John Paladin, Esq.: Hearing needed for Chiquita Canyon Landfull
A compactor rolls over the exposed trash at a 200X200 foot "working face" site at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in Castaic in 2014. As soon as the the trash is spread and compacted it is immediately covered with dirt and the working face site moves forward. This view looks south-west towards the new proposed expansion site, and In the distance is the tall ridge which blocks the land fill from view of surrounding communities. Dan Watson/Signal
By Signal Contributor
Tuesday, January 10th, 2017

Editor’s note: The following letter was addressed to county Regional Planning official Richard Claghorn, Department Of Regional Planning Zoning Permits North Section, and copied to The Signal for publication.

Dear Mr. Claghorn:

I am opposed to expansion of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill. It should not be allowed to operate beyond the originally agreed-to size limit.

A landfill business is out of character for the community and it is out of place in this community.

This community has grown significantly since the landfill started its operations many years ago. There are many more schools, homes and businesses in the area of the landfill now.

It is not appropriate to have a landfill, or a significant landfill expansion, in a scenic area along Highway 126 and near so many people. The landfill needs of Santa Clarita and other communities of southern California should be met by landfills in other, more remote locations, such as places reached by railroad.

It is also inappropriate for this landfill and for this community to accept trash from far-away places. This should not be a destination landfill for a large area.

Expanding this landfill or continuing its operation beyond the original size limit will impose significant and unreasonable amounts of traffic and air pollution in this area. That should not be the case, and it should not be allowed to expand.

The comment period for this issue should be extended by 120 days to allow greater input from the community. The current expiration date is too close to the holidays.

There should be a greater amount of notice given to people and businesses in the surrounding areas. I request a hearing on this issue before a commissioner.

About the author

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor

A compactor rolls over the exposed trash at a 200X200 foot "working face" site at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in Castaic in 2014. As soon as the the trash is spread and compacted it is immediately covered with dirt and the working face site moves forward. This view looks south-west towards the new proposed expansion site, and In the distance is the tall ridge which blocks the land fill from view of surrounding communities. Dan Watson/Signal

John Paladin, Esq.: Hearing needed for Chiquita Canyon Landfull

Editor’s note: The following letter was addressed to county Regional Planning official Richard Claghorn, Department Of Regional Planning Zoning Permits North Section, and copied to The Signal for publication.

Dear Mr. Claghorn:

I am opposed to expansion of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill. It should not be allowed to operate beyond the originally agreed-to size limit.

A landfill business is out of character for the community and it is out of place in this community.

This community has grown significantly since the landfill started its operations many years ago. There are many more schools, homes and businesses in the area of the landfill now.

It is not appropriate to have a landfill, or a significant landfill expansion, in a scenic area along Highway 126 and near so many people. The landfill needs of Santa Clarita and other communities of southern California should be met by landfills in other, more remote locations, such as places reached by railroad.

It is also inappropriate for this landfill and for this community to accept trash from far-away places. This should not be a destination landfill for a large area.

Expanding this landfill or continuing its operation beyond the original size limit will impose significant and unreasonable amounts of traffic and air pollution in this area. That should not be the case, and it should not be allowed to expand.

The comment period for this issue should be extended by 120 days to allow greater input from the community. The current expiration date is too close to the holidays.

There should be a greater amount of notice given to people and businesses in the surrounding areas. I request a hearing on this issue before a commissioner.