avenue
Apricot Simi Development
10 Construct 7 townhomes 4453 Apricot Road Residential Pending
11 Avi Shafran 1378 and 1392 Patricia Residential Approved,

Construct 18 townhomes Avenue Unbuilt
Azad Group Northeast corner of
12 Patricia Avenue and Galt Residential Pending
Construct 3 townhomes Street
Big Sky Approved,
13 Planned development to construct 1,504 Erringer Road Residential Under
single-family residences Construction
Casden
Construct 266 condominiums and Southeast corner of Los
14 townhomes. Change zone to Residential Angeles Avenue and Residential Approved
High (RH). Amend General Plan land use Madera Road
designation to High Density Residential.
Cheema Approved,
15 Construct 10 condominiums 1590 Patricia Avenue Residential Under
Construction
Approved,
16 Coastal Vision 5037 East Cochran Residential Under
Construct 12 single-family residences Street
Construction
17 Creekside East Creekside East Residential Pending
Construct 12 townhomes 1525 Patricia Avenue
Creekside West 1335-1355 Patricia
18 Construct 14 townhomes Avenue Residential Pending
19 Good People USA 1312-1336 Patricia Residential Pending

Construct 25 townhomes Avenue
Haven at Tapo Street 2225 and 2245 Tapo Approved,
20 Construct 72 townhomes, 36 senior Residential Under
apartments, and a commercial building Street Construction
21 Humkar 5496 East Los Angeles Residential Approved,
Construct 16 townhomes Avenue Unbuilt
Hummingbird's Nest Ranch Approved,
22 2940 Kuehner Drive Residential Under
Equestrian center/helipad Construction
23 Huppert 1055 Fourth Street Residential Approved,
Construct 5 single-family residences Unbuilt
Jemstreet Properties South of Hidden Ranch
24 Drive and east of Stearns Residential Pending
Construct 20 single-family residences. Street extension
25 Konig Condominiums 1744 Patricia Avenue Residential Approved,
Construct 4 condominiums Unbuilt
Larwin Northwest corner of
26 Construct 66 condominiums (seven Kuehner Drive and 118 Residential Pending
affordable) Freeway
Larwin Company
27 Construct 44-unit multi-family residences. 1748 Heywood Street Residential Approved,
Alter approved exterior elevations, Unbuilt
landscaping, and grading plans.


No. in Residential/
City of Simi Valley (continued)
Lost Canyons Golf Club
28 Modify public golf course to 364 single- 3301 Lost Canyons Drive Residential Pending
family residences with a private golf
course
29 Madison Gardens Assisted Living 3008 North School Street Residential Pending
Assisted living center
30 Mina 4862 East Cochran Street Residential Pending
Construct 28 senior apartments
North Canyon Ranch
Construct 122 single-family residences, North side of Falcon
31 30-unit multi-family residential, Street and First Street Residential Pending
residential care facility, church, and
school
Olson Company South of Heywood
32 Construct 48 townhomes Street, east of Duncan Residential Pending
Street
Approved,
33 Paseo de las Flores 1851 Stearns Street Residential Under
Construct 36 senior townhomes
Construction
Patricia Place
34 Construct 30-unit senior assisted living 1350 Patricia Avenue Residential Pending
facility
Presidio Heights South side of Presidio Approved,
35 Construct 11 single-family residences Drive, east of Lathrop Residential Under
Avenue Construction
Runkle Canyon
Construct a senior recreational center
36 with related improvements, 25 custom Southern terminus of Residential Pending
single-family detached homes, 298 Sequoia Avenue
single-family residences, and 138 senior
housing units with related improvements.
Seventh Day Adventist Church North of First Street and
37 Operate a church, school, and retirement Residential Pending
facility West of Falcon Street
Sienna Residential 4775 East Cochran Approved,

38 Construct 9 single-family residences Street Residential Under
Construction
Simi Valley Assisted Living North side of Cochran
39 Construct a 92-bed residential care Street, west of Sycamore Residential Approved,
Unbuilt
facility Drive
Simi Valley Investment Co. South of Leeds Street, Approved,
40 Residential Under
Construct 9 single-family residences east of Ralston Avenue Construction
Spanish Villas at the Park 4871 East Los Angeles Approved,
41 Construct 38 condominiums Avenue Residential Under
Construction
Sunrise Assisted Living Approved,
42 Construct 78-unit assisted living facility 136 Tierra Rejada Road Residential Unbuilt
Villa Adagio Southeast corner of Los Approved,
43 Construct 37 multi-family townhomes Angeles Avenue and Residential Unbuilt
Simi Valley Drive
Northeast corner of
44 Zelkjovic Patricia Avenue and Galt Residential Pending
Construct 3 townhomes
Street
45 Accu-Air 1910 Bishop Lane Non-Residential Pending
Construct a 2,925 sq. ft. retail store
Acosta Auto Repair Donville Ave., north side
46 Allow 4,800 sq. ft. auto repair center of Los Angeles Ave. Non-Residential Pending


No. in Residential/
Aspen Center South
47 45,000 sq. ft. addition to Aspen Medical 27500 Sycamore Dr. Non-Residential Pending
Building
Civic Center Plaza 2619-2735 Tapo Canyon Approved,
48 Addition to existing retail building Road Non-Residential Unbuilt
Del Taco Approved,
49 Construct a Drive-Thru restaurant 1098 Enchanted Way Non-Residential Under
Construction
Fox Office Building
50 Construct two-story office building 2787 Tapo Street Non-Residential Pending
Medical Office Building 525 East Los Angeles
51 Construct an approximately 25,000 sq. ft. Avenue Non-Residential Pending
three-storey medical office building
Pending,
52 Musashi Restaurant 1747 Simi Town Center Non-Residential Under
Construct a Japanese restaurant Way
Construction
Scheu Development Approved,
53 2655 First Street Non-Residential Under
Construct three-story office building Construction
Simi Valley Hospital 2975 North Sycamore Approved,
54 Construct patient care tower and site Drive Non-Residential Construction
improvements Completed
Simi Valley Town Center North side of the 118 Approved,
55 Phase I of Regional Mall. Grading and Freeway between First Non-Residential Under
infrastructure for 129-acre town center Street and Erringer Road Construction
Steadfast Wood Ranch East side of Madera
56 Road, north of Irvine Non-Residential Pending
Construct Multi-building office complex Road
Target
57 Construct a 134,231 sq. ft. Target store 51 Tierra Rejada Non-Residential Pending
and two pad buildings
Ventura County Credit Union
58 Construct two retail buildings 2650 Tapo Canyon Road Non-Residential Pending
59 Vineyards 2525 Stow Street Non-Residential Pending

Restaurant/bar for banquet events
60 Walgreens 2417 Sycamore Drive Non-Residential Pending
Construct a 10,000 sq. ft. pharmacy
Wood Ranch Center
61 Construct 5,000 sq.ft. retail building on 501 Country Club Drive Non-Residential Pending
Pad D
All Valley RV Storage
Recreational vehicle storage facility with 850 West Los Angeles Approved,
62 450 spaces, office, caretaker, residence, Avenue Non-Residential Unbuilt
and dump station
City Auto Body
63 Construct a 7,576 sq. ft. automotive repair 2150 Agate Court Non-Residential Pending
facility
Donley RV Storage
Create recreational vehicle storage lot, North side of Los
including RV retail part sales, rental, and
64 repair service uses. Amend the West End Angeles Avenue, Non-Residential Pending
approximately 1,300 feet
Specific Plan to allow RV part sales, east of Quimisa Avenue
rentals, and repair services in Light
Industrial (LI) zone.
65 Larry Ready Storage 900 West Los Angeles Non-Residential Pending
Construct a contractor's storage yard Avenue


No. in Residential/
Simi Valley Recycling Center 400-A West Los Approved,
66 Permit use of a recycling center Angeles Avenue Non-Residential Construction
Completed
West America Construction
67 Construct three multi-tenant industrial 4590 Irish Street Non-Residential Pending
building
68 West Simi Business Center 903 Quimisa Drive Non-Residential Pending
Construct multi-tenant industrial park
City of Moorpark
Moorpark Country Club Estates Both sides of
216 Single Family Residences; 27 holes Championship Drive, Approved,
69 of golf and clubhouse on 655 acres. 29 between Walnut Canyon Residential Under
Single Family Residences on 29 acres. 49 Road and Grimes Construction
Single Family Residences on 43 acres. Canyon Road
247 Single Family Residences on 35 South of Los Angeles Approved,
70 acres. 37 Single Family Residences on 5 Avenue and East of Residential Unbuilt
acres Maureen Lane
North of Union Pacific
620 Single and Multi-Family Residences Railroad Tracks and EIR &
71 Residential Specific Plan
on 281 acres West of Terminus of in Process
Casey Road
East of Walnut Canyon
72 450 Single Family Residences and 102 Under
Triplex Condominium Units on 445 acres Rd. North of Charles Residential Construction
Street
77 Detached and Duplex Condominiums South of Los Angeles Approved,
73 Residential Under
on 9 acres Avenue at Millard Street Construction
West of Walnut Canyon Approved,
74 110 Single Family Residences on 72 acres Road, North of Wicks Residential Unbuilt
Road
Northeast Corner of
75 50 unit apartment building on 2 acres Everett Street and Residential Pending
Walnut Canyon Road
West of Walnut Canyon
248 Single Family Residences on 350 Road between Casey Under
76 acres Road and Championship Residential Construction
Drive
West of Walnut Canyon Approved,
Road between Casey
77 17 Single Family Residences on 3 acres Road and Championship Residential Under
Construction
Drive
102 detached and duplex condominiums South of Los Angeles Approved,
78 Avenue between Spring Residential
on 15 acres Road and Fremont Street Unbuilt
110 Single Family Residences on 48 North of Casey Road

79 acres and West of Walnut Residential Pending
Canyon road
South of Casey Road
80 200 apartments on 11 acres and West of Walnut Residential Approved,
Unbuilt
Canyon Road
Marine View Drive, East Approved,
81 21 Single Family Residences on 42 acres of Walnut Canyon Road Residential
at Championship Drive Unbuilt
Southwest corner of
82 131,745 sq. ft. shopping center on 11 New Los Angeles Non-Residential Completed
acres Avenue and Miller
Parkway


No. in Residential/
City of Moorpark (continued)
72,135 sq ft retail, restaurant, office, and Southwest corner of Under
83 gas station on 6 acres Collins Drive and Non-Residential Construction
Campus Park
76,000 sq ft medical office building on 4 601-699 W. Los Angeles Approved,
84 acres Avenue Non-Residential Unbuilt
Approved,
85 15,505 sq. ft. office building on 1 acre 145 Park Lane Non-Residential Under
Construction
South side of Los
86 34,374 sq. ft. shopping center on 1.6 acres Angeles Avenue, East of Non-Residential Completed
Park Lane
132,500 sq. ft. warehouse discount center 14339-14349 White
87 offices, retail and distribution center on 8 Non-Residential Completed
acres Sage Road
50,000 sq. ft. mixed-use South side of High

88 commercial/office center on 2 acres Street east of Moorpark Non-Residential Pending
Avenue
South side of Los
89 25,522 sq. ft. office building on 1.7 acres Angeles Avenue West of Non-Residential Approved,
Unbuilt
Leta Yancy Road
South side of Los Approved,
90 74,818 sq. ft. shopping center on 7 acres Angeles Avenue, West Non-Residential Under
of Moorpark Avenue Construction
18,140 sq. ft. shopping center addition on Approved,
91 12 acres 4279 Tierra Rejada Road Non-Residential Under
Construction
137,000 sq. ft. home depot home Patriot Drive East of Approved,
92 improvement and garden center retail Miller parkway (Part of Non-Residential Under
store on 11 acres 1-I) Construction
93 112-room Fairfield Inn Hotel on 2 acres 14350 White Sage Road Non-Residential Approved,
Unbuilt
West of SR-23 FWY,
350,000 sq. ft. office/retail park on 33 East of Miller Parkway, Approved,
94 acres (12.9 acres as CPD 2005-06 Home Non-Residential Under
Depot) South of Moorpark Construction
Marketplace
Grading
North of Union Pacific Underway,
95 17 lots on 36 acres Railroad Tracks, West of Non-Residential No Building
Gabbert Road Plans
Approved
9,997 sq. ft. industrial building on 0.6 Terminus of Fitch Approved,
96 acres Avenue, East of Minor Industrial Under
Street Construction
97 Concrete batch plant on 10 acres 13950 Princeton Avenue Industrial Pending
Huma Services Center 25,000 sq. ft. 612 Spring Road Parcel
98 multi-agency service center on 2 acres 2 PM No. 5243 Public Pending
99 Magnolia Park (public park) on 0.2 acres 296 Charles Public Completed
Corporate Yard: Public Works and Parks Terminus of Fitch
100 Yard and 9,456 sq. ft. building on 2.2 Avenue Public Completed
acres
City Hall/Civic Center Complex: 32,000
101 sq. ft. city hall 83 West High Street Public Pending

Figure 4.2-1b. Related and Cumulative Projects - City Simi Valley
!
7
6
!
Figure 4.2-1a. Related and Cumulative

27
Projects - City of Moorpark !
! 68 80
!
75 34
!
!
76 82
!
! 78 71
!
79! ! 118
70 ! 73! 74! 98 96 64 67 36 53
94 65
100 !!87 ! 97 21
!
!
92
! !!! ! 30
! !!! 99
! 63 61 !
48 51 !
! ! 54
46 57 49 !
8369 89 95 !
86 !
118
! !
! !
84 ! 77 93 47 25
37! 52 59!!
!
!
! ! !! ! ! !9 29 !
88 85 ! !!
81 91 62 38 19 !!15 58 !
72 5 4156 45 ! 39
!
2 ! ! 42 50 !
90
! ! 8 17 ! 14 11 28 44 20
! !!
13 33 !! 43
!!!!! ! !! ! 66
!
32 !
!
16!31
!
24
!
! 40 !
1810 26 ! 23
1
22 !
!
55
3 60 !
! !
12
!
35
T:\AIR-PLAN-CULTURAL\APC_SimiValley\Projects\APC_Simi-Figure4.1-1.mxd
LEGEND
Related Projects by Municipality 23
! County of Ventura
! City of Moorpark
! City of Simi Valley
Scale N
0 2 4
Miles !
Figure 4.2-1. Related and Cumulative Projects Location Map

68 LEGEND
!
Related Projects
80 ! City of Moorpark
!
! County of Ventura
Scale N
0 0.5
Mile
75
!
82
76 !
!
78
! 118
71
73 !
!
79
!
74
70 !
! 96
98 !
100 !
94 !
! 87 97 99
!
!! !
95 92
!
! 86
83
! 88 85 77
69 ! 84 !! 89 !
! 91
! 72 ! 93
! 81! !
118
2
!
90
!
Figure 4.2-1a. Related and Cumulative Projects - City of Moorpark

LEGEND
Related Projects
! City of Simi Valley
! County of Ventura N
Scale
27
! 0 2.0
Miles
34
!
36 53
64 ! 67 !
65 ! 30 21
!!
! !
61 48 51 ! 46 49 !
63 ! ! 54 ! 57
! !
! 47 !
T:\AIR-PLAN-CULTURAL\APC_SimiValley\Projects\APC_Simi-Figure4.1-1b_SimiValley.mxd
118
! 52 38 ! !9 25
37! ! 59 ! 58
19 29 !! 15 !
41 56 62 45
5 17 !
! ! ! 42 50 ! 43 !39
! 10 ! 14 11 44 20
!! 8 !! ! 28 !
!!! ! ! ! ! 66 40 32 !
13
18 !!! !
24 !
33 16 31 26 !
23 1
!
22
!
55
60 ! 45
12 !
! ! 35
!
8 17 16 11
! 18 ! 10 ! 14 43 !! 24
33 ! ! !
! !
31! 26
!
Figure 4.2-1b. Related and Cumulative Projects - City of Simi Valley

1 4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis

2 The project’s cumulative impact is considered to be the project’s contribution to the impacts caused by all the
3 approved and proposed projects listed in Table 4.21-1 and mapped on Figures 4.21-1 through 4.21-1b. The
4 following sections analyze the cumulative impacts identified for each environmental resource issue analyzed
5 in Chapter 3.0.
6 4.3.1 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
7 4.3.1.1 Scope of Analysis
8 Since the proposed project has the capacity to affect land use within the project area and surrounding
9 communities, the region of analysis for cumulative land use impacts includes the project area and also extends
10 to adjacent areas, including the unincorporated areas of Ventura County, City of Simi Valley, and City of
11 Moorpark.
12 4.3.1.2 Impacts of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects
13 Past actions within the project vicinity have been subject to the goals and objectives delineated in the Ventura
14 County General Plan, so that these past development projects have been approved pursuant to the adopted
15 General Plan. Parcel zoning designations control the land use types and densities that can be constructed on a
16 given parcel. Over the years, the County has developed consistency with the General Plan and site zoning
17 regulations, ensuring consistency with land use/density designations to minimize impacts on surrounding
18 areas. In addition, existing facilities within the project vicinity have been modified as necessary to ensure
19 proposed land use/density designations are consistent with their respective land use plan and site zoning
20 designations. Similarly, existing reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects within the Cities of Simi Valley
21 and Moorpark would be required to be consistent with their respective land use plan and site zoning
22 designations prior to approval.
23 Construction and operation associated with present and future projects, including the Tierra Rejada Golf Club
24 (#2), Equestrian Center (#3), Wholesale Nursery Expansion Project (#5), and Gillibrand Mine CUP
25 Expansion Project (#9) would be modified during the project permitting and review process to ensure
26 consistency with Ventura County General Plan goals and policies. Therefore, past, present, and reasonably
27 foreseeable future projects are expected to be consistent with the General Plan and adopted environmental
28 goals and polices adopted for purposes of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts.
29 Cumulative projects with the greatest relevance to the analysis of cumulative housing impacts are the Simi
30 Valley Town Center Project (#56), Target (#58), West Simi Business Center Project (#69), Shopping Center
31 Project (#83), Warehouse Distribution Center Project (#88), Home Depot (#93), and Office/Retail Park
32 Project (#95). These projects primarily include commercial developments that would promote economic
33 development in the project vicinity. Due to the large regional workforce in Los Angeles metropolitan region,
34 and the dispersed nature of secondary jobs beyond the immediate vicinity of Ventura County, it is expected
35 that local workers will fill most of the construction and operations jobs associated with these projects and
36 would not require relocation within the region that would require new development of housing. The past,
37 present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative project would not cause growth (i.e., new housing generators)
38 that exceeds project levels for the year of proposed project buildout (2050) that would result in adverse
39 impacts on housing demands.
40 4.3.1.3 Contribution of the Proposed Project
41 As discussed in Section 3.1.2.3.1, Impact LU-1, waste handling, waste disposal, and recycling facilities are a
42 permitted conditional use within the OS-160 acre zoning district. The proposed project is also consistent with
1 the Guidelines for Orderly Development. Removal of the proposed facilities, with the exception of support
2 facilities required to support closure and post-closure maintenance activities, upon cessation of the landfill
3 and/or transfer operations and ongoing revegetation of final grade slopes would ensure the project’s
4 compatibility with the surrounding open space/rural character. As the proposed project would be consistent
5 with zoning and General Plan land use policies, and would be compatible with surrounding land uses, impacts
6 on community character would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less
7 than significant cumulative contribution to cumulative impacts on land use.
8 Since the proposed project would have no impacts on existing housing (Section 3.1.2.3.2, Impact LU-2), it is
9 not necessary to analyze the proposed project‘s contribution to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
10 impacts on existing housing.
12 for additional housing (Section 3.1.2.3.3, Impact LU-3). However, due to the temporary nature of construction
13 activities and the sufficient number of construction workers available within Ventura County and the Los
14 Angeles Metropolitan region, impacts on housing related to an influx of construction workers during project
15 construction would be less than significant. As there is not an adequate vacancy rate or available housing for
16 lower-income families in the County, and because the project would employ more than 30 new full-time
17 employees, impacts on housing during project operations would be significant. Ventura County does not have
18 a housing impact mitigation fee policy. Therefore, lacking the legal authority to impose a fee and a
19 mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts to housing, there is no feasible mitigation for
20 the housing demand created by additional project employees. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
21 a significant cumulative contribution to cumulative impacts on housing. Implementation of Mitigation
22 Measures LU-1, requiring payment of fees, would reduce impacts to housing. With implementation of this
23 mitigation measure, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative contribution to
24 cumulative housing impacts.
25 As discussed in Section 3.1.2.3.4, Impact LU-4, the project would not include or necessitate the expansion of
26 critical public facilities, including roads, water supply infrastructure, sewer systems, or flood control facilities.
27 Additionally, the proposed project does not include an amendment to any adopted County policies that could
28 establish a precedent or accommodate further growth. As the project would not result in the expansion of
29 public facilities or an amendment to County policies, impacts to growth inducement would be less than
30 significant. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative contribution to
31 cumulative growth inducement impacts.
32 4.3.2 Air Quality
34 The region of analysis for cumulative effects on air quality is the SCCAB. However, the highest impacts
35 under the proposed project in the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects (Table 4.21-1)
36 would occur within the areas adjacent to the proposed project, including unincorporated portions of Ventura
37 County, City of Simi Valley, and City of Moorpark.
39 Due to its growing population, proximity to the Los Angeles metropolitan region, and the substantial numbers
40 of past and present emission sources associated with these areas, Ventura County experiences degraded air
41 quality. As stated in Section 3.2, the region does not attain the national and state ambient air quality standards
42 for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. These pollutant nonattainment conditions within the project region are considered to
43 be cumulatively significant.

1 Due to the project’s relatively rural setting, ambient levels of TACs associated with cumulative projects
2 adjacent to the project site are cumulatively less than significant.
3 Scientific evidence indicates a correlation between increasing global temperatures/climate change over the past
4 century and human induced GHG) emissions. These and other environmental changes have potentially negative
5 environmental, economic, and social consequences around the globe. Climate change, as it relates to man-made
6 GHG emissions, is by nature a global impact. Thus, the issue of global climate change is a cumulative impact
7 and an appreciable impact on global climate change would occur when GHG emissions from a project combine
8 with GHG emissions from other man-made activities on a global scale.
9 The approved and proposed projects listed in Table 4.21-1 and mapped on Figures 4.21-1 through 4.21-1b
10 would contribute to the above cumulative air quality conditions.
12 Construction activities resulting from some of the projects listed above may add to the emission levels and
13 ambient concentrations around the landfill due to their overlapping construction schedule. Exact construction
14 schedules are unknown at this time, but the impacts of multiple construction projects, along with the proposed
15 project, could be cumulatively considerable.
16 As discussed in Section 3.2.2.3, project operations would produce emissions that would exceed the VCAPCD
17 daily ROC and NOx emission thresholds for each modeled year until near facility closure in 2053. Also,
18 emissions from project construction and operation would contribute to or exacerbate exceedances of the (1) 1-
19 hour CAAQS and NAAQS for NO2; (2) 24-hour CAAQS and NAAQS for PM10; (3) annual CAAQS for
20 PM10; and (4) 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5, and (5) annual CAAQS for PM2.5. Implementation of Mitigation
21 Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 and AQ-5 would reduce proposed impacts to below the NAAQS for 24-hour
22 PM10. However, all other construction and operational impacts identified above would remain significant.
23 Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would further offset the increase in proposed operational emissions. However, it is
24 uncertain the extent to which the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Emissions Reduction Program
25 would offset overall project-related vehicular emissions and thus it is not possible to calculate their associated
26 emission reductions.
27 As discussed in Section 3.2.2.3, project operations would produce emissions that would exceed the VCAPCD
28 daily ROC and NOx emission thresholds for each modeled year. Additionally, emissions from project
29 construction and operation would contribute to exceedances of the: (1) 1-hour CAAQS for NO2; (2) 24-hour
30 CAAQS and NAAQS for PM10; (3) annual CAAQS for PM10; and (4) 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5, and (5)
31 annual CAAQS and NAAQS for PM2.5. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 would
32 reduce proposed impacts to below the NAAQS for 24-hour PM10 and annual PM2.5. However, all other
33 construction and operational impacts identified above would remain significant. Mitigation Measure AQ-5
34 would further reduce operational emissions from: 1) 1-hour CAAQS for NO2; 2) 24-hour CAAQS for PM10;
35 3) annual CAAQS for PM10; 4) 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5; and 5) annual CAAQS for PM2.5. However, since
36 it is uncertain the extent to which the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Emissions Reduction
37 Program would offset overall project-related vehicular emissions and thus not possible to calculate what those
38 reductions might be these exceedances would remain significant.
39 Existing and future project construction and operational activities would add additional air emission burdens
40 to these significant levels of project emissions. As a result, mitigated emissions from project construction and
41 operation would produce cumulatively considerable and unavoidable contributions to O3, NO2, PM10, and
42 PM2.5 levels.
43 Emissions of TACs from project construction and operation would marginally increase cancer risks and non-
44 cancer effects in proximity to the project site. Existing and future project construction and operational
1 activities would nominally combine with these project impacts at low levels, due to their relatively long
2 distance from the project site. As a result, the project construction and operation would produce less than
4 Fugitive dust from project construction and operations would exceed the 24-hour PM 10 CAAQS. However,
5 since this maximum impact is predicted to occur on the SVLRC property line, proposed ambient PM10
6 impacts would quickly decrease in magnitude with distance from the SVLRC facility. For example, the
7 maximum ambient 24-hour PM10 impact of fugitive dust predicted to occur from the facility at the nearest
8 point inhabited by a considerable number of persons would be about 11 µg/m3 (Figure B-2-13 in Appendix B-
9 2). This point is on SR-118, directly south of the SVLRC main gate. This impact is substantially less than the
10 24-hour PM10 CAAQS of 50 µg/m3. Therefore, project construction and operation would not generate a
11 cumulatively considerable impact to levels of fugitive dust.
17 Measure AQ-6 would ensure that the project would produce less than cumulatively considerable impact from
19 As discussed in Section 3.2.2.3, the net increase in GHG emissions between proposed operations for each
20 development year and the 2009 CEQA Baseline 2009 would exceed 10,000 metric tons per year of CO2e.
21 Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-7, and AQ-8 would reduce GHGs from
22 proposed construction and operations. However, the increase in GHGs emissions from proposed operations for
23 each development year would still exceed 10,000 metric tons per year of CO2e after implementation of these
24 measures. Therefore, GHG emissions from proposed operations would result in a cumulatively considerable
25 impact on the environment. As discussed in Section 3.2.2.3, project construction and operation would produce
26 GHG emissions that would exceed levels of GHG emissions produced from the existing SVLRC. These
27 project increases of GHG emissions would incrementally contribute to global climate change. Implementation
28 of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-6 would reduce the project’s contribution to global climate change.
29 The significance of the impacts in the absence of established criteria is not determined.
33 earthquake or major wildfire) is required to release a large number of spores over a wide area wide enough for
34 a significant outbreak of Valley Fever to occur. Expanded landfill operations, as well as cumulative projects
35 listed in Table 4.21-1, would result in less than significant impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less
36 than significant and the contribution of the proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.
37 4.3.3 Water Resources
39 The geographic region of analysis for cumulative effects on groundwater quality and quantity would be
40 projects located within the groundwater basin affected by the proposed project. The geographic region of
41 analysis for cumulative effects on surface water quality and quantity would be projects located within the
42 hydraulic units affected by the proposed project.
43 In determining a project’s impact on a groundwater basin, the net amount of groundwater extraction resulting
44 from the proposed project was evaluated. If a project would directly or indirectly cause a net decrease in
1 groundwater quality in an overdrafted basin, this decrease in groundwater quality was considered to have a
2 potentially significant cumulative impact. Any project that would cumulatively contribute to degradation of
3 the quality of groundwater and cause groundwater to fail to meet groundwater quality objectives set by the
4 LARWQCB was considered to have a potentially significant cumulative impact. Cumulative impacts to
5 surface water quantity would be considered significant if cumulative water use causes the hydraulic unit to
6 become overdrafted. Off-site discharge of contaminated stormwater that cumulatively causes the hydrologic
7 unit to fail to meet surface water quality objectives is a significant cumulative impact. Potential on-site and
8 off-site flooding hazards have been reviewed with respect to other projects within the same watershed.
9 Cumulative impacts are considered significant if the proposed project, in combination with other projects in
10 the watershed, contributed to downstream flooding.
11 4.3.3.2 Impacts of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable future Projects
12 Past projects, including projects listed in Table 4.21-1, may have contributed to groundwater withdrawal from
13 the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin, which underlies the project site. However, most wells drilled in the
14 alluvial deposits within the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin and along Arroyo Simi have been used for
15 limited domestic and agricultural usage, as well as for stock watering purposes. With the importation of State
16 Water to the area in the mid-1960s and the gradual urbanization of the area, virtually all of these wells have
17 now been abandoned or destroyed. In addition, most of the alluvial wells along the Arroyo Simi have been
18 abandoned due to excessive mineral content and the availability of better quality imported State Water.
19 Therefore, the majority of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, including the existing
20 SVLRC, do not now and would not in the future draw water from the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin.
21 Past projects have not contributed to groundwater withdrawal from the Las Posas Groundwater Basin, as the
22 Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD), the water purveyor for these past projects, has not historically
23 used the Las Posas Groundwater Basin for its water supplies. However, the CMWD intends to initiate
24 groundwater pumping from this basin, to supplement its supplies from the State Water Project. Therefore,
25 some present and most reasonably foreseeable projects, including the proposed project, would receive water
26 from the CMWD, thus contributing to groundwater withdrawals from the Las Posas Groundwater Basin,
27 which is in a state of overdraft (County of Ventura Watershed Protection District 2009).
28 Past projects that used and/or disposed of hazardous materials/waste and/or bulk petroleum products,
29 including projects listed in Table 4.21-1, may have contributed to groundwater quality degradation of the Simi
30 Valley Groundwater Basin. Similarly, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects that use and/or
31 dispose of hazardous materials/waste and/or bulk petroleum products, including the existing SVLRC, could
32 further contribute to groundwater quality degradation. However, because of the poor water quality in the
33 basin, including high total dissolved solids and shallow, naturally occurring petroleum hydrocarbons,
34 groundwater from the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin is generally not used beneficially.
35 Past projects that are located in an overdrafted hydraulic unit and diverted surface waters for project related
36 beneficial uses, including projects listed in Table 4.21-1, may have increased the net utilization of surface
37 water. Similarly, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects may increase the net utilization of surface
38 water in an overdrafted hydraulic unit.
39 Cumulative projects, including projects listed in Table 4.21-1, may have resulted in adverse surface water
40 quality impacts, as a result of grading/construction related siltation of local drainages and creeks; incidental
41 spills of oil, grease, or other petroleum products from construction equipment and other vehicles; or
42 accidental spills of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Similarly, present and reasonably foreseeable
43 future projects may contribute to adverse surface water quality impacts.
44 Cumulative projects, including projects listed in Table 4.21-1, may have increased the potential for flooding
45 in Arroyo Simi, primarily as a result of increased paving, less permeable surfaces, and associated increased
1 surface runoff. Projects that did not include detention basins to retard project related increased surface flows
2 would be especially prone to downstream flooding contributions.
4 As discussed in Section 3.3.23.3.1, Impact WR-1, the proposed project would receive water from the CMWD.
5 The main source of water for the CMWD is imported State San Joaquin Delta water, as part of their State
6 Water Project annual contract rights. Because a water availability letter would be submitted by CMWD with
7 the proposed project application, verifying that adequate water supplies are available; an updated water supply
8 plan would be included as part of a Master Development Plan; and the CMWD is considered a permanent
9 source of water (See Section 3.12, Water Supply); groundwater quantity impacts associated with proposed
10 expansion of the SVLRC would be less than significant. However, because of the uncertainty associated with
11 future groundwater withdrawals by other users within the already overdrafted Las Posas basin, the project’s
12 contribution to cumulative effects would potentially result in a significant cumulative impact on groundwater
13 quantity.
14 As discussed in Section 3.3.32.3.2, Impact WR-2, water quality impacts associated with detection of naturally
15 occurring petroleum compounds in the groundwater are not a result of past landfill operations, and the
16 impacts would not become incrementally greater if the landfill were expanded. It was further concluded that
17 even where saturated refuse is in contact with the underlying alluvium, very little leachate from prior project
18 operations appears to be entering/migrating through the alluvium and future project areas will be fully lined.
19 Therefore, potential water quality impacts associated with leachate generation would not be incrementally
20 greater as more waste is placed in the landfill. In addition, it was concluded that previous detections of
21 pesticide compounds in the groundwater were false positives and were not the result of past landfill
22 operations. Because the regional groundwater basin generally consists of poor water quality, these less than
23 significant water quality impacts would be inconsequential to drinking water supplies. Therefore, the
24 cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of the proposed project is less than
25 cumulatively considerable.
26 As discussed in Section 3.3.23.3.3, Impact WR-3, the proposed landfill expansion would not increase the net
27 utilization of surface water in a hydraulic unit that is overdrafted or adversely impact an overdrafted
28 hydrologic unit. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would occur in association with surface water quantity.
29 As discussed in Section 3.3.23.3.4, Impact WR-4, use of existing and proposed drainage and erosion control
30 measures would reduce incremental increases in infiltration of surface water, which increases leachate
31 generation, and erosion-related impacts. However, surface water quality sampling completed at the site
32 indicates that stormwater runoff is not in compliance with water quality objectives established in the Basin
33 Plan, including associated TMDLs, nor in compliance with Federal EPA benchmarks. Such contaminated
34 runoff is incrementally contributing to water quality impacts within the Calleguas Creek watershed. A
35 representative with the LARWQCB indicated that it is common for stormwater runoff at commercial and
36 industrial facilities located throughout RWQCB Region 4, the Los Angeles Region (as established by the
37 State Water Resources Control Board), to exceed Federal EPA water quality benchmarks (Lee, personal
38 communication 2009). Therefore, other cumulative projects located within the watershed would similarly
39 contribute to adverse water quality impacts within the Calleguas Creek watershed, which is considered an
40 impaired water body due to water column and sediment toxicity, organophosphate pesticides in water, and
41 chlorpyrifos in fish tissue. The cumulative impact is significant and the contribution of the proposed project
42 is cumulatively considerable.
43 As discussed in Section 3.3.23.3.5, Impact WR-5, a detailed phasing plan for the drainage facilities would be
44 worked outcompleted and incorporated with construction plans for the new phased disposal areas. Facilities
45 that have a direct connection to a Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) jurisdictional
46 channel, or are located within the bed, banks, and overflow area of a jurisdictional channel, would be
1 designed to meet VCWPD standards and would require a permit from that agency. The VCWPD would
2 require additional engineering during the design phase that meets all the VCWPD criteria and standards, as
3 contained in the conditions of the Initial Study Checklist. The VCWPD would have an opportunity to review
4 and comment on the draft construction drawings prior to finalizing the drawings and proceeding with the
5 construction of the sedimentation/detention basins or any other component of the proposed project that
6 impacts a VCWPD jurisdictional facility.
7 Interim facilities would provide stormwater management capabilities equivalent to those of existing
8 conditions and those at final development of the expanded landfill. Even though a portion of the large,
9 northeast-trending tributary canyon to Alamos Canyon Creek lies within a designated 100-year floodplain,
10 surface runoff within this drainage would be controlled by project-related drainage features, including a
11 detention/sedimentation basin. As a result, flooding would not occur within the landfill expansion area during
12 landfill operations. In addition, because 100-year storm flow rates would be reduced to 10-year flood
13 conditions as a consequence of constructing the proposed detention/sedimentation basin, beneficial impacts
14 would occur with respect to contributing flood flow to Alamos Canyon Creek. However, the structural
15 integrity of the proposed detention/sedimentation basin could be undermined by erosive floodwaters along
16 Alamos Canyon Creek. Armoring of the detention/sedimentation basin wall would reduce potential erosive
17 scouring during 100-year flood events, such that impacts would be less than significant. Construction of this
18 detention/sedimentation basin would occur immediately adjacent to the designated floodplain of Alamos
19 Canyon Creek and overlying approximately 150 lateral feet of the projected backwater surface up the
20 tributary creek. A flooding analysis completed by Hall & Foremen, Inc. (2009) (see Appendix E) indicated
21 that future grading improvements affecting a tributary canyon to Alamos Canyon Creek that would be filled
22 by the expansion project should not negatively impact the upstream or downstream 100-year floodwater
23 surface of Alamos Canyon Creek. However, potentially increased surface flow velocities, as a result of
24 partial infringement of the detention/sedimentation basin on the floodplain, could result in downstream
25 erosion within Alamos Canyon Creek. Implementation of downstream erosion control features, in
26 coordination with the VCWPD, Floodplain Management Division, and/or redesign of the basin such that it
27 does not infringe on the floodplain, would reduce potential downstream erosion during 100-year flood events,
28 such that impacts would be less than significant. There are no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable
29 projects that include construction within the Alamos Canyon Creek floodplain that might contribute to
30 increase flood-induced erosion. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution
32 4.3.4 Biological Resources
34 The geographic region of analysis for biological resources differs by organism groups such as birds,
35 mammals, reptiles, and insects. The mobility of species in these groups, their population distributions, and the
36 normal movement range for individuals living in an area varies so that effects on biotic communities in one
37 area can affect those communities in other nearby areas. For terrestrial biological resources (excluding water-
38 associated birds), the geographic region of analysis is limited to those land areas at the proposed project sites and
39 extending approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) in all directions from the project boundary with SR-118 acting as the
40 southern boundary.
41 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development that could contribute to cumulative impacts on
42 terrestrial resources are those projects that involve land disturbance such as grading, paving, landscaping,
43 construction of roads and buildings, and related noise and traffic impacts. Noise, traffic, and other operational
44 impacts can also be expected to have cumulative impacts on terrestrial species.

2 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects listed in Table 4.21-1 are limited within one mile of the
3 project site. These cumulative projects includes: All Valley RV Storage (#61), Larry Ready Storage (#65),
4 Dorley RV Storage (#64), West Simi Business Center (#68), Simi Valley Recycling Center (#66), Sunrise
5 Assisted Living (#42), Target (#57), Sierra Residential (#38), Scheu Development (#53), Del Taco (#49),
6 Musashi Restaurant (#52), 7th Day Adventist Church (#37), Simi Valley Town Center (#55), and North
7 Canyon Ranch (#31). All listed projects occurring with one mile of the project area and north of SR-118 (#49,
8 37, 31, 52, 55) are located within an urban landscape and therefore are unlikely to contribute to cumulative
9 adverse impacts to native habitat communities and wildlife. However, urban projects that include vegetation
10 removal during nesting season in the vicinity may adversely impact nesting birds. In addition, cumulative
11 projects with regards to wildlife corridors are those located within the Santa Monica Mountains-Tierra
12 Rejada-Santa Susana Mountain Range wildlife corridors. Cumulative impacts on biological resources within
13 wildlife corridors may result from the combined incremental impact of increases in removal of high quality
14 native habitat.
16 Significance thresholds for biological resources were used to evaluate the level of impact and are listed in
17 Section 3.4.2.1. These thresholds were based on Section 15065(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines and the
18 Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines and Administrative Supplement to the State CEQA
19 Guidelines. Based on these guidelines a project would generally have a significant impact if the threshold
20 criteria are reached.
21 As discussed in Section 3.4.2.3.1, Impact BIO-1, no federally or state listed endangered, threatened, or rare
22 plant or wildlife species are known or believed to occur on-site; however, potentially suitable habitat for
23 coastal California gnatcatcher occurs on-site. If individuals inhabiting the project site prior to grading are
24 impacted by project construction (e.g., habitat loss and potential direct mortality as well as disturbance to
25 nearby birds, if present) and operation (reduction of habitat quality, potential for “take” if birds are present),
26 it would be a significant impact to this species. Additionally, nesting birds protected by federal and state
27 regulation occur on-site. Disruption of nesting and loss of active bird nests as a result of construction or other
28 site preparation activities would be a significant impact to nesting birds. With the implementation of
29 Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, impacts on the coastal California gnatcatcher and nesting birds
30 would be less than significant. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution
32 As discussed in Section 3.4.2.3.2, Impact BIO-2, the proposed project would result in the removal of about
33 2,125 square feet (0.05 acre) of marsh vegetation associated with two seeps in the southern part of the
34 expansion area. This would be a direct, permanent loss of wetland habitat and the impact would be considered
35 significant. Alamos and Brea Canyons, located adjacent to and partially within the boundary of the proposed
36 project site, could be indirectly impacted by sedimentation associated with erosion within the proposed
37 expansion area during construction and operations. Intermittent streams are subject to erosion and
38 sedimentation from natural processes, and the impact of minor additional amounts of sediment would be
39 adverse, but less than significant. Compliance with NPDES standards would ensure that project-related
40 contributions to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. With the implementation of mitigation
41 measure Mitigation Measure BIO-4, impacts on wetlands would be less than significant. Therefore, because
42 adjacent projects do not occur in native habitat, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the
44 As discussed in Section 3.4.2.3.3, Impact BIO-3, the proposed project would have the potential for a
45 significant impact on the use of movement corridors and important habitat in Alamos and Brea canyons
46 adjacent to the project site. The expansion area would largely eliminate a small valley extending from Alamos
1 Canyon eastward toward Brea Canyon which provides a corridor that facilitates movement between the
2 canyons. During operation of the landfill, grading, waste disposal, and related activities would cause indirect
3 impacts on adjacent vegetation and wildlife habitat potentially affecting wildlife movement in the regionally
4 important Brea and Alamos Canyon corridors. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-4
5 through BIO-9, impacts on migration corridors would be less than significant. With implementation of these
6 measures, the cumulative impact on wildlife corridors is potentially significant and the contribution of the
7 proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.
8 As discussed in Section 3.4.2.3.4, Impact BIO-4, three locally important and sensitive plant species
9 (Plummer’s mariposa lily, Catalina mariposa lily, and southwestern spiny rush) are present and several other
10 locally important plant species have the potential to occur in the proposed expansion area and surrounding
11 property. The removal of several occurrences of Plummer’s and Catalina mariposa lily and their habitat
12 represent significant long-term direct impacts because they represent substantial reductions in this locally
13 important species and its habitat. Southwestern spiny rush is located outside of the grading limits of the waste
14 disposal area and would not be directly or indirectly impacted by construction of the proposed project.
15 Impacts to these locally important species would be significant due to the substantial reduction in habitat area
16 for these species coupled with anticipated reductions of numbers associated with direct and indirect project
17 impacts including displacement of species populations. Direct losses of over 252.1 acres of native habitats,
18 including sage scrub (91.1 acres), chamise chaparral (8.1 acres), grassland (152.7 acres), and coast live oak
19 woodland (0.2 acres) as a result of landfill expansion represents a substantial reduction in these locally
20 important communities, a long-term direct impact. Degradation of habitat quality in adjacent areas due to the
21 introduction and spread of invasive non-native species would occur in physically disturbed areas at the
22 landfill perimeter as well as adjacent undisturbed, native habitats. Impacts on the Plummer’s mariposa lily and
23 Catalina mariposa lily would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-10
24 and BIO-11. Impacts on locally important wildlife species would be less than significant with the
25 implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 and Mitigation Measures BIO-12 through BIO-14. Impacts on
26 locally important plant and wildlife communities would be less than significant with the implementation of
27 Mitigation Measures BIO-13 and BIO-14. Therefore, because adjacent projects occur in urban settings that
28 are already partially or fully developed, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of
30 4.3.5 Agricultural Resources
32 The geographic region of analysis for cumulative effects on agricultural resources includes agricultural soils
33 designated as important farmland and areas that are located within one-half mile of land currently in, or
34 suitable for agricultural production in Ventura County.
36 Cumulative impacts on agricultural resources may result from the combined incremental conversion of
37 agricultural lands to urban uses within Ventura County. The pressure for continued development of
38 agricultural land and resultant loss of production would be exacerbated with the extension of urban
39 development into agricultural lands. Past development has converted and/or displaced agricultural land within
40 the cumulative region of influence. Over the years, expansion of the surrounding cities and unincorporated
41 areas of Ventura County has resulted in the gradual encroachment on important farmland in the region.
42 Present and reasonably foreseeable projects located on the periphery of the urban/rural boundary identified in
43 Table 4.21-1 and Figures 4.21-1 through 4.21-1b, including the 63-acre church facility development project
44 (#6), Gillibrand Mine CUP Expansion Project (#9), Big Sky Ranch Residential Development (#14), and Lost
45 Canyons Golf Club Project (#29), would convert agricultural lands to urban uses. Together with past
46 development, they would incrementally contribute to cumulative adverse impacts on agricultural resources.
1 Cumulative impacts on agricultural resources due to dust may result from the combined incremental impact of
2 increases in dust on agricultural parcels. Present and reasonably foreseeable projects l in Table 4.21-1 and
3 Figures 4.21-1 through 4.21-1b, located on or within a half-mile of property currently in or suitable for
4 agricultural production and that would result In a 10 percent or greater increase in dust on agricultural parcels.
6 As discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.1, Impact AG-1, the proposed project would convert approximately 165 acres
7 of open space/rural designated farmland of local importance to industrial/commercial uses. As buildout of the
8 proposed waste disposal area would result in the direct loss of locally important farmland to non-agricultural
9 uses, impacts on agricultural soils would be significant. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a
10 cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts associated with the loss of
11 agricultural soils.
12 As discussed in Section 3.5.2.3.2, Impact AG-2, unmitigated proposed construction and operations would
13 increase ambient fugitive dust levels by more than 10 percent from background levels to farmlands within
14 one-half mile of the proposed project site, thereby resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure AG-1
15 would reduce these impacts, but not to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would
16 result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts associated with increases
17 of dust on agricultural resources.
18 4.3.6 Visual Resources
20 The geographic scope of analysis for cumulative impacts on visual resources is the public viewpoints from
21 which individuals could view the proposed project, either as part of a single view or a series of related views
22 (e.g., a scenic route). Outside of this area, the proposed project would not be within public views and
23 therefore would have no potential to contribute to cumulative visual impacts.
25 Cumulative impacts on visual resources may result from the combined incremental change in visual character
26 resulting from past, present and probable future development within the project vicinity. Past development in
27 the project vicinity and surrounding areas has transformed the rural setting to an urbanized landscape. In this
28 area, construction of residential communities, industrial facilities, and commercial centers has eliminated
29 public views of natural features, including undulating ridgelines, canyons, expansive grasslands, and
30 oak/riparian woodlands. Reasonably foreseeable projects including the 63 acre church facility development
31 project (#5), Gillibrand Mine CUP Expansion Project (#7), Big Sky Ranch Residential Development (#13), Lost
32 Canyons Golf Club Project (#28), Del Taco Project (#49), Musashi Restaurant Project (#52), Scheu Office
33 Development Project (#53), Simi Valley Town Center Project (#55), and the City of Moorpark
34 commercial/office development project (#83) (Table 4.21-1 and Figures 4.21-1 through 4.21-1b) would directly
35 affect visual resources. These probable future projects would contribute to cumulative impacts on visual
36 resources due to the conversion of undeveloped, natural areas to industrial/commercial development,
37 obstruction of public views along the SR-118 scenic view corridor, and light/glare. These sites also include
38 important visual qualities experienced from public viewpoints that would be diminished when developed.
39 Past development in the project vicinity and surrounding areas have created sources of unshielded and
40 directed light that have resulted in glare or spillover and changes in ambient illumination levels in adjacent
41 areas. Because of the lighting policies and standards that are currently implemented by local jurisdictions
42 (County of Ventura Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance §8106-8.6; Simi Valley Municipal Code §9-30.040; and
43 City of Moorpark Municipal Code § 17.30.070) to minimize exterior light illumination, the contributions of
1 present and reasonably foreseeable projects to cumulative light/glare impacts in the area will be limited, but
2 not eliminated entirely.
3 As a result, cumulative impacts on visual resources, including the potential obstruction of important views,
4 would be cumulatively considerable. These projects would individually be conditioned to comply with local
5 design guidelines and lighting ordinances. However, the conversion of open space areas to
6 industrial/commercial development and obstruction of public views along SR-118 under reasonably
7 foreseeable buildout would result in cumulatively considerable impacts on visual resources.
9 As discussed in Section 3.6.2.3.1, Impact VIS-1, the proposed landfill footprint and elevations would be
10 visible to individuals traveling eastbound on SR-118, which is an eligible state scenic highway. Although the
11 final landfill contour and slopes would not alter existing ridgelines and proposed revegetation would be
12 visually compatible with surrounding vegetation, the landfill would obstruct scenic views of the Santa Susana
13 Mountain Range from the SR-118 scenic viewshed. As buildout of the proposed waste disposal area (i.e.,
14 increased landfill footprint and elevation) would obstruct views of important visual resources experienced
15 from SR-118, impacts on visual resources would be significant. Therefore, the proposed project would result
16 in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts associated with obstruction of
17 important public views from the SR-118 scenic viewshed.
18 The proposed project would obstruct distant views of the Santa Susana Mountains from Madera Road and
19 existing expansive views of foreground grasslands, foothills, and canyons would be completely obstructed
20 from the Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail. In addition, elevated North Park Village residential lots located
21 along southeast facing slopes and ridgelines would have unobstructed views of active landfill operations, and
22 the final landfill contour would obstruct views of the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline from Alamos Canyon
23 Trail (Section 3.6.2.3.2, Impact VIS-2). Implementation of Mitigation Measure VIS-1, requiring all
24 landscaping plans to follow the Ventura County Guide to Landscape Plans guidelines, would ensure impacts
25 on scenic areas/features from the Madera Road, Alamos Canyon Easterly Loop Trail, and North Park Village
26 Residential Development vantage points would be reduced to a less than significant level. However, as the
27 final landfill contour would extend above the existing horizon defined by the Santa Susana Mountain
28 ridgelines and due to the close proximity of the viewer, impacts on visual resources from the Alamos Canyon
29 Trail vantage point would be significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would
30 reduce impacts on visual resources from this public viewpoint. Therefore, cumulative impacts on scenic
31 areas/features from the Alamos Canyon Trail would be cumulatively considerable.
32 Buildout of the proposed waste disposal area would not obstruct expansive vistas of the surrounding foothill
33 ridgelines, vegetated canyons, and Santa Susana Mountains from Tierra Rejada Park, South Crest Place (south
34 of Tierra Rejada), and/or the Big Sky Ranch residential development. Therefore, the project’s contribution to
35 cumulative impacts from these vantage points would be less than cumulatively considerable.
36 As discussed in Section 3.6.2.3.3, Impact VIS-3, the proposed project would introduce a substantial amount of
37 new night light and glare, representing a significant change in the level of night light illumination when
38 compared to the existing project site. However, with the exception of support facilities required to support
39 closure and post-closure maintenance activities, proposed facilities would be removed upon cessation of the
40 landfill and/or transfer operations. Although existing topography would screen the proposed facilities area from
41 adjacent public view corridors, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of the project Lighting
42 Plan (Mitigation Measures VIS-2 and VIS-3) would ensure that the illumination and glare of exterior fixtures
43 would be directed so as to reduce the potential for spillover light onto surrounding areas. With
44 implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in a less than significant
45 cumulative contribution to cumulative light/glare impacts.

1 4.3.7 Geologic Hazards/Mineral Resources/Paleontological Resources
3 The geographic scope for cumulative impacts varies for geological resources, depending on the geologic
4 issue. The geographic scope with respect to seismicity is the Simi Valley area, as an earthquake capable of
5 creating substantial damage or injury at the proposed project site could similarly cause substantial damage or
6 injury throughout this area. The geographic scope with respect to subsidence/settlement, expansive soils, and
7 unstable soil conditions would be confined to the proposed project area, as these impacts are site-specific and
8 relate primarily to construction techniques. The geographic scope with respect to mineral resources consists of
9 areas of known or unknown petroleum reserves in the Simi Valley area. The geographic scope with respect to
10 paleontological resources is the Tertiary Sespe Formation, located in the project vicinity, which can be studied
11 and prospected for fossil remains. Projects that involve grading of intact, natural topography and landforms
12 have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts on paleontological resources.
13 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments that could contribute to cumulative impacts
14 associated with geologic resources are those that involve the addition of new infrastructure and personnel that
15 would be subject to geologic hazards, including fault rupture, severe seismically induced ground shaking,
16 liquefaction, subsidence, expansive soils, and landslides/mudslides. Cumulative project development in the
17 Simi Valley area could also adversely impact sensitive paleontological resources, as well as development of
18 petroleum resources.
20 Past projects, including projects listed in Table 4.21-1, may have been impacted by geologic hazards,
21 including fault rupture, severe seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence, expansive soils,
22 and landslides/mudslides. Past development has increased the amount of infrastructure, structural improvements,
23 and number of people working in the Simi Valley area (i.e., the cumulative geographic scope). This past
24 development has placed commercial, industrial, and residential structures and their occupants in areas that are
25 susceptible to geologic hazards. Thus, these developments have had the effect of increasing the potential for
26 geologic hazards to result in damage to property and injury to people. Similarly, present and reasonably
27 foreseeable future projects, including the existing SVLRC, may be impacted by geologic hazards. However,
28 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects (including the proposed project) would not change the
29 risk of these geologic hazards.
30 Past projects, including projects listed in Table 4.21-1, may have been constructed over known or unknown
31 petroleum resources, thus precluding oil drilling from within project boundaries. Past projects may have also
32 resulted in displacement of oil wells that have produced oil from the Simi Valley area. However, modern
33 directional (or slant) drilling techniques have allowed access to oil reserves from remote locations; therefore, past
34 industrial and commercial development have not substantially reduced access to oil reserves in the Simi Valley
35 area. Similarly, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects will not preclude continued development of the
36 Simi Valley area, as these project sites could be accessed from remote locations, using directional drilling
37 techniques.
38 Past projects, including projects listed in Table 4.21-1, may have destroyed paleontological resources. The
39 number and percentage of significant paleontological resources in the project vicinity destroyed by past and present
40 projects is difficult to determine. Geological formations in which important terrestrial vertebrate fossils may be
41 found (i.e., the Sespe Formation) have been substantially disturbed by urban development without systematic
42 analysis by a professional paleontologist. Many fossils encountered during construction may have been in poor
43 condition and/or have been redundant examples of species previously recognized and characterized. There is the
44 potential, however, for unusual (i.e., because of their age, size, and/or condition) or previously unrecorded fossil
45 species to be encountered within the project area. It is reasonable to expect that past excavation and construction
1 projects undertaken without conditions of approval, requiring expert assessment when fossils were encountered,
2 would have resulted in a substantial number of significant resources being destroyed without analysis. Such
3 destruction without proper assessment has reduced the ability to reconstruct the fossil record of the region.
4 Construction activities associated with present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would potentially require
5 excavation into portions of the Sespe Formation with potentially significant vertebrate paleontological resources.
6 Therefore, such projects may result in the cumulative destruction of paleontological resources.
8 As discussed in Section 3.7.23.3.1, GEO-1, Section 3.7.23.3.2, GEO-2, and Section 3.7.23.3.3, GEO-3, the
9 proposed landfill expansion area is not located within a: 1) State of California designated Alquist-Priolo
10 Special Fault Study Zone; 2) County of Ventura designated Fault Hazard area; or 3) County of Ventura
11 designated Potential Fault Hazard Area. The nearest large active fault is the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault, which
12 trends east-west about 3,000 feet south of the landfill. The on-site, potentially active Canada de la Brea Fault
13 may experience sympathetic (i.e., triggered) slip during large earthquakes on nearby active faults. This
14 sympathetic slip, if it occurs, likely will be minor (i.e., on the order of several centimeters). In addition,
15 alluvial areas in canyon bottoms would be subject to liquefaction in the event of severe seismically induced
16 ground movement, potentially resulting in damage to site structures such as buildings, containment structures,
17 leachate and gas collection facilities, and surface drainage facilities. However, impacts are site-specific and
18 relate primarily to construction techniques. In addition, the expanded landfill, as well as all cumulative
19 projects listed in Table 4.21-1, would be designed and constructed in accordance with seismic design studies,
20 as well as all relevant State and County regulations. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant
21 and the contribution of the proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable.
22 As discussed in Section 3.7.23.3.4, GEO-4, although previous oil and gas extraction has occurred in the
23 vicinity of the landfill, most of the production activities have been terminated at the project site, as well as
24 within the encompassing Simi Valley. In addition, groundwater extraction is not occurring in large quantities
25 in the landfill vicinity or the encompassing Simi Valley Groundwater Basin. Therefore, cumulative
26 subsidence is not expected to occur in association with extraction of oil, gas, or groundwater. The cumulative
28 considerable.
29 As discussed in Section 3.7.23.3.5, GEO-5, much of the project site is underlain by potentially expansive clay.
30 In addition, as discussed in Section 3.7.23.3.6, GEO-6, proposed cell construction would involve substantial
31 volumes of cut and fill. Disturbance of natural terrain and the removal of vegetative cover can lead to slope
32 instability and increased soil erosion. Similarly, the stability and containment of the waste fill depends on the
33 integrity of the final landfill slopes, which would be subject to geohazards. However, development of the
34 project site, as well as other cumulative projects listed in Table 4.21-1, would be subject to the requirements
35 of State and County regulations, which require mitigation of potential adverse effects of expansive soils for
36 proposed structures, as well as implementation of standard geotechnical engineering principles with respect to
37 slope stability. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of the proposed
38 project is less than cumulatively considerable.
39 As discussed in Section 3.7.23.3.7, GEO-7, proposed landfill expansion would preclude oil and gas drilling
40 from within proposed project boundaries. However, petroleum reserves beneath the site, as well as beneath other
41 cumulative projects listed in Table 4.21-1, could be accessed from remote locations, using directional (or slant)
42 drilling techniques. Therefore, the proposed project, as well as cumulative projects in the Simi Valley area,
43 would not result in the permanent loss of availability of a known petroleum resource that would be of future
44 value to the region and the residents of the state. Because of modern oil and gas drilling techniques, the
45 cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of the proposed project is less than cumulatively
46 considerable.

1 As discussed in Section 3.7.23.3.8, GEO-8, the proposed project would result in ground disturbances within
2 areas of high paleontological sensitivity. Based on the relative uniqueness of land mammal fossils found in this
3 area, the potential disturbance to these paleontological resources by the proposed project would be significant,
4 prior to mitigation. Therefore, the incremental effect of the proposed project on paleontological resources prior
5 to mitigation would be cumulatively considerable when considered in conjunction with past projects and related
6 present and future projects, listed in Table 4.21-1.
7 4.3.8 Cultural Resources
9 The geographic region of analysis for cumulative effects on cultural resources consists of the Simi Valley
10 area. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development that would contribute to cumulative impacts on
11 cultural resources includes projects that would have the potential for ground disturbance in the region of
12 analysis. Those projects that have the potential to modify and/or demolish structures over 50 years old have
13 the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts on historical architectural resources. Projects that involve
14 grading of intact, natural landforms have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts on archaeological
15 resources.
17 Prehistoric archaeological sites are non-renewable resources that have been destroyed at an alarming rate
18 statewide and locally. It has been estimated that more than 80 percent of all sites in Ventura County have been
19 destroyed by development. Therefore, the assessment of potential cumulative impacts on cultural resources
20 within the cumulative region of influence considers these past activities resulting in loss of archaeological
21 sites, in addition to other reasonably foreseeable projects in the project vicinity.
22 Reasonably foreseeable future projects within undeveloped areas in the County of Ventura (#1,#2, #3, #4, #5,
23 and #7), City of Simi Valley (#26, #28, #35, #36, #37, and #62), and City of Moorpark (#69, #71, #72, #79,
24 and #81) would potentially disturb unknown, intact subsurface prehistoric and historic archaeological
25 resources. Although much of the area has been previously disturbed, there is potential for related infill
26 projects to potentially contribute to this impact.
27 In many cases, site redesign or use of fill could minimize potential disturbances and impacts to significant
28 archaeological resources. Total avoidance of the cultural resources would not be reasonably expected
29 however, and increased human activity in the vicinity of cultural resources would lead to greater exposure and
30 potential for illicit artifact collection and inadvertent disturbance during construction. Discretionary review of
31 incremental projects would minimize impacts on cultural resources, as local policies encourage the avoidance
32 and protection of archaeological resources. However, impacts on cultural resources associated with past,
33 present, and reasonably foreseeable buildout would be cumulatively considerable.
35 As discussed in Section 3.8.2.3.1.1 , Impact CUL-1, no significant prehistoric sites have been recorded within
36 the expansion area; however, the presence of previously recorded prehistoric sites in close proximity indicates
37 that regional site utilization during prehistoric times did occur and unidentified, subsurface deposits may exist
38 in some areas. Accordingly, if significant archaeological deposits are discovered during grading or
39 construction, the project would have a significant impact on archaeological resources. Implementation of
40 Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3, requiring monitoring of all ground disturbance activities,
41 including grading and excavation within the Wharton Ranch site boundaries and compliance with Health and
42 Safety Code Section 7050.5, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section
43 5097.98 in the unlikely event of an unanticipated discovery of any human remains during construction, would
1 ensure that impacts to subsurface archaeological deposits would be less than significant. With implementation
2 of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative
3 contribution to cumulative impacts on archaeological resources.
4 Since the proposed project would have no impacts on historical resources, it is not necessary to analyze the
5 proposed project‘s contribution to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable impacts on historical resources.
6 4.3.9 Hazards
8 The geographic scope for cumulative impacts associated with fire hazard is the Simi Valley area. Projects
9 located within very-high fire hazard areas in the vicinity of the SVLRC or projects that could increase the
10 density of development within the Simi Valley area have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts to
11 the number of buildings, structures, employees, and residents exposed to fire hazards.
12 The geographic scope for cumulative impacts associated with spills of hazardous materials/waste
13 encompasses the Simi Valley area. The importance of regional projects diminishes with distance from the
14 SVLRC as potential localized adverse impacts diminish with distance. Thus, past, present, and reasonably
15 foreseeable future projects that could contribute to these cumulative impacts include those projects that
16 transport hazardous materials in the vicinity of the SVLRC.
17 The geographic scope with respect to abandoned oil wells is the immediate vicinity of the oil wells, as
18 potential soil contamination associated with such oil wells is primarily a health and safety issue during landfill
19 grading and construction.
21 Past projects, including projects listed in Table 4.21-1, may have been impacted by hazards, including fire,
22 hazardous materials/waste spills, and soil contamination/soil gas associated with former oil wells. Past
23 development has increased the amount of infrastructure, structural improvements, and number of people working
24 in the Simi Valley area (i.e., the cumulative geographic scope). This past development has placed commercial,
25 industrial, and residential structures and their occupants in areas that are susceptible to wildfire and oil field
26 hazards. Thus, these developments have had the effect of increasing the potential for such hazards to result in
27 damage to property and injury to people. Similarly, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects,
28 including the existing SVLRC, may be impacted by fire, hazardous materials/waste, and oil field hazards as
29 well as exposure to Valley Fever.
31 As discussed in Section 3.9.2.3.1, Impact HAZ-1, the SVLRC is located in a high wildfire hazard area, as it is
32 surrounded by uncultivated, flammable vegetation in the form of coastal sage scrub and grassland, scattered
33 chaparral, and oak woodlands. However, landfill surface fires are typically small and of short duration. In the
34 event of fire, the excavation areas would tend to act as a firebreak. Surface fires are usually limited to the
35 working face and tipping area. The SVLRC is surrounded by a fire break to reduce the potential for off-site
36 migration of landfill fires. In addition, the proposed SVLRC expansion project would not increase the
37 potential risk of a landfill surface fire over existing conditions. Also, sufficient water pressure is available for
38 fire-fighting purposes at SVLRC. Therefore, surface fire impacts are considered less than significant. With
39 respect to subsurface fires, open flames typically do not occur during a subsurface fire; therefore, the potential
40 for wildfires to be ignited on adjacent, off-site areas is low and impacts are considered less than significant.
41 The expanded landfill, as well as all cumulative projects listed in Table 4.21-1, would be required to comply
42 with fire prevention regulations established by the Ventura County Fire Protection District, in accordance
1 with Ventura County Building Code. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the
3 As discussed in Section 3.9.2.3.2, Impact HAZ-2, and Section 3.9.2.3.3, Impact HAZ-3, the proposed SVLRC
4 expansion includes the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Improper
5 storage, handling, and disposal of these substances could result in contamination of on-site soils, as wells as
6 adverse impacts to health and safety of on-site personnel. However, the SVLRC would continue to be
7 operated by personnel licensed to properly store, handle, and dispose of such substances. The hazardous
8 materials/waste would be stored, handled, and disposed in accordance with the Ventura County Uniform Fire
9 Code, as well as all other relevant County, State, and Federal regulations. In addition, facility operations
10 would be completed in accordance with a State-mandated Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, which
11 includes site-specific BMPs that are designed to prevent incidental hazardous materials/waste spills from
12 entering drains and emanating into on-site soils. Therefore, hazardous materials/waste related impacts are
13 considered less than significant. Expanded landfill operations, as well as all cumulative projects listed in
14 Table 4.21-1, would similarly be required to comply with fire prevention regulations established by the
15 Ventura County Uniform Fire Code, as well as all other relevant County, State, and Federal regulations.
16 Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of the proposed project is less
17 than cumulatively considerable.
18 As discussed in Section 3.9.2.3.4, Impact HAZ-4, residual concentrations of petroleum products and hazardous
19 substances may be present in on-site soil as a result of oil and gas drilling operations. Grading and landfill
20 operations in the immediate vicinity of the existing oil wells could create significant adverse health and safety
21 impacts, such as organic vapor emissions and exposure of contaminated soils. In addition, elevated concentrations
22 of petroleum hydrocarbons are present beneath oil field service roads, to a depth of approximately two feet.
23 Grading in the vicinity of these roads could similarly result in adverse health and safety impacts. Excavations
24 could cause damage to the abandoned oil well casings, potentially resulting in an oil and/or gas leak. The
25 possibility of damage to the abandoned oil wells during grading is considered a potentially significant, but
26 mitigable impact. In addition, health and safety impacts associated with a potential release of hazardous
27 substances or petroleum products as a result of landfill construction, in the vicinity of on-site abandoned oil
28 wells, is considered a potentially significant, but mitigable impact. Expanded landfill operations, as well as
29 cumulative projects listed in Table 4.21-1, that are located in the vicinity of active or abandoned oil wells,
30 would similarly result in potentially significant health and safety impacts in the event that grading and
31 construction is completed in proximity to active or former oil field infrastructure. However, such health and
32 safety impacts are localized in nature and specific to each cumulative project site. Therefore, the cumulative
34 considerable.
35 As discussed in Section 3.9.2.3.5, Impact HAZ-5, exposure to Valley Fever from soil disturbed at the landfill
36 would pose a less than significant impact because ground-disturbing activities are considered baseline and
37 represent a continual source of spores that contribute to the low number of Valley Fever cases reported each
38 year; and a major ground-disturbing event (i.e, large earthquake or major wildfire) is required to release a
39 large number of spores over a wide area wide enough for a significant outbreak of Valley Fever to occur.
40 Expanded landfill operations, as well as cumulative projects listed in Table 4.1-1, would result in less than
41 significant impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of the
42 proposed project is less than cumulatively considerable. [MOVED TO SECTION 4.3.2, AIR QUALITY]
43 4.3.10 Noise
45 The geographic scope for cumulative noise impacts is the vicinity of the SVLRC and local roadways that
46 would be used by waste vehicles. The discussion of cumulative noise impacts addresses both construction and
1 operational noise levels and vibration. Projects that could contribute to cumulative construction noise and
2 vibration impacts include demolition, grading and construction projects in the vicinity of the proposed
3 Project. Those that could contribute to operational noise and vibration impacts include projects in the vicinity
4 of SVLRC that could exceed the standards of Ventura County Noise Policy 2.16.2-1(4).
6 Virtually all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will make some incremental contribution
7 to noise, at least during construction and most likely during operations, as well. Construction noise is
8 relatively short term. Operational noise from residential development includes noise from vehicles, household
9 occupants (people and pets), and associated lawn and garden equipment, recreational vehicles, mechanized
10 toys, etc. Commercial development involves vehicle traffic noise as well as noise associated with the presence
11 of people and the loading and unloading of goods. Industrial development involves noise associated with
12 vehicles, loading and unloading of goods, industrial processes including release of pressure, clanging of metal
13 on metal, whistles, and equipment and vehicle noise. The cumulative effect of development projects over time
14 has been an overall increase in noise levels in developed areas to levels considerably above pre-development
15 ambient levels. Therefore, the cumulative noise impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
16 projects has been considerable. However, cumulative projects would be required to comply with the
17 applicable City and County ordinances and regulations reducing project-specific impacts.
19 The proposed project would cause increases in noise of less than one dB (A) over current ambient levels at all
20 analyzed locations. Since three dB (A) is considered the threshold of audibility for a person with normal
21 hearing in a typical setting, the incremental noise from the proposed project would be considerably below the
22 threshold of audibility and would therefore not, on its own, be distinguishable from background levels.
23 Nevertheless, the project would contribute a measureable increment to existing noise levels; however, this
24 increase is within the acceptable limits allowed by existing ordinances and regulations. Therefore, the
25 contribution of the proposed project to noise impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
26 4.3.11 Transportation and Circulation
28 The transportation environmental setting for the cumulative transportation and circulation analysis includes
29 those streets and intersections that would be used by both automobile and truck traffic to gain access to and
30 from the proposed project and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the SVLRC
31 vicinity, as well as those streets that would be used by construction traffic (i.e., equipment and commuting
32 workers). These streets include 15 intersections and nine roadway segments in Simi Valley as well as three
33 segments of SR-118.
35 Development of virtually any type involves motor vehicles during both construction and operation.
36 Residential development involves commuter and daily errand traffic. Commercial development involves the
37 transport of customers, suppliers, service personnel and the like. Industrial development involves the delivery
38 of goods and services to industrial facilities. Therefore, development has impacts on the local and regional
39 roadway networks.
40 Generally, significant traffic impacts of newly proposed projects are mitigated by project conditions which
41 require modifications to affected intersections, signalization, roadway widening, improvements to turning
42 movements and the like. Also, contributions of Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees (TIMFs) as required by County
1 of Ventura Ordinance 4071 and similar ordinances for the City of Moorpark and City of Simi Valley are made
2 where required to mitigate traffic impacts that are not otherwise mitigated by project modifications to the
3 roadway system. Nevertheless, traffic congestion consistently increases with increasing development.
4 Highway improvements typically do not keep pace with increases in traffic due to development. Current
5 levels of service range from A to D on local roadways with the lowest LOS on SR-118 during commute
6 hours.
7 For freeways under the future (cumulative) scenario, and according to the Caltrans TIA guidelines, all of the
8 study freeway segments are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during the am peak hour, and two of the
9 three study freeway segments are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during the pm peak hour. The
10 freeway segment on SR-118 between Collins Drive and Madera Road is projected to operate at LOS E during
11 both the am and pm peak hours. The freeway segment on SR-118 between Madera Road and First Street is
12 projected to operate at LOS C during the am peak hour and LOS D during the pm peak hour. The freeway
13 segment on SR-118 between First Street and Erringer Road is projected to operate at LOS D during both the
14 am and pm peak hours. Based on the fact that LOS is projected to be lower than C, the cumulative effect of
15 other projects is considered significant with respect to freeway segments.
16 For roadway segments, according to the Caltrans TIA guidelines, for the Future Without Project scenario, all
17 the study segments along Madera Road and First Street are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during
18 the peak hour. Therefore, the cumulative impact of cumulative projects on the studied roadway segments is
19 considered significant.
20 The intersection of Somis Road and SR-118 has operated at unacceptable levels of service for several years.
21 This is a consequence of growth and suggestive that current projects, not counting future foreseeable projects,
22 contribute to a significant impact at this intersection. Nevertheless, both Caltrans and the County of Ventura
23 Public Works Agency, Transportation have separate plans to improve this intersection in the near future.
24 Because these improvements are expected to bring the intersection to an acceptable level of service when
25 accounting for projected future traffic volumes, the cumulative impact without the proposed project at this
26 intersection is considered less than significant.
28 Future peak hour and annual average daily freeway volumes along SR-118 from the City of Simi Valley
29 Travel Demand Forecasting Model were used for the Future freeway segment analysis. The Future With
30 Project conditions (which are equivalent to cumulative impacts) were derived by adding the project volumes
31 to the Future Without Project freeway volumes. All the study freeway segments are projected to continue to
32 operate at the same LOS during the Future With Project scenario. Therefore, the contribution of the project to
33 cumulative freeway segment impacts is less than cumulatively considerable.
35 Future local roadway segment analysis. The Future With Project conditions were derived by adding the
36 project volumes to the Future Without Project roadway volumes. All the study roadway segments are
37 projected to continue to operate at the same unacceptable LOS during the Future With Project scenario.
38 However, the project would not contribute to a lowering of the level of service nor would it be responsible for
39 more than 50 percent of the increase in traffic volumes. In addition, the project applicant would be required to
40 payment a TIMF based on the net project vehicle increase, pursuant to the TIMF Ordinance and pursuant to
41 the Reciprocal Traffic Mitigation Agreement between the City of Simi Valley and the County of Ventura. The
42 TIMF is intended to mitigate the project’s contribution to the cumulative traffic impacts for road segments
43 within unincorporated portions of Ventura County and within the City of Simi Valley. Therefore, the
44 cumulative impact of the project with regard to local roadway segments is less than cumulatively
45 considerable.

1 With regard to the intersection of Somis Road and SR-118, the proposed project is not expected to add
2 substantial traffic to the intersection. Given the proposed improvements in the reasonably foreseeable future,
3 the contribution of the project to the cumulative impacts is less than cumulatively considerable.
4 4.3.12 Water Supply
6 The region of analysis for cumulative water supply effects is the areas within the Simi Valley area served by
7 the Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD).
9 Past development, including projects listed in Table 4.21-1, has increased the amount of infrastructure,
10 structural improvements, and number of people working in the Simi Valley area (i.e., the cumulative
11 geographic scope). Each of these projects required a water supply for construction and subsequent site use.
12 Because groundwater is generally poor quality in Simi Valley, most of the water associated with this past
13 development has been supplied by the CMWD. Thus, these developments have had the effect of increasing
14 the water demand from this water purveyor. Similarly, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects,
15 including the existing SVLRC, would require water supply from the CMWD. In addition, in the eastern
16 portion of Simi Valley, there is a regional shortage of water pressure, which potentially affects fire-fighting
17 capabilities. Specifically, the lack of sufficient water pressure occurs in the Knolls area, a result of insufficient
18 water storage in the Alta Vista Zone storage tank.
20 The project would be served by the CMWD, which is considered by Ventura County to be a permanent source
21 of water. As discussed in Section 3.12.2.3.1, Impact WS-1, Water Supply-Quality, the CMWD provides water
22 that is in compliance with the applicable State Drinking Water Standards. Therefore, impacts to water quality
23 would be less than significant. As discussed in Section 3.12.2.3.2, Impact WS-2, Water Supply-Quantity,
24 CMWD is considered by Ventura County to be a permanent source of water. A water availability letter from
25 Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 would be submitted by CMWD with the proposed project
26 application, verifying that adequate water supplies are available. In addition, similar to Condition #14 (Master
27 Development Plan) of CUP-3142-7, imposed by Ventura County for the current phase of landfill expansion,
28 an updated water supply plan would be included as part of a Master Development Plan, which is designed to
29 ensure that the landfill is operated in an environmentally safe manner and to mitigate any significant
30 avoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR. The water supply plan would describe improvements
31 to be made to assure adequate potable and non-potable water for landfill operations, dust control, fire
32 protection, landscaping, human consumption, and hygiene. In addition, water supply at SVLRC is not derived
33 from the Alta Vista water storage tank. Thus, sufficient water pressure is available for fire-fighting purposes
34 at SVLRC. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. All cumulative projects listed in Table 4.21-1
35 would be required to comply with the same protocol described above for the proposed project, in order to
36 determine availability of water supply from CMWD as well as meet applicable water quality regulations.
37 Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of the proposed project is less
38 than cumulatively considerable.
39 4.3.13 Waste Treatment and Disposal
41 The geographic region of analysis for cumulative effects on individual waste treatment and disposal systems
42 would be projects within the groundwater basin affected by the proposed project and solid waste facility
1 projects that would affect Ventura County’s ability to maintain 15 years of solid waste disposal capacity.
2 Projects subject to the LARWQCB’s Basin Plan which fails to conform to the Basin Plan’s requirements
3 concerning development utilizing septic systems will be considered to have a potentially significant
4 cumulative impact. Compliance with applicable sections of the Ventura County Building Code would reduce
5 any potential impacts from onsite sewage disposal systems to a less than significant level. In addition, solid
6 waste facility projects within Ventura County must be consistent with adopted County goals and policies and
7 the Ventura County CIWMP.
9 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development that have an individual sewage disposal system,
10 may have contributed cumulative impacts. However, discretionary review of these incremental projects
11 minimizes cumulative impacts due to individual sewage disposal systems, because projects are required to
12 comply with state and local policies regarding individual sewage disposal systems. In addition, there are no
13 past, present, or reasonably foreseeable solid waste facility projects that would contribute to cumulative
14 impacts. Thus, impacts on waste treatment and disposal associated with past, present, and reasonably
15 foreseeable buildout of the cumulative projects listed in Table 4.21-1 would not be cumulatively considerable.
17 As discussed in Section 3.13.2.3, Impact WT-1, Waste Management would be required to obtain an individual
18 WDR permit from the LARWQCB for the proposed on-site wastewater treatment plant. The level of
19 treatment required and permitted reuse would be specified in the WDR. As such, the proposed project would
20 conform to the requirements of the LARWQCB’s Basin Plan concerning development utilizing septic systems
21 (LARWQCB 1994). In addition, the proposed on-site wastewater treatment facility must meet operation and
22 maintenance guidelines required by the Ventura County Environmental Health Division, as well as the
23 requirements outlined in the Ventura County Building Code. Issuance of these permits and compliance with
24 applicable State and County regulations with respect to design and operation of the treatment plant would
25 reduce potential impacts from on-site sewage disposal to a level considered less than cumulatively
26 considerable. All cumulative projects listed in Table 4.21-1 that include individual waste disposal systems
27 would be required to comply with the same protocol described above for the proposed project. With respect to
28 Impact WT-2, the proposed project would allow Ventura County to maintain and exceed its 15-year capacity
29 needs. Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than significant and the contribution of the proposed project is
30 less than cumulatively considerable.
31 4.3.14 Recreation Facilities
33 The region of analysis for cumulative effects on recreation facilities is the RSRPD and Ventura County Parks
34 Department service areas.
39 surrounding areas has resulted in a limited supply of developed parkland within the region. The majority of
40 present and reasonably foreseeable projects are residential developments that would result in a substantial
41 demand for recreational facilities in the region. Additionally, the Colton Lee Manufactured Housing
42 Community (#8) has the potential to impede future development of the RSRPD Trail #15 (Las Llajas to Black
43 Canyon).
1 Because provisions for the dedication of fees and/or parkland (Quimby fees) are currently required for
2 proposed subdivision developments (Ventura County Code Ordinance 3680; City of Simi Valley Municipal
3 Code Title 1 Chapter 9-68) to offset costs of developing and/or improving local park/facilities associated with
4 increased demands on existing recreational facilities, the contributions of present and reasonably foreseeable
5 subdivision projects to cumulative recreation impacts in the area will would be less than cumulatively
6 considerable. However, Quimby fees do not apply to commercial or industrial projects and no legally
7 established mechanism exists to collect comparable fees from commercial or industrial developers or to
8 ensure that funds collected would mitigate the recreational facility impacts associated with population related
9 to industrial projects. As such, cumulative impacts associated with these reasonably foreseeable commercial
10 projects could be cumulatively considerable.
12 As discussed in Sections 3.14.2.3.1, Impact REC-1, and 3.14.2.3.2, Impact REC-2, no local or regional
13 parks/facilities are located within the proposed CUP boundary such that no existing facilities would be
14 directly impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project would result in a net increase of 150
15 employees, thereby creating the potential for an increase in population and a corresponding increase in the
16 demand for local and regional parks/facilities. Based on the current Ventura County standard of five acres of
17 developable land per 1,000 people (Ventura County 2005d), the project would increase the demand for local
18 and parks/facilities by 1.5 acres. However, because the County does not have a policy or ordinance in place
19 requiring an applicant to pay a recreation impact fee or dedicate public easements, there is no legal authority
20 to impose a fee or a mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts to recreation. There is
21 therefore no feasible mitigation for project impacts to the recreation demand created by additional project
22 employees. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
23 cumulative impacts on local and regional parks/facilities. Mitigation Measures REC-1 and REC-2, payment of
24 in-lieu fees for local parks/facilities, would offset costs of developing and/or improving local and regional
25 park/facilities associated with increased demands on existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed
26 project would result in a less than significant cumulative contribution to cumulative impacts on local and
27 regional parks/facilities.
28 No regional trails/corridors are located within the proposed CUP boundary; therefore, no regional
29 trails/corridors would be directly impacted by the proposed project (Section 3.14.2.3.3, Impact REC-3). Based
30 on the County standard of 2.5 miles of trail per 1,000 people (Ventura County 2005d), the net increase of 150
31 employees under the proposed project would result in an increased trail demand of 0.38 miles. Because the
32 County does not have a policy or ordinance in place requiring an applicant to pay a recreation impact fee or
33 dedicate public easements, there is no legal authority to impose a fee or a mechanism to ensure that fees
34 collected would mitigate impacts on trials/corridors. There is therefore no feasible mitigation for the
35 trail/corridor demand created by additional project employees. The project would result in a cumulatively
36 considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on regional trails/corridors. The proposed project would be
37 required to pay in-lieu fees, Mitigation Measure REC-3, to offset increased demands on regional
38 trails/corridors. Payment of these fees would ensure that the project would have a less than significant
39 cumulative contribution to cumulative impacts on regional trails/corridors.
40 As discussed in Section 3.14.2.3.4, Impacts REC-4, one planned multi-purpose trail (Alamos Canyon Trail)
41 and a proposed 20-acre community park site is located within the proposed CUP boundary. As the proposed
42 project does not include provisions for onsite recreational facilities, the proposed development would impede
43 future development of recreation parks/facilities and regional trails and impacts would be significant. Because
44 the County does not have a policy or ordinance in place requiring an applicant to pay a recreation impact fee
45 or dedicate public easements, there is no legal authority to impose a fee or a mechanism to ensure that fees
46 collected would mitigate impacts to recreation. There is therefore no feasible mitigation for the loss future
47 planned recreation opportunities created by the project expansion. The proposed project would result in a
48 cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on the future development of recreational
1 facilities. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures REC-1 through REC-3, assuring dedication of a
2 community park site and public trails to the RSRPD, would ensure that impacts on planned recreational
3 facilities and multi-use trails would be less than significant. With implementation of these mitigation
4 measures, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative contribution to cumulative
5 impacts on the future development of recreational facilities.

5 Alternatives
1 5.1 Introduction
2 The State CEQA Guidelines §15126 requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of feasible alternatives
3 to a proposed project that attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any of
4 the significant environmental impacts of the project. CEQA does not require full analysis of every possible
5 alternative, but applies a rule of reason: “the EIR [shall] set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a
6 reasoned choice” §15126(d)(g). A No Project Alternative must also be analyzed.
7 Section 5.2 summarizes a broad range of potential project alternatives. Section 5.3 describes the essential
8 characteristics of the potential alternatives and Section 5.4 summarizes the screening process used to separate
9 a reasonable range of feasible alternatives from the initial range of possible alternatives. Section 5.4 also
10 discusses the alternatives considered but not included for environmental analysis, along with the reasons for
11 eliminating them from further analysis. Section 5.5 then describes the five alternatives to the proposed project
12 selected for analysis in this EIR: (1) Reduced Landfill Capacity; (2) Anaerobic Bioreactor Technology; (3)
13 Phased Permitted Daily Tonnage Limit; (4) Differential Surcharge; and (5) the No Project Alternative.
14 5.2 Summary of Potential Alternatives for Initial Screening

15 A number of potential alternatives to expanding the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center were proposed
16 by members of the public and interested parties during the Notice of Preparation period for the EIR.
17 Additional potential alternatives were also considered to identify a full range of potential alternatives to the
18 proposed project. From among these alternatives, the above five alternatives identified in Section 5.1 were
19 selected to permit a reasoned choice among a reasonable range of alternatives. The range of alternatives is
20 identified below and grouped into categories:
21 5.2.1 Off-Site Alternatives

22 • Expand the Toland Road Landfill;
23 • Develop a new landfill in western Ventura County;
24 • Transport waste to out-of-County or out-of-state landfill sites via Countywide transfer facility; or
25 • Install multiple waste-to-energy facilities (thermal incinerators) at locations near sources of waste
26 within Ventura County.
27 5.2.2 Alternative Physical Landfill Configurations

28 • Reduce the permitted final vertical height of the finished landfill; or
29 • Reduce the footprint of the expanded landfill.
30 5.2.3 Alternative On-Site Landfill Technologies

31 • Anaerobic bioreactor technology;
32 • Aerobic bioreactor technology;
33 • Thermal incinerator technology; or
34 • Thermochemical technologies.

5 Alternatives
1 5.2.4 Alternative Policy/Permitting Options

2 • Education/outreach program to decrease the need for landfill facilities;
3 • Change California policies to increase diversion and recycling;
4 • Phased Increase in Permitted Daily Tonnage Limit;
5 • Impose a wasteshed boundary on the SVLRC to limit the geographic area from which waste could be
6 received; or
7 • Charge a differential fee (surcharge) on waste from outside a specified geographic boundary.
8 5.3 Discussion of Potential Alternatives

9 Each of the alternatives identified above have some potential to avoid or substantially lessen significant
10 environmental effects of the proposed project. The following sections summarize what would likely be
11 involved to implement these potential alternatives and assess the overall feasibility of each alternative with
12 respect to the ability of the applicant or Ventura County to implement it and evaluate the degree to which it
13 would likely accomplish a reduction in significant environmental impacts. Since many of the alternatives
14 proposed in public comment were accompanied by limited detail, the following sections attempt to fill out
15 some of the essential aspects of the alternatives, even though they were not specified, so as to provide a basis
16 for coming to conclusions regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of each potential alternative.
17 5.3.1 Off-Site Alternatives
18 5.3.1.1 Expand the Toland Road Landfill
19 The Toland Road Landfill is currently scheduled to close in 2027. Expanding the Toland Road Landfill would
20 increase in-County landfill capacity and provide additional years of available capacity, thereby extending the
21 County’s ability to demonstrate 15 or more years of available capacity. The Toland Road Landfill is operated
22 by the Ventura Regional Sanitation District (VRSD), a special district within the County. While expanding
23 the landfill may be considered desirable by the VRSD and would have the effect of extending landfill capacity
24 for the County for some indeterminate time into the future, it is not within either Waste Management
25 Corporation’s or Ventura County’s power to unilaterally or jointly propose or ensure the expansion of the
26 Toland Road Landfill. The project proposed for this EIR does not involve expanding the Toland Road
27 Landfill, which expansion is therefore outside the scope of this EIR. Therefore, a detailed evaluation of the
28 potential environmental impacts of expanding the Toland Road Landfill is not considered here.
29 5.3.1.2 New Landfill in Western Ventura County
30 This potential alternative would involve developing a new solid waste landfill in western Ventura County. A
31 western Ventura County site would reduce transport distances for waste generated in western Ventura County
32 and Santa Barbara County and provide the County with additional years of landfill disposal capacity,
33 provided a site could be identified and a facility permitted within western Ventura County. The same
34 constraints apply to this potential alternative as to the expansion of the Toland Road Landfill (Section
35 5.3.1.1). In addition, there are substantial challenges to developing new landfill sites within Ventura County
36 including: political will; siting issues; regulatory permitting issues; funding to develop and establish new
37 facilities; and funding to operate new facilities as well as managing the increased cost for handling and
38 transportation of waste. Neither the County nor Waste Management Corporation have rights to land in west
39 Ventura County suitable for a landfill and no potential site has been identified at this time.

5 Alternatives
1 5.3.1.3 Transport Waste Out-of-County or Out-of-State
2 This potential alternative would require long-haul trucks or trains to send waste to off-site locations outside
3 Ventura County. Reliance on long-haul/rail-haul to remote landfills for disposal of Ventura County waste
4 would potentially involve:
5 • Developing a transfer station or stations within Ventura County;

6 • Transporting waste over long distances by truck or rail, with the consequent potential for increased
7 air emissions associated with both truck and rail traffic due to increased miles traveled;
8 • Shifting traffic and environmental impacts from in-county to out-of county communities;
9 • Increasing waste disposal costs for residents and business due to transfer, loading, transportation,
10 unloading associated with rail and long-haul options; and
11 • Increased health and safety risks as compared to in-County and in-State waste disposal location.
12 Implementation of this alternative would require remote landfills to accept Ventura County waste and suitable
13 new sites for the transfer station or stations in Ventura County. Siting and permitting an infrastructure of
14 transfer stations throughout Ventura County to support truck or rail transfer of Ventura County waste to
15 remote landfills would face substantial political and environmental hurdles. In addition, while it may be
16 possible for either the County or Waste Management to acquire a site or sites for such transfer stations,
17 neither entity has either plans for or rights to suitable sites at this time. It would therefore be entirely
18 speculative to consider a transfer station alternative.
19 5.3.1.4 Install Multiple Waste-to-Energy Incinerators within Ventura County
20 This potential alternative would establish multiple incinerators throughout the County to thermally destroy
21 municipal solid waste nearer to its source. The alternative would have the effect of minimizing the distance
22 waste loads travel by locating facilities closer to the waste generators. In addition, as thermal oxidation is a
23 most effective volume reduction technology, it would minimize the quantity of unburnable residuals.
24 However, it would involve siting multiple thermal incinerators in proximity to residential and commercial
25 land uses and would likely experience considerable local opposition, not least of which would be to air
26 pollutant emissions associated with incineration. Again, similar obstacles to siting new landfills (Section
27 5.3.1.2), would be encountered to implement this potential alternative. In addition, neither the County nor the
28 applicant has rights to properties within Ventura County suitable for siting waste-to-energy incinerators.
29 5.3.2 Alternative Physical Landfill Configurations
30 The footprint of the SVLRC is proposed to be developed in three future phases in addition to the existing
31 phase. Each expansion phase involves a physical area ranging from approximately 52 acres to 100 acres and
32 would result in the removal of all vegetation from the footprint area along with soil above the base grade.
33 Reducing the physical size of the landfill (via either reduction in maximum permitted landfill height or
34 reduction in maximum landfill footprint) would have the effect of reducing the physical area of habitat that
35 must be removed as the landfill expands and/or reducing the bulk of the disposed material, thereby lowering
36 the overall profile of the landfill following closure.
37 5.3.2.1 Reduce Final Vertical Height of Expansion
38 As discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 (Visual Resources/Glare), one of the environmental impacts of landfill
39 development is the visual effect of changes to the landscape as a consequence of altering the physical contours
40 where waste is placed. The visual impact generally increases the higher the final landfill profile. Reducing the
41 permitted final vertical height of the landfill would thereby reduce the visual impact when compared to the

5 Alternatives
1 proposed project. A reduction of approximately 77 feet from 1,270 feet above msl to 1,193 feet would reduce
2 the capacity of the landfill from its proposed levels, but is not expected to make the project economically
3 infeasible. This potential alternative is within both Ventura County’s and WM’s ability to implement.
4 5.3.2.2 Reduce Footprint of Expanded Landfill
5 Each expansion phase involves a physical area ranging from approximately 52 acres to 100 acres and would
6 result in the removal of all vegetation from the footprint area along with soil above the base grade. Reducing
7 the physical size of the landfill would have the effect of reducing the physical area of habitat that must be
8 removed as the landfill expands. Therefore, reducing the landfill area by not developing some of the proposed
9 phases, or portions of one or more phases, would have the effect of reducing impacts to biological resources
10 as compared to the proposed project.
11 Eliminating or reducing one or more of the proposed phases from future development, would result in a
12 reduced size for the landfill. The development of proposed Phase III, which covers approximately 63 acres of
13 the western downgradient end of the northern valley, encroaches more than other phases on habitat for a
14 number of rare mariposa lily species as well as extending into the designated 100 year flood plain at its
15 western edge. Substantially reducing or not developing Phase III would minimize impacts to populations of
16 sensitive species and would keep the landfill footprint outside of the designated 100-year floodplain. This
17 potential alternative is within both Ventura County’s and WM’s control and ability to implement.
18 5.3.3 Alternative Landfill Technologies
19 In comments received during public scoping for the proposed project, the public requested that the EIR
20 consider technological methods for converting, diverting, and reducing the volume of MSW at SVLRC as
21 alternatives to the SVLRC Expansion Project. The following sections discuss existing conversion, diversion,
22 and minimization technologies generally available for MSW facilities and their applicability at SVLRC in
23 terms of environmental, technological, and economic advantages and disadvantages.
24 The fundamental goal of alternative MSW technologies is to reduce the amount of material deposited in
25 landfills. This goal can be achieved by diverting material from the waste stream before it reaches a landfill
26 (such as by reuse or recycling), by converting material from the waste stream (either at a landfill or a transfer
27 station) for other beneficial uses (such as energy or chemical feedstock production), or by reducing the
28 volume of waste that ultimately is deposited in a landfill through enhancing MSW treatment at the landfill
29 site. For purposes of this EIR, potential alternative MSW technologies are limited to the conversion,
30 diversion, and minimization technologies that can be implemented once waste reaches the SVLRC since these
31 technologies are potentially within the ability of a landfill operator to reasonably and feasibly implement.
32 Technologies that must be implemented prior to reaching the landfill would not typically be undertaken by a
33 landfill operator are not considered further as feasible alternatives in this EIR.
34 Diversion technologies, such as recycling, have become commonplace and are implemented by most transfer
35 stations, landfills, and associated jurisdictions as part of their waste management systems. Indeed, via AB 939
36 the State of California requires diversion of at least 50 percent of MSW by every jurisdiction and this fraction
37 is likely to be raised in the future. The SVLRC currently recycles C&D debris and green waste. Transfer
38 stations also remove recyclable material from the waste stream before delivering the residual for landfilling.
39 A key constraint with recycling is the limited market for recycled materials. Although significant fractions of
40 waste paper, metals, and packaging materials are recycled, existing markets are notmay not always be able to
41 absorb all of the materials that could be recycled. Economic factors also greatly affect the prices paid for
42 recycled materials and, during weak economic periods, prices decline and the economics of recycling become
43 much less favorable. Therefore, increasing recycling is viable only along with improved markets for recycled
44 materials and favorable economic circumstances.

5 Alternatives
1 Conversion technologies convert some portion of the waste stream directly to energy or to useable product,
2 such as fuel or to feedstock for other processes (e.g. biofuels), thus reducing the amount of waste landfilled.
3 Given the large diversity of existing conversion technologies, it is not practical to provide an exhaustive
4 description and analysis of these systems, or their many variants, in this EIR. To simplify and clarify the
5 reasonable range of feasible technologies potentially available, key categories of treatment technologies are
6 summarized below and the environmental, technological, and economic advantages and disadvantages of each
7 group of technologies are compared.
8 5.3.3.1 Bioreactor Technologies
9 There are three main bioreactor technologies: anaerobic digestion, aerobic digestion, and fermentation. Both
10 self-contained systems and in-situ cells (specially designed and lined in-ground landfill cells) may be
11 employed for bioreactors. Each technology relies on biological organisms (bacteria, yeasts, and/or fungi) to
12 decompose the biological components of the waste stream. Anaerobic and aerobic processes are discussed in
13 separate sections below. Fermentation (the process by which ethanol is produced, both for fuel and alcoholic
14 beverages), is a specialized process not well suited for mixed MSW streams such as that at SVLRC and is not
15 considered feasible to implement at SVLRC. In addition, combinations of anaerobic and aerobic processes
16 can also be used, but will not be discussed separately here.
17 Self-contained (manufactured package) systems typically involve pre-treatment systems, one or more above
18 ground reactor vessels, sludge removal and conveyor systems, and related structures. Self-contained systems
19 can be more carefully controlled and achieve complete decomposition quite rapidly (often in a matter of days
20 if nutrients, temperatures, acidity, and other factors are well managed). However, individual systems have
21 limited capacity given their limited volumes and the time necessary for waste to degrade, even under carefully
22 controlled optimal conditions. In-situ systems involve in-ground cells, much like a regular landfill, within
23 which auxiliary piping for gas removal, water or steam injection, and nutrient control are installed to control
24 the degradation process. Such systems typically do not degrade waste as rapidly as self-contained systems,
25 since they do not allow optimal control of all important variables, but they are able to handle much larger
26 waste volumes and are less complex to operate and maintain.
27 5.3.3.1.1 Anaerobic Bioreactors
28 Anaerobic biodegradation occurs in the absence of oxygen. It is a natural process that decomposes biological
29 materials in a damp or wet oxygen-poor environment. Peat bogs are an example where natural anaerobic
30 decomposition occurs. In anaerobic processes, different types of organisms gradually break the more complex
31 hydrocarbon molecules typical of living tissue into simpler molecules in a cascading process culminating in the
32 production of methane (CH4) (natural gas) and CO2 along with small amounts of other gaseous and solid
33 residuals such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Residual solids made up of stable hydrocarbon molecules, such as
34 lignin, a key component of wood, do not degrade and remain once the anaerobic processes are complete. The
35 methane (natural gas) can be burned as fuel in on-site generators, compressed for use as a vehicle or process
36 fuel, or liquefied for vehicle or process fuel. The carbon dioxide can be used for industrial processes or frozen
37 (dry ice).
38 The key decomposition pathway in all landfills is anaerobic digestion. However, landfill designs must comply
39 with federal (RCRA Subtitle D) and state regulations and typically cannot introduce excess moisture to
40 optimize decomposition or gas production. Thus, landfills tend to be too dry for anaerobic decomposition to
41 occur throughout the landfill within the active lifetime of the landfill.
42 Anaerobic bioreactors speed up the anaerobic decomposition process by maintaining near optimal
43 temperature and moisture content and by monitoring nutrients and other indicators of process effectiveness.
44 Typically, a substantial volume of water from outside the waste stream must be introduced to optimize the

5 Alternatives
1 process. Anaerobic bioreactors can be separate, contained-tank processes, either single or multi-stage, or
2 specially designed landfill cells where moisture is introduced specifically to facilitate the anaerobic process.
3 In all cases, anaerobic bioreactors are more complex systems than a common landfill and require more
4 sophisticated systems and controls, as well as specialized personnel skills and monitoring. Anaerobic
5 bioreactors convert approximately 40 to 50 percent of organic material input to natural gas and carbon dioxide
6 output, leaving the remaining 50 to 60 percent of undecomposed waste as a residual. Optimized self-contained
7 anaerobic systems can reduce MSW to its minimum volume in a matter of a few weeks and the residual
8 sludge can have economic value (e.g. as soil amendment). Large in-situ systems can achieve maximum
9 reduction in approximately five to ten years whereas dry systems (as required by current federal and state
10 regulations) may take many decades for complete decomposition to occur. At a facility that is already
11 committed to landfill gas collection and use for energy production, anaerobic systems offer the potential for
12 favorable economic synergies because anaerobic systems maximize landfill gas generation.
13 A variation of anaerobic bioreactor is a facultative system that combines anaerobic decomposition with
14 systems to manage ammonia, converting it to nitrate that facultative bacteria use in place of oxygen. The
15 control systems to manage nitrification are somewhat more complex, but the processes are similar.
16 5.3.3.1.2 Aerobic Bioreactors
17 Aerobic biodegradation occurs in an oxygen- and moisture-rich environment and relies on microorganisms
18 different from those involved in anaerobic processes to accomplish the degradation process. Aerobic digestion is
19 also exothermic (that is, it produces considerable heat) and proceeds at a faster rate than anaerobic
20 decomposition. Like anaerobic bioreactors, aerobic systems require added moisture above that already present in
21 the incoming waste stream. The added water also serves to absorb some of the excess heat generated by the
22 process.
23 Composting is an example of an unsophisticated form of aerobic biodegradation because oxygen and moisture
24 control is suboptimal. Watering and turning the material keeps it moist and oxygenated, but does not ensure
25 optimal reaction conditions. Also, since composting is typically not conducted in an enclosed environment,
26 odors produced from the decomposition process can be a nuisance to adjacent land uses. Composting
27 produces a saleable product for use in agriculture or landscaping, where market demand exists.
28 More sophisticated, aerobic systems can be either in fixed tanks or specially designed landfill cells. Aerobic
29 systems involve the injection of air and water along with the extraction of gas and liquids and liquid
30 recirculation and thus are more complex than anaerobic systems. Sophisticated, aerobic systems require closer
31 monitoring and more highly trained personnel than unsophisticated systems. Controlling heat is also critical
32 since the high heat generation of aerobic processes can melt plastics, such as liner materials and piping,
33 commonly used in landfills. Unlike the anaerobic bioreactors, aerobic bioreactors do not generate appreciable
34 natural gas and thus, are not suited for use in LFG recovery or energy conversion processes.
35 Aerobic bioreactors also convert approximately 40 to 50 percent of organic material inputs, with the remaining
36 50 to 60 percent consisting of undecomposed residual. Aerobic bioreactors can operate at a much more rapid
37 rate than anaerobic systems. Self-contained systems can process a limited waste stream in a matter of days and
38 larger landfill-based systems and can reduce waste to its minimum in approximately three to five years.
39 5.3.3.2 Thermal Processes
40 There are several thermal waste conversion technologies available for landfills or other locations. The most
41 basic involve thermal oxidation (i.e., burning waste at high temperature in an incinerator). A number of
42 thermochemical processes have also been employed to convert waste to useful liquid and gaseous end
43 products. Thermochemical processes involve elevated temperatures (but lower than those used in incinerators)

5 Alternatives
1 and catalysts, or both, to break down complex organic molecules into simpler ones. In all cases, thermal
2 processes require industrial-level facilities including combustion units, one or more reactor vessels, pre- and
3 post-treatment process trains, and sophisticated air pollution controls.
4 5.3.3.2.1 Thermal Oxidation
5 Thermal oxidation is the combustion of wastes at high temperatures. The combustion process rapidly (in
6 fractions of a second) oxidizes complex organic and inorganic molecules to CO2 and water. Oxides of
7 nitrogen and other reaction byproducts are also produced in the exhaust stream when excess atmospheric air
8 (which is 71 percent nitrogen) is injected to ensure thorough combustion. The exhaust therefore contains air
9 pollutants, including oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and toxic chemicals (dioxins and furans) that are
10 unavoidable consequences of the combustion process and a variable feedstock. As a consequence, complex
11 air pollution control systems are required to manage pollutant emissions. Feedstock management to eliminate
12 materials that result in toxic emissions, such as mercury and chlorinated chemicals, also minimizes toxic
13 emissions. Thermal oxidation of mixed waste streams consumes approximately 70 to 75 percent of the feed
14 materials, leaving 25 to 30 percent residual waste ash that requires disposal. The residual of well-controlled
15 systems is made up of char and ash and generally is nonhazardous. The rapid combustion process reduces
16 waste volume in a matter of minutes.
17 The high temperature and air pollution control requirements of thermal oxidation processes generally make
18 them complex. Nevertheless, thermal oxidation systems are a proven technology that has been adopted in
19 Europe and other regions of the United States. One particular advantage of thermal oxidation (or mass burn)
20 technologies is their relative insensitivity to feedstock variation. Because of the high temperatures and
21 controlled conditions, virtually any feedstock can be processed with a minimal residual provided unsuitable
22 materials (such as chlorinated chemicals) are excluded from the feedstock.
23 5.3.3.2.2 Thermochemical Conversion
24 Thermochemical conversion systems vary widely in the processes that may be employed based on the
25 characteristics of the incoming waste stream and the end products to be produced. In general, the processes
26 run at lower temperatures than thermal oxidation processes, and involve catalysts or other additives or
27 pressure to facilitate the breakdown of complex hydrocarbon compounds to simpler intermediate products that
28 can be used as feedstock for other processes, either on- or off-site. Pyrolysis is a lower temperature process
29 that involves heat and produces mostly liquid end products. Gasification is a higher temperature process that
30 involves higher heat than pyrolysis, but lower temperatures than thermal oxidation, and produces largely
31 gaseous end products. The combination of heat, pressure, and/or catalysts breaks down complex hydrocarbons
32 to simpler compounds. Pyrolytic processes, in particular, can accept a wide mix of organic feed materials,
33 including plastics. However, they cannot degrade waste as effectively as thermal oxidation processes do and
34 inorganic waste may not be decomposed.
35 In general, thermochemical conversion results in the production of intermediate liquid or gaseous feedstock
36 that may be further processed to produce fuels or other secondary products. If the process is designed for
37 energy production, the compounds produced from thermochemical conversion typically are further processed
38 into a suitable fuel for the energy conversion process. Residuals from thermochemical processes include char
39 and ash (mostly inorganic materials) that may be largely inert and nonhazardous.
40 Like other thermal processes, thermochemical conversion can involve very complex process flow involving
41 multiple stages to break down waste and then synthesize useful chemicals from the intermediate chemical
42 products. While the lower heat tends to limit creation of pollutants in the exhaust stream, sophisticated air
43 pollution control systems are typically necessary to meet air pollution permit emission limits.

5 Alternatives
1 5.3.3.3 Summary of Alternative Technologies
2 Table 5.3-1 summarizes key conversion technology categories potentially available for an MSW disposal
3 facility to provide a framework within which the environmental, technological, and economic advantages and
4 disadvantages of each group of technologies can be compared. Because of the wide variety of technological
5 approaches available, the table emphasizes general characteristics rather than specific processes.
6 In situ bioreactor technologies can involve simpler process systems, not too dissimilar from the systems
7 already employed at many MSW facilities (leachate recirculation, landfill gas extraction and control systems,
8 etc.). However, they are less efficient at reducing the waste mass since a considerable fraction of the typical
9 incoming MSW stream is not biodegradable. Approximately 40 to 50 percent of the incoming waste stream
10 can be biodegraded, thereby reducing the material mass by approximately 50 percent since the process also
11 tends to remove some of the airspace that existed in the delivered waste. Anaerobic systems produce landfill
12 gas, which can be used directly for energy generation, fuels, or other end products. Aerobic systems produce
13 much less landfill gas since the aerobic process does not involve organisms that generate methane (natural
14 gas). Anaerobic processes are slower than aerobic processes, requiring five or more years to fully decompose
15 a mass of MSW in situ while aerobic processes can accomplish the same reduction in less than five years.
16 Thermal processes can reduce the incoming MSW stream by a larger fraction than biological processes since
17 they can treat a wider range of incoming materials. However, thermal processes tend to be considerably more
18 complex and costly than biological processes. Not only are the process systems themselves more complicated
19 (typically multi-stage and multi-process), but the air pollution controls necessary to treat exhaust gases add
20 another layer of complexity. With the exception of thermal oxidation, which is often designed as an energy
21 generating system in the first place, thermal processes produce intermediate products, some of which can be
22 burned as fuels, but many of which would require further processing, either in an additional process step on-
23 site, or at an off-site facility. Thermal processes are all rapid, reducing waste to residual in a matter of minutes
24 or seconds, rather than years.
25 Most self-contained systems, regardless of technology, typically have capacity limits. The range of capacities
26 reported in several studies range up to approximately 250,000 metric tons per year. The SVLRC would
27 process 1,872,000 tons per year at full capacity, or about 7.5 times the capacity of one such self-contained
28 system. The costs of systems vary widely, as well. It is not the purpose of this summary to compare the
29 relative costs of the above technologies. Indeed, given the wide variety of systems, even within one general
30 technological category, as well as the different circumstances in which they might be implemented, it is not
31 possible to do so. A landfill operator would assess the merits of a technology based on considerations unique
32 to the facility site and location, the waste stream, company policy, the skills available to operate systems, the
33 costs of installation and maintenance, and the offsetting revenues (or cost reductions) that may be realized
34 from implementing the alternative.
35 5.3.4 Alternative Policy and Permit Options
36 Members of the public and interested parties proposed a number of alternatives involving permit
37 requirements, changes to public policy, or the implementation of programs to reduce the amount of waste
38 received by landfills in Ventura County. These alternatives, rather than propose changes to the location,
39 configuration, or design of the proposed project, involve legal or policy initiatives with the potential to
40 indirectly modify how municipal solid waste is managed. In many instances, very little detail was provided by
41 the commenter regarding how such alternatives might be implemented, so the following discussions involve
42 some interpretation and projection of how to achieve the apparent intent of the alternative.

5 Alternatives
Table 5.3-1. Technology Alternatives Comparison

Technology Environmental Technological Economic
Subcategory Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
• Relatively less
• Decomposes costly than many
biodegradable waste in • Requires • Relatively technologies
uncomplicated • More complex
months to years substantial process systems process systems • Methane (natural
• Produces LFG which auxiliary water as gas) and CO2 are
can be burned as fuel an input compared to many than standard marketable • Moderately more
Bio-Reactor technologies landfill
Anaerobic or separated into • Some air pollutant • Processes similar • Fairly large products costly than
marketable products emissions • Methane can standard landfill
• Reduces waste by 40 • Converts only to existing landfill residual mass replace other
gas and leachate relative to more
to 50% biodegradable collection systems complex systems costly inputs (e.g.
• Minimizes long term fraction of MSW vehicle fuel)
gas generation (minimal training) • Commercially
viable
• More complex
• Relatively process systems
• Decomposes • May require uncomplicated than landfill or
biodegradable waste in auxiliary water process systems anaerobic systems • Relatively less • More costly than
• Produces virtually compared to many • Heat control
Bio-Reactor weeks to years no waste gas for technologies necessary to costly than many standard landfill
• Reduces waste by 40 technologies • Limited residual
Aerobic to 50% energy conversion • Processes similar prevent damage to • Commercially product to generate
• Converts only to existing landfill reactor
• Minimizes long term biodegradable gas and leachate • Fairly large viable revenue
gas generation
fraction of MSW collection systems residual mass
(minimal training) relative to more
complex systems
• More complex air
• Energy produced that permittingAir • Highly efficient • Complex process • Can generate
pollutant energy for use on
Thermal can be used emissions conversion of systems site or sale • Considerably more
Oxidation beneficially waste to energy • Complex air costly than landfill
(incineration) • Reduces waste by 70- • Toxic chemical • Minimal waste pollution control • Commercially disposal
emissions viable in limited
75% • Concentrated generation systems applications
residual
• More complex air • Requires drying of
• End products can be permittingAir most feedstock
used to make liquid pollutant • Converts wide • Complex process • Can accommodate
a varying waste
Thermochemical fuels emissions range of carbon- systems stream better than • Considerably more
• Can convert plastics as • Toxic chemical containing waste, • Complex air
(pyrolysis & well as biodegradable emissions (though including plastics pollution control other technologies costly than landfill
gasification) • Commercially disposal
fraction of MSW typically less than • Minimal waste systems viable in Europe &
• Reduces waste by 55- incineration) generation • Produces
60% • Concentrated feedstock, not final Japan
residual product or fuel

Final EIR -Decvember 2010
5 Alternatives
1 5.3.4.1 Education/Outreach Program to Decrease Need for Landfills
2 Presumably, this alternative would involve an outreach program to educate the public about the generation
3 and disposition of municipal solid waste, both locally and in a wider context. The program would necessarily
4 involve the preparation and dissemination of printed and, most likely, electronic or other media-based
5 materials emphasizing the desirability of reducing the amount of MSW generated and disposed of by the
6 general public and business communities. It is unclear what sources of funding would be available for such a
7 program, what the costs might be, or how effective the program would be at achieving a significant reduction
8 in the amount of waste disposed in Ventura County. Generally, the effect of educational outreach programs is
9 difficult to measure. In addition, it is unclear how the applicant or the County could implement an alternative
10 based primarily on educational outreach, though an education component of a more comprehensive program
11 may be desirable. The County has instigated programs to inform the public of MSW issues, but the extent to
12 which they have been effective in reducing the waste stream has not been measured.
13 5.3.4.2 Change California Policies to Increase Diversion and Require More Recycling
14 AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act, was passed in 1989. It established a permanent California
15 Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) (recently renamed Cal Recycle) within state government and
16 mandated diversion of solid waste from landfills, beginning with a 25 percent reduction by 1995 through
17 source reduction, recycling, and composting. The diversion rate escalated in the statute to 50 percent in 2000
18 and the CIWMB was authorized to set alternative higher goals in the future. As of 2006, the CIWMB
19 reportsed 54 percent of MSW is diverted, on average, in California. Increasing the mandated diversion rate
20 may reduce the amount of waste entering landfills. However, it is difficult to predict how the applicant or the
21 County would change state policies to increase the incentive for recycling without widespread collaboration
22 and support. Finally, the costs of pursuing this policy change are unknown, but possibly considerable.
23 A bill, AB 737, is currently pending a bill to increase diversion to 75 percent was vetoed by the Governor on
24 September 28, 2010. However, since Since 1989 when AB 939 was passed in 1989, a number of bills to
25 increase the diversion rate have been proposed, but not adopted by the state legislature or signed by the
26 governor. In its current form, AB 737 would impose a 75 percent diversion rate in 2020. SB 1020, a similar
27 bill introduced in 2007, would have mandated 60 percent diversion by 2012 and 75 percent by 2020. There
28 has been no further action on the bill since late 2008. SB 1020 was incorporated into AB 1390, with
29 modifications. Also, AB 1390 is has not been under consideration since late 2008. While similar legislative
30 initiatives will likely continue to be introduced, it cannot be assumed they will be signed into law.
31 5.3.4.3 Phased Permit Limit on Waste Receipts
32 Waste Management has asked for a 6,000 tons per day limit on MSW (up from 3,000 tpd) as part of the
33 application to amend CUP-3142-7. This would double the currently permitted limit on receipts for MSW and
34 more than double actual receipts, which have averaged approximately 2,400 to 2,600 tons per day recently. A
35 phased permit limit would not immediately raise permitted receipts to the full 6,000 tons per day, but would
36 phase the full 6,000 tons per day in over a period of years. The phased timeline under this potential alternative
37 is presented in Table 5.3-2. WM has expressed a willingness to consider the following phasing:
Table 5.3-2. Proposed Timeline for Phased Increase in Permitted Daily Tonnage Limit
Municipal Solid Waste Permitted Limit (tpd) Implementation Year
Current Limit: 3,000 On-going
Phased Limit: 4,500 2010 to 2013
Final Permitted Limit: 6,000 2014 to 2050

5 Alternatives
1 Such a graduated permit limit may have the effect of delaying the onset of higher MSW receipts at the
2 facility, thereby also slowing the initial rate at which available airspace is filled and extending the ultimate
3 closure date of the landfill compared to a situation where the full 6,000 tons per day is permitted upon permit
4 approval. A graduated permit limit could conceivably extend the actual life of the landfill by several years.
5 5.3.4.4 Impose a Wasteshed Boundary
6 For some landfills, a geographic area is defined within which waste may be accepted at a landfill. Waste from
7 outside the area is refused. This “Wasteshed Boundary” serves to limit the geographic area from which waste
8 can be accepted, thereby placing a limit on the amount of waste likely to come to the landfill in any given
9 time period and, secondarily, prolonging the potential life of the landfill by limiting the rate at which it can be
10 filled by out-of-area waste. The effect of a wasteshed boundary depends, to some extent, on the sources and
11 potential volumes of waste from outside the boundary that might be delivered to the landfill in the absence of
12 the restriction. In areas, such as eastern Ventura County, with a large waste generating population nearby,
13 there is reason to believe that imposing a wasteshed boundary would prolong the life of a landfill while at the
14 same time curtailing the economic rewards of operating the facility.
15 At least two U.S. Supreme Court cases present substantial impediments to imposing a wasteshed boundary on
16 the SVLRC. As a privately operated facility, the landfill is a commercial venture and subject to the commerce
17 clause of the U.S. Constitution. Were Ventura County to impose a blanket wasteshed boundary for receipts at
18 the SVLRC, it may be considered an unconstitutional restraint of interstate commerce under the reasoning
19 employed in the following two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In Fort Gratiot Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Department
20 of Natural Resources, et al. (1977), the State of Michigan imposed a law prohibiting private landfill operators
21 from accepting solid waste that originates outside the county in which their facilities are located unless
22 authorized by a local solid waste management plan. The landfill operator challenged the law and the Supreme
23 Court held that the law violated the commerce clause and that the state had failed to prove that the import
24 restrictions served a valid health and safety purpose that could not adequately be served by another means. In
25 another case, City of Philadelphia et al. v. State of New Jersey et al. (1978), the Supreme Court held that a law
26 prohibiting the importation of most solid or liquid waste from outside the state also violated the commerce
27 clause. The Court reasoned that, if one political entity were permitted to prohibit the importation of waste from
28 another political entity, then every such entity could close their borders to any other. The Court was unwilling to
29 sanction “the efforts of one State to isolate itself in the stream of interstate commerce from a problem shared by
30 all.” In both cases, the Court took note that the laws applied to private landfill operators.
31 It may be possible to avoid a Commerce Clause challenge to a wasteshed boundary if an exception is

32 provided for out-of-state waste. In this instance, a provision would be included in the governing regulation or
33 permit that all waste from out-of-state shall be accepted on the same terms as in-wasteshed waste if presented
34 for disposal. This would, for example, permit waste from Naval operations in Port Hueneme that occasionally
35 comes from Antarctic research stations to be accepted without limit (a relatively rare occurrence in any
36 event). Such an exception would be designed specifically to preclude a Commerce Clause challenge.
37 Another issue relating to a wasteshed boundary is how waste is accounted fortracked in California. This issue
38 is important because, although waste origins and destinations are reported for all jurisdictions, the method of
39 tracking the waste is an accounting exercise rather than a mechanism for tracking the actual origin and
40 destination of any particular ton of waste. Some trash trucks deliver waste directly to a landfill and the source
41 and destination of waste in this case is unambiguous. However, when a transfer station is involved, waste
42 from different trucks and different sources may be combined. At the transfer station, waste may be sorted,
43 often having the recyclable material removed, and then consolidated into larger truckloads for delivery to the
44 landfill. Each load of waste delivered to a transfer station becomes part of a load of waste leaving the facility
45 for a disposal site. The outgoing transfer truckloads therefore become commingled with waste from multiple
46 origins. While reported inbound and outbound transfer station solid waste tonnages balance overall, the actual
47 origin of the waste within any given truck is lost.

5 Alternatives
1 This factor confounds the ability of a facility to identify the true source of waste being presented for disposal.
2 To adequately enforce a wasteshed boundary and preclude wastes from outside that geographic area from
3 being received, it is essential to be able to distinguish the source of the waste in any given load presented for
4 disposal. Loads with any out-of-area waste would need to be turned away at the facility entrance station.
5 While this might appear straight forward, it is not. Much of the waste destined for the Simi Valley Landfill
6 and Recycling Center comes from transfer stations and many, if not most, transfer stations receive wastes
7 from multiple jurisdictions and geographic areas. In addition, many also remove all recyclable materials and
8 send just the non-recyclable residual to a landfill. This residual is only a fraction of the total waste material
9 originally received. To make shipment of the non-recyclable wastes to a landfill reasonably economic, waste
10 loads are consolidated and residuals may be combined with wastes from other sources. Operationally, it is
11 difficult, if not impossible, to consolidate the residual non-recyclable waste based on its origin. This would
12 require allocating sorting space solely to individual jurisdictions that are either inside or outside the wasteshed
13 boundary, a practice that may not be compatible with the existing available sorting space at many transfer
14 stations. Therefore, there are substantial operational impediments to imposing a wasteshed boundary on
15 existing operations.
16 In addition, there is no certain mechanism to determine the origin of waste. As such, haulers may be tempted
17 to be less than truthful about the origin of the waste in any given load, especially if there is no practical way to
18 verify the origin of a load at the time waste is received. The difficulty of verifying the origins of waste adds
19 another layer of complexity and uncertainty to imposing a wasteshed boundary that requires screening the
20 incoming waste stream at a landfill. While origins may be able to be controlled somewhat via contracts with
21 hauling companies, many haulers and individuals will not be subject to a binding or enforceable agreement.
22 Finally, the SVLRC has existing and long-standing commercial contracts or agreements with numerous waste
23 haulers and transfer stations, as well as other Waste Management companies, both within and outside Ventura
24 County or any reasonably definable wasteshed boundary. Imposing a wasteshed boundary outside of which no
25 waste could be delivered to the SVLRC would very likely void or otherwise interfere with many of those
26 commercial relationships as well adding to the costs of sorting and processing wastes and separating
27 recyclables. On the other hand, if all existing contracts and agreements with Waste Management Inc. for
28 waste deliveries to the SVLRC were honored in order to avoid undue interference with existing commercial
29 relationships, it is very likely that the imposition of a wasteshed boundary would be largely ineffective in
30 terms of limiting waste receipts. Honoring the many existing commercial agreements from outside a defined
31 boundary would effectively nullify, or at least substantially dilute, the intended effect (to reduce waste
32 receipts from outside Ventura County).
33 In summary, implementing a wasteshed boundary is therefore not without numerous potential political and
34 economic difficulties. Based on the court cases and other issues discussed above, as well as the potential for
35 political conflict and economic constraints, a wasteshed boundary imposed on the SVLRC by Ventura County
36 is considered infeasible and is not analyzed further in this EIR.
37 5.3.4.5 Differential County Surcharge on Out-of-Area Waste
38 Another means of limiting the importation of waste from outside Ventura County would be to impose a
39 differential surcharge depending on the origin of waste. Currently, the County charges $2.362.55 per ton for
40 all waste received regardless of its source. A differential surcharge designed to limit receipts from out-of-area
41 would assess a higher fee for waste from outside a defined boundary. In theory, the higher fee would serve as
42 a deterrent to waste sources affected by the higher fee and therefore limit the amount of waste coming from
43 outside the defined “minimum fee” area. Several landfills in California use differential surcharges to manage
44 the amount of out-of-area waste. Therefore, while somewhat less certain in terms of its effect on the waste
45 stream than a geographical wasteshed boundary, this alternative would potentially have the effect of reducing
46 the stream of waste coming to the SVLRC from outside the County and, thereby, extending the useful life of

5 Alternatives
1 the facility. Since it does not suffer from the legal infeasibility of a geographic wasteshed boundary, it is
2 considered further in this EIR.
3 5.4 Screening of Potential Alternatives

4 As noted in Section 5.1, CEQA does not require full analysis of every possible alternative. Instead, CEQA
5 establishes a rule of reason: “the EIR [shall] set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned
6 choice.” [State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)] In order to reduce the alternatives discussed above to “only
7 those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice”, a screening process was undertaken to rank the
8 fifteen potential alternatives as to overall feasibility and, therefore, inclusion in or exclusion from full
9 evaluation in this EIR.
10 There are tradeoffs associated with each of the potential alternatives described above in terms of the ability of
11 the County and Waste Management to implement the alternative, its potential to reduce project environmental
12 impacts, its economics, and, hence, its overall feasibility. In the interest of simplicity and to create an explicit
13 ranking, a numerical approach is taken here whereby each potential alternative is ranked according to three
14 factors: 1) the ability of the applicant and/or County to implement the alternative; 2) the potential for the
15 alternative to reduce environmental impacts of the proposed project; and 3) the alternative’s economic
16 potential. In each category, each alternative is ranked on a three point scale with 3 being the most favorable
17 rating (e.g. highest ability to implement or best economics) and 1 being the least favorable (e.g. the least
18 potential for reducing environmental impacts, though not necessarily a zero potential). The sum of those
19 factors is used to determine whether the alternative qualifies for more detailed analysis. The lowest possible
20 overall feasibility score is 3 (1 + 1 + 1). The highest possible score is 9 (3 + 3 +3).
21 Table 5.4-1 summarizes the ranking of the relative feasibilities of the above 15 alternatives described above in
22 terms of these criteria. Table 5.4-2 combines the scores for each alternative and compares the overall feasibility
23 of the alternatives. The sum of the scores for the ability of the applicant and County to implement, potential to
24 reduce project environmental impacts, and economics is used to determine an overall feasibility score.
25 Table 5.4-2 summarizes the scores assigned to each alternative. Overall feasibility scores ranged from a low
26 of 3 to a high of 7. Ten of the 15 potential alternatives (i.e., Expand Toland Road Landfill; Develop New
27 West County Landfill; Transport Waste Out of County; Multiple Local Incinerators; Aerobic Bioreactors;
28 Thermal Incinerator; Thermochemical Technology; Education Programs; Change California Policies; and
29 Wasteshed Boundary) received scores of 3 or 4 indicating a very low overall feasibility. In the case of offsite
30 alternatives, the low scores indicate a lack of ability on the part of the County and the applicant to implement
31 them along with little or no apparent reduction in environmental effects of the proposed Project (comparable
32 effects would simply occur elsewhere) and poor economics. Three of the four alternative on-site technologies
33 also scored 3 or 4 based on their incompatibility with current operations and/or permitting constraints as well
34 as limited reduction in environmental impacts along with poor economics. Of the policy and permit options,
35 three also scored 3 or 4. The education program, while within the ability of the County and applicant to
36 implement to a certain extent, has an uncertain potential to reduce impacts and possibly high costs making it
37 an unlikely vehicle for reducing impacts from the proposed Project at a reasonable cost. Changing California
38 waste management polices is likely to be difficult, at best, for the County and applicant to accomplish jointly,
39 of limited immediate effectiveness to reduce impacts of the proposed Project, and expensive. Finally, the
40 wasteshed boundary alternative would likely be judged unconstitutional if challenged in court and has
41 uncertain potential for reducing project impacts and equally uncertain, but probably high costs to implement,
42 not the least of which could be in litigation.
43 The remaining five alternatives (i.e., Reduce Vertical Height; Reduce Footprint; Anaerobic Bioreactor;
44 Graduated Increase in MSW Permit Limit; and Graduated Surcharge) scored either 6 or 7 indicating greater
45 feasibility. These five are incorporated into the alternatives selected for impact assessment in the following
46 section.

5 Alternatives
Table 5.4-1. Alternatives Screening Analysis

Ability of Applicant and/or County to Potential to Reduce Project Environmental
Alternative Economic Potential
Implement Impacts1
Scoring 1 = poor; 2 = fair; 3 = good 1 = low; 2 = moderate; 3 = high 1 = poor; 2 = fair; 3 = viable
Offsite Alternatives
Neither the applicant nor the County has the Expanding the Toland Road Landfill would Unknown costs, although they are likely to
Expand Toland Road
authority to expand the Toland Road likely involve impacts comparable to the be similar to those associated with the
Landfill
Landfill: Score = 1 (poor) proposed project: Score = 1 (low) proposed project: Score = 2 (fair)
Neither the applicant nor the County has the Developing a West County Landfill would Costs associated with permitting and
Develop new West
authority to develop a West County Landfill: likely involve impacts comparable to the constructing a new landfill would be
County Landfill
Score = 1 (poor) proposed project: Score = 1 (low) substantial: Score = 1 (poor)
Neither the applicant nor the County has the Developing multiple County transfer Costs associated with permitting and
Transport waste out of authority to develop the requisite transfer facilities would likely involve impacts constructing multiple new transfer facilities
County facilities: Score = 1 (poor) comparable to or greater than the proposed would be substantial: Score = 1 (poor)
project: Score = 1 (low)
Neither the applicant nor the County has the Developing multiple incineration facilities Costs associated with permitting and
Multiple local authority to develop the requisite facilities: would likely involve impacts comparable to constructing multiple incineration facilities
incinerators Score = 1 (poor) or greater than the proposed project: Score = would be substantial: Score = 1 (poor)
1 (low)
Alternative Landfill Configurations
The applicant has the ability to implement a Reducing the overall height of the landfill Reducing the overall height of the landfill
reduced vertical height alternative and the would reduce the visual effects. It would also would reduce the ultimate capacity of the
Reduce Vertical County could impose a limit by permit reduce impact to resources, such as traffic landfill. While this would not reduce near
Height condition: Score = 3 (good) and air emissions, due reduced amount of term revenues, it would reduce overall
MSW being sent to and processed at the revenues for the applicant: Score = 2 fair)
facility : Score = 2 (moderate)
The applicant has the ability to implement a Reducing the overall footprint of the landfill Reducing the footprint of the landfill would
reduced footprint alternative and the County would reduce impacts to some sensitive reduce the ultimate capacity of the landfill by
could impose a limit by permit condition: habitats and species. In addition, reduction a greater amount than reducing its height and
Reduce Footprint Score = 3 (good) in the amount f MSW being sent to and reduce overall revenues for the applicant by a
processed at the facility would reduce greater amount than reducing the height:
impacts to resources including air and traffic: Score = 1 (poor)
Score = 2 (moderate)

5 Alternatives

Implement Impacts1
Alternative On-Site Technologies
The applicant has the ability to implement Anaerobic bioreactor technology would Anaerobic bioreactor technology is more
anaerobic bioreactor technology and such a replace portions of one or more phases. The expensive to operate and monitor than a
facility would be consistent with current key virtue of this technology is more rapid standard landfill: Score = 2 (fair)
operations (e.g. landfill gas to energy degradation of waste such that each
generation): Score = 3 (good) bioreactor cell would decompose (and
Anaerobic Bioreactor
compact) more rapidly, allowing more waste
to be accepted into the same physical space.
However, it would require substantial
additional water to maintain the process:
Score = 2 (moderate)
Aerobic bioreactor technology is not Aerobic bioreactor technology would replace Aerobic bioreactor technology is
compatible with current operations since it one or more phases. It would result in more considerably more expensive to operate and
does not produce landfill gas in sufficient rapid decomposition and compaction of monitor than either anaerobic technology or
Aerobic Bioreactor
quantities: Score = 1 (poor) waste than anaerobic technology, but would a standard landfill: Score = 1 (poor)
also require more water to maintain the
process: Score = 2 (moderate)
Thermal incinerator technology is Thermal incinerator technology would Thermal incinerator technology is
problematic due to air pollution control reduce the residual volume of waste from the considerably more expensive to operate and
permit concerns: Score = 1 (poor) landfill, but the residual ash would need to be monitor than either anaerobic technology or
Thermal Incinerator
disposed of conventionally. Air pollutant a standard landfill as well as more costly to
emissions arepermitting is a concern: Score permit: Score = 1 (poor)
= 1 (low)
Thermochemical technology is problematic Thermochemical technology would reduce Thermochemical technology is considerably
due to air pollution control permit concerns the residual volume of waste from the more expensive than either anaerobic
Thermochemical as well as end uses of the intermediate landfill, but the residual non-degradable technology or a standard landfill as well as
Technology products that result and for which material would need to be disposed of more costly to permit. In addition, a market
marketability is unknown: Score = 1 (poor) conventionally. Air pollutant emissions are must exist for the intermediate products:
permitting is a concern: Score = 1 (low) Score = 1 (poor)

5 Alternatives

Implement Impacts1
Alternative Policy & Permit Options
Education Program Either the County or the applicant could It is unclear what the environmental While costs for a public outreach program
develop a public education program: Score = consequences of an education program are unknown, they are expected to be
2 (fair) would be or how effective such a program considerable. Both the development and
could be in reducing waste coming to the dissemination via media and other avenues
landfill; Score = 1 (low) are generally costly: Score = 1 (poor)
Change California While both the applicant and the County It is unclear what the environmental While costs for sustained political activity
Policies could propose and participate in the political consequences of a change in California are unknown, they are expected to be
process to change California policies, neither policies would be or how effective they considerable. Both the development of policy
is in a position to ensure that suitable policies would be in reducing waste coming to the proposals and their continued pursuit can be
would be adopted: Score = 1 (poor) landfill; Score = 1 (low) costly: Score = 1 (poor)
Graduated Increase in Both the County (through the land use permit A graduated permit limit would reduce near- Reducing near term receipts at the landfill
MSW Permit Limit process) and the applicant are able to term receipts of waste at the SVLRC by an would impose a modest cost on the applicant
implement a graduated permit limit: Score = unknown amount, but would not, by itself, by constraining potential near-term revenues.
3 (good) reduce or eliminate environmental impacts: It would not likely alter total revenues over
Score = 1 (low) time: Score = 2 (fair)
Wasteshed Boundary The County is not in a position to impose a A wasteshed boundary would reduce the rate Reducing receipts at the landfill would
geographic wasteshed boundary without at which waste is received at the SVLRC by impose a modest cost on the applicant by
violating the commerce clause of the U.S. an unknown amount, but would not, by itself, constraining potential revenues. If the
Constitution: Score = 1 (poor) reduce or eliminate environmental impacts: landfill remained unfilled at required closure,
Score = 1 (low) the applicant could experience lower overall
revenues: Score = 2 (fair)
Graduated Surcharge The County could legally impose an out-of- An out-of-area surcharge would reduce the Reducing receipts at the landfill would
area surcharge by permit condition and the rate at which waste is received at the impose a modest cost on the applicant by
applicant could accept such a condition: SVLRC, but would not, by itself, reduce or constraining potential revenues. If the
Score = 3 (good) eliminate environmental impacts: Score = 1 landfill remained unfilled at required closure,
(low) the applicant could experience lower overall
revenues: Score = 2 (fair)
Note:
1. This analysis considers project-level impacts. It does not consider the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts.

5 Alternatives
Table 5.4-2. Alternatives Screening Scoring Summary

Ability of Potential to
Applicant and Reduce Project Economic Overall
Alternative County to Environmental Potential Feasibility
Implement Impacts
A B C
1 = poor 1 = low 1 = poor
Scoring 2 = fair 2 = moderate 2 = fair =A+B+C
3 = good 3 = high 3 = viable
Offsite Alternatives
Expand Toland Road Landfill 1 1 2 4
Develop new West County Landfill 1 1 1 3
Transport waste out of County 1 1 1 3
Multiple local incinerators 1 1 1 3
Alternative Landfill Configurations
Reduce Vertical Height 3 2 2 7
Reduce Footprint 3 2 1 6
Alternative On-Site Technologies
Anaerobic Bioreactor 3 2 2 7
Aerobic Bioreactor 1 2 1 4
Thermal Incinerator 1 1 1 3
Thermochemical Technology 1 1 1 3
Alternative Policy & Permit Options
Education Program 2 1 1 4
Change California Policies 1 1 1 3
Graduated Increase in MSW Permit 3 1 2 6
Limit
Wasteshed Boundary 1 1 2 4
Graduated Surcharge 3 1 2 6
1 5.5 Alternatives Selected for Impact Assessment

2 Consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines (§15126) requirements that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of
3 feasible alternatives to a proposed Project that attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or
4 substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, the following
5 sections describe the alternatives selected for impact assessment along with the proposed project and their
6 associated environmental effects. As required by CEQA, the No Project Alternative is also described. As
7 Section 5.4 concluded, the following alternatives are considered reasonably representative of the range of
8 alternatives available:
9 • Alternative 1: Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative

10 • Alternative 2: Anaerobic Bioreactor Technology Alternative
11 • Alternative 3: Phased Permitted Daily Tonnage Limit Alternative
12 • Alternative 4: Graduated Surcharge Alternative
13 • Alternative 5: No Project Alternative
14 In the following sections, each alternative is described with emphasis on those aspects of the alternative that
15 differ substantially from the proposed project. Based on the description, the potential impacts of the
16 alternative in comparison to the proposed project are discussed for each environmental issue area of concern.
17 5.5.1 Alternative 1: Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative
18 There are two primary ways to reduce the overall capacity of the landfill, thereby reducing its expected
19 lifespan by reducing its ultimate capacity. One is to reduce the proposed maximum permitted height of the
Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project 5-17

5 Alternatives
1 landfill. The other is to reduce the area it covers (the footprint). In either case, the volume of material that can
2 be disposed would be reduced by the number of cubic yards that would have gone into the greater height or
3 larger footprint. Since both of these (or some combination) could be implemented to minimize the overall size
4 of the landfill, and, thereby, reduce its potential impacts, these two ways of approaching reducing landfill size
5 are considered in one alternative.
6 5.5.1.1 Reduced Height
7 Reducing the landfill height would reduce the potential for visual impacts of the proposed Project. A vertical
8 height reduction of 77 feet is estimated to reduce the total future capacity by 11 million cubic yards from
9 about 123 to about 112 million cubic yards assuming the footprint of the landfill remains as originally
10 proposed. The height reduction would reduce the visual bulk of the landfill at closure, thereby reducing
11 somewhat the visual impact.
12 In all other respects, the construction and operations would be identical to the proposed project. All other
13 components of this alternative would be constructed as is the case for the proposed project, including the:
14 office building; heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance facility; waste hauling yard; MRF/RTF; public
15 household hazardous waste collection facility; new entrance road, scales, and scale house; expanded C&D
16 debris recycling processing; expanded green waste processing; additional LFGTE generator units; and
17 LFGTLNG facility.
18 5.5.1.2 Reduced Footprint
19 Reducing the landfill expansion area by approximately one third could potentially reduce the area taken up
20 by the landfill and would reduce the ultimate volume. This approach would reduce the total permitted
21 volume from 123 million cubic yards for the proposed project to approximately 86 million cubic yards as
22 compared to the current permitted capacity of 43.5 million cubic yards. The physical area of the landfill
23 footprint would be reduced to approximately 307 acres from its proposed area of 371 acres. If reducing the
24 footprint involved not developing the northwestern portions of Phase III potential biological impacts and
25 encroachment into the 100 year flood plain could be avoided. In addition, the reduced capacity would mean
26 that less MSW would be delivered to and processed at the SVLRC than under the proposed project. This
27 would reduce impacts to resources, such as air quality and traffic, as compared to the proposed project. The
28 economics of the reduced footprint are less favorable than the reduced height.
29 5.5.1.3 Summary of Alternative
30 The Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative would involve either reducing the overall height of the landfill,
31 reducing the overall footprint of the area used to deposit waste, or some combination of the two. Reducing the
32 landfill capacity would have the effect of limiting the overall volume of waste the landfill could receive over
33 its lifetime. The potential reductions are summarized in Table 5.5-1, below.
Table 5.5-1. Reduced Capacity Alternative Summary Table

Parameter Reduced Height Reduced Footprint
Proposed Project (million yd3) 123 123
Alternative Capacity (million yd3) 112 86
Reduction (million yd3) 11 37
Tonnage reduction (million yd3 X .76) 8.7 28.1
Years of Operational Life Reduced (@ 2.61.8 million 3.34.8 10.815.6
tons/yr)

5 Alternatives
1 Depending on the approach to reducing the overall capacity of the landfill, the reduction in capacity could
2 range from 11 million cubic yards (approximately 8.7 million tons) to 37 million cubic yards (28.1 million
3 tons). At an estimated annual receipt rate of 2.61.8 million tons per year at fully permitted capacity based on
4 current operational levels, these capacity reductions would reduce the landfill life by approximately three five
5 to 10 15 years. The reductions would modestly reduce visual impacts and potential biological impacts if the
6 landfill footprint were reduced.
7 In all other respects, the Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative would be identical to the proposed project.
8 All other project components under this alternative would be constructed as is the case for the proposed
9 project, including: the office building; heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance facility; waste hauling yard;
10 MRF/RTF; public household hazardous waste collection facility; new entrance road, scales, and scale house;
11 expanded C&D debris recycling processing; expanded green waste processing; additional LFGTE generator
12 units; and LFGTLNG facility.
13 5.5.1.4 Impacts of Alternative 1
14 5.5.1.4.1 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
15 Impacts related to potential conflicts with land use and the General Plan, Goals, Policies, and Programs under
16 this alternative would be essentially the same as or slightly less than those for the proposed project.
17 Alternative 1 would decrease the effective capacity of the landfill as compared to the proposed project by
18 decreasing the size of the landfill height or footprint. Although there are operational differences between
19 Alternative 1 and the proposed project, these would not have substantial policy or land use implications in
20 most instances. However, the County lacks the legal authority to impose a fee and a mechanism to ensure that
21 fees collected would mitigate impacts to housing. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation for the housing
22 demand created by additional project employees. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable. As
23 such, Alternative 1 impacts to community character and growth inducement would be less than significant; no
24 impacts to existing housing would occur; and impacts on housing demand would be significant, but mitigable
25 with implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1.
26 5.5.1.4.2 Air Quality
27 Total air pollutant emissions associated with Alternative 1 would be lower than for the proposed project,
28 although peak emissions would be comparable. Construction would exceed the VCAPCD daily NOx and
29 ROC thresholds; 1-hour CAAQS for NO2; 24-hour CAAQS and NAAQS for PM10; annual CAAQS for PM10;
30 and the 24-hour NAAQS fromPM2.5, similar to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2
31 would reduce impacts to below the VCAPCD daily NOx and ROC thresholds and 24-hour NAAQS for PM10.
32 Construction impacts associated with Impacts AQ-3c, AQ-4c, AQ-5c, AQ-6c, would also be comparable to
33 the proposed project and would be less than significant. Project construction and operations would
34 incrementally contribute to global climate change. Operational impacts associated with Impact AQ-1o would
35 exceed the VCAPCD daily thresholds for NOx and ROCs. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would reduce those
36 impacts, but not to insignificant levels. Operational impacts associated with Impact AQ-2o would contribute
37 to exceedances of the 1-hour CAAQS for NO2; 24-hour CAAQS and NAAQS for PM10; annual CAAQS for
38 PM10; 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5; and annual CAAQS and NAAQS for PM2.5. Mitigation Measures AQ-1
39 through AQ-4 would reduce impacts to below the NAAQS for 24-hour PM10 and annual PM2.5. Mitigation
40 Measure AQ-5 would further reduce operations related impacts, but since it is uncertain the extent to which
41 this measure would offset overall project-related vehicular emissions it is not possible to calculate what those
42 reductions might be, these exceedances remain significant. Operational impacts associated with Impacts AQ-
43 3o, AQ-4o, AQ-5o, AQ-6o would also be comparable to the proposed project and would be less than
44 significant. In conclusion, the air quality impacts of Alternative 1 would be comparable to, but somewhat less

5 Alternatives
1 than those for the proposed project. GHG emissions from Alternative 1 operations, even with the
2 implementation of AQ-7 and AQ-8, would cause a significant and unavoidable impact on the environment.
3 In addition, Alternative 1 would slightly reduce the potential for impacts to public health from Valley Fever
4 as compared to the proposed project. As with the project, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in:
5 less than significant impacts with respect to fire, hazardous materials/waste, and Valley Fever; and potentially
6 significant but mitigable impacts with respect to abandoned oil well hazards.
7 5.5.1.4.3 Water Resources
8 Under this alternative, impacts to water resources would be similar to, but less than those described for the
9 project. Impacts would be lower because: less water would be required for the project; there would be less
10 potential for impacts to surface water and groundwater quality due to a reduction in waste and/or leachate that
11 could potentially be released into surface water and groundwater; and, under the reduced footprint version of
12 Alternative 1, the landfill would not encroach on the 100-year floodplain (i.e., by not developing the
13 northwestern portion of Phase III). As with the project, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in less
14 than significant groundwater impacts, but significant surface water quality impacts. In addition, flooding
15 impacts would be reduced from potentially significant to less than significant if the reduced footprint version
16 of Alternative 1 avoids the floodplain area.
17 5.5.1.4.4 Biological Resources
18 Impacts of the reduced height variant on Biological Resources would be the same as for the proposed project
19 because the physical area of existing habitat that would be involved in the landfill development would be the
20 same.
21 Implementation of the reduced footprint variant has the potential to substantially reduce impacts on biological
22 resources. The physical area of the landfill footprint would be reduced to approximately 307 acres from its
23 proposed area of 371 acres, a reduction in affected area of about 21 percent. If reducing the footprint involved
24 not developing the northwestern portions of Phase III, potential biological impacts to Plummer’s and Catalina
25 mariposa lilies could be avoided. Depending on the details of the layout, this reduced footprint alternative
26 could include avoiding direct impacts on the majority of Plummer’s mariposa lily, avoiding direct impacts on
27 some Catalina mariposa lily, and avoiding direct and reducing indirect impacts on locally important wildlife
28 species and habitats, primarily sage scrub, grassland, and chaparral habitats. Proximity to the wildlife corridor
29 in Alamos Canyon could be reduced, reducing potential indirect effects on wildlife movement.
30 5.5.1.4.5 Agricultural Resources
31 Impacts of Alternative 1 associated with the reduced height alternative would be the same as for the proposed
32 project with respect to agricultural soils because the physical area involved in landfill development under this
33 alterative would be the same as the proposed project. Impacts of the reduced footprint alternative with respect
34 to impacts on agricultural would be similar to but less than proposed project impacts.
35 Impacts to agricultural resources from dust would be similar to but slightly less than the proposed project for
36 both the reduce height and reduced footprint alternatives because air pollutant emissions associated with
37 Alternative 1 would be lower than for the proposed project, although peak emissions would be comparable
38 5.5.1.4.6 Visual Resources
39 Under Alternative 1, the existing waste disposal area would either be expanded less than for the proposed project or
40 the overall height of the landfill would be reduced by 77 feet. Reducing the final landfill elevation and contour

5 Alternatives
1 would minimize the visual massing of the landfill compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed
2 project, ongoing revegetation of final grade slopes would ensure the final landfill contour would visually blend
3 with surrounding hillsides. The reduced fill elevations would reduce adverse visual impacts of the project along the
4 Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline due to the remaining expanse of undulating topography above the proposed
5 landfill and in the viewing background. Depending on how and where the landfill footprint is reduced, views of
6 the proposed Phase III area could be screened from surrounding public view points. Overall, impacts on visual
7 resources/glare would be similar in nature to, but slightly less than those described under Impacts VIS-1 through
8 VIS-3. However, the significant visual impact from (VIS-1) from SR 118 and from the Alamos Canyon viewpoint
9 associated with the proposed project would remain significant for this alternative, as well.
10 5.5.1.4.7 Geology, and Seismic Hazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources
11 Under this alternative, geologic impacts would be similar to, but less than those described for the project. A
12 reduction in height would reduce the potential for slope failure and a reduction in landfill footprint and
13 volume would reduce the amount of refuse subject to geologic hazards, including fault rupture, seismically
14 induced ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence, expansive soils, and slope instability. In addition, a reduced
15 landfill footprint would reduce potential preclusion of oil and gas drilling within proposed project boundaries,
16 as well as reduce potential disturbance of scientifically important paleontological resources. As with the
17 project, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in less than significant impacts with respect to geologic
18 hazards and significant impacts with respect to paleontological resources.
19 5.5.1.4.8 Cultural Resources
20 Implementation of the Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative would likely have the same impacts on cultural
21 resources as the proposed project. While the reduced footprint component of this alternative would have the
22 potential to avoid impacts to cultural resources, the areas where reducing the footprint could likely occur (in
23 low portions of the landfill topography) do not contain known cultural resources. The same mitigation
24 measures identified for the proposed project (Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3) would apply.
25 5.5.1.4.9 Hazards
26 Under this alternative, hazards related impacts would be similar to, but less than those described for the project.
27 A reduction in height would not reduce the potential for fire, hazardous materials/waste, or abandoned oil well
28 related impacts. However, a reduced landfill footprint would reduce the potential for damaging on-site oil wells
29 during grading, as well as reduce the potential for encountering contaminated soil or soil gas in association with
30 those oil wells. In addition, Alternative 1 would slightly reduce the potential for impacts to public health from
31 Valley Fever as compared to the proposed project. As with the project, implementation of Alternative 1 would
32 result in: less than significant impacts with respect to fire, hazardous materials/waste, and Valley Fever; and
33 potentially significant but mitigable impacts with respect to abandoned oil well hazards. [MOVED TO AIR
34 QUALITY]
35 5.5.1.4.10 Noise and Vibration
36 Alternative 1, in either of its configurations, would result in nearly the same levels of truck traffic as the
37 proposed project, although they would occur over a shorter project lifetime (three to ten years less).
38 Operational noise would similarly be the same as for the proposed project, but shorter in overall duration.
39 Since the effect of noise is time-dependent (the average sound pressure level measured over a given time
40 period), the impacts of this Alternative would be essentially the same as for the proposed project. Impacts
41 NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-3 would be less than significant.

5 Alternatives
1 5.5.1.4.11 Transportation and Circulation
2 Alternative 1 would result in nearly the same levels of truck and commute traffic as the proposed project,
3 although they would occur over a shorter project lifetime (three to ten years less). Truck traffic would
4 continue to impact SR 118 and local roadways in Simi Valley, as would worker commuter traffic. This
5 alternative would not result in higher numbers of truck trips or commuter trips and would therefore have
6 comparable impacts to the proposed project. Impacts TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3 would be less than significant.
8 Under this alternative, water supply impacts would be less than those described for the project, as less water
9 would be required in association with reduced landfill capacity. As with the project, implementation of
10 Alternative 1 would result in less than significant water supply impacts, as the project would be served by the
11 CMWD, which is considered by Ventura County to be a permanent source of water and would comply with
12 applicable federal, state, and local drinking water quality standards.
13 5.5.1.4.13 Waste Treatment and Disposal
14 Implementation of the Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative, with respect to the packaged wastewater
15 treatment plant would result in waste treatment and disposal impacts similar to and slightly less than those
16 described for the proposed project. The packaged wastewater treatment plant would be constructed and
17 operated on-site as described for the proposed project. The amount of domestic wastewater generated by this
18 alternative would be equivalent to the proposed project because the number of employees expected at buildout
19 of the Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative would be the same as that for the proposed project. The only
20 key difference would be that either variant of this alternative would involve impacts for from three to ten
21 fewer years. In addition, implementation of Alternative 1 would not substantially impact the demand for solid
22 waste disposal capacity in Ventura County such that there would be less than 15 years of disposal capacity
23 available for county disposal. However, implementation of Alternative would result in the 15 year capacity
24 limit being reached slightly sooner than under the proposed project. As with the project, implementation of
25 Alternative 1 would result in less than significant waste treatment and disposal impacts.
26 5.5.1.4.14 Recreation
27 Under this alternative, the net increase in employees would be as described for the proposed project (i.e.,
28 150). As this alternative would increase employees by the same number as the proposed project, Iimpacts
29 REC-1 through REC-3 would be the same as the proposed project, significant but mitigableand unavoidable.
30 As described for the proposed project, this increase in employees would create the potential for an increase in
31 population and corresponding increase in the demand for recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures REC-1
32 through REC-3 would ensure that this alternative would offset costs of developing and/or improvements to
33 local and regional parks/facilities and regional trails/corridors associated with increased recreational demands.
34 Additionally, if the northwestern portion of the proposed landfill expansion footprint is not developed under
35 this alternative, impacts to the future development of recreational facilities (Impact REC-4) would be similar
36 to, but slightly less as compared to the proposed project. Impacts to the future development of recreational
37 facilities under the reduced height scenario would be the same as the proposed project. Impacts on local
38 parks/facilities, regional parks/facilities, and regional trails/corridors would significant but mitigable. Impacts
39 to the future development of planned recreational facilities in the vicinity of the project site would be less than
40 significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures REC-1 and REC-2.
41

5 Alternatives
1 5.5.1.4.15 Summary
Table 5.5-2. Impact Comparison of Alternative 1 to the Proposed Project

Magnitude of Impact
Impact Impact from Alternative 1 in
Determination Comparison to the
Proposed Project
Notes: << = Impact considered to be substantially less when compared
S = Significant impact with the proposed project.
M = Significant but mitigable impact < = Impact considered to be somewhat less when compared
L = Less than Significant with the proposed project.
N= No impact - = Impact considered to be equal to the proposed project.
> = Impact considered to be somewhat greater when compared
with the proposed project.
>> = Impact considered to be substantially greater when
compared with the proposed project.
Land Use/General Plan Environmental Goals and Policies
Impact LU-1: Community Character. Compatibility of
design/architectural style with the surrounding community. Including
surrounding land uses, buildings, General Plan designations, zoning, L <
and parcel sizes.
Impact LU-2: Existing Housing. Forced removal of housing that are
currently or were formerly renter-occupied, that are affordable to families
of either moderate-income located within the coastal zone and/or lower- N -
income located within the County, resulting in adverse impact on existing
housing.
Impact LU-3: Demand for Housing. Increase the demand for housing
due to construction or operation. LS -
Impact LU-4: Growth Inducement. Significance of growth inducing
impacts of a project depends on how much added growth would be
accommodated by removing the impediment and setting a precedent for
similar actions in the future and whether that growth is consistent with M -
the planned land use of an area, and the physical impacts of said
growth.
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1c: Alternative 1 construction would produce emissions
that exceed VCAPCD daily emission significance thresholds. M <
Impact AQ-2c: Alternative 1 construction would result in offsite
ambient air pollutant concentrations that would contribute to an S <
exceedance of an ambient air quality standard.
Impact AQ-3c: Alternative 1 construction would not expose the public
to significant levels of TACs. L <
Impact AQ-4c: Alternative 1 construction would not conflict with or L <
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Impact AQ-5c: Alternative 1 construction would not generate fugitive
dust emissions in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment, nuisance,
or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or L <
which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such
person or the public, or which may cause, or have a natural tendency to
cause, injury or damage to business or property.
Impact AQ-6c: Alternative 1 construction would not generate odorous
emissions in such quantities as to cause detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or
which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such L <
Incrementally
Impact AQ-7c: Alternative 1 construction would incrementally contribute to
contribute to global climate change. global <
climate
change
Impact AQ-1o: Alternative 1 operations would produce emissions that S <
exceed VCAPCD daily emission significance thresholds.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Impact from Alternative 1 in
Impact Determination Comparison to the
Proposed Project
Air Quality cont.
Impact AQ-2o: Alternative 1 operations would result in offsite ambient
air pollutant concentrations that would contribute to an exceedance of S <
an ambient air quality standard.
Impact AQ-3o: Alternative 1 operations would not expose the public to
significant levels of TACs. L <
Impact AQ-4o: Alternative 1 operations would not conflict with or L <
Impact AQ-5o: Alternative 1 operation would not generate fugitive
or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or L <
Impact AQ-6o: Alternative 1 operations would not generate odorous
which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such L <
Incrementally
Impact AQ-7o: Alternative 1 operations would incrementally contribute to
contribute to global climate change.be significant and unavoidable. global <
climate
changeS
Water Resources
Impact WR-1: Groundwater Quantity. Directly or indirectly
decrease the net quantity of groundwater in a basin that is overdrafted;
cause non overdrafted basin(s) to become overdrafted; result in a net L <
increase in groundwater extraction in areas where the basin condition is
not known.
Impact WR-2: Groundwater Quality. Degrade the quality of
groundwater and cause groundwater to fail to meet groundwater quality L <
Impact WR-3: Surface Water Quantity. Increase the net utilization
of surface water in a hydraulic unit that is overdrafted; adversely
impacts an overdrafted hydrologic unit; cause the hydraulic unit to L <
become overdrafted; or result in a net increase in surface water for
hydraulic units in which the condition is not known.
Impact WR-4: Surface Water Quality. Degrades the quality of
surface water and causes it to fail to meet surface water quality M <
objectives for a hydrologic unit defined in the most recent Water
Quality Control Plan.
Impact WR-5: Flooding Hazard. Flooding hazards are ubiquitous
throughout Ventura County and are accommodated by the Ventura County
Building Code and the Ventura County Public Works Agency, Flood
Control District Standards and Specifications Design Manual. The effects M < (reduced height),
<< (reduced footprint)
of flooding hazards are required to be considered within the existing
framework of grading and building code ordinances which apply to all
projects.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Impact BIO-1: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Species. Directly - (reduced height)
or indirectly: reduce species population; reduce species habitat; or M << (reduced footprint)
restrict reproductive capacity.
Impact BIO-2: Wetland Habitat. Direct reduction of, or a substantial
indirect impact to, a significant Wetland Habitat. All wetlands are M - (reduced height)
< (reduced footprint)
Impact BIO-3: Migration Corridors. Substantially interfere with the
use of said area by fish or wildlife. This could occur through
elimination of native vegetation, erection of physical barriers, or M - (reduced height)
<< (reduced footprint)
intimidation of fish or wildlife via introduction of noise, light,
development, or increased human presence.
Impact BIO-4: Locally Important Species/Communities. Directly or
indirectly cause a substantial reduction in population numbers, habitat - (reduced height)
area, or reproductive capacity. For locally important communities or M << (reduced footprint)
habitats a significant impact would result if the project caused a
substantial reduction in area or impairment in quality or function.
Impact AG-1: Soils. Direct and/or indirect loss of soils designated - (reduced height)
Prime, Statewide Importance, Unique or Local Importance or agricultural S < (reduced
soils meeting or exceeding the criteria outlined in Table 3.6-1. footprint)
Impact AG-2: Dust. Result in a ten percent or greater increase in dust
on agricultural parcels within one-half mile of the proposed project. S <
Impact VIS-1: Scenic Highways. Change or obstruct important visual
resources as experienced from a scenic highway during construction or S <
operation.
Impact VIS-2: Scenic Areas/Features. Degrade scenic areas or
features or significantly alter them during construction or operation. M/S <
Impact VIS-3: Glare. Create substantial sources of light or glare. M <
Impact GEO-1: Fault Rupture Hazards. Project exists along pre-
existing faults or within a State of California designated Alquist-Priolo L - (reduced height)
Special Fault Study Zone; a County of Ventura designated Fault Hazard < (reduced footprint)
area; or a County of Ventura designated Potential Fault Hazard Area.
Impact GEO-2: Ground Shaking Hazards. Ground shaking hazards
are ubiquitous throughout Ventura County and, ground failure
phenomena aside, are accommodated by the Ventura County Building
Code. The effects of ground shaking hazard are required to be L - (reduced height)
considered within the existing framework of grading and building code
ordinances which apply to all sites and projects. Special threshold
criteria for ground shaking hazard are thus not established.
Impact GEO-3: Liquefaction Hazards. A liquefaction hazard is
considered to exist based on project location with respect to mapped
liquefaction-susceptible areas on the County General Plan maps, on - (reduced height)
maps contained in Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report L < (reduced footprint)
76-5LA; and whether the project is located in a shallow bedrock area
versus an area underlain by recent or older alluvium.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources cont.
Impact GEO-4: Subsidence. A subsidence hazard is considered to L - (reduced height)
exist. < (reduced footprint)
Impact GEO-5: Expansive Soils. An expansive soil hazard is - (reduced height)
considered to exist where soil with an expansion index of greater than L
20 are present. < (reduced footprint)
Impact GEO-6: Landslides/Mudslides. Location of the site or project L < (reduced footprint
in areas with slopes greater than 10 percent. & reduced height)
Impact GEO-7: Petroleum Resources. Land use that is proposed to
be located in or immediately adjacent to any known petroleum resource - (reduced height)
area, or adjacent to a principal access road to an existing petroleum L < (reduced footprint)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Impact GEO-8: Paleontological Resources. Direct impacts to fossil
sites including grading and excavation of fossiliferous rock, which can
result in the loss of scientifically important fossil specimens and S - (reduced height)
associated geological data. Indirect impact including increased access
opportunities and unauthorized collection of fossil materials.
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Cultural Resources. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological or historical resource. M <
Hazards
Impact HAZ-1: Fire Hazards. Projects located within a high fire L - (reduced height)
hazard area. -< (reduced footprint)
Impact HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials. Result in significant hazard to - (reduced height)
the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal L
of hazardous materials. < (reduced footprint)
Impact HAZ-3: Hazardous Wastes. Result in significant hazard to - (reduced height)
the public or environment associated with the storage, handling, or L < (reduced footprint)
Impact HAZ-4: Petroleum Wastes. Exposure of soils (or associated
soil gas) containing toxic substances and petroleum hydrocarbons, - (reduced height)
associated with prior oil field operations, would be deleterious to M < (reduced footprint)
humans, based on regulatory standards established by the lead agency
for the site.
Impact HAZ-5: Valley Fever. Project would cause adverse impacts to L < (reduced height &
public health due to Valley Fever reduced footprint)
Noise and Vibration
Impact NOI-1: Construction Noise. The project would have a
significant construction noise impact if it would result in noise levels
exceeding the following: L -
• Leq1H of 55dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is
greater, during any hour from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
Impact NOI-2: Operational Noise. The project would have a
significant noise impact if it would result in noise levels exceeds either
of the following:
• Leq1H of 55dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is L -
greater, during any hour from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Noise and Vibration cont.
Impact NOI-3: Operational Vibration. The project would have a
significant vibration impact if it would result in detectable vibration at L -
sensitive land uses.
Transportation and Circulation
Impact TR-1: Freeway Segment LOS: Under Caltrans TIA Guidelines,
the project would have a significant impact if it would cause the LOS of L -
the study freeway or roadway segment to fall below LOS C, or, if already
Impact TR-2: Roadway Segment LOS: Under City of Simi Valley TIA
Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if it would cause the L -
LOS of a study intersection to fall below LOS C and the project trips to
exceed 50 percent of the remaining capacity at the study intersection.
Impact TR-3: Somis Road/SR-118 Intersection: Under the County of
Ventura analysis guidelines, the project would have a significant impact if
it could potentially add one future PHT to the intersection of Somis Road L -
and SR-118 unless there is a commitment to road improvements that
ensure that the impact will be reduced to an acceptable LOS in a
reasonable period of time.
Water Supply
Impact WS-1: Water Supply-Quality. The quality of domestic water
available to development must be in compliance with the applicable
State Drinking Water Standards, as described in Title 22 of the L <
California Code of Regulations (CCR), §65521 et seq.
Impact WS-2: Water Supply-Quantity. Does not provide a
permanent supply of water. A permanent supply of water is defined as
at least a 60 year supply. A spring does not meet the requirement for a L <
permanent source of water supply.
Impact WT-1: Individual Sewage Disposal System. Non compliance
with applicable sections of the following documents: Ventura County
Building Code, Ventura County Sewer Policy, Ventura County Ordinance L <
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Environmental Health Division
Individual Sewage Disposal System Technical Information Manual, and
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan.
Impact WT-2: Solid Waste Facility. The project would fail to comply
with statues, regulations, ordinances, and policies for solid waste
facilities; or if it would impact the demand for solid waste disposal L >
capacity in Ventura County such that there would be less than 15 years of
disposal capacity available for county disposal.
Impact REC-1: Local Parks/Facilities. Cause an increase in the
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: - (reduced height &
five acres of developable land (less than 15 percent slope) per 1,000 MS reduced footprint)
population.
Impact REC-2: Regional Parks/Facilities. Cause an increase in the - (reduced height &
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: MS
five acres of developable land per 1,000 population. reduced footprint)

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Recreational Facilities cont.
Impact REC-3: Regional Trails/Corridors. Cause an increase in the - (reduced height &
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: MS reduced footprint)
two-and-a-half miles per 1,000 population.
Impact REC-4: Future Development. Cause an increase in the
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: MS - (reduced height)
impede future development of Recreation Parks/Facilities and/or < (reduced footprint)
Regional Trails/Corridors.
1 5.5.2 Alternative 2: Anaerobic Bioreactor Technology Alternative
2 Under this alternative, the existing waste disposal area (Phase I) would continue operating as it has in the past
3 until it reaches capacity. All future phases would be developed as in-situ anaerobic bioreactor cells. Although
4 prepared similarly to a standard landfill cell, bioreactor cells require different liner systems as well as
5 substantially modified and expanded leachate and landfill gas recovery systems and could not be implemented
6 in Phase I where portions are unlined and the lined areas were not designed for bioreactor systems. Therefore,
7 it is not feasible to implement bioreactor technology on Phase I.
8 Within the permitted footprint area, approximately five bioreactor cells would be constructed instead of
9 traditional landfill cells. The exact number and size of cells would depend on design considerations and the
10 optimal allocation of available landfill volume to ensure acceptable cell function. Each cell would have a
11 capacity of approximately 12 to 15 million cubic yards and would take from 7 to 8 years to fill at the permitted
12 level of 6,000 tons per day. If less than 6,000 tons per day is received, on average, in any future year, the
13 effective life would be correspondingly extended by an unknown amount. As discussed in Sections 5.3.3.2.1 and
14 5.3.3.4, anaerobic bioreactors are considered the most feasible for the SVLRC because their design and
15 operation is not too dissimilar from current standard landfill operations and anaerobic processes produce landfill
16 gas which is necessary to operate the existing and proposed LFGTE generators as well as the proposed liquefied
17 natural gas facility. Anaerobic processing would require approximately 170,000 gallons per day of additional
18 water over and above what is currently consumed at the site. There is no confirmed readily available and
19 suitably priced local source for water (e.g. industrial process waste water) in the immediate vicinity of the
20 landfill, so the source of water for anaerobic operations is uncertain. The feasibility of this alternative depends
21 on a reasonably available and reasonably priced water source.
22 In most other respects, the Anaerobic Bioreactor Technology Alternative would be the same as the proposed
23 project. As is the case for the proposed project, all other features would be constructed, including: the office
24 building; heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance facility; waste hauling yard; MRF/RTF; public household
25 hazardous waste collection facility; new entrance road, scales, and scale house; expanded C&D debris
26 recycling processing; and expanded green waste processing. Bioreactors are expected to maximize landfill gas
27 production, potentially requiring expanding the number of LFGTE generator units plus the LFGTLNG
28 facility. For the purpose of the environmental impact analysis, it is assumed here that one additional LFGTE
29 generator would be constructed. The LFGTLNG facility would be built as proposed.

5 Alternatives
1 Anaerobic bioreactor cell technology would accelerate waste decomposition compared to the standard restricted
2 moisture disposal methods currently employed and required by regulations. For the purposes of analysis, it is
3 assumed that decomposition in a cell would take approximately 10 years, rather than more than 30 for a typical
4 dry cell technology. At maximum decomposition, the volume would be reduced to approximately 60 percent of
5 the original airspace of the cell (allowing for decomposition, settlement, and the application of daily cover) in 10
6 years or less making 40 percent of the originally available airspace available for additional disposal.
7 Therefore, each cell would be reactivated after the contents complete decomposition approximately 10 years
8 following its first closure. The newly available 40 percent of the original capacity would then be prepared to
9 accept more waste and the cell would again be operated as an anaerobic reactor until filled and the contents have
10 decomposed. The effect of the anaerobic bioreactor implementation would be to provide for the reuse of waste
11 capacity made available through the accelerated decomposition process during continuing operations. This
12 would increase the overall capacity of a given volume of landfill to accept waste over the life of the project.
15 Impacts related to potential conflicts with the General Plan goals, policies, and programs under this alternative
16 would be essentially the same as those for the proposed project. Although there are operational differences
17 between the Anaerobic Bioreactor Technology and the proposed conventional landfill, these would not have
18 substantial General Plan policy or land use implications. However, the County lacks the legal authority to
19 impose a fee and a mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts related to increased
20 demand for housing. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation for the housing demand created by additional
21 project employees. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Alternative 2 would potentially
22 increase the effective lifespan of the landfill by accelerating biological decomposition of the waste, thereby
23 freeing up available capacity for reuse before landfill closure1.Provided this additional capacity was used, this
24 could have the beneficial effect of providing future landfill capacity that otherwise would not be available if
25 the SVLRC were operated throughout its permitted life as a conventional landfill.
27 A bioreactor increases the rate at which decomposition occurs. As a consequence, there is substantially more
28 landfill gas generated in the early years of the development of a bioreactor cell than there would be in a
29 conventional cell. On the other hand, the total amount of landfill gas generated for the same quantity of waste
30 is essentially the same with more gas generated early in the decomposition of a cell and less generated later2.
31 The impact analysis assumes that an additional landfill gas to energy generator would be added over the four
32 involved in the proposed project to capture and utilize the increased landfill gas generated in the early years of
33 each new cell. Therefore, the emissions profile over time of a bioreactor alternative is somewhat different
34 from that of a conventional landfill.
35 Based on the different emissions profile compared to the proposed project, modeling was performed for this
36 alternative to assess both the criteria pollutant emissions and potential health risk of a bioreactor alternative.
37 Refer to Section 3.2 for a complete discussion of the modeling performed. Table 5.5-3 provides the projected
38 unmitigated criteria pollutant impacts associated with a bioreactor alternative. The bolded text within Table
39 5.5-3 indicates where unmitigated emissions would result in significant impacts.
1
Note that closure of conventional landfills often occurs prior to the complete effective decomposition of the waste within it. Continued
settlement can occur for many years following closure. However, once closed, the additional capacity that could be used due to settlement
during the extended period of decomposition is no longer available.
2
The shape of the emissions curve is different, being higher in the early years and lower in later years.

5 Alternatives
Table 5.5-3. Ambient Air Pollutant Concentrations Associated with Bioreactor

Alternative Construction and Operations without Mitigation(1)
Maximum Background Total
Averaging Impact Concentration Impact
Pollutant Period (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) CAAQS NAAQS
1-hour 372 (3) 23 395 339 -
NO2
Annual 4 23 27 57 100
1-hour 2,546 6,555 9,101 23,000 40,000
CO
8-hour 892 4,056 4,948 10,000 10,000
24-hour 55 117 172 50 150
PM10
Annual 3 29 32 20 -
PM2.5 24-hour 47 56 103 35 35
SO2 1-hour 389 18 407 655 -
24-hour 50 5 55 105 365
Notes:
2. Maximum impact for NO2 (1-hr) is derived through chemical conversion using the Ozone Limiting Method (OLM).
1 In general, unmitigated emissions from the bioreactor alternative are comparable to those from a conventional
2 landfill with NOx emissions being somewhat lower and SO2 emissions being somewhat higher than the
3 proposed project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-3, mitigated NOx emissions
4 would not contribute to an exceedance of the 1-hour CAAQS for NO2. Otherwise, mitigated ambient criteria
5 pollutant impacts from the alternative would be the same as for the proposed project.
6 Table 5.5-4 provides the projected health risk associated with this alternative. In all health impact categories,
7 the bioreactor alternative would have less than significant impacts and the impacts associated with this
8 alternative are essentially identical with those for the proposed project. The health risk impact of Alternative 2
9 would therefore be less than significant for all categories.
Table 5.5-4. Maximum Health Impacts Estimated for Construction and Operations from
the Bioreactor Alternative
Maximum Predicted Incremental Impacts1
Significance
Health Impact Receptor Type Bioreactor CEQA Threshold3
CEQA Baseline
Alternative Increment2
Residential 3.2 0.8 2.4
10
Cancer Risk Occupational 2.1 0.7 1.4 (× 10-6)
Sensitive 0.5 0.1 0.4
Residential 0.003 0.005 -0.002
Chronic Hazard Index Occupational 0.003 0.005 -0.002 1.0
Sensitive 0.001 0.002 -0.001
Residential 0.004 0.022 -0.018
Acute Hazard Index Occupational 0.005 0.023 -0.018 1.0
Sensitive 0.002 0.001 0.001
Notes:
1. For each receptor type, all risk values correspond to the receptor with the maximum CEQA incremental impact.
2. The CEQA Increment represents Bioreactor Alternative impact minus the CEQA Baseline impact.
10 With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, CO2 equivalent emissions from construction and operation of
11 Alternative 2 would be comparable to those identified for the proposed project. GHG emissions from
12 Alternative 2 operations, even with the implementation of AQ-7 and AQ-8, would cause a significant and
13 unavoidable impact on the environment. These increases of GHG emissions would incrementally contribute
14 to global climate change.As with the project, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in less than
15 significant impacts with respect to Valley Fever.

5 Alternatives
2 Under this alternative, impacts to water resources would be similar in nature to, but greater than those
3 described for the project. Anaerobic processing would require approximately 190 AFY more water than the
4 proposed project. There is no confirmed, readily available and economically feasible local source of non-
5 potable water, so the source of water for anaerobic operations is uncertain. Potential water sources include
6 industrial process wastewater from nearby facilities, the on-site wastewater treatment plant, trucking
7 wastewater from more distant facilities onto the site, or on-site groundwater. However, because the
8 groundwater is very poor quality and used only sparingly in the Simi Valley area for beneficial use,
9 groundwater quantity impacts would be less than significant if groundwater were determined to be an
10 economic source. As with the project, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in less than significant
11 impacts with respect to groundwater quality and potentially significant but mitigable surface water quality and
12 flooding impacts.
14 Implementation of this alternative would not cause a substantial change in effects on biological resources
15 compared to the proposed project unless there would be unforeseen biological effects of obtaining the
16 necessary water to implement the alternative. This alternative is analyzed based on the assumption that a
17 reasonably available and reasonably priced water source (e.g., industrial process wastewater) can be found.
18 By allowing more waste to be disposed of within an existing footprint, implementation of this alternative
19 might cause biological impacts associated with developing additional landfill capacity to be reduced,
20 postponed, or avoided. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-14 for the proposed project would apply to
21 this project alternative.
23 Implementation of this alternative would not cause a substantial change in effects on conversion of locally
24 important farmland on-site compared to the proposed project; impacts would be significant. In addition,
25 impacts of ambient fugitive dust on farmlands within one-half mile of the project site due to Alternative 2
26 would be the same as for the proposed project; impacts would be significant.
28 Alternative 2 would not result in substantially different effects on visual resources compared to the proposed
29 Project as the landfill footprint and height would be the same as under the proposed project. This alternative
30 could extend the life of the landfill. However, as with the proposed project, landfill phasing would minimize
31 visual massing of the landfill during active operations and ongoing revegetation of final grade slopes would
32 ensure that the final landfill contour would visually blend with surrounding hillsides. Overall, impacts on
33 visual resources/glare would be similar in nature to, but slightly less than those described under Impacts VIS-
34 1 through VIS-3.
35 5.5.2.1.7 Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources
36 Under this alternative, geologic impacts would be similar to those described for the project. Anaerobic
37 processing would require approximately 190 AFY more water than the proposed project. The overall footprint
38 would, however, be the same so the level of ground disturbance would also be the same. As with the project,
39 implementation of Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts with respect to geologic hazards
40 and significant impacts with respect to paleontological resources.

5 Alternatives
2 Implementation of the Anaerobic Bioreactor Technology Alternative would have the same impacts on cultural
3 resources as the proposed project. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 for the proposed project
4 would apply to Alternative 2, resulting in less than significant impacts.
5 5.5.2.1.9 Hazards
6 Under this alternative, hazards impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Anaerobic processing would
7 not result in any additional (or fewer) fire, hazardous materials/waste, abandoned oil well, or Valley Fever-
8 related impacts. As with the project, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in less than significant
9 impacts with respect to fire, and hazardous materials/waste, and Valley Fever; and significant but mitigable
10 impacts with respect to abandoned oil well hazards.
12 Alternative 2 would result in essentially the same levels of truck traffic as the proposed project, although they
13 could occur over a longer project lifetime provided the waste receipts past 2054 are permitted. Operational
14 noise would similarly be the same as for the proposed project, but potentially longer in overall duration. Since
15 the effect of noise is time-dependent (the average sound pressure level measured over a given time period),
16 the impacts of this Alternative would be essentially the same as for the proposed project. Impacts NOI-1,
17 NOI-2, and NOI-3 would be less than significant.
19 The Bioreactor Technology Alternative would result in the same levels of truck and commute traffic as the
20 proposed project. Truck traffic would continue to impact SR 118 and local roadways in Simi Valley, as would
21 worker commuter traffic in virtually the same way as the proposed proejctproject. This alternative would
22 therefore have comparable impacts to the proposed project. Impacts TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3 would be less than
23 significant.
25 Under this alternative, water supply impacts would be greater than those described for the project. Anaerobic
26 processing would require approximately 190 AFY more water than the proposed project. There is no
27 confirmed, readily available and economically feasible local source of non-potable water, so the source of
28 water for anaerobic operations is uncertain. Potential water sources include industrial process wastewater
29 from nearby facilities, the on-site wastewater treatment plant, trucking water onto the site from remote
30 facilities, and use of on-site groundwater. However, economics aside, implementation of Alternative 2 would
31 result in less than significant water supply impacts, as the project would be served by the CMWD, which is
32 considered by Ventura County to be a permanent source of water.
34 Impacts related to potential waste treatment and disposal under this alternative with respect to the package
35 wastewater treatment plant would be essentially the same as those for the proposed project. Although there
36 would be differences in the way the landfill is constructed and operated under the this alternative as compared
37 to the proposed project, all other proposed project components, including the on-site wastewater treatment
38 facility, office building, heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance, would be identical to the proposed
39 project. The amount of domestic wastewater generated by this alternative would be equivalent to the proposed
40 project. In addition, implementation of Alternative 2 would not substantially impact the demand for solid

5 Alternatives
1 waste disposal capacity in Ventura County such that there would be less than 15 years of disposal capacity
2 available for county disposal. However, implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the overall capacity
3 of the landfill to accept waste over the life of the project, resulting in the 15 year capacity limit being reached
4 slightly later than under the proposed project. As with the project, implementation of Alternative 2 would
5 result in less than significant waste treatment and disposal impacts.
7 Under this alternative, the net increase in employees would be the same as for the proposed project. (i.e., 150
8 employees). As such, Impacts REC-1 through REC-3 would be the same as the proposed project because
9 Alternative 2 would increase employees by the same number as the proposed project. This increase in
10 employees would create the potential for an increase in population and corresponding increase in demands on
11 recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures REC-1 thorough REC-3 would offset costs of developing and/or
12 improvements to local and regional recreational facilities associated with increased recreational demands.
13 Therefore, impacts on local parks/facilities, regional parks/facilities, and regional trails/corridors would be less
14 than significant and unavoidable. Under Alternative 2 the expanded landfill footprint would be the same as
15 proposed under the proposed project. As such, impacts to the future development of planned recreational
16 facilities in the vicinity of the project site (Impact REC-4) would be the same as under the proposed project—
17 that is, less than significant and unavoidablewith the implementation of Mitigation Measures REC-1 and REC-2.
18 5.5.2.1.15 Summary

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Notes: << = Impact considered to be substantially less when
S = Significant impact compared with the proposed project.
M = Significant but mitigable impact < = Impact considered to be somewhat less when
L = Less than Significant compared with the proposed project.
N= No impact - = Impact considered to be equal to the proposed
project.
> = Impact considered to be somewhat greater when
surrounding land uses, buildings, General Plan designations, zoning, and L -
parcel sizes.
currently or were formerly renter-occupied, that are affordable to
families of either moderate-income located within the coastal zone N -
and/or lower-income located within the County, resulting in adverse
impact on existing housing.
due to construction or operation. LS -
accommodated by removing the impediment and setting a precedent for M -
similar actions in the future and whether that growth is consistent with
the planned land use of an area, and the physical impacts of said growth.
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1c: Alternative 2 construction would produce emissions that M -

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
project.
Air Quality cont.
ambient air pollutant concentrations that would contribute to an S -
Impact AQ-3c: Alternative 2 construction would not expose the public
to significant levels of TACs. L -
Impact AQ-4c: Alternative 2 construction would not conflict with or L -
or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or L -
which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such L -
Incrementally
Impact AQ-7c: Alternative 2 construction would incrementally contribute to -
contribute to global climate change. global climate
change
Impact AQ-1o: Alternative 2 operations would produce emissions that
exceed VCAPCD daily emission significance thresholds. S <
air pollutant concentrations that would contribute to an exceedance of an S -
ambient air quality standard.
significant levels of TACs. L -
Impact AQ-4o: Alternative 2 operations would not conflict with or L -
Impact AQ-5o: Alternative 2 operation would not generate fugitive dust
emissions in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or L -
Incrementally
Impact AQ-7o: Alternative 2 operations would be significant and contribute to -
unavoidable.incrementally contribute to global climate change. global climate
changeS

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
project.
Water Resources
Impact WR-1: Groundwater Quantity. Directly or indirectly
cause non overdrafted basin(s) to become overdrafted; result in a net L >
not known.
groundwater and cause groundwater to fail to meet groundwater quality L >
Impact WR-3: Surface Water Quantity. Increase the net utilization of
surface water in a hydraulic unit that is overdrafted; adversely impacts an
overdrafted hydrologic unit; cause the hydraulic unit to become L >
overdrafted; or result in a net increase in surface water for hydraulic units
in which the condition is not known.
Impact WR-4: Surface Water Quality. Degrades the quality of
surface water and causes it to fail to meet surface water quality M >
objectives for a hydrologic unit defined in the most recent Water Quality
Control Plan.
throughout Ventura County and are accommodated by the Ventura
County Building Code and the Ventura County Public Works Agency,
Flood Control District Standards and Specifications Design Manual. The M >
effects of flooding hazards are required to be considered within the
existing framework of grading and building code ordinances which apply
to all projects.
Impact BIO-1: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Species. Directly
or indirectly: reduce species population; reduce species habitat; or M <
restrict reproductive capacity.
indirect impact to, a significant Wetland Habitat. All wetlands are M <
use of said area by fish or wildlife. This could occur through elimination
of native vegetation, erection of physical barriers, or intimidation of fish M <
or wildlife via introduction of noise, light, development, or increased
human presence.
Impact BIO-4: Locally Important Species/Communities. Directly
or indirectly cause a substantial reduction in population numbers, habitat
area, or reproductive capacity. For locally important communities or M <
Impact AG-1: Soils. Direct and/or indirect loss of soils designated
Prime, Statewide Importance, Unique or Local Importance or S -
agricultural soils meeting or exceeding the criteria outlined in Table 3.6-
1.
Impact AG-2: Dust. Result in a 10 percent or greater increase in dust
on agricultural parcels within one-half mile of the proposed project. S -

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
project.
operation.
Impact VIS-3: Glare. Create substantial sources of light or glare. M <
existing faults or within a State of California designated Alquist-Priolo L >
Special Fault Study Zone; a County of Ventura designated Fault Hazard
Code. The effects of ground shaking hazard are required to be L >
liquefaction-susceptible areas on the County General Plan maps, on
maps contained in Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 76- L >
5LA; and whether the project is located in a shallow bedrock area versus
an area underlain by recent or older alluvium.
Impact GEO-4: Subsidence. A subsidence hazard is considered to
exist L >
Impact GEO-5: Expansive Soils. An expansive soil hazard is
considered to exist where soil with an expansion index of greater than 20 L >
are present.
Impact GEO-6: Landslides/Mudslides. Location of the site or project
in areas with slopes greater than 10 percent. L -
Impact GEO-7: Petroleum Resources. Land use that is proposed to
be located in or immediately adjacent to any known petroleum resource L -
area, or adjacent to a principal access road to an existing petroleum
result in the loss of scientifically important fossil specimens and S -
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Cultural Resources. Cause a substantial adverse M -
change in the significance of an archaeological or historical resource.
Hazards
Impact HAZ-1: Fire Hazards. Projects located within a high fire
hazard area. L -

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
project.
Hazards cont.
Impact HAZ-2: Hazardous Materials. Result in significant hazard to
the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal L -
of hazardous materials.
Impact HAZ-3: Hazardous Wastes. Result in significant hazard to
the public or environment associated with the storage, handling, or L -
soil gas) containing toxic substances and petroleum hydrocarbons,
associated with prior oil field operations, would be deleterious to M -
humans, based on regulatory standards established by the lead agency for
the site.
Impact HAZ-5: Valley Fever. Project would cause adverse impacts to L -
public health due to Valley Fever
Noise and Vibration
significant noise impact if it would result in noise levels exceeding either
of the following:
the project would have a significant impact if it would cause the LOS of the
study freeway or roadway segment to fall below LOS C, or, if already L -
Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if it would cause the
LOS of a study intersection to fall below LOS C and the project trips to L -
Ventura analysis guidelines, the project would have a significant impact if it
could potentially add one future PHT to the intersection of Somis Road and L -
SR-118 unless there is a commitment to road improvements that ensure that
the impact will be reduced to an acceptable LOS in a reasonable period of
time.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
project.
Water Supply
Impact WS-1: Water Supply-Quality. The quality of domestic
water available to development must be in compliance with the L >
applicable State Drinking Water Standards, as described in Title 22 of
the California Code of Regulations (CCR), §65521 et seq.
Impact WS-2. Water Supply-Quantity. Does not provide a permanent
supply of water. A permanent supply of water is defined as at least a 60 L >
year supply. A spring does not meet the requirement for a permanent
source of water supply.
Impact WT-1: Individual Sewage Disposal System. Nor in
compliance with applicable sections of the following documents:
Ventura County Building Code, Ventura County Sewer Policy, Ventura
County Ordinance Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Environmental L -
Health Division Individual Sewage Disposal System Technical
Information Manual, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board Basin Plan.
with statues, regulations, ordinances, and policies for solid waste facilities;
or if it would impact the demand for solid waste disposal capacity in L <
Ventura County such that there would be less than 15 years of disposal
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard:
five acres of developable land (less than 15 percent slope) per 1,000 MS -
population.
Impact REC-2: Regional Parks/Facilities. Cause an increase in the
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: MS -
five acres of developable land per 1,000 population.
Impact REC-3: Regional Trails/Corridors. Cause an increase in the
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: MS -
Impact REC-4: Future Development. Cause an increase in the demand
for recreation when measured against the following standard: impede MS -
future development of Recreation Parks/Facilities and/or Regional
Trails/Corridors.
1 5.5.3 Alternative 3: Phased Permitted Daily Tonnage Limit Alternative
2 Under this alternative, the SVLRC Expansion Project would proceed as described under the proposed project.
3 However, the permitted daily tonnage limit for MSW would be incrementally increased from its current 3,000
4 tons per day level, to an intermediate limit of 4,500 tons per day immediately following permit approval, and,
5 ultimately, to the full 6,000 tons per day in 2014. Upon approval of the CUP modification (anticipated to be in
6 2009), the SVLRC would comply with a daily tonnage limit of 4,500 tpd through 2013. Between 2014 and
7 2052 (expected closure date) the permitted daily tonnage limit would be increased to 6,000 tpd (Table 5.5-6).

5 Alternatives
1 This alternative may result in a reduction in truck traffic in the near term, and a potential reduction in the
2 associated traffic/circulation impacts as compared to the proposed project until the full 6,000 tons per day is
3 being received. However, it is unclear, since the facility currently fails to receive its full 3,000 ton per day
4 limit except very occasionally, whether waste receipts under phased permit limits would actually differ from
5 those without such limits.
Table 5.5-6. Proposed Timeline for Phased Increase in Permitted Daily Tonnage Limit
Municipal Solid Waste Permitted Limit (tpd) Implementation Year
Current Limit: 3,000 On-going
Intermediate Phased Limit: 4,500 2010 to 2013
Final Permitted Limit: 6,000 2014 to 2050
6 Receipts are very unlikely to suddenly jump from an average of about 2,500 tons per day currently to 6,000
7 tons per day if the permit is issued for the new facility. It is likely that there would be a period of time after
8 the permit is issued when receipts would gradually ramp up to the full 6,000 tons per day. The most likely
9 driver of significant increased receipts would be the closure of a major nearby landfill. Since the Puente Hills
10 landfill which is scheduled to occurto close in 2013., it is reasonable to expect an incremental increase at that
11 time. Whether an additional 3,000 tons per day would begin being delivered to the SVLRC when Puente Hills
12 closes is difficult to predict. Puente Hills is currently permitted to receive 13,200 tons per day and regularly
13 closes early when this limit is reached. It is very unlikely that 3,000 tons per day (about 22 percent) of that
14 waste stream would be delivered to SVLRC immediately following the Puente Hills closure given several
15 other closer available landfills. However, when other landfills in the vicinity close, it is reasonable to expect
16 the SVLRC to be a logical choice for alternate disposal if the SVLF is a more economical destination than the
17 Mesquite Canyon Landfill, which has the same owner/operator as Puente Hill landfill. Since the Puente Hills
18 landfill closure is the earliest major landfill closure scheduled, it is unlikely that an increment of more than
19 1,500 tons per day (i.e. to the 4,500 tons per day intermediate phased limit) would be received prior to
20 2014.The Capacity Study in Appendix K estimates that approximately 600 tons per day (5 percent) may be
21 diverted from Puente Hills to SVLRC upon closure given the considerable distance involved and availability
22 of closer landfills. Assuming landfill closures as currently scheduled and waste growth at slightly less than
23 population growth, the Capacity Study estimates that the full 6,000 tons per day capacity limit would not be
24 reached for SVLRC until 2037.
27 Impacts related to potential conflicts with land use and General Plan goals, policies, and programs under this
28 alternative would be essentially the same as those for the proposed project. Although there is a small chance
29 that the intermediate phased limit between 2009 and 2013 would reduce daily receipts late in that time period,
30 the amount by which they would be reduced is expected to be minimal. Over the life of the project, the short
31 time period and limited reduction in receipts is unlikely to have any plan, policy, or land use implications.
32 However, the County lacks the legal authority to impose a fee and a mechanism to ensure that fees collected
33 would mitigate impacts related to increased demand for housing. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation for
34 the housing demand created by additional project employees. The impact is considered significant and
35 unavoidable if the SVLF is a more economical destination than the Mesquite Canyon Landfill, which has the
36 same owner/operator as Puente Hill landfill..
38 The air quality impacts of Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as for the proposed project as the
39 phased permit limit is not expected to appreciably alter actual landfill operations when compared to the

5 Alternatives
1 project. Significant construction impacts would occur with regard to 1-hour CAAQS for NO2; 24-hour
2 CAAQS and NAAQS for PM10; annual CAAQS for PM10; and the 24-hour NAAQS fromPM2.5, as identified
3 for the proposed project. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce these impacts to below the 24-
4 hour NAAQS for PM10. Construction impacts associated with Impacts AQ-3c, AQ-4c, AQ-5c, and AQ-6c
5 would also be comparable to the proposed project and would be less than significant. Operational impacts
6 associated with Impact AQ-1o would exceed VCAPCD thresholds for ROC and NOx and the application of
7 Mitigation AQ-3 would reduce those impacts, but not to insignificant levels. Operational impacts associated
8 with Impacts AQ-2o would contribute to exceedances of the 1-hour CAAQS for NO2; 24-hour CAAQS and
9 NAAQS for PM10; annual CAAQS for PM10; 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5; and annual CAAQS and NAAQS
10 for PM2.5. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce these impacts to below the NAAQS for 24-
11 hour PM10 and annual PM2.5. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would further reduce operations related impacts, but
12 since it is uncertain the extent to which this measure would offset overall project-related vehicular emissions
13 it is not possible to calculate what those reductions might be these exceedances remain significant. Impacts
14 AQ-3o, AQ-4o, AQ-5o, and AQ-6o would also be comparable to the proposed project and would be less than
15 significant.
18 Alternative operations, even with the implementation of AQ-7 and AQ-8, would cause a significant and
19 unavoidable impact on the These increases of GHG emissions would incrementally contribute to global
20 climate change.environment. As with the project, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less than
21 significant impacts with respect to Valley Fever.
23 Under this alternative, impacts to water resources would be similar in nature to the project. The permitted daily
24 tonnage limit would be incrementally increased; however, such an increase would have little impact on water
25 resources. As with the project, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts with
26 respect to groundwater and potentially significant but mitigable surface water quality and flooding impacts.
28 Under this alternative, impacts to biological resources would be similar in nature to the project. The permitted
29 daily tonnage limit would be incrementally increased; however, the grading footprint of the proposed
30 expansion area would remain the same as for the proposed project and as such Alternative 3 would have the
31 same impacts to biological resources as under the proposed project. As with the project, implementation of
32 Alternative 3 would result in less than impacts to listed species, locally important species, wetland habitat,
33 and wildlife corridors with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-14.
35 Impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as those involved in the proposed project, resulting
36 in significant impacts to agricultural resources.
38 A phased permit limit would have no influence on the landfill’s visual impacts. The only effect could be a short
39 time period when the permit limit may constrain the volume of waste received, thereby, potentially prolonging
40 the life of the landfill. This alternative would neither reduce its permitted height nor its footprint in a visually
41 meaningful way. The achievement of the full permitted height could potentially be delayed by several years, but
42 otherwise the impacts associated with the proposed project would be essentially the same for this alternative.

5 Alternatives
1 5.5.3.1.7 Geology, Mineral, and Paleontological Resources
2 Under this alternative, impacts to geologic, mineral, and paleontological resources would be the same as for
3 the project. The permitted daily tonnage limit would be incrementally increased; however, such an increase
4 would have little impact on landfill receipts and, therefore, geological resources. As with the project,
5 implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts with respect to geological and
6 mineral resources, and significant impacts to paleontological resources.
8 Under this alternative, impacts to cultural resources would be similar in nature to the project. The permitted
9 daily tonnage limit would be incrementally increased; however, the grading footprint of the proposed
10 expansion area would remain the same as for the proposed project. As such, Alternative 3 would have the
11 same impacts to cultural resources as under the proposed project. Impacts to cultural resources would be
12 potentially significant but mitigable.
13 5.5.3.1.9 Hazards
14 Under this alternative, hazard impacts would be similar in nature to the project and would not result in any
15 additional (or fewer) fire, hazardous materials/waste, abandoned oil well, or Valley Fever related impacts. As
16 with the project, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts with respect to
17 fire, and hazardous materials/waste, and Valley Fever; and significant but mitigable impacts with respect to
18 abandoned oil well hazards.
20 Alternative 3 would result in nearly the same levels of truck traffic as the proposed project, although there is a
21 small probability that they would be slightly less prior to the implementation of the full 6,000 tons per day
22 limit in 2013. Operational noise would similarly be the same as for the proposed project since the effect of
23 noise is time-dependent (the average sound pressure level measured over a given time period), the impacts of
24 this Alternative would be essentially the same as for the proposed project. Impacts NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-3
27 A Phased Tonnage Limit may result in somewhat lower levels of truck and commute traffic as compared to
28 the proposed project in early years when the phased tonnage limit of 4,500 tons per day may result in some
29 waste being refused, although this would only occur over a short timeframe before the limit is increased to the
30 full 6,000 tons per day in 2014. Overall, truck traffic would continue to impact SR-118 and local roadways in
31 Simi Valley, as would worker commuter traffic. This alternative would not result in higher numbers of truck
32 trips or commuter trips and would therefore have comparable impacts to the proposed project. Impacts TR-1,
33 TR-2, and TR-3 would be less than significant.
35 Under this alternative, impacts to water supply would be similar in nature to the project. The permitted daily
36 tonnage limit would be incrementally increased; however, such an increase would have little impact on water
37 supply. As with the project, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts with
38 respect to water supply quantity and quality.

5 Alternatives
2 Implementation of the Phased Permitted Daily Tonnage Limit Alternative would result in the waste sewage
3 treatment and disposal impacts as the proposed project. The restricted near term permitted daily tonnage limit
4 would have little impact on waste treatment or disposal. In addition, the landfills capacity would be reached at
5 essentially the same time as under the proposed project. As with the project, implementation of this
6 alternative would result in less than significant sewage treatment and disposal impacts.
8 Impacts related to recreation under this alternative would be essentially the same as those for the proposed
9 project. Impacts to the demand for local and regional parks/facilities and regional trails/corridors as well as
10 future development of planned recreational facilities in the vicinity of the project site would be less than
11 significant and unavoidablewith the implementation of Mitigation Measures REC-1 through REC-3.
12 5.5.3.1.15 Summary

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
project.
surrounding land uses, buildings, General Plan designations, zoning, and L -
parcel sizes.
income located within the County, resulting in adverse impacts on existing
housing.
Impact LU-3: Demand for Housing. Increase the demand for housing due
to construction or operation. LS -
similar actions in the future and whether that growth is consistent with the
planned land use of an area, and the physical impacts of said growth.
Air Quality
Impact AQ-2c: Alternative 3 construction would result in offsite ambient
air pollutant concentrations that would contribute to an exceedence of an S -
Impact AQ-3c: Alternative 3 construction would not expose the public to L -
significant levels of TACs.
Impact AQ-4c: Alternative 3 construction would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. L -

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
project.
Air Quality cont.
Impact AQ-5c: Alternative 3 construction would not generate fugitive dust
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which
may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or L -
the public, or which may cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury
or damage to business or property.
emissions in such quantities as to cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance
to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which may L -
endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the
public, or which may cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or
damage to business or property.
Incrementally
Impact AQ-7c: Alternative 3 construction would incrementally contribute contribute to
to global climate change. global climate -
change
Impact AQ-1o: Alternative 3 operations would produce emissions that S -
Impact AQ-2o: Alternative 3 operations would result in offsite ambient air
pollutant concentrations that would contribute to an exceedance of an S -
Impact AQ-3o: Alternative 3 operations would not expose the public to L -
significant levels of TACs.
Impact AQ-4o: Alternative 3 operations would not conflict with or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which
may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or L -
the public, or which may cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury
or damage to business or property.
emissions in such quantities as to cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance
to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which may L -
endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the
public, or which may cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or
damage to business or property.
Incrementally
Impact AQ-7o: Alternative 3 operations would be significant and contribute to
unavoidable.incrementally contribute to global climate change. global climate -
changeS

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
project.
Water Resources
Impact WR-1: Groundwater Quantity. Directly or indirectly decrease -
the net quantity of groundwater in a basin that is overdrafted; cause non L
overdrafted basin(s) to become overdrafted; result in a net increase in
groundwater extraction in areas where the basin condition is not known.
Impact WR-2: Groundwater Quality. Degrade the quality of -
groundwater and cause groundwater to fail to meet groundwater quality L
Impact WR-3: Surface Water Quantity. Increase the net utilization of -
overdrafted hydrologic unit; cause the hydraulic unit to become L
overdrafted; or result in a net increase in surface water for hydraulic units in
which the condition is not known.
Impact WR-4: Surface Water Quality. Degrades the quality of surface
water and causes it to fail to meet surface water quality objectives for a M -
hydrologic unit defined in the most recent Water Quality Control Plan.
Building Code and the Ventura County Public Works Agency, Flood Control M -
District Standards and Specifications Design Manual. The effects of flooding
hazards are required to be considered within the existing framework of
grading and building code ordinances which apply to all projects.
Impact BIO-1: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Species. Directly or
indirectly: reduce species population; reduce species habitat; or restrict M -
reproductive capacity.
indirect impact to, a significant Wetland Habitat. All wetlands are M -
Impact BIO-3: Migration Corridors. Substantially interfere with the use
of said area by fish or wildlife. This could occur through elimination of
native vegetation, erection of physical barriers, or intimidation of fish or M -
wildlife via introduction of noise, light, development, or increased human
presence.
indirectly cause a substantial reduction in population numbers, habitat area,
or reproductive capacity. For locally important communities or habitats a M -
significant impact would result if the project caused a substantial reduction
in area or impairment in quality or function.
Impact AG-1: Soils. Direct and/or indirect loss of soils designated Prime,
Statewide Importance, Unique or Local Importance or agricultural soils S -
meeting or exceeding the criteria outlined in Table 3.6-1.
Impact AG-2: Dust. Result in a 10 percent or greater increase in dust on
agricultural parcels within one-half mile of the proposed project. S -

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
project.
resources as experienced from a scenic highway during construction or S -
operation.
Impact VIS-2: Scenic Areas/Features. Degrade scenic areas or features
or significantly alter them during construction or operation. M/S -
Impact VIS-3: Glare. Create substantial sources of light or glare. M -
existing faults or within a State of California designated Alquist-Priolo L -
Impact GEO-2: Ground Shaking Hazards. Ground shaking hazards are
ubiquitous throughout Ventura County and, ground failure phenomena
aside, are accommodated by the Ventura County Building Code. The
effects of ground shaking hazard are required to be considered within the L -
existing framework of grading and building code ordinances which apply to
all sites and projects. Special threshold criteria for ground shaking hazard
are thus not established.
liquefaction-susceptible areas on the County General Plan maps, on maps
contained in Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 76-5LA; L -
and whether the project is located in a shallow bedrock area versus and area
underlain by recent or older alluvium.
Impact GEO-4: Subsidence. A subsistence hazard is considered to exist. L -
Impact GEO-5: Expansive Soils. An expansive soil hazard is considered
to exist where soil with an expansion index of greater than 20 are present. L -
Impact GEO-6: Landslides/Mudslides. Location of the site or project in L -
areas with slopes greater than 10 percent.
Impact GEO-7: Petroleum Resources. Land use that is proposed to be
located in or immediately adjacent to any known petroleum resource area,
or adjacent to a principal access road to an existing petroleum Conditional L -
Use Permit (CUP).
result in the loss of scientifically important fossil specimens and associated S -
geological data. Indirect impact including increased access opportunities
and unauthorized collection of fossil materials.
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Cultural Resources. Cause a substantial adverse change M -
in the significance of an archaeological or historical resource.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
project.
Hazards
Impact HAZ-1: Fire Hazards. Projects located within a high fire hazard L -
area.
the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of L -
hazardous materials.
Impact HAZ-3: Hazardous Wastes. Result in significant hazard to the
public or environment associated with the storage, handling, or disposal of L -
hazardous wastes.
Impact HAZ-4: Petroleum Wastes. Exposure of soils (or associated soil
gas) containing toxic substances and petroleum hydrocarbons, associated M -
with prior oil field operations, would be deleterious to humans, based on
regulatory standards established by the lead agency for the site.
Impact HAZ-5: Valley Fever. Project would cause adverse impacts to
public health due to Valley Fever L -
Noise and Vibration
Impact NOI-1: Construction Noise. The project would have a significant
construction noise impact if it would result in noise levels exceeding either
of the following: L -
Impact NOI-2: Operational Noise. The project would have a significant
noise impact if it would result in noise levels exceeding the following:
Impact NOI-3.: Operational Vibration. The project would have a
Impact TR-1: Freeway Segment LOS: Under Caltrans TIA Guidelines, the
project would have a significant impact if it would cause the LOS of the L -
study freeway or roadway segment to fall below LOS C, or, if already below
C, to fall to a lower LOS.
Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if it would cause the L -
time.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
project.
Water Supply
available to development must be in compliance with the applicable State L -
Drinking Water Standards, as described in Title 22 of the California Code
of Regulations (CCR), §65521 et seq.
supply of water. A permanent supply of water is defined as at least a 60 L -
Impact WT-1: Individual Sewage Disposal System. Non-compliance
Building Code, Ventura County Sewer Policy, Ventura County Ordinance
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Environmental Health Division Individual L -
Sewage Disposal System Technical Information Manual, and Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan.
or if it would impact the demand for solid waste disposal capacity in L -
Impact REC-1: Local Parks/Facilities. Cause an increase in the demand
for recreation when measured against the following standard: five acres of MS -
developable land (less than 15 percent slope) per 1,000 population.
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: five MS -
acres of developable land per 1,000 population.
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: two- MS -
and-a-half miles per 1,000 population.
for recreation when measured against the following standard: impede future MS -
development of Recreation Parks/Facilities and/or Regional
Trails/Corridors.
1 5.5.4 Alternative 4: Differential Surcharge Alternative
2 Under this alternative, the SVLRC Expansion Project would be constructed as considered under the proposed
3 project. However, a fee schedule established by the County would require higher payments for disposal of
4 waste from outside a specified geographic area. This alternative would need to be accompanied by a system
5 whereby waste haulers would be required to provide documentation or other certification of waste origin to
6 the landfill operator, who would, in turn, be required to provide documentation to the County, along with
7 payment of the surcharges, demonstrating that fees were properly collected on out-of-area wastes. The
8 additional surcharge on out-of-area waste is intended to discourage haulers from outside the area from using
9 the SVLRC by making it more costly than alternative facilities with lower total charges (tipping fees plus

5 Alternatives
1 surcharge). Existing waste collection and disposal contracts would need to be considered to ensure that long
2 term patterns of waste collection and disposal are not disrupted. Issues related to the documentation of waste
3 sources required to enforce the boundary would need to be resolved, as would reporting and enforcement
4 mechanisms.
5 As noted in the discussion of a wasteshed boundary in Section 5.3.4.4 above, while some trash trucks deliver
6 waste directly to a landfill and the source and destination of waste in this case is unambiguous, when a
7 transfer station is involved, waste from different trucks and different sources may be combined. At the
8 transfer station, waste is generally consolidated into larger truckloads for delivery to a landfill. Each load of
9 waste delivered to a transfer station becomes part of a load of waste leaving the facility for a disposal site. The
10 outgoing transfer truckloads therefore are commingled with waste from multiple origins, making accounting
11 for origins in order to correctly apply a surcharge somewhat challenging. This does not present as substantial
12 an issue as it would for a wasteshed boundary because it would not be necessary for the operator to turn a load
13 away if some of the waste is from outside the surcharge boundary. Waste from outside the boundary could be
14 received provided the surcharge was paid on that tonnage. While details of how the surcharged would be
15 handled have not been determined, accounting mechanisms could likely be structured to account for multiple
16 waste sources in a given load using an approach similar to the current California system where the surcharge
17 is applied to the fraction of a load that is out-of-area.
18 Implementing a surcharge system conceptually could prolong the working life of the SVLRC by limiting
19 receipts from sources outside the area of no surcharge. This alternative has the potential to reduce impacts
20 from truck traffic compared to the proposed project since the distance between the origin and destination of
21 waste may be reduced. Conceptually, a high enough surcharge could reduce the amount of waste delivered for
22 disposal to less than the fully permitted 6,000 tons per day.
23 In all other respects, the Graduated Surcharge Alternative would be identical to the proposed project. All
24 other features of the proposed project would be implemented, including: the office building; heavy equipment
25 and vehicle maintenance facility; waste hauling yard; MRF/RTF; public household hazardous waste
26 collection facility; new entrance road, scales, and scale house; expanded C&D debris recycling processing;
27 expanded green waste processing; additional LFGTE generator units; and LFGTLNG facility.
28 A capacity analysis was prepared (Appendix JK) to assess the potential effect of an out-of-area out of county
29 surcharge on waste receipts. Depending on the assumptions employed, even a substantial modest surcharge
30 appears to have the potential to reduce receipts marginally only in the short over the longer term if fees are
31 high enough. The Capacity Study in Appendix K addresses various surcharge levels from $10.00 per ton to
32 $40.00 per ton to assess the potential effect of out of county surcharges on waste receipts. Surcharges of up to
33 $10.00 per ton do not appear to have a substantial effect on reducing waste receipts. However, at $20.00 per
34 ton, receipts were depressed somewhat such that the daily capacity would take about five more years to
35 achieve and the estimated closure would be extended out by two years to 2055. At $40.00 per ton, receipts
36 were depressed considerably. Daily capacity would not be achieved for the life of the project and closure
37 would be extended by about five years to 2058. Note that a $40.00 per ton surcharge is almost an 80 percent
38 increase ina doubling of the current tipping fees for out of area waste, raising the total cost for out of area
39 waste to over $80.00 per ton. Whether such a surcharge is justifiable or advisable would need to be
40 considered carefully.
41 The reason for this is that the demand for waste disposal capacity will incrementally increase in future years
42 as other disposal facilities in the region reach closure. Major facilities, the closure of which would likely
43 result in incremental increases in receipts at Simi Valley, include the Puente Hills Landfill (current daily limit
44 13,200 tpd, closure date 2014), Chiquita Canyon (current daily limit 6,000 tpd, closure date 2019), Calabasas
45 Sanitary Landfill (current daily limit 3,500 tpd, closure date 2028), and the Sunshine Canyon Landfill (current
46 daily limit 12,100 tpd, closure date 2037). Even However, even assuming that a small fraction of the waste

5 Alternatives
1 that would have gone to any of these landfills is ultimately diverted to the Simi Valley facility upon their
2 closure, SVLRC would reach its permitted daily receiving capacity around 2020 2037 and would thereafter
3 receive waste at this level until closure in 2054 or later if the permit is modified and capacity continues to
4 exist. Prior to 2020, the region is projected to lose approximately 19,200 25,600 tons per day of capacity
5 (Puente Hills and Chiquita Canyon) and an additional 17,600 tons per day thereafter from just these four
6 facilities. The incremental capacity authorized by the proposed project’s permit modification (nominally
7 3,000 tpd) would amount to a little over 15 12 percent of the pre-2020 closure tonnages, and less than eight
8 percent of the total permitted capacity of these four facilities. It is unclear what level of The Capacity Study in
9 Appendix K estimates that a surcharge of between $20 and $40 per ton would be required to discourage
10 deliveries when available waste disposal capacity suddenly decreases at other regional facilities by such large
11 amounts.
12 As a consequence, while the Differential Surcharge Alternative (at fees of $20 to $40 per ton) may marginally
13 reduce receipts at the SVLRC in the near term (pre 2020), it does not appear that it would substantially alter
14 landfill operations from what would occur under the proposed project in the near term, nor would it result in a
15 substantial extension of waste receiving capacity in Ventura County. The estimated closure date for the
16 SVLRC would be extended by approximately two years with a $20 surcharge fee and five years with a $40
17 surcharge fee according to the capacity analysis. Under the circumstances, any A surcharge in this range
18 would also substantially enhance disposal-related revenues for Ventura County. , but may not greatly affect
19 overall receipts appreciably after 2020 because the daily capacity limits would be the limiting factor for waste
20 receipts, not the extra cost related to a surcharge.
23 Impacts related to potential conflicts with General Plan goals, policies, and programs and land use under this
24 alternative would be similar to but slightly less than those for the proposed project. The surcharge would be
25 expected to increase County revenues and only marginally, if at all, reduce receipts of waste from out-of-area
26 haulers. However, any reduction in out-of-County waste would likely improve the County’s ability to
27 maintain 15 years of disposal capacity in the long-term. However, the County lacks the legal authority to
28 impose a fee and a mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts related to increased
29 demand for housing. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation for the housing demand created by additional
30 project employees. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
32 Since the Differential Surcharge would not appreciably affect project operations when compared to the
33 proposed project, the air quality impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be essentially the same as those
34 for the project. Construction would exceed the State one-hour NO2 standard and several particulate standards
35 just as for the proposed project. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce these impacts to below
36 the 24-hour NAAQS for PM10. Construction impacts associated with Impacts AQ-3c, AQ-4c, AQ-5c, and
37 AQ-6c would also be comparable to the proposed project and would be less than significant. Operational
38 impacts associated with Impact AQ-1o would exceed VCAPCD thresholds for ROC and NOx and the
39 application of Mitigation AQ-3 would reduce those impacts, but not to insignificant levels. Operational
40 impacts associated with Impact AQ-2o would contribute to exceedances of the 1-hour CAAQS for NO2; 24-
41 hour CAAQS and NAAQS for PM10; annual CAAQS for PM10; 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5; and annual
42 CAAQS and NAAQS for PM2.5. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce these impacts to
43 below the NAAQS for 24-hour PM10 and annual PM2.5. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would further reduce
44 operations related impacts, but since it is uncertain the extent to which this measure would offset overall
45 project-related vehicular emissions it is not possible to calculate what those reductions might be these

5 Alternatives
1 exceedances remain significant. Impacts AQ-3o, AQ-4o, AQ-5o, and AQ-6o would also be comparable to the
2 proposed project and would be less than significant.
5 Alternative 4 operations, even with the implementation of AQ-7 and AQ-8, would cause a significant and
6 unavoidable impact on the environment.These increases of GHG emissions would incrementally contribute to
7 global climate change.
8 As with the project, implementation of Alternative 4 would result in less than significant impacts with respect
9 to valley fever.
11 Under this alternative, impacts to water resources would be similar to, but slightly greater than those
12 described for the project. Implementing a graduated surcharge system would prolong the working life of the
13 SVLRC, thus increasing the water required for dust control and other miscellaneous water use during
14 operations. However, for the same reasons described for the proposed project, groundwater quantity impacts
15 would be less than significant. In addition, as with the project, implementation of Alternative 4 would result
16 in less than significant impacts with respect to groundwater quality and potentially significant but mitigable
17 surface water quality and flooding impacts.
19 A differential surcharge would have a minimal influence on the landfill’s biological resource impacts. While
20 the surcharge may reduce receipts of waste from out-of-area haulers in the near term and, thereby, potentially
21 prolong the life of the landfill, it would reduce neither the permitted height nor the footprint. Thus, grading
22 the footprint of the proposed expansion area would be the same as for the proposed project. Therefore, as with
23 the project, implementation of Alternative 4 would result in less than significant impacts to listed species,
24 locally important species, wetland habitat, and wildlife corridors with the implementation of Mitigation
25 Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4.
27 A differential surcharge on out-of-area waste would not substantially change the impacts of the proposed
28 project on agricultural resources. Waste receipts for the project may be curtailed in the short term, but there
29 would otherwise be no appreciable change in impacts compared to the proposed project.
31 A differential surcharge would have a minimal influence on the landfill’s visual impacts. A surcharge would
32 reduce neither the permitted height nor the footprint in a visually meaningful way. The impacts associated
33 with the proposed project would be essentially the same, but slightly less for this alternative since the life of
34 the landfill would likely be developed over a longer period of time as compared to the proposed project.
36 Under this alternative, impacts to geologic, mineral, and paleontological resources would be similar to the
37 project. As with the project, implementation of Alternative 4 would result in less than significant impacts with
38 respect to geological and mineral resources, and significant impacts to paleontological resources.

5 Alternatives
2 Under this alternative, impacts to cultural resources would be similar in nature to the project. Alternative 4
3 would have the same impacts to cultural resources as under the proposed project, potentially significant but
4 mitigable.
5 5.5.4.1.9 Hazards and Safety
6 Under this alternative, geologic impacts would be similar in nature to the project and would not result in any
7 additional (or fewer) fire, hazardous materials/waste, abandoned oil well, or Valley Fever-related impacts. As
8 with the project, implementation of Alternative 4 would result in less than significant impacts with respect to
9 fire, and hazardous materials/waste, and Valley Fever; and significant but mitigable impacts with respect to
10 abandoned oil well hazards.
12 Alternative 4 would result in essentially the same levels of truck traffic as the proposed project, although they
13 might be slightly lower for a few years preceding 2020. Operational noise would similarly be the same as for
14 the proposed project. Since the effect of noise is time-dependent (the average sound pressure level measured
15 over a given time period), the impacts of this Alternative would be essentially the same as for the proposed
16 project. Impacts NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-3 would be less than significant.
18 A Differential Surcharge Alternative would result in nearly the same levels of truck and commute traffic as
19 the proposed project and is unlikely to appreciably change the lifespan of the facility. Truck traffic would
20 continue to impact SR 118 and local roadways in Simi Valley, as would worker commuter traffic, at
21 approximately the same levels expected from the proposed project. This alternative would not result in higher
22 numbers of truck trips or commuter trips and would therefore have comparable impacts to the proposed
23 project. Impacts TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3 would be less than significant.
25 Under this alternative, impacts to water supply would be similar to the project. As with the project,
26 implementation of Alternative 4 would result in less than significant impacts with respect to water supply
27 quantity and quality.
29 Implementation of the Differential Surcharge Alternative may marginally reduce receipts at the SVLRC in the
30 near term (pre 2020) resulting in a slight extension of the working life of the SVLRC compared to the
31 proposed project. With respect to the packaged wastewater treatment plant increased life of the landfill would
32 resulting in similar but slightly increased impacts over the proposed project from the prolonged use of the
33 package treatment plant. However, implementation of Alternative 3 would not substantially impact the
34 demand for solid waste disposal capacity in Ventura County such that there would be less than 15 years of
35 disposal capacity available for county disposal. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in the 15 year
36 capacity limit being reached slightly later than under the proposed project. Thus, impacts would be similar to
37 but slightly less than the proposed project. Waste treatment and disposal impacts would be less than
38 significant.

5 Alternatives
2 Impacts related to recreation under this alternative would be essentially the same as those for the proposed
3 project. Impacts on local parks/facilities, regional parks/facilities, and regional trails/corridors would be
4 significant but mitigable with implementation of Mitigation Measures REC-1 through REC-3. Impacts to the
5 future development of planned recreational facilities in the vicinity of the project site would be less than
6 significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures REC-1 and REC-2and unavoidable.
7 5.5.4.1.15 Summary

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
S= Significant impact < = Impact considered to be somewhat less when
M= Significant but mitigable impact compared with the proposed project.
L= Less than Significant - = Impact considered to be equal to the proposed
N= No impact project.
Impact LU-1: Community Character. Compatibility of design/
architectural style with the surrounding community. Including surrounding L -
land uses, buildings, General Plan designations, zoning, and parcel sizes.
income located within the County, resulting in adverse impacts on
existing housing.
L -
due to construction or operation.
Air Quality
ambient air pollutant concentrations that would contribute to an S -
Impact AQ-3c: Alternative 4 construction would not expose the public L -
to significant levels of TACs.
Impact AQ-4c: Alternative 4 construction would not conflict with or
or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Air Quality cont.
Incrementally
Impact AQ-7c: Alternative 4 construction would incrementally contribute to -
change
Impact AQ-1o: Alternative 4 operations would produce emissions that
exceed VCAPCD daily emission significance thresholds. S -
air pollutant concentrations that would contribute to an exceedance of an S -
significant levels of TACs. L -
Impact AQ-4o: Alternative 4 operations would not conflict with or L -
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or L -
Incrementally
Impact AQ-7o: Alternative 4 operations would be significant and contribute to
-
unavoidable.incrementally contribute to global climate change. global climate
changeS
Water Resources
Impact WR-1: Groundwater Quantity. Directly or indirectly decrease
the net quantity of groundwater in a basin that is overdrafted; cause non
L >
overdrafted basin(s) to become overdrafted; result in a net increase in
groundwater extraction in areas where the basin condition is not known.
groundwater and cause groundwater to fail to meet groundwater quality L >

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Water Resources cont.
Impact WR-3: Surface Water Quantity. Increase the net utilization of
overdrafted hydrologic unit; cause the hydraulic unit to become L >
Impact WR-4: Surface Water Quality. Degrades the quality of surface
water and causes it to fail to meet surface water quality objectives for a M >
hydrologic unit defined in the most recent Water Quality Control Plan.
Building Code and the Ventura County Public Works Agency, Flood Control M >
District Standards and Specifications Design Manual. The effects of
flooding hazards are required to be considered within the existing framework
of grading and building code ordinances which apply to all projects.
Impact BIO-1: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Species. Directly or
indirectly: reduce species population; reduce species habitat; or restrict M -
indirect impact to, a significant Wetland Habitat. All wetlands are M -
of native vegetation, erection of physical barriers, or intimidation of fish M -
human presence.
indirectly cause a substantial reduction in population numbers, habitat
area, or reproductive capacity. For locally important communities or M -
Prime, Statewide Importance, Unique or Local Importance or agricultural S -
soils meeting or exceeding the criteria outlined in Table 3.6-1.
Impact AG-2: Dust. Result in a 10 percent or greater increase in dust on
agricultural parcels within one-half mile of the proposed project. S -
operation.
Impact VIS-3: Glare. Create substantial sources of light or glare. M -

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
existing faults or within a State of California designated Alquist-Priolo L -
Code. The effects of ground shaking hazard are required to be L -
liquefaction-susceptible areas on the County General Plan maps, on maps
contained in Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 76-5LA; L -
and whether the project is located in a shallow bedrock area versus an
area underlain by recent or older alluvium.
Impact GEO-4: Subsidence. A subsidence hazard is considered to
exist L -
considered to exist where soil with an expansion index of greater than 20 L -
are present.
Impact GEO-6: Landslides/Mudslides. Location of the site or project
in areas with slopes greater than 10 percent. L -
located in or immediately adjacent to any known petroleum resource L -
result in the loss of scientifically important fossil specimens and S -
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Cultural Resources. Cause a substantial adverse
M -
Hazards
Impact HAZ-1: Fire Hazards. Projects located within a high fire
L -
hazard area.
the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal L -
public or environment associated with the storage, handling, or disposal L -
of hazardous wastes.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Hazards cont.
associated with prior oil field operations, would be deleterious to M -
the site.
Impact HAZ-5: Valley Fever. Project would cause adverse impacts to
L -
Noise
of the following:
the project would have a significant impact if it would cause the LOS of the
L -
study freeway or roadway segment to fall below LOS C, or, if already
Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if it would cause the
L -
Impact TR-3: Somis Road/SR118 Intersection: Under the County of
time.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Water Supply
available to development must be in compliance with the applicable State L -
Drinking Water Standards, as described in Title 22 of the California Code
of Regulations (CCR), §65521 et eq.
Impact WS-2: Water Supply-Quantity. Does not provide a permanent
supply of water. A permanent supply of water is defined as at least a 60 L -
Building Code, Ventura County Sewer Policy, Ventura County
Ordinance Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Environmental Health L >
Division Individual Sewage Disposal System Technical Information
Manual, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin
Plan.
or if it would impact the demand for solid waste disposal capacity in L <
Impact REC-1: Local Parks/Facilities. Cause an increase in the demand
for recreation when measured against the following standard: five acres of MS -
developable land (less than 15 percent slope) per 1,000 population.
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: five MS -
acres of developable land per 1,000 population.
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: two- MS -
and-a-half miles per 1,000 population.
Impact REC-4: Future Development. Cause an increase in the demand for
recreation when measured against the following standard: impede future
development of Recreation Parks/Facilities and/or Regional MS -
Trails/Corridors.
1 5.5.5 Alternative 5: No Project Alternative
2 As specified in the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e), an EIR must evaluate the specific alternative
3 of "no project" along with its potential impacts. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project
4 alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the
5 impacts of not approving the proposed project.

5 Alternatives
1 For this EIR, the No Project Alternative is defined as no approval of an expansion of the existing SVLRC. Under
2 the No Project Alternative, the SVLRC would continue operating under the existing CUP-3142-7. On or before
3 2034, the site would reach the end of its permitted life, would no longer accept waste, and would undergo formal
4 closure. The County of Ventura and the cities that use the landfill (or their haulers) would have to identify another
5 location or locations for disposal of waste and delivery of recyclable materials. After closure, the remaining
6 permitted disposal capacity of the site, if any, would go unused.
7 Without the capacity represented by the current Simi Valley Landfill facility, the County would cease to be
8 able to demonstrate fifteen years of available landfill capacity in approximately 2019 (15 years prior to
9 closure). While this would not represent an immediate constraint to the County today, it would trigger an
10 effort in the next few years by the County of Ventura to identify adequate future capacity to accept waste
11 within the County or to initiate efforts to secure longer term landfill capacity outside the County as required
12 by State law (CCR, Article 6.5, Section 18755.3).
13 For the analysis of the No Project Alternative, the projected impacts of the proposed project are compared to
14 impacts that would occur under the existing CUP-3142-7. This analysis does not assume that there would be
15 no impacts associated with existing operations at SVLRC, rather it indicates if impacts of the proposed project
16 would be increased over existing permitted conditions.
17 5.5.5.1 Impacts of Alternative 5: No Project Alternative
19 The No Project Alternative would not include expansion of the existing CUP boundary and the SVLRC
20 would continue operating under CUP-3142-7. As such, impacts to land use including community character,
21 housing, and growth inducement would not occur and would be substantially reduced as compared to the
22 proposed project. Additionally, the SVLRC would remain consistent with Ventura County Zoning and
23 General Plan designations and policies. The No Project Alternative would be consistent with Ventura County
24 Goal 4.4.1-2 to ensure continuous waste disposal capacity to meet the County’s current and projected waste
25 disposal needs since the existing facility currently assists the County in providing 15-years of waste disposal
26 capacity. In addition, as the facility provides recycling services, the No Project Alternative is consistent with
27 Program 4.4.3-4 requiring the County Solid Waste Management Department to investigate long-range
28 solutions to solid waste management emphasizing ecologically and environmentally sensitive solutions. As
29 there would be no changes in current operations, there would be no effect on goals, policies, or programs in
30 the Simi Valley General Plan.
32 Air quality impacts of the No Project Alternative would be less than those associated with the proposed
33 project because of both the shorter overall duration of operation and the lower daily throughput (6,250 tpd vs
34 9,250 tpd). The health risk assessment for the project indicates that impacts would be less than significant, so
35 impacts of the No Project Alternative would also be less than significant. Compliance with existing APCD
36 permits, including offsets, would ensure that the existing facility would not violate criteria pollutant standards,
37 so the criteria pollutant impacts to air quality of continued operations under the CUP-3142-7 would also be
38 less than significant. Neither GHG nor Valley Fever-related impacts would be increased over existing
39 permitted conditions as a result of the No Project Alternative.
41 With no expansion of the existing SVLRC, no additional water resources related impacts would occur as there
42 would be no: additional water supplies required; potential increase in surface runoff; potential impacts to

5 Alternatives
1 groundwater quality as a result of releases of waste or leachate; and construction within a designated flood
2 zone. However, significant but mitigable surface water quality impacts would continue to occur under this
3 alternative.
5 The No Project Alternative would not result additional impacts to biological resources that were not previously
6 identified and analyzed as part of the previous EIR for the existing operation, nor would it require mitigation
7 measures associated with the proposed project. The project would continue operating under the existing CUP-
8 3142-7 and some mitigation measures associated with the proposed project that would continue and provide a
9 long term benefit to wildlife resources (e.g., improvement of wildlife movement corridors) would not be
10 implemented.
12 The No Project Alternative would not result in the conversion of locally important farmland onsite and operation
13 would not increase ambient fugitive dust levels to farmlands within one-half mile of the project site. As such,
14 impacts to agricultural resources would be substantially reduced under the No Project Alternative as compared
15 to the proposed project.
17 The No Project Alternative would not include expansion of the existing CUP boundary; the SVLRC would
18 continue operating under the existing CUP-3142-7. Continued fill of the existing waste disposal area to its
19 permitted elevation would result in a lower fill elevation than the proposed project (i.e., net decrease of 152
20 feet in altitude) that would minimize the visual massing of the landfill compared to the proposed project.
21 Similar to the proposed project, ongoing revegetation of final grade slopes would ensure the final landfill
22 contour would visually blend with surrounding hillsides. The reduced fill elevations would have lower visual
23 impacts than the project along the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline due to the remaining expanse of
24 undulating topography above the proposed landfill and in the viewing background. Furthermore, the final
25 landfill contour would not extend above the existing horizon defined by the Santa Susana Mountain ridgeline
26 as experienced from any public vantage points. Under this alternative, no additional support/ancillary
27 facilities and/or the proposed waste hauling yard and expanded C&D debris recycling processing area would
28 be constructed. As the number of lighting fixtures would not be increased compared to existing baseline
29 conditions, no impacts on glare would occur. Overall, impacts on visual resources and glare (Impacts VIS-1
30 through VIS-3) would not occur and would be substantially reduced compared to the proposed project.
32 With no expansion of the existing SVLRC, no geologic impacts would occur. Geologic hazards, including
33 fault rupture, seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence, expansive soils, and slope
34 instability, would not be increased over existing permitted conditions, as a result of the No Project
35 Alternative. In addition, potential petroleum resources and paleontological resources would not be affected
36 without landfill expansion.
38 The No Project Alternative would not result in cultural resource impacts. Cultural resource impacts would
39 not be increased over existing permitted conditions as a result of the No Project Alternative and mitigation
40 measures associated with the proposed project would not be required.

5 Alternatives
1 5.5.5.1.9 Hazards and Safety
2 With no expansion of the existing SVLRC, no hazards related impacts would occur. Fire, hazardous
3 materials/waste, and abandoned oil well, and Valley Fever-related impacts would not be increased over
4 existing permitted conditions, as a result of the No Project Alternative.
6 There would be no additional traffic or noise generating landfill or construction activity for the No Project
7 Alternative. The impacts would be less than significant.
9 There would be no additional traffic related to landfill operations or construction activity for the No Project
10 Alternative. The impacts would be less than significant.
12 With no expansion of the existing SVLRC, no additional water supplies over existing permitted conditions
13 would be required under this alternative. As such, no water supply quantity or quality impacts would occur.
15 Under this alternative, employees from the GI Rubbish facility would not be relocated to SVLRC, no new
16 facilities (including the on-site wastewater treatment facility, office building, and heavy equipment and vehicle
17 maintenance facility) would be constructed, and no additional wastewater would be generated. Rather, under the
18 No Project Alternative, the SVLRC would continue to operate according to the currently permitted operations
19 and wastewater generated by the employee sanitary facilities would remain at current levels. Wastewater
20 generated on-site would continue to be disposed via an individual sewage disposal system (septic tank) located
21 behind the existing maintenance facility. In addition, under the No Project Alternative Ventura County would
22 continue its current ability maintain 15-years of disposal capacity. With no expansion of the existing SVLRC, no
23 waste treatment and disposal related impacts would occur.
25 Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not result in any loss of recreational facilities.
26 However, as employment would not increase, potential increases in population and associated demands for
27 recreational facilities would not occur. As the No Project Alternative would not result in a demand for
28 recreational facilities, there would be no impact on local parks/facilities, regional parks/facilities, or regional
29 trails/corridors. Therefore, no impacts would be associated with Impacts REC-1 through REC-4 due to the No
30 Project Alternative. Because the No Project Alternative would continue to operate under the existing CUP-
31 3142-7 conditions, Impact REC-4 would also be less than the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would
32 not impede the development of Alamos Canyon or Alamos Canyon Easterly Loops trails, or the future park site
33 that would be located within the proposed CUP boundary. As only expansion of the permitted CUP boundary
34 would occur, no impacts on future development of recreational facilities would occur.

5 Alternatives
1 5.5.5.1.15 Summary
Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Impact LU-1: Community Character. Compatibility of design/
architectural style with the surrounding community. Including surrounding N <
land uses, buildings, General Plan designations, zoning, and parcel sizes.
income located within the County, resulting in adverse impact on existing
housing.
due to construction or operation. N <
accommodated by removing the impediment and setting a precedent for N <<
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1c: No Project Alternative construction would not produce
emissions that exceed VCAPCD daily emission significance thresholds N <<
(no new construction).
Impact AQ-2c: No Project Alternative construction would not result in
offsite ambient air pollutant concentrations that would contribute to an N <<
exceedance of an ambient air quality standard (no new construction).
Impact AQ-3c: No Project Alternative construction would not expose N <<
the public to significant levels of TACs (no new construction) .
Impact AQ-4c: No Project Alternative construction would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (no N <<
new construction).
Impact AQ-5c: No Project Alternative construction would not generate
fugitive dust emissions in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the
public, or which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of N <<
any such person or the public, or which may cause, or have a natural
tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property (no new
construction).
Impact AQ-6c: No Project Alternative construction would not generate
odorous emissions in such quantities as to cause detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or N <<
cause, injury or damage to business or property (no new construction).
Incrementally
Impact AQ-7c: No Project Alternative construction would incrementally contribute to <<
changeL
Impact AQ-1o: No Project Alternative operations would not produce N <<
emissions that exceed VCAPCD daily emission significance thresholds.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Air Quality cont.
Impact AQ-2o: No Project Alternative operations would not result in
offsite ambient air pollutant concentrations that would contribute to an N <<
Impact AQ-3o: No Project Alternative operations would not expose the
public to significant levels of TACs. N <<
Impact AQ-4o: No Project Alternative operations would not conflict N <<
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Impact AQ-5o: No Project Alternative operation would not generate
fugitive dust emissions in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the N <<
public, or which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of
any such person or the public, or which may cause, or have a natural
tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
Impact AQ-6o: No Project Alternative operations would not generate
odorous emissions in such quantities as to cause detriment, nuisance, or
which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such N <<
Incrementally
Impact AQ-7o: No Project Alternative operations would incrementally contribute to <<
changeL
Water Resources
Impact WR-1: Groundwater Quantity. Directly or indirectly N
cause non overdrafted basin(s) to become overdrafted; result in a net <<
not known.
Impact WR-2: Groundwater Quality. Degrade the quality of N
groundwater and cause groundwater to fail to meet groundwater quality <<
Impact WR-3: Surface Water Quantity. Increase the net utilization N
of surface water in a hydraulic unit that is overdrafted; adversely impacts
an overdrafted hydrologic unit; cause the hydraulic unit to become <<
Impact WR-4: Surface Water Quality. Degrades the quality of M
surface water and causes it to fail to meet surface water quality objectives <<
for a hydrologic unit defined in the most recent Water Quality Control
Plan.
Impact WR-5: Flooding Hazard. Flooding hazards are ubiquitous N
throughout Ventura County and are accommodated by the Ventura
County Building Code and the Ventura County Public Works Agency,
Flood Control District Standards and Specifications Design Manual. The <<
effects of flooding hazards are required to be considered within the
existing framework of grading and building code ordinances which apply
to all projects.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Impact BIO-1: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Species. Directly
or indirectly: reduce species population; reduce species habitat; or restrict N <<
indirect impact to, a significant Wetland Habitat. All wetlands are N <<
of native vegetation, erection of physical barriers, or intimidation of fish N <<
human presence.
indirectly cause a substantial reduction in population numbers, habitat
area, or reproductive capacity. For locally important communities or N <<
Prime, Statewide Importance, Unique or Local Importance or agricultural N <<
soils meeting or exceeding the criteria outlined in Table 3.6-1.
Impact AG-2: Dust. Result in a 10 percent or greater increase in dust on N <<
agricultural parcels within one-half mile of the proposed project.
resources as experienced from a scenic highway during construction or N <<
operation.
Impact VIS-2: Scenic Areas/Features. Degrade scenic areas or features N <<
or significantly alter them during construction or operation.
Impact VIS-3: Glare. Create substantial sources of light or glare. N <<
existing faults or within a State of California designated Alquist-Priolo
Special Fault Study Zone; a County of Ventura designated Fault Hazard N <<
Code. The effects of ground shaking hazard are required to be N <<
liquefaction-susceptible areas on the County General Plan maps, on maps N <<
contained in Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 76-5LA;
and whether the project is located in a shallow bedrock area versus an
area underlain by recent or older alluvium.

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources cont.
Impact GEO-4: Subsidence. A subsidence hazard is considered to N <<
exist
considered to exist where soil with an expansion index of greater than 20 N <<
are present.
Impact GEO-6: Landslides/Mudslides. Location of the site or project N <<
in areas with slopes greater than 10 percent.
located in or immediately adjacent to any known petroleum resource N <<
result in the loss of scientifically important fossil specimens and N <<
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Cultural Resources. Cause a substantial adverse N <<
Hazards
Impact HAZ-1: Fire Hazards. Projects located within a high fire N <<
hazard area.
the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal N <<
public or environment associated with the storage, handling, or disposal N <<
of hazardous wastes.
associated with prior oil field operations, would be deleterious to N <<
the site.
Impact HAZ-5: Valley Fever. Project would cause adverse impacts to N <<
exceeding the following: N <<
of the following:
• Leq1H of 55dB(A) or ambient noise level plus 3dB(A), whichever is N <<

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
Noise and Vibration
significant vibration impact if it would result in detectable vibration at N <<
the project would have a significant impact if it would cause the LOS of
L <
the study freeway or roadway segment to fall below LOS C, or, if already
Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if it would cause
L <
the LOS of a study intersection to fall below LOS C and the project trips
to exceed 50 percent of the remaining capacity at the study intersection.
Impact TR-3: Somis Road/SR118 Intersection: Under the County of
Ventura analysis guidelines, the project would have a significant impact
if it could potentially add one future PHT to the intersection of Somis
L <
Road and SR-118 unless there is a commitment to road improvements
that ensure that the impact will be reduced to an acceptable LOS in a
reasonable period of time.
Water Supply
available to development must be in compliance with the applicable State
N <<
Drinking Water Standards, as described in Title 22 of the California
Code of Regulations (CCR), §65521 et seq.
supply of water. A permanent supply of water is defined as at least a 60
N <<
Building Code, Ventura County Sewer Policy, Ventura County Ordinance
N <<
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Environmental Health Division Individual
Sewage Disposal System Technical Information Manual, and Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan.
or if it would impact the demand for solid waste disposal capacity in N <<

5 Alternatives

Magnitude of Impact
Proposed Project
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard:
N <<
five acres of developable land (less than 15 percent slope) per 1,000
population.
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: N <<
five acres of developable land per 1,000 population.
demand for recreation when measured against the following standard: N <<
for recreation when measured against the following standard: impede
N <<
future development of Recreation Parks/Facilities and/or Regional
Trails/Corridors.
1 5.6 Comparison of Alternatives

2 Table 5.6-1 provides the key physical parameters of the proposed project and alternatives, providing a ready
3 comparison of differences between the alternatives.
4 Table 5.6-2 summarizes the results of the CEQA significance analysis for each resource area under the
5 proposed project and each of the five alternatives, as discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and Section 5.5.
6 Table 5.6-3 ranks the alternatives on the basis of a comparison of their environmental impacts with those of
7 the proposed project. The ranking is based on the significance determinations for each resource area, as
8 discussed in Chapter 3 and 5.5, and reflects differences in the levels of impact among alternatives. This
9 ranking also takes into consideration the relative number of significant impacts that are mitigated to a level
10 below significance, and the number of impacts that remain significant after mitigation.
11 5.7 Environmentally Preferred Alternative

12 The No Project Alternative involves no construction. Operations would continue according to existing
13 conditions. The No Project Alternative is a continuation of business as usual and would not involve any
14 development or the disturbance of resources, unlike the proposed project and Alternatives 1 through 5.
15 Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative, although it would
16 not achieve many of the project objectives.

5 Alternatives
Table 5.6-1. Comparison of Key Parameters Among Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Parameter Proposed Project Graduated Permit Differential
Reduced Capacity Bioreactor Limit Surcharge No Project
Landfill Height (above MSL) 1,270 1,193–1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,118
Landfill Area (acres) 371 307 371 371 371 185
Daily Permitted Disposal (Tons) 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 3,000
Daily Permitted with Recycling (Tons) 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,250 6,250
Total Capacity (MM yd3) 123 112-86 123+ 123 123 43.5
Building Area (sq ft) 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 20,000
Net Increase of Employees on-site 150 150 150 150 150 0
Closure year 2054 2049-2044 2054+ 2054 2054 2024
LFGTE Units (total) 5 5 6 5 5 2
LNG Units (total) 1 1 1 1 1 0
Water Use (afy) 174 174 290 174 174 971
Note:
1. Based on the actual water usage at SVLRC during 2008
Table 5.6-2. Summary of CEQA Significance Analysis by Alternative

Proposed Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Environmental Resource Area* Project Reduced Bioreactor Graduated Differential No Project
Capacity Permit Limit Surcharge
Land Use/General Plan and Policies M M M M M N
Air Quality S S S S S NL
Water Resources M M M M M M
Biological Resources M M M M M N
Agricultural Resources S S S S S N
Visual Resources/Glare S S S S S N
Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral
Resources, and Paleontological Resources S S S S S N
Cultural Resources M M M M M N
Hazards M M M M M N
Noise L L L L L N
Transportation and Circulation L L L L L N
Water Supply L L L L L N
Waste Treatment and Disposal L L L L L N
Recreational Facilities M M M M M N
Notes:
* Only environmental resources with significant impacts or significant but mitigable impacts are included in the table and the analysis used to rank alternatives; the analysis includes
project-level impacts, not cumulative effects.
S = Significant impact M = Significant but mitigable impact L = Less than significant impact (not significant) N = No Impact

5 Alternatives
Table 5.6-3. Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project

Alternative 1 Reduced Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Environmental Resource Area*
Capacity Bioreactor Graduated Differential No Project
Permit Limit Surcharge
Land Use/General Plan and Policies < - - - <<
Air Quality < < - - <<
Water Resources <<(reduced footprint >> - - <<
- (reduced height)
Biological Resources <<(reduced footprint < - - <<
- (reduced height)
Agricultural Resources < - - - <<
Visual Resources/Glare < < - - <<
Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral
Resources, and Paleontological Resources < > - - <<
Cultural Resources < - - - <<
Hazards - (reduced height) - - - <<
Noise - - - - <<
Transportation and Circulation - - - - <<
Water Supply < >> - - <<
Waste Treatment and Disposal > - - > <<
Recreational Facilities -(reduced height) - - - <<
Notes:
<< = Impact considered to be substantially less when compared with the proposed project.
< = Impact considered to be somewhat less when compared with the proposed project.
- = Impact considered to be equal to the proposed project.
> = Impact considered to be somewhat greater when compared with the proposed project.
>> = Impact considered to be substantially greater when compared with the proposed project.

5 Alternatives
1 The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states, “If the environmentally superior alternative is the
2 ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other
3 alternatives.” Therefore, a comparison of impacts of the proposed project with the Alternatives 1 through 4 is
4 presented below.
5 The proposed project would involve the expansion of the SVLRC to encompass 887 acres within which the
6 waste disposal area would be expanded north and west from its current permitted location to encompass 186
7 acres of additional waste disposal area and increase the total capacity of the landfill from 43.5 to 130.2
8 million cubic yards. The amount of MSW permitted per day would increase from 3,000 to 6,000 tpd and the
9 amount of recycling would be reduced from 6,250 to 3,250 tpd. In addition, several existing ancillary
10 facilities would be expanded and new facilities constructed. The proposed project would result in significant
11 impacts to air quality, agricultural resources, visual resources, and paleontological resources; significant but
12 mitigable impacts to land use, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards, and
13 recreational facilities; and less than significant impacts to noise, transportation, water supply, and sewage
14 treatment and disposal. Construction of this alternative would meet the overall project objectives under
15 CEQA associated withto providing provide waste disposal capacity within Ventura County to meet the
16 County’s current and projected waste diversion and disposal needs and to provide solid waste diversion
17 operations consistent with the goals and policies of the Ventura County General Plan, Ventura County
18 Integrated Waste Management Plan, the requirements of AB 939, and other California waste management
19 laws and regulations, but would have not with the fewest overall environmental impacts when compared to
20 the other alternatives. Alternative 1, the Reduced Landfill Capacity Alternative, would involve expansion of
21 the SVLRC, but the overall height of the landfill and/or the overall footprint of the waste disposal area would
22 be reduced as compared to the proposed project. Depending on the approach to reducing the overall capacity
23 of the landfill, the reduction in capacity could range from 11 million cubic yards (approximately 8.7 million
24 tons) to 37 million cubic yards (28.1 million tons);. At with an estimated annual receipt rate of 2.6 million
25 tons per year at fully permitted capacity. Such capacity reductions would reduce the landfill life by
26 approximately three to 10 years. Construction and operation of this alternative would somewhat reduce
27 impacts to land use; air quality; agricultural resources; visual resources; geology and seismic hazards;,
28 mineral resources;, paleontological resources; cultural resources;, water supply;, and sewage treatment
29 disposal compared to the proposed project. In addition, the construction of the reduced footprint option
30 would substantially reduce proposed project impacts to biological and water resources. This alternative
31 would meet the overall project objectives under CEQA associated withto providing provide waste disposal
32 capacity within Ventura County to meet the County’s current and projected waste diversion and disposal
33 needs and to provide solid waste diversion operations consistent with the goals and policies of the Ventura
34 County General Plan, Ventura County Integrated Waste Management Plan, the requirements of AB 939, and
35 other California waste management laws and regulations with the fewest overall environmental impacts when
36 compared to the other alternatives. However, particularly under the reduced footprint alternative, this
37 alternative would achieve the reductions in environmental effects at the expense of a somewhat shorter overall
38 project lifespan (three to ten years shorter). While a 15 year capacity for Ventura County waste would be
39 ensured until 2029 (reduced footprint) or 2034 (reduced height), this capacity level would be reached sooner
40 than it would for the proposed project. Nevertheless, because of its lower overall adverse environmental
41 effects, Alternative 1 is considered the environmentally superior alternative.
42 For Alternative 2, the existing waste disposal area (Phase I) would continue operating as it has in the past
43 until it reaches capacity. All future phases would be developed as in-situ anaerobic bioreactor cells.
44 Construction of this alternative would marginally reduce impacts on air quality, biological resources, and
45 visual resources as compared to the proposed project, but would substantially increase impacts on water
46 resources and water supply. Therefore, this alternative would not be environmentally superior.
47 Alternative 3, would proceed as described under the proposed project. However, the permitted daily tonnage
48 limit for MSW would be incrementally increased from its current 3,000 ton per day level, to an intermediate

5 Alternatives
1 limit of 4,500 tons per day immediately following permit approval, and, ultimately, to the full 6,000 tons per
2 day in 2014. Construction and operation of this alternative would result in impacts considered essentially the
3 same as those associated with the proposed project.
4 Alterative 4, would be constructed as considered under the proposed project. However, a fee schedule
5 established by the County would require higher payments for disposal of waste from outside a specified
6 geographic area. Construction and operation of this alternative would result in impacts considered essentially
7 the same as those associated with the proposed project.

6 Other Required Sections
1 6.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts

2 Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to “describe any significant impacts,
3 including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts
4 that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implication and reasons why the project
5 is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.”
6 Chapter 3 of this EIR provides a description of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project
7 and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, where possible. After
8 implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, however, not all of the significant impacts
9 associated with the proposed project would be reduced to less than significant levels. Proposed project
10 development would result in significant unavoidable impacts to the following resources and issue areas:
11 Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs: The project would likely result in more than 30
12 new employees at the SVLRC, which is considered the threshold for adverse impacts to housing. However,
13 the County lacks the legal authority to impose a fee or a mechanism to ensure that fees collected would
14 mitigate impacts to housing. There is as a consequence no feasible mitigation for the housing demand created
15 by additional project employees. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
16 Air Quality: Proposed project operations would result in an increase in peak daily emissions that would
17 exceed the VCAPCD daily ROC and NOx emission thresholds (Impact AQ-1o). Mitigation Measure AQ-3
18 would reduce operational emissions of ROC and NOx emissions, but not to less than the VCAPCD threshold
19 of 25 pounds per day. As a result, ROC and NOx emissions during operations would remain significant and
20 unavoidable.
21 Project construction would result in off-site ambient air pollutant concentrations that would contribute to
22 exceedances of the following ambient air quality standards: 1) 1-hour CAAQS for NO2; 2) 24-hour CAAQS
23 and NAAQS for PM10; 3) annual CAAQS for PM10; and 4) 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 (Impact AQ-2c). In
24 addition, project operations would contribute to exceedances of the annual CAAQS and NAAQS for PM2.5.
25 Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1and AQ-2 for construction would reduce ambient PM10 impacts
26 to below the 24-hour NAAQS for PM10. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 for
27 operations would reduce ambient PM10 and PM2.5 impacts to below the NAAQS for 24-hour PM10 and annual
28 PM2.5. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would further reduce operations related impacts, but since it is uncertain the
29 extent to which this measure would offset overall project-related vehicular emissions it is not possible to
30 calculate what those reductions might be, these exceedances would remain significant. Greenhouse gas
31 emissions from project operations would exceed 10,000 per year of CO2e even with mitigation. Therefore, all
32 other construction and operational impacts identified above would remain as significant and unavoidable.
33 Visual Resources/Glare: Buildout of the proposed waste disposal area (i.e., increased landfill footprint and
34 elevation) would obstruct views of important visual resources experienced from State Route 118, resulting in
35 a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact VIS-1). Similarly, buildout of the proposed waste disposal area
36 would be visible from the proposed Alamos Canyon Trail looking eastward. As the final landfill contour
37 would extend above the existing horizon defined by the Santa Susana Mountain ridgelines and due to the
38 close proximity of the viewer on the trail, impacts on visual resources from the proposed Alamos Canyon
39 Trail vantage point would be significant and unavoidable (Impact VIS-2).
40 Agricultural Resources: The proposed project would convert approximately 165 acres of open space/rural
41 designated farmland of local importance to industrial/commercial uses resulting in a significant and
42 unavoidable impact on agricultural resources (Impact AG-1).
1 Farmlands of local importance extend directly west of the project site in Alamos Canyon. Unmitigated project
2 construction and operational emissions would produce a maximum ambient 24-hour PM10 impact of 54
3 µg/m3, which would exceed the 24-hour PM10 CAAQS of 50 µg/m3. The overwhelming majority of this
4 impact would occur from fugitive dust generated from proposed earth-moving activities and the operation of
5 mobile sources on paved and unpaved surfaces. The maximum ambient impact estimated for project PM10 and
6 therefore fugitive dust emissions would occur within the farmlands of local importance directly west of the
7 project site in Alamos Canyon. While the 24-hour ambient background concentration of fugitive dust within
8 these areas is not known, it is expected to be somewhat less than 49 µg/m3. Therefore, unmitigated proposed
9 construction and operation would increase ambient fugitive dust levels by more than 10 percent from
10 background levels to farmlands within one-half mile of the project site. Implementation of Mitigation
11 Measure AG-2 would reduce impact from fugitive dust to agricultural resources. However, mitigated
12 proposed construction and operation would increase ambient fugitive dust levels by more than 10 percent to
13 farmlands within one-half mile of the proposed project site, resulting in a significant impact.
14 Geology and Seismic Hazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources: The proposed project
15 would cause the loss of scientifically important fossils and associated geologic data, resulting in a significant
16 impact on paleontological resources (Impact GEO-8). The ongoing Paleontological Mitigation Program
17 provides a high degree of mitigation for the existing landfill operation. In addition, this program creates a
18 database necessary to determine the need for additional long-term monitoring. Implementation of such
19 monitoring, as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-1, would mitigate many of the paleontological impacts of
20 the project. However, since any such program would only recover a small sample of the total number of
21 fossils potentially disturbed by landfill operations, the overall impact of the proposed project on
22 paleontological resources would be considered significant and unavoidable.
23 Recreation Facilities: Because the County does not have a policy or ordinance in place requiring an
24 applicant to pay a recreation impact fee or dedicate public easements, there is no legal authority to impose a
25 fee or a mechanism to ensure that fees collected would mitigate impacts to recreation. There is therefore no
26 feasible mitigation for the recreation demand created by additional project employees. Since there are no
27 measures that would feasibly mitigate significant project impacts to future development of recreational
28 facilities, impacts to recreation remain significant and unavoidable.
29 6.2 Significant Irreversible Impacts

30 6.2.1 Introduction
31 Pursuant to Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must consider any significant
32 irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project should it be implemented. Section
33 15126.2(c) states:
34 Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be
35 irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter
36 unlikely. Primary impact and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvements which
37 provide access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar
38 uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project.
39 Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption
40 is justified.
41 6.2.2 Analysis of Irreversible Changes
42 The project would require the use of non-renewable resources, such as metal alloys and aggregate resources,
43 for the physical construction of the landfill expansion. However, the project does not represent an uncommon
44 construction project that uses an extraordinary amount of raw materials in comparison to other
1 infrastructure/maintenance projects of similar scope and magnitude. In addition, the use of recycled concrete
2 and construction materials for road gravel would reduce the need for virgin materials.
3 The project would expand the existing SVLRC and ancillary/support facilities, and would construct new
4 facilities. Resources that are committed irreversibly and irretrievably are those that would be used by a project
5 on a long-term or permanent basis. Resources committed to this project include fossil fuels, capital, labor, and
6 construction materials such as rock, concrete, steel, gravel, and soils.
7 Fossil fuels and energy would be consumed in the form of diesel, oil, and gasoline used for equipment and
8 vehicles during construction and operation activities. During operations, diesel, oil, and gasoline would be
9 used during receipt and disposal, waste hauling within the landfill footprint, application of daily and
10 intermediate cover, and site grading and maintenance. These fossil fuel resources would be irretrievable and
11 irreversible.
12 Non-recoverable materials and energy would be used during construction and operations, but the amounts
13 needed would be easily accommodated by existing supplies. Although increases in the amount of materials
14 and energy used would be small in comparison to total usage, the resources consumed would nevertheless be
15 unavailable for other uses.
16 The loss of 165 acres of farmland would be an irretrievable commitment of a small area of potential farmland
17 to other uses. Alterations to the topography upon landfill closure would permanently modify the visible
18 ridgeline and obstruct existing views of the mountains in the distance.
19 The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires that an EIR evaluate the irretrievable commitments
20 of resources to assure that current consumption is justified. The irretrievable commitment of resources
21 required by the proposed project is justified by the objectives of the project, which are to: provide a minimum
22 of 15 years of waste diversion and disposal capacity to meet the County’s projected disposal needs; provide
23 solid waste diversion operations consistent with the state-mandated waste diversion goals; provide an
24 environmentally sound safe waste disposal and diversion operation that complies with local, state, and federal
25 regulations and plans; minimize adverse impacts of the facility and its operations on environmental resources;
26 and maintain consistency between the project and adjacent land uses.
27 6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts

28 The State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster
29 economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
30 surrounding environment. This includes ways in which the proposed project would remove obstacles to
31 population growth or trigger the construction of new community services facilities that could cause significant
32 effects [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(d)].
33 In general terms, a project may induce population growth in a geographic area if it meets any of the criteria
34 listed below: 1) removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., establishment of an essential public service or
35 provisions of new access to an area); 2) economic expansion or growth (e.g, changes in revenue base,
36 employment expansion, etc.); 3) establishment of a precedent setting action (e.g., an innovation, change in
37 zoning, or general plan amendment approval); and 4) development or encroachment into an isolated area or
38 one adjacent to open space.

1 6.3.1 Direct Growth-Inducing Impacts
2 6.3.1.1 Population Growth
3 The project would not directly influence population growth in Ventura County as it would not provide
4 residential units on the project site. In addition, the operation of the proposed project is not expected to
5 directly induce population growth in the project area because similar uses currently exist on the project site.
6 6.3.1.2 Economic Growth
7 Development of the proposed project would generate short-term, construction-related employment

8 opportunities. Given the supply of construction workers in the local work force, it is likely that these workers
9 would come from within the Ventura County and nearby Los Angeles Metropolitan area, and no in-migration
10 of workers would be anticipated. Due to the nature of construction activities, the employment opportunities
11 resulting from project construction would not be considered permanent and would not, therefore, be growth-
12 inducing. In addition, development of the proposed project would generate long-term employment
13 opportunities at the SVLRC. The proposed project would result in 150 permanent jobs. This long-term
14 employment generated as a result of the proposed project would not be considered a substantial growth-
15 inducing impact on the region.
16 The operational activities would result in an increase Ventura County’s revenue base via a solid waste
17 collection fee and surcharge (if imposed). These revenues would be directly proportional to the increase in
18 waste receipts received at SVLRC. Revenues from the solid waste collection fee and surcharge are
19 appropriated to the Local Enforcement Agency for services such as providing independent legal counsel. As
20 such, these revenues would be available to the general fund, but would not substantially change the revenue
21 base of the County. Thus, economic growth associated with the proposed project would not be substantial and
22 would not result in significant impacts.
23 6.3.1.3 Precedent Setting Action
24 The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing landfill. This type of development maximizes the
25 use of existing infrastructure and avoids the near term need to build a new landfill to meet projected landfill
26 demand. Therefore, the proposed project is not considered a precedent setting action that would result in
27 significant growth inducing impacts.
28 Additionally, the proposed project does not include an amendment to an adopted policy of the County that
29 could establish a precedent or an accommodation for further growth. As the project would not result in the
30 expansion of public facilities or an amendment to a County policy, impacts to growth inducement would be
32 6.3.2 Indirect Growth-Inducing Impacts
33 6.3.2.1 Removal of an Impediment to Growth
34 The project does not include and would not necessitate the expansion of critical public facilities, including
35 roads, water supply, sewers, or flood control facilities. The proposed project would require expansion of water
36 supply lines on-site. However, these lines would be connect to existing infrastructure located on-site or
37 adjacent to the site and water services would continue to be provided by the Ventura County Waterworks
38 District No. 8. Expansion of these lines would not result in the extension of services to undeveloped areas
39 other than the proposed project.

1 In addition, sewage treatment would occur on-site with a self-contained a wastewater treatment package plant
2 (i.e., individual sewage disposal system). This sewage treatment facility would only be for the treatment of
3 wastewater produced at the SVLRC and would not result in the extension of services to undeveloped areas.
4 Since the project would provide only for improved facilities for existing staff, plus anticipated moderate
5 growth to accommodate the landfill’s future needs, there would be no direct inducement of growth from
6 removing barriers to growth by proceeding with the proposed project.
7 The proposed project is consistent with the planned land use of the area and would increase the waste disposal
8 site life of the SVLRC to provide long term waste management capacity within Ventura County to meet the
11 AB 939, and other California waste management laws and regulations. However, the provision of adequate
12 long term waste disposal capacity within Ventura County would indirectly reduce a potential impediment to
13 growth (the unavailability of landfill capacity) and could be considered indirectly growth-inducing for this
14 reason.
15 6.3.2.2 Development of Isolated Areas/Open Space
16 Development of open space for housing, commercial, or industrial purposes may be considered growth
17 inducing when it encroaches upon urban-rural interfaces or in isolated localities. Construction associated with
18 the proposed project would occur at an existing facility. The zoning designations for the expansion area are
19 OS-160 (Open Space-, 160 acre minimum lot size) and AE-40 acres (Agricultural Exclusive, 40 acre
20 minimum lot size). The project site is located within the portion of the property that has an OS-160 zoning
21 designation. Waste handling, waste disposal, and recycling facilities are permitted uses within the OS-160
22 zone by the means of a CUP. Moreover, the ancillary facilities (with the exception of minor facilities that
23 would be required for post-closure activities) would be removed upon closure of the landfill. As such impacts
24 to growth inducement would be less than significant.


7 Persons and Agencies Contacted
1 Belluschi, Bruce. Manager. Water & Sanitation Department, Integrated Waste Management Division, Public
2 Works Department, County of Ventura. June 2008 – June 2009.
3 Cross, Doug. Groundwater Quality Compliance Specialist, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
4 Board. August 2009.
5 Figueroa, Joyce. Administrative Assistant. Community Development Department, City of Moorpark. October
6 2008.
7 Klemann, Dan. Case Planner. Planning Division, Resource Management Agency, County of Ventura. June
8 2008 – September 2009.
9 Lalani, Nazir. Principal Engineer. Traffic and Transportation Planning, Transportation Department, Public
10 Works Agency, County of Ventura. July 2008 – May 2009.
11 Lee, Scan. Surface Water Quality Specialist, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. August
12 2009.
13 Linder, Becky. Case Planner. Planning Division, Resource Management Agency, County of Ventura. June
14 2008 – September 2009.
15 Lyons, Mark. Project Vice-President. Wheelabrator Technologies, a division of Waste Management, Inc.
16 September 2008.
17 Martia, Karen. Ventura County Watershed Protection District. June 2009.
18 Myers, Jim, Ventura County Public Works Agency, Development Inspection Services Division. June 2009.
19 Nagelschmidt, Richard. Environmental Resource Analyst. Water & Sanitation Department, Integrated Waste
20 Management Division, Public Works Department, County of Ventura. June 2008 – June 2009.
21 O’Tousa, Jim. Ventura County Public Works Agency, June 2009.
22 Ozdy, Andrea. LCA Planner. Planning Division, Resource Management Agency, County of Ventura. June
23 2009.
24 Rhodes, Brian. 2008. July 14, 2008.
25 Richards, Patrick. Planning Division, Resource Management Agency, County of Ventura. June 2008 –
26 February 2009.
27 Riley, James P. Environmental Engineer. Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Waste Management of
28 California. June 2008 – March 2009.
29 Sussman, Shelley. Planning Studies, Ventura County. April 2009.
30 Talent, Melinda. November 2008. Land Use Program Coordinator. County of Ventura Resource Management
31 Agency, Environmental Health Division. November 2008 & June 2009.

7 Persons and Agencies Contacted
1 Thomas, Chuck. Supervisor. Planning and Evaluation, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
2 January & September, 2009.
3 Tignac, Scott. District Manager. Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Waste Management of
4 California. June 2008 – March 2009.
5 Trushinski, Brian. Ventura County Public Works Agency. December 2008 & August 2009.
6 Vargas, Sergio. Ventura County Watershed Protection District. December 2008
7 Ventura County Communicable Disease Office. April 24, 2001.
8 Walker, Robin. Administrative Analyst, Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District. September and October
9 2008 & June 2009.
10 Wharton, Albert Buckman III. July 16, 2008.
11 Williams, Larry. Fire Prevention Supervisor, Ventura County Fire Department. June 2009.
12 Williams, Mike. Director of Projects. Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Waste Management of
13 California. June 2008 – October 2008.

8 List of Preparers
8.1 County of Ventura

8.1.1 County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency, Planning Division
Daniel Klemann Project Manager of Environmental Review

Becky Linder Case Planner
Patrick Richards Quality Assurance/Quality Control Review
8.2 Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

8.2.1 Project Management Team
Project Manager; Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Andrew Nelson
Review
Catrina Gomez Deputy Project Manager
8.2.2 SAIC Technical Team
Chris Crabtree, Adam Hasen, Gerard Randolph, &

Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment
Joel Torcolini
Tom Mulroy, Charis Van der Heide, Elliot Chasin,
Trevor Pattison, Tamara Klug, & Lauren Brown
Karen Foster & Trisha Drennan Cultural/Historic Resources
Water Resources; Geology and Seismic Hazards; Mineral
Perry Russell
Resources; Paleontological Resources; Hazards; Water Supply
Jessica Degner, Amanda Schaper, Moira Sanders, Land Use/General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs; Visual
& Lisbeth Springer Resources; Recreational Facilities
Dennis Smith & Andrew Nelson Noise
Amanda Schaper Other Required Sections
Don Stadelman Landfill Capacity Study
Chris Crabtree & Jessica Degner Agricultural Resources
Sewage Treatment and Disposal; Executive Summary;
Catrina Gomez
Introduction; Project Description
8.3 SAIC Production Team

Cay FitzGerald Graphic Artist
Greg Wadsworth Document Specialist
Ellyn LloydSchwaiger Word Processing Specialist
Joe Walsh & Chris Woods Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

8 List of Preparers
8.3.1 Sub Consultant Firms
Patrick Kelley & Gary Hamrick (Iteris) Ground Transportation

Peggy Beedle, Colleen Hamilton, Keith Warren
Cultural/Historical Resources
(Applied Earthworks)
Ken Doud (Videoscapes Computer Simulations) Visual Resources

9 References
1 AEP (Association of Environmental Professionals). 2007. Alternative Approaches to Analyze
2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents. Hendrix, Michael
3 and Cori Wilson et. al. April 10, 2007.
4 Alternative Resources, Inc.(ARI) 2007a. Los Angeles County Conversion Technology Evaluation
5 Report~ Phase II, Appendices. October 2007.
6 ______. 2007b. Los Angeles County Conversion Technology Evaluation Report~ Phase II- Assessment,
7 Executive Summary. October 2007.
8 ______. 2007c. Los Angeles County Conversion Technology Evaluation Report~ Phase II- Assessment.
9 October 2007.
10 A-Mehr, Inc. 2002. Surface Water Management Plan for Proposed Horizontal Expansion of Simi Valley
11 Landfill and Recycling Center. Prepared for Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center.
12 February.
13 Applied EarthWorks Inc. 2008. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling
14 Center Expansion, Simi Valley, California. August 2008.
15 ARB (California Air Resources Board). 2009. Air Quality Data Statistics. Website: http://www.arb.
16 ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Accessed May 19, 2009.
17 ______. 2008a. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Website:

18 http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2009.
19 ______. 2008b. Final Regulation Order - Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. Website:
20 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf.
21 ______. 2008c. Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting. Website: http://www.arb.ca.

22 gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/ghg-rep.htm.
23 ______. 2006a. Health and Air Pollution. Website http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/ health/health.htm.
24 ______. 2006b. Off-Road Emissions Inventory Program - OFFROAD2007. Website:

25 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm.
26 ______. 2006c. EMFAC2007 Release. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm.
27 ______. 2005. Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program. Website: http://www.arb.ca.

28 gov/portable/portable.htm.
29 ______. 2004. Fact Sheet, Climate Change Emission Control Regulations. Website:
30 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/cc_newfs.pdf. December 10.
31 Atm AA Inc. 2008. Laboratory Analysis Report – Simi Valley Landfill. January and April 2008.
32 Bissell, Ronald M. 1999. Volume 1 and Volume 2. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Unocal
33 Property, 2800 Acres in Simi Valley and Moorpark, Ventura County California.

9 References
1 Black and Veatch Corp. 2005. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Callaguas Municipal Water District.
2 September 2005.
3 BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1978. United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Manual
4 8400, Visual Resource Management. Washington, D.C.
5 Blood, Brad. 2005. Cultural Resource Sites within Proposed Expansion and Buffer Area. Memorandum
6 to Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. Prepared by Psomas, March 16, 2005.
7 Cal Fire (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2007. Ventura County FHSZ Map.
8 Website: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/fhsz_maps_ventura.php.
9 California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1. Website:
10 http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/general-reporting-protocol.html.
11 California Department of Water Resources. 2006. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into
12 Planning and Management of California’s Water Resources - Technical Memorandum Report.
13 California Division of Mines and Geology. 1999. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG
14 Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in
15 California.
16 California Geological Survey. 2007. Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Website:
17 http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/index.aspx.
18 ______. 1997. State of California Seismic Hazards Zones, Simi Valley West Quadrangle, scale
19 1:24,000. http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_simvw.pdf.
20 ______. 1921. California State Mining Bureau Division of Petroleum and Gas. 1921. Map of the Piru-
21 Simi-Newhall Oil Fields. Box 137 Ralph Arnold Collection, The Huntington Library, San
22 Marino, California.
23 California Office of Historic Preservation. 2001. California Office of Historic Preservation Technical
24 Assistance Series #1: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources.
25 State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
26 ______. 1995. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Sacramento, CA. March.
27 California Integrated Waste Management Board. _(CIWMB) 2008. Current Anaerobic Digestion
28 Technologies Used for Treatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste. Contractor’s Report to the
29 Board Prepared by Rapport, Joshua et al. Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering
30 University of California, Davis and California Environmental Protection Agency. March 2008.
31 ______ 2007. New and Emerging Conversion Technologies Report to the Legislature. Staff Report to the
32 Board: California Environmental Protection Agency. June 2007.
33 ______. 2005. Conversion Technologies Report to the Legislature, Draft, Attachment 1. California
34 Integrated Waste Management Board. February 2005.
35 ______ 2004. Contractor’s Report to the Board: Statewide Waste Characterization Study. Prepared by
36 Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. December 2004.

9 References
1 Hackett, Colin and Williams, Robert B. et al. 2004. Draft Final Report: Evaluation of Conversion
2 Technology Processes and Products. College of Engineering-Center for Environmental Research
3 and Technology University of California Riverside. Dept. of Biological and Agricultural
4 Engineering University of California Davis. California Integrated Waste Management Board.
5 September 2004.
6 Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. 2009. Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan.
7 Website: http://www.calleguascreek.org/ccwmp/4.asp. Site accessed September 9.
8 Carter Romanek, Landscape Architects, Inc. 2003. Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. Visual
9 Impact Mitigation Program. Prepared for Waste Management, Inc.
10 CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2008a. California Natural Diversity Data Base
11 (CNDDB). The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
12 ______. 2008b. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. The
13 Resources Agency, Habitat Conservation Division, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch,
14 California Natural Diversity Database. May.
15 ______. 2008c. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. The
16 Resources Agency, Habitat Conservation Division, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch,
17 California Natural Diversity Database. July.
18 ______. 2008d. Special Animals List. The Resources Agency, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis
19 Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. February.
20 ______. 2008e. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. California Natural Diversity
21 Database. Quarterly publication. 70 pp. July.
22 ______. 2008f. Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. Website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/1600/.

23 Accessed September 2, 2008.
24 Chester, Mikhail et al. 2007. Biopower and Waste Conversion Technologies for Santa Barbara County,
25 California, Report for the Community Environmental Council, Chapter 5: Biopower and Waste
26 Conversion Technologies. University of California, Berkeley affiliates. February 2007.
27 CH2MHill. 2009. 2008/2009 Winter/Spring Semiannual and Annual Monitoring Report, Simi Valley
28 Landfill and Recycling Center, Simi Valley, California. Prepared for Waste Management, Inc.,
29 April 30.
30 ______. 2008. 2007/2008 Winter/Spring Semiannual and Annual Monitoring Report, Simi Valley Landfill
31 and Recycling Center, Simi Valley, California. Prepared for Waste Management, Inc., April 30.
32 ______. 2007. 2006/2007 Winter/Spring Semiannual and Annual Monitoring Report, Simi Valley
33 Landfill and Recycling Center, Simi Valley, California. Prepared for Waste Management, Inc.,
34 April 30.
35 City of Simi Valley. 2009. City of Simi Valley City Utilities. Website: www.ci.simi-
36 valley.ca.us/index.aspx?page=384. Accessed May 14, 2009.
37 ______. 2008. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8. Accessed August 22, 2008.
38 http://www.ci.simi-valley.ca.us/index.aspx?page=117.

9 References
1 CIWMB (California Integrated Waste Management Board). 2009. Household Hazardous Waste.
2 Website: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/HHW/.
3 Converse Ward Davis Dixon. 1980. Hydrogeology and Water Quality investigation of the Simi Class I
4 Disposal Site, Ventura County, California - Final Report. December.
5 Daily News. 2004. Valley Fever Up Since Fires Hit Ventura County, 600% Increase Recorded.
6 Newspaper article, dated March 21. Website:
7 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/VALLEY+FEVER+UP+SINCE+FIRES+HIT+VENTURA+COU
8 NTY+600%25+INCREASE+RECORDED-a0114536181.
9 Dibblee, T.W., and Ehrenspeck, H.E. 1992. Geologic map of the Simi Quadrangle, Ventura County,
10 California: Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-39, scale 1:24,000.
11 DOF (California Department of Finance). 2008. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the
12 State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2007 and 2008. E-5 City/County Population and
13 Housing Estimates. January 1, 2008. Sacramento, California, May 2008.
14 ______. 2007. Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, Sacramento,
15 California, July 2007.
16 DOGGR (California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources). 2001. Oil Field Map No. 211.
17 Dumke, G. S. 1944. The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library, San Marino,
18 California.
19 Earle, David D. 2004. Native American Labor Outside of the Franciscan Missions in the Los Angeles
20 Region during the Eras of Spanish and Mexican Rule. Paper presented at the Fifty-fifth California
21 History Institute: Spanish and Mexican California History and Cultural Legacy. University of the
22 Pacific, Stockton, CA, April 23-24, 2004.
23 Earth Tech, Inc. 2005. Technical Report: Study of Public Safety and Health Issues Presented by the
24 Proposed Expansion of the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. Prepared for Psomas, June
25 20.
26 EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for
27 Criteria Pollutants. Website http://www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html.
28 ______. 2005. EPA Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) Version 3.02. Technology
29 Transfer Network - Clean Air Technology Center. Website:
30 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html#software.
31 ______. 2000a. Regulatory Announcement - Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway
32 Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. EPA420-F-00-057. December 2000.
33 ______. 2000b. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Volume I. Section
34 3.1,Stationary Gas Turbines, Table 3.1-6. Website:
35 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s01.pdf.

9 References
1 ______. 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Volume I. Section 13.2.3,
2 Heavy Construction Operations. Website http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/
3 c13s02-3.pdf.
4 EPA and USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
5 Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United
6 States. December 2.
7 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. Flood Map of U.S. Geological Survey Simi
8 Valley West Quadrangle, scale 1”=2000’.
9 FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.
10 Publication No. FHWA-HI-88-054.
11 FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
12 Publication No. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May 2006.
13 Fletcher, J. L. 1971. Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals. U.S. Environmental Protection
14 Agency.
15 Fried, Jeremy S., et al. 2006. Predicting the Effect of Climate Change on Wildfire Severity and
16 Outcomes in California: Preliminary Analysis. Website:
17 http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/search Reports.php?pier_sub=GCC%20-
18 %20Impact%20and%20Adaptation%20Studies%20-%20Ag%20and%20Forest.
19 GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc. 2006. Hydrologic Evaluation, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center,
20 Simi Valley, California. Prepared for Waste Management, Inc., February.
21 ______. 2005. Hydrogeologic Assessment, Proposed Facility Expansion Area, Simi Valley Landfill and
22 Recycling Center, Simi Valley, California. Prepared for Waste Management, Inc., September 7.
23 ______. 2002. Joint Technical Document for the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center.
24 Haigh, G. 1975. Straw Roads: A Story of Simi Valley From 1908 to 1960 Ventura County, California. ed.
25 Simi Valley Historical Society, Simi Valley, California.
26 Hall & Foreman, Inc. 2009. Final Flood Hazard Report and Study, SVLRC Expansion Project,
27 Modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 3142, June 8.
28 Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
29 Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game.
30 ICC (International Code Council). 1997, 2001, and 2007 Editions. California Building Code (California
31 Code of Regulations, Title 24). Website: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24/default.htm.
32 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007 – Synthesis Report.
33 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
34 Johnson, John R. 1997. Chumash Indians in Simi Valley. In Simi Valley: A Journey Through Time,
35 Patricia Havens, ed., pp. 5-21. Simi Valley Historical Society and Museum, Simi Valley, Ca.

9 References
1 Johnson, John R., and David D. Earle. 1990. Tataviam Geography and Ethnohistory. Journal of
2 California and Great Basin Anthropology 12(2):191-214.
3 Kew, W. S. W. 1919. Structure and Oil Resources of the Simi Valley, Southern California. ed.
4 Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. United States Geological Survey Bulletin 691-M.
5 Kowta, M. 1969. The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from the Cajon Pass and the
6 Econological Implications of Its Scraper Planes. University of California. Publications in
7 Anthropology 6. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
8 Larry Walker Associates. 2004. Interim Draft, Numeric Targets, Calleguas Creek Watershed Toxicity
9 TMDL. Prepared for the Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan, June.
10 LARWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region). 2009. Comments on Draft
11 Enviornmental Impact Report- Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project
12 (File No. 69-090, SCH No. 2007121148). Letter to Ventura County Resource Management
13 Agency, Planning Division. December 28.
14 ______. 2007. Attachment A to Resolution No. R4-2007-016, Proposed Amendment to the Water Quality
15 Control Plan – Los Angeles Region, to Incorporate the Total Maximum Daily Load for Boron,
16 Chloride, Sulfate, and TDS (Salts) in the Calleguas Creek Watershed. Adopted by the
17 LARWQCB on October 4.
18 ______. 2006. Attachment A to Resolution No. R4-2006-012, Proposed Amendment to the Water Quality
19 Control Plan – Los Angeles Region, to Incorporate the Total Maximum Daily Load for Metals
20 and Selenium in the Calleguas Creek, its Tributaries and Mugu Lagoon. Adopted by the
21 LARWQCB on June 8.
22 ______. 2005. Attachment A to Resolution No. R4-2005-0009, Amendment to the Water Quality Control
23 Plan – Los Angeles Region, to Incorporate the Total Maximum Daily Load for Toxicity,
24 Chlorpyrifos, and Diazinon in the Calleguas Creek, its Tributaries and Mugu Lagoon.
25 Adopted by the LARWQCB on July 7.
26 ______. 2004. Approval of Decommissioning and Installation of Wells in the Cell D Expansion Area,
27 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Simi Valley (CI 5643, File No. 69-090). Letter
28 addressed to Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, February 5.
29 ______. 2003. Order No. R4-2003-0152 – Waste Discharge Requirements for Waste Management of
30 California, Inc. (Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center) (File No. 69-090). Issued October
31 16, 2003. Revised November 19, 2003.
32 ______. 2002. Attachment A to Resolution No. 02-017, Proposed Amendment to the Water Quality
33 Control Plan – Los Angeles Region, to Incorporate the Calleguas Creek Nitrogen Compounds
34 and Related Effects TMDL. Adopted by the LARWQCB on October 24.
35 ______. 2000. Order No. 00-092 - Waste Discharge Requirements for Waste Management of California,
36 Inc. (Simi Valley Landfill) (File No. 69-090).
37 ______. 1994. Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds
38 of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

9 References
1 ______. 1993. Order No. 93-062 - Amending Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste
2 Landfills in the Los Angeles Region (File No. 93-043).
3 LSA Associates, Inc. 2004. Wildlife Corridor Assessment Report: Ventura State Route 118. Prepared for
4 Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) District 7, Division of Environmental Planning.
5 May 27, 2004.
6 Mason, William M. 1998. The Census of 1790: A Demographic History of Colonial California. Ballena
7 Press. Anthropological Papers, No. 45. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, Ca.
8 Meredith/Boli & Associates. 1992. Landfill Fluids Evaluation Study, Simi Valley Landfill, Ventura
9 County, California. October 29.
10 Miranda, Lynn M., et Al. 1996. Unit Pricing Programs for Residential Municipal Solid Waste: An
11 Assessment of the Literature. U.S. EPA Cooperative Agreement #CR822-917-010. March.
12 Ng, Sandra Jean. 2000. Wildlife Use of Underpasses and Culverts Crossing Beneath Highways in
13 Southern California. Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of
14 Master of Science in Biology.
15 Ng, Sandra, J. Dole, R. Sauvajot, S. Riley, and T. Valone. 2004. Use of Highway Undercrossings by
16 Wildlife in Southern California. Biological Conservation 115, 499-507.
17 OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
18 Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
19 Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc. 2008. Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Landfill
20 Expansion, Ventura County, California, Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program,
21 Fourteenth Progress Report for Period January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007. Prepared for
22 Waste Management, Inc., Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, February.
23 Penrod, K., C. Cabañero, P. Beier, C. Luke, W. Spencer, E. Rubin, R. Sauvajot, S. Riley, and D. Kamradt.
24 2006. South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the Santa Monica-Sierra
25 Madre Connection. Produced by South Coast Wildlands, Idyllwild, CA. www.scwildlands.org,
26 in cooperation with National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, California
27 State Parks, and The Nature Conservancy.
28 Psomas Natural Resources Group (Psomas). 2008. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Summary Report
29 for the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project. Prepared for Waste
30 Management Inc. July.
31 ______. 2007a. Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project “Initial Study”. Prepared
32 for Waste Management, Inc. April 11, 2007.
33 ______. 2007b. Simi Valley Landfill Recycling and Expansion Project Water & Sewer Study. Prepared
34 for Waste Management, Inc. September 12, 2007.
35 ______. 2006a. Biological Resources Summary Report in Support of the Simi Valley Landfill and
36 Recycling Center Expansion Project. Prepared for Waste Management Inc. February 27.

9 References
1 ______. 2006b. Visual Resource Analysis Technical Report, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center
2 Expansion, Simi Valley California. Prepared for Waste Management of California, Inc. February
3 27.
4 ______. 2002a. Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation of “The Canyons” Specific Plan
5 Properties. Simi Valley, Ventura County, California. Prepared for Unocal Land and
6 Development Company. June.
7 ______. 2002b. Regional Wildlife Corridors, Wildlife Utilization, and Open Space in the Simi Valley
8 Region, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California. Prepared for Unocal Land &
9 Development Company. Revised Draft, June 17.
10 RMW Paleo Associates. 1999. In Bissell, Ronald M. 1999. Volume 1 and Volume 2. Cultural
11 Resources Reconnaissance of the Unocal Property, 2800 Acres in Simi Valley and Moorpark,
12 Ventura County California.
13 Robinson, Alfred. 1947 Life in California: During a Residence of Several Years in That Territory,
14 Comprising a Description of the Country and the Missionary Establishments, With Incidents,
15 Observations, etc., etc. Biobooks, Oakland, California.
16 RSRPD (Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District). 2008a. Facilities Directory. Website:
17 http://www.rsrpd.org/park/maps/simivalleymap.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2008.
18 ______. 2008b. Mt. McCoy Trail. Website: http://www.rsrpd.org/park/mtmccoytrail/mtmccoytrail.html.

19 Accessed September 15, 2008.
20 ______. 1986. General Plan for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space.
21 SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 2002. Phase I Archaeological Investigation

22 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Ventura County, California. Prepared for County of
23 Ventura Resource Management Agency Planning Division. Prepared by Science Applications
24 International Corporation, Santa Barbara, California.
25 ______. 2002. Final Supplemental Environmental Report, Ventura County. Conditional Use Permit
26 3142. Modification Number 6. SCH 31986111234.
27 ______. 1988. Final Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Expansion of the Simi Valley Landfill,
28 Conditional Use Permit 3142. Prepared for Ventura County Resource Management Agency, July.
29 Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. Sacramento: California
30 Department of Fish and Game.
31 SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2009. Profile of the County of Ventura. May.
32 SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) et al. 2007. Draft Air Quality Management
33 Plan.
34 SCS Engineers. 1980. Simi Valley Landfill Hazardous Waste Evaluation. August.
35 SCAQMD, ARB, Southern California Association of Governments, and USEPA. 2007. Final 2007 Air
36 Quality Management Plan.

9 References
1 Singer, Clay A. 1980. Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Evaluation for the Proposed Brea Canyon
2 Airport Location, Simi Valley.
3 State of California. 2006. California Code of Regulations. Website: http://www.leginfo.ca.

4 gov/calaw.html.
5 Toren, George A. 1998. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Expansion of the Simi Valley
6 Landfill and Recycling Center, Simi Valley, California. Prepared by Greenwood and Associates,
7 Palos Verdes, CA.
8 Transportation Research Board. 2004. Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Last Modified April 4.
9 TRC. 2005. Air Quality Initial Study. Submitted to Ventura County Planning Department. Prepared for
10 Waste Management, Inc. – Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center.
11 True, D. L. 1958. An Early Gathering Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity.
12 23:255–263.
13 United States Soil Conservation Service. 1970. Soil Survey: Ventura Area, California. In cooperation
14 with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. April. Website:
15 http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
16 University of California at Riverside's College of Engineering-Center for Environmental Research and

17 Technology (CE-CERT). (UCR) 2009. Evaluation of Emissions from Thermal Conversion
18 Technologies Processing Municipal Solid Waste and Biomass. Final Report. June 21, 2009.
19 URS. 2004. Draft Report: Flood Mitigation Plan for Ventura County. December 2004.
20 USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2006. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
21 Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. December.
22 ______. 2003. News Release: EPA, Corps of Engineers Issue Wetlands Decision. December 13.
23 ______. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps
24 of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Website:
25 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/
26 pdfs/wlman87.pdf.
27 USBLS (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2008. Occupational Employment Statistics May 2008
28 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates (NAICS 562900).
29 USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
30 Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher
31 (Polioptila californica californica); Final Rule. Federal Register 72 (243): 72010-72058.
32 December 19, 2007.
33 ______. 1997. Survey Protocol for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
34 Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, CA. Revised July 28, 1997.
35 ______. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Determining Threatened
36 Status for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. Federal Register. Vol. 58. pp. 16742-16757

9 References
1 VCAPCD (Ventura County Air Pollution Control District). 2008. Final Ventura County 2007 Air
2 Quality Management Plan.
3 ______. 2003. Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.
4 Ventura County. 2008a. Parks Department. Description of Oak Park. Website:

5 http://portal.countyofventura.
6 org/portal/page?_pageid=829,1103605&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL. Accessed September
7 16, 2008.
8 ______. 2008b. Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Last Amended September 9, 2008
9 ______. 2008c. Ventura County General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs. Last amended December
10 16.
11 ______. 2008d. Ventura County General Plan Land Use Appendix. Last amended December 16.
12 ______. 2007. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Simi Valley
13 Landfill Expansion, Case No. LU07-0048.
14 ______. 2007. Addendum to the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Focused General
15 Plan Update and Related Amendments to the Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance and Zone Change
16 ZN-5-0008.
17 ______. 2006. Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines. February 2006.
18 ______. 2005a. Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan. Prepared by: Advanced
19 Engineering Acoustics. November.
20 ______. 2005b. Ventura County General Plan Public Facilities and Services Appendix. Adopted by the
21 Ventura County Board of Supervisors. November 15.
22 ______. 2 005c. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Focused General Plan Update and
23 Related Amendments to the Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance and Zone Change ZN-5-0008. June
24 22.
25 ______. 2003. Conditional Use Permit 3142, Minor Modification 7 for the Simi Valley Landfill and
26 Recycling Center. County of Ventura Planning Division. July.
27 ______. 2000. Ventura County General Plan - Hazards Appendix. As amended September 19.
28 ______. 1999. Administrative Supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines. Last Amended by the Board of
29 Supervisors on August 3, 1999.
30 ______. 1996. Guidelines for Orderly Development. Website: http://www.ventura.lafco.ca.gov/source_d

31 ocs/2005-GuidelineOD.pdf. Accessed on April 16, 2009.
32 ______. 1992. Ventura County Landscape Design Criteria. County of Ventura. October 1992.
33 Ventura County EHD (Environmental Health Division). 2003. Solid Waste Facility Permit for the Simi
34 Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. SWFP Permit Number 56-AA-0007. May.

9 References
1 ______. 1995. Solid Waste Facility Permit for the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. SWFP
2 Permit Number 56-AA-0007. December.
3 Ventura County Genealogical Society. 2008. Ventura County Genealogical Society Archives. Website:
4 http://www.venturacogensoc.org.
5 Ventura County Watershed Protection District. 2009. Groundwater Basins. Website:

6 http://portal.countyofventura.org/portal/page?_pageid=876,1371895&_dad=portal&_schema=PO
7 RTAL.
8 Ventura State Route 118 Wildlife Corridor Multi-Agency Working Group. 2006. Alamos Canyon
9 Mitigation Summary. April 2006.
10 Wallace, W. J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.

11 Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230.
12 Warren, Claude N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California
13 Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Archaeology 1(3):1–15.
14 Warren, C. N., D. L. True, and A. A. Eudey. 1961. Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego
15 County: Results of Interpretation of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual
16 Report 1960–1961:1–106. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
17 William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 2004a. Simi Landfill Expansion, Fault Activity Evaluation, Canada de
18 la Brea Fault. Prepared for Geosyntec Consultants, December 6.
19 ______. 2004b . Bedrock Mapping and Structural Evaluation of the Canada de la Brea Fault for the
20 Proposed Simi Valley Landfill Expansion, California. Prepared for Geosyntec Consultants,
21 December 17.
22 Williams, Rob et al. 2006. Biomass in Solid Waste in California: Utilization and Policy Alternatives,
23 Draft. State of California Energy Commission and California Biomass Collaborative Department
24 of Biological and Agricultural Engineering University of California Davis. April 2006.
25 WMC (Waste Management of California, Inc.). 2009. Annual Report for Stormwater Discharge
26 Associated with Industrial Activities, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Facility WDID
27 No. 456I005786. Prepared for the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, June 30.
28 ______. 2008a. Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center DRS 1st Quarter 2008 Report.
29 ______. 2008b. Annual Report for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Industrial Activities, Simi
30 Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Facility WDID No. 456I005786. Prepared for the Los
31 Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, June 27th.
32 ______. 2007a. Application for Modification of the Conditional Use Permit. Submitted by Simi Valley
33 Landfill and Recycling Center. April 11, 2007.
34 ______. 2007b. Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project Response to Comments,
35 Modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 3142. September 20.
36 World News Digest, June 1994.
37 WRAP (Western Regional Air Partnership). 2006. WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook. Prepared by
38 Countess Environmental.
9 References


Simi Valley Landfill Recycling CTR Expansion Final EIR

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Simi Valley Landfill Recycling CTR Expansion Final EIR

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Simi Valley Landfill

and Recycling Center

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project i

1 3.2.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 3.2-16

1 3.14.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 3.14-4

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project iii

1 7 Persons and Agencies Contacted ..................................................................................................... 7-1

1 3.7-2 Local Faults ........................................................................................................................ 3.7-4

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project v

vi Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

1 3.14-2. Mitigation for Recreation Impacts ................................................................................... 3.14-7

9 B Air Quality Technical Appendix

14 C Groundwater Sampling Results

19 E Alamos Canyon Floodplain Study

20 F Biological Resources Appendix

24 G Simi Valley Cultural Resources Survey Report

25 H Noise Survey Data

26 I Traffic Impact Analysis

27 J Water & Sewer Study

28 K Waste Capacity Study

29 L Surface Water Quality

31 N Hazards Study for Bio-LNG Facility Simi Valley Landfill

32 O Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Letter of May 4, 2010

viii Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

1 CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project ix

1 DPM diesel particulate matter

x Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

1 IWMD Ventura County Integrated Waste Management Division

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project xi

1 msl mean sea level

xii Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project xiii

1 SPL sound pressure level

xiv Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

1 VISTA Ventura Intercity Service Transit Authority

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project xv

1 This page intentionally left blank.

xvi Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

19 Project Purpose and Need and Project Objectives

37 Final Environmental Impact Report

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project 1

20 Public Draft EIR

27 Recirculated Draft EIR

2 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

19 The following sections of the DEIR were recirculated:

30 Presentation and Organization of the Final EIR

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project 3

4 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

1 • 4 Cumulative Analysis (as modified by RDEIR)

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project 5

This page intentionally left blank.

6 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

1 ES.1 Intended Uses and Authorizing Agencies

10 ES.2 Project Purpose and Need and Project Objectives

5 ES.3 Description of the Project and Alternatives

12 Project Overview (See Project Overview under ESR.3)

ES-2 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

1 Construction (See Construction under ESR.3)

ES-4 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project

23 Offsite Alternatives – Other waste-disposal options for Ventura County, including:

ES-6 Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Project