BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                SB 833
                                                                       

                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
                        Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
                              2011-2012 Regular Session
                                           
           BILL NO:    SB 833
           AUTHOR:     Vargas
           AMENDED:    April 25, 2011
           FISCAL:     Yes               HEARING DATE:     May 2, 2011
           URGENCY:    No                CONSULTANT:       Caroll 
           Mortensen
            
           SUBJECT  :    SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES:  SAN DIEGO
                       COUNTY

            SUMMARY  :    
           
            Existing law  :

           1) Prohibits the deposition of solid waste at a solid waste 
              facility without a solid waste facility permit.  (Public 
              Resources Code §44000.5).

           2) Prohibits a person from operating a solid waste facility 
              without a solid waste facilities permit if that facility is 
              required.  Requires the local enforcement agency to 
              immediately issue a cease and desist order to immediately 
              cease all activities for which a solid waste facilities 
              permit is required and desist from those activities until 
              the person obtains a valid solid waste facilities permit.  
              (§44002).

           3) Requires that any area or areas identified for the location 
              of a new solid waste transformation or disposal facility 
              shall be located in, coextensive with, or adjacent to, a 
              land use area authorized for a solid waste transformation 
              or disposal facility in the applicable city or county 
              general plan.  (§41704).

           4) Requires that if a county determines that existing capacity 
              will be exhausted within 15 years or additional capacity is 
              desired and that there is no area available for the 
              location of a new solid waste transformation or disposal 
              facility or the expansion of an existing solid waste 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 2

              transformation or disposal facility which is consistent 
              with any applicable city or county general plan, the siting 
              element shall include a specific strategy for the 
              transformation or disposal of solid waste in excess of 
              remaining capacity.  (§41703).

           5) Establishes The California Native American Heritage 
              Commission (NAHC) as the state's "trustee agency" for the 
              protection and preservation of Native American cultural 
              resources, sacred sites on public land and Native American 
              burial sites.  NAHC facilitates consultation between 
              California tribal governments, Indian organizations and 
              tribal elders with local, state, and federal agencies.  
              (§5097.1 et seq.).


           6) Requires local governments to conduct meaningful 
              consultation with California Native American tribes on the 
              contact list maintained by the NAHC prior to the adoption 
              or amendment of a city or county general plan for the 
              purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by 
              the proposal.  (Government Code §§65352.3 to 65352.4). 

            This bill  prohibits a person from constructing or operating a 
           solid waste landfill disposal facility in San Diego County if 
           that facility meets both of the following conditions:

              a)    Any portion of the disposal facility is located on or 
                 within 1,000 feet of the San Luis Rey River or an 
                 aquifer that is hydrologically connected to that river, 
                 and

              b)    The disposal facility is located on or within 1,000 
                 feet of a site that is considered sacred or of spiritual 
                 or cultural importance to a tribe, as defined, and that 
                 is listed in the California Native American Heritage 
                 Commission Sacred Lands Inventory.

            COMMENTS  :

             1) Purpose of Bill  .  According the author, this bill would 
              protect drinking water sources and sacred Native American 
              sites in northern San Diego County by prohibiting the 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 3

              construction or operation of a solid waste landfill on or 
              within 1,000 feet of these sources.  Proponents of the 
              landfill bypassed local control of the landfill permitting 
              process through a ballot initiative(s) which amended the 
              county general plan and zoning ordinance to allow 
              construction of the facility. 

            Proponents of the landfill bypassed local control of the 
              landfill permitting process through a ballot initiative.  
              The County Board of Supervisors never approved Gregory 
              Canyon as a landfill site, and the County repeatedly 
              rejected it as inappropriate during its landfill 
              site-selection process in the late '80s and early '90s.  To 
              avoid the need for County approval, Gregory Canyon Landfill 
              (GCL) proponents sponsored a county-wide ballot initiative 
              (Proposition C) in 1994, which amended the county general 
              plan and zoning ordinance to allow the construction of a 
              "recycling collection center" and landfill on the site if 
              the project obtained all required regulatory approvals.  
              Although described on the ballot measure as a recycling 
              measure, the facility would provide limited recycling.

            The ballot initiative also placed limits on local elected 
              officials' role in the California Environmental Quality Act 
              (CEQA) review process.  By approving the site for a 
              landfill through Proposition C rather than through the 
              County's regular land use permitting procedures, GCL's 
              proponents crafted an approval process where no locally 
              elected officials can make a decision as to whether the 
              project site is an appropriate location for a landfill. 

             2) Landfill Permitting  .  The siting, construction, and 
              operation of a solid waste landfill is a complex process.  
              The solid waste facility permit is just one of potentially 
              a dozen or more local, state, and federal permits required 
              to construct and operate a landfill.  Generally, basic 
              requirements include compliance with CEQA and local 
              operation, land use and siting rules, including conformance 
              with the General Plan.  Permits must also be obtained from 
              the state and regional water quality board and local air 
              district.  Federal permits are often required by the Clean 
              Water Act for water quality and US Fish and Wildlife 
              Service.  A solid waste facility permit issued by the 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 4

              Department of Resource Recovery and Recycling (DRRR) is the 
              focus of SB 833, but is just one of many permits and 
              processes that must be complied with before construction 
              and operation can commence.  No single approval by itself 
              is enough to allow the project to go forward.  Denial of a 
              required permit or approval would prevent the project from 
              going forward as currently proposed, unless there was a 
              successful litigation challenge to the denial, or unless 
              the project was modified and approved in a modified form.

             3) Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP)  .  DRRR's permit program 
              reviews solid waste facility permits submitted by local 
              enforcement agencies (LEA) and recommends for or against 
              concurrence in the permit to DRRR.  Permits include design, 
              operational, financial, and closure/postclosure 
              requirements to safely construct, operate and close the 
              facility.  The SWFP is developed by the LEAs and must meet 
              minimum state standards, but often include many more 
              conditions to the operations of the facility.  DRRR cannot 
              add additional conditions to a permit. 

             4) Gregory Canyon Landfill Project  .  The proposed site, owned 
              by Gregory Canyon, Ltd., is located within an approximately 
              1,770 acre parcel located in northern San Diego County 
              north and south of State Route 76, approximately three 
              miles east of Interstate 15 and two miles southwest of the 
              community of Pala.  The site is crossed by the San Luis Rey 
              River.  The 183-acre landfill footprint would be in the 
              largest canyon on the site, south of State Route 76, along 
              the western slope of Gregory Mountain.  The entire project 
              development comprises approximately 308 acres.  No less 
              than 1,313 acres of the remaining area on the landfill 
              property will become permanent open space.

             5) Local Propositions  .  In November 1994, the voters approved 
              Proposition C, the Gregory Canyon Landfill and Recycling 
              Collection Center Ordinance, by a vote of 68-32%.  By 
              amending the County's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to 
              allow a landfill without a County major use permit, 
              Proposition C streamlined the project approval process.  
              Ten years later, in 2004, landfill opponents drafted and 
              sponsored a second voter initiative, Proposition B, seeking 
              to invalidate the 1994 initiative.  Proposition B was not 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 5

              approved by the voters, by a vote of 64-36%.  Because of 
              Proposition C, the County Board of Supervisors is not 
              involved in decisions about the proposed landfill.

             6) Applicable permits for Gregory Canyon  .  In addition to a 
              SWFP from DRRR, the project proponents are obtaining the 
              following permits:
             
                      County of San Diego Department of Environmental 
                  Health (DEH) 
                      San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 
                      San Diego County Air Pollution Control District 
                      California Department of Fish and Game 
                      United States Army Corps of Engineers (including 
                  consultation with United States Fish and Wildlife 
                  Service)

             1) San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH)  . 
               DEH has been designated as the Solid Waste Local 
              Enforcement Agency (LEA) for all of San Diego County except 
              the City of San Diego.  As the LEA, DEH is responsible for 
              processing the project's Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) 
              application package, and for writing a proposed permit for 
              the construction, operation, closure, and post-closure care 
              of the landfill.

             The LEA is also the lead agency for the preparation of an 
             Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project, 
             as required under CEQA.  The EIR is prepared to disclose to 
             the public and other state and local agencies the potential 
             environmental impacts of the proposed project.  Although 
             Proposition C amended the County's General Plan and Zoning 
             Ordinance, compliance with CEQA is required for the project 
             to be approved.

             The LEA is a program within DEH, and DEH is a Department 
             within the County of San Diego.  But it is DEH and not the 
             County of San Diego that is designated by the state as the 
             Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for this site.  
             The decisionmaker for LEA-issued permits is the DEH 
             Director.  In addition, because of Proposition C, the LEA is 
             the CEQA lead agency for this project.  The decisionmaker 
             for the LEA under CEQA is the DEH Director.  Because of 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 6

             Proposition C, the County Board of Supervisors is not 
             involved in the CEQA process or in land use permitting 
             decisions for the proposed landfill.

             2) Gregory Canyon SWFP  .  The landfill operator is required to 
              obtain a SWFP from the San Diego DEH.  The SWFP specifies 
              the person(s) authorized to operate the facility and the 
              boundaries of the facility.  It contains the conditions 
              necessary to specify a design and operation for which the 
              applicant has demonstrated the ability to control the 
              adverse effects of the facility.  In terms of the SWFP, the 
              facility's "design" includes:

                 "         the number and types of fixed structures;
                 "         the total volumetric capacity of the disposal 
                     site;
                 "         vehicle traffic flow and patterns within the 
                     facility;
                 "         proposed contouring; and
                 "         other factors that may be considered a part of 
                     the facility's physical configuration.

             1) Permit Timeline  .  The Gregory Canyon Landfill was 
              permitted previously by the LEA and DRRR in December 2004; 
              however a modified permit application was received by the 
              LEA on July 27, 2007.  On August 27, 2007, the LEA 
              determined the GCL solid waste facility permit application 
              package to be complete and correct. 

            On September 26, 2007, in accordance with the Public 
              Resources Code §44008, the applicant waived the LEA 
              statutory timeline.  This waiver of statutory timeline 
              granted the LEA an additional 30 days in its determination 
              of whether the permit is to be processed as modified or as 
              a revision.

            On October 15, 2007, the LEA determined that the permit 
              application package would be processed as a permit 
              modification.

            Since this time, the applicant provided additional waivers of 
              the statutory timeline on the following dates: October 25, 
              2007; December 21, 2007; January 17, 2008; March 20, 2008; 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 7

              April 28, 2008; June 9, 2008; August 8, 2008; October 30, 
              2008; January 12, 2009; February 19, 2009; May 18, 2009; 
              September 1, 2009; November 23, 2009; and, February 1, 
              2010.

            On January 26, 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the County 
              of San Diego and Gregory Canyon Ltd.  (Case No. 
              37-2009-00050584-CU-MC-NC).  The plaintiffs (Riverwatch and 
              the Pala Band of Mission Indians) asserted that the SWFP 
              for the landfill had been rescinded and therefore could not 
              be modified.  The case was heard in a bench trial on May 
              27, 2010.  On June 14, 2010, the Superior Court issued a 
              decision.  The court stated that the County could not treat 
              the permit as valid and existing, and could not modify or 
              revise SWFP No. 37-AA-0032 without first reconsidering the 
              issuance of the permit.  The court further stated that it 
              would issue a final judgment and injunction in the case.  
              In response to this decision, the applicant has withdrawn 
              its application for a modification of SWFP permit No. 
              37-AA-0032.  The LEA will not treat this permit as valid 
              for purposes of any approvals the LEA could issue under the 
              permit, or any enforcement action that would be based on 
              the permit.   On July 6, 2010, the final judgment was 
              issued.

            On June 25, 2010, a solid waste permit application package 
              for a new permit was received by the LEA.  The LEA was 
              required by regulation to review the application package 
              for completeness within 30 days of receipt.  The LEA 
              determined that the application package was complete on 
              July 23, 2010. 

            On August 5, 2010, the LEA rescinded its completeness 
              determination on the permit application package including 
              the Preliminary Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans.  
              Also, on August 5, 2010 a request was submitted by Gregory 
              Canyon Ltd. to accept the June 25, 2010, application 
              package as incomplete.  The LEA accepted the package as 
              incomplete.  The applicant had until February 1, 2011, to 
              conform the application to the requirements.  Revisions 
              were submitted by the applicant.

            On February 1, 2011, the LEA determined that the application 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 8

              package was complete and correct.  A public informational 
              meeting was held February 23, 2011, in the Community Room 
              at the Fallbrook Public Library.

            On March 18, 2011, the applicant waived the statutory 
              timeline for the LEA to make a decision to issue or not 
              issue a new SWFP for the GCL.

            On April 26, 2011, they again waived the statutory timeline 
              for the LEA to make a decision to issue or not issue a new 
              SWFP.  The extended deadline for this decision is May 13, 
              2011.  If the SWFP and application package is submitted to 
              DRRR, DRRR will have 60 days to review and decide whether 
              to concur or object to the proposed SWFP.  All comments 
              received before the SWFP and application package is sent to 
              DRRR will be included in the package.  All written comments 
              received after the package has been submitted will also be 
              provided to DRRR for consideration.

             2) Hearing Panel Request  .  On March 3, 2011, the Pala Band of 
              Mission Indians filed a petition for a hearing before the 
              Solid Waste Hearing Panel on whether the LEA's 
              determination that the solid waste facility application 
              package was "complete and correct" was contrary to law.  
              The Hearing Panel has three members, and needs all three 
              members present to have a legal quorum.  One of the hearing 
              panel members notified the County on Tuesday, March 29, 
              2011, that he had a conflict- of-interest and would not 
              attend the hearing on March 30, 2011.  Without a quorum, 
              the hearing had to be cancelled.

            Because the Hearing Panel will not make a decision, the Pala 
              Band has the right to petition DRRR, for a hearing on this 
              issue.  DRRR would have 30 days to decide whether to hear 
              the matter, and another 30 days to actually hold a hearing. 
               A petition to DRRR would not extend the current deadline 
              for the LEA to decide whether to submit a proposed permit 
              to DRRR. 

             3) CEQA-Related Actions  .  The Director of the LEA is the 
              decisionmaker for the lead agency.  On February 6, 2003, 
              the Director of the LEA, certified that a final EIR 
              prepared for this project had been completed in compliance 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 9

              with the CEQA.  That certification and certain related 
              actions were challenged in a Superior Court action entitled 
              Riverwatch et al. v. County of San Diego Department of 
              Environmental Health et al., case number GIN038227.  On 
              January 20, 2006, a Preemptory Writ of Mandate was issued 
              directing the County of San Diego to set aside the February 
              6, 2003, certification and certain related actions.

            The Court further directed the County to correct three 
              identified deficiencies in the 2003 Final EIR, related to 
              traffic, water supply, and biological mitigation. In 
              response, additional analysis of these issues was 
              performed, additional mitigation was identified, and a 
              Revised Partial Draft EIR (RPDEIR)was prepared and made 
              available for public comment.  LEA staff evaluated and 
              responded to all comments received, and a Revised Final EIR 
              was prepared.  The Revised Final EIR consists of the 2003 
              DEIR; the March 2007 RPDEIR Comments and Recommendations on 
              the July 2006 RPDEIR circulated for comment in July and 
              August of 2006; and LEA responses to significant 
              environmental points raised in those comments and 
              recommendations.

            On April 30, 2007, a Staff Report and the completed RPEIR, 
              was submitted to the Director of LEA, for his review.  As 
              required by CEQA the LEA responses to comments were mailed 
              (April 30, 2007) to the public agencies that had provided 
              comments on the 2006 RPDEIR.  On May 31, 2007, the Director 
              made his Decision on the Revised Final EIR for the Gregory 
              Canyon Landfill that the RPDEIR for the Gregory Canyon 
              Landfill with associated comments and responses to comments 
              had met the direction of the court.

            On February 11, 2008, the San Diego Superior Court issued a 
              decision in Riverwatch v. County of San Diego Department of 
              Environmental Health.  This decision upheld the additional 
              environmental analysis included in the Revised Final 
              Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Gregory Canyon 
              Landfill related to traffic and biological mitigation.  The 
              environmental analysis for the water supply (related to the 
              use of reclaimed water) was found to be incomplete.  The 
              decision will require additional environmental analysis for 
              the use of reclaimed water.









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 10


            In response to the Court's order, the LEA staff did 
              additional analysis.  Baseline recycled water supply and 
              use conditions were determined, and scenarios that added 
              the Gregory Canyon Landfill to that baseline were defined 
              and quantified.  The impacts from recycled water deliveries 
              to the landfill site on other Olivenhain Municipal Water 
              District (OMWD) recycled water customers were then 
              determined as required by the Court's order.  The results 
              of this analysis can be found in the Addendum to the 
              Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (Recycled Water 
              Addendum).

            The Recycled Water Addendum concludes that there is adequate 
              recycled water to meet the demands of OMWD's existing 
              customers or existing uses of recycled water after 
              including deliveries to the landfill site, and that the 
              OMWD is able to provide 193 acre feet per year (AFY) of 
              recycled water to the landfill site without causing a 
              significant impact to its existing customers or existing 
              uses of recycled water.  Based on this information 
              presented in the Recycled Water Addendum, no significant 
              environmental impacts that were not identified in the 2003 
              FEIR or the Revised FEIR would result, and no previously 
              identified significant impacts would be substantially more 
              severe in light of this analysis.

            On August 8, 2008, the Director of the San Diego County Local 
              Enforcement Agency issued a Decision which adopted the 
              Recycled Water Addendum. 

            On November 20, 2008, the Superior Court dissolved the 
              Preemptory Writ.  Based on its review of the environmental 
                                                              documentation provided and the arguments of the litigants, 
              the Court concluded that the County of San Diego LEA had 
              met its obligations under CEQA.

            Riverwatch et al. v. Olivenhain Municipal Water District et 
              al.:  On January 9, 2009, the 4th District Court of Appeals 
              in Riverwatch et al. v. Olivenhain Municipal Water District 
              et al. (Case No. D052237) issued an order affecting a 
              proposed water supply for landfill construction and 
              operation.  The County and the LEA are not parties to this 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 11

              lawsuit.  The appeals court directed the trial court to 
              issue a writ, ordering the Olivenhain Municipal Water 
              District (OMWD) to set aside its approval and execution of 
              a water supply agreement for the landfill and to reconsider 
              that approval after consideration of a legally adequate EIR 
              for the Landfill project.

            On May 13, 2009, the Olivenhain Municipal Water District 
              board voted to not supply recycled water to Gregory Canyon. 
               The operator therefore had to identify another source or 
              sources of water, and the County had to complete additional 
              CEQA analysis concerning those sources.

            Proposed changes to the project were described in a recent 
              submission to the County of San Diego's LEA.  Those changes 
              included measures to reduce water use at the landfill site, 
              greater use of on-site water sources that was proposed in 
              the RFEIR, project design features to ensure that on-site 
              water is used in a manner consistent with applicable 
              California water law, and new arrangements for trucking 
              recycled tertiary-treated effluent to the landfill site as 
              necessary.  Additional environmental review was conducted 
              to identify the potential environmental effects of those 
              project changes.

            This analysis addressed the potential impacts of extracting 
              on-site water as well as potential impacts from the 
              transport of recycled water from the SGVWC facility in 
              South El Monte to the landfill site.  Potential impacts 
              from the construction and operation of additional wells and 
              the use of a soil sealant were also evaluated.  The results 
              of this analysis can be found in the 2009 Water Supply 
              Addendum.  The Addendum and all the Appendixes can be 
              reviewed at Complete 2009 Water Supply Addendum.

            The 2009 Water Supply Addendum concludes that the use of 
              on-site water would not result in significant 
              hydrogeological impacts and that the construction and 
              operation of additional wells would not result in 
              significant air quality impacts, health risk impacts, noise 
              impacts, or significant impacts to water resources or 
              biological resources.  Furthermore, the use of a soil 
              sealant would not result in significant impacts to water 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 12

              quality or biological resources.  Finally, the transport of 
              recycled water from South El Monte to the landfill site 
              would not result in any new or substantially different 
              traffic, air quality, health risk or noise impacts not 
              discussed in the 2003 Draft EIR or RFEIR.

            The 2009 Water Supply Addendum concludes that with the 
              combination of riparian underflow, percolating groundwater, 
              trucked recycled water and on-site storage, the landfill 
              has demonstrated a likelihood of adequate water supplies 
              being available for construction and operation.  On January 
              7, 2010, the Director of the LEA issued a Decision which 
              adopted the 2009 Water Supply Addendum.

            The analysis of impacts to biological resources in the 2003 
              Draft EIR and RFEIR included a discussion of waters on the 
              landfill site subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army 
              Corps of Engineers (ACOE) as well as other state agencies, 
              the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 
              (SDRWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Game 
              (CDFG).  Those documents stated acreage figures for 
              jurisdictional waters, based on agency determination where 
              those had been made and on assessment conducted for CEQA 
              purposes.  The LEA's understanding of the water that other 
              agencies were likely to consider jurisdictional has evolved 
              in minor ways over time, as a result of new regulations, 
              policies and agency practices.  However, these changes were 
              not quantitatively significant, and were not based on 
              official agency positions.  On January 13, 2010, the ACOE 
              issued a revised jurisdictional determination, stating for 
              the first time that it considered much of the drainage in 
              the main stem of Gregory Canyon to be waters of the United 
              States.

            The 2010 Addendum was prepared to respond to these events by 
              providing the most up-to-date information available on the 
              scope of federal and state jurisdiction over waters on the 
              landfill site, and to analyze any impacts arising from the 
              updated information.  The 2010 Addendum was prepared with 
              consideration of the 2003 Draft EIR, the RFEIR, 2008 
              Addendum, and the 2009 Water Supply Addendum.  The 
              additional analysis performed as part of the 2010 Addendum 
              showed that no significant impacts would result, which 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 13

              means a supplemental or subsequent EIR cannot be required.  
              CEQA does not require that addendums to certified EIRs be 
              circulated for public comment.  On May 7, 2010, the 
              Director of the San Diego County LEA issued a Decision 
              which adopted the 2010 Addendum.

            Trial court rulings discharging the writs issued in CEQA 
              litigation were appealed.   In both cases the trial court's 
              actions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, with the 
              final such ruling issued on March 30, 2010.  Petitions for 
              review by the Supreme Court of California were filed, but 
              denied. 

             4) Federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)  .  The U.S. 
              Army Corps of Engineers is currently preparing an 
              Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project under 
              the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  In most 
              cases where both a CEQA EIR and a federal EIS are needed 
              for the same project, the EIS is completed first in a 
              manner that can be used for CEQA purposes, or both studies 
              are done at the same time.  In this case however the need 
              for an EIS arose only recently, when the Army Corps changed 
              its jurisdictional determination.   The CEQA EIR was 
              certified before the NEPA process was underway, making 
              preparation of a joint EIR/EIS infeasible. 

              If federal agencies decide not to issue permits and 
             approvals for the landfill project based on their 
             environmental review and legal mandates, the project may not 
             go forward even if state and local permits have been issued. 
              If the project proponent is required to redesign the 
             landfill project because of federal agency permitting 
             decisions based on the federal EIS, any state or local 
             agencies required to make a further discretionary decision 
             concerning the project will need to determine whether 
             further environmental study is needed.

             5) Groundwater  .  Groundwater protection at the proposed 
              landfill involves the liner design (including a leachate 
              collection system), a subdrain system, and groundwater 
              monitoring and extraction wells.  A multiple-layer liner 
              and a leachate collection system would be installed by the 
              applicant to a design approved by the RWQCB.  The liner 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 14

              system to be installed at the proposed landfill exceeds the 
              prescriptive design standards required by RWQCB 
              regulations.  If leachate were to penetrate the top soil 
              layer, it would be collected in the upper leachate 
              collection and removal system.  If leachate were to 
              penetrate further, through the three-layer membrane and 
              clay barrier beneath the leachate collection system, there 
              is another 9 inch thick zone with gravel and drainage pipes 
              to collect liquid, with a membrane and clay barrier beneath 
              that.

            The facility also will have groundwater monitoring and water 
              production wells which are designed to detect contamination 
              and to intercept any contaminated groundwater and treat it 
              in a dedicated water treatment plant before it can reach 
              the San Luis Rey River.  These wells will be regularly 
              monitored for contamination.  The Joint Technical Document 
              (JTD) discusses and evaluates various scenarios for 
              releases and associated mitigation.  The mitigation of 
              potential releases is included in the closure cost 
              estimates and covered by the financial assurance mechanisms 
              as required by regulation.

            In addition to the financial assurance requirements provided 
              in the regulations, the applicant has agreed with the San 
              Luis Rey Municipal Water District to supply replacement 
              water and obtain a $100,000,000 environmental impact 
              liability insurance policy in the event of off-site 
              pollution impacts.

             6) Landfill Capacity  .  In general, California is not facing a 
              shortage of landfill capacity for many decades.  Regionally 
              this may differ as jurisdictions evaluate their long-term 
              waste management plans.  Jurisdictions make decisions based 
              on a variety of factors when planning for their disposal 
              needs.  It is not uncommon for waste to be shipped outside 
              the jurisdiction for reasons of capacity, cost, or 
              proximity to disposal.   Statewide disposal in 2009 was 
              31.1 million tons, a drop of 4.4 million tons from 2008.  
              While ongoing waste diversion efforts contributed to these 
              declines, several additional factors including large drops 
              in personal income and consumption, construction activity, 
              and employment suggest the recession is the primary driver 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 15

              of these decreases in overall disposal rates.  In 2009, 99 
              % of California's 31.1 million tons of disposal were 
              landfilled in state and approximately 1 percent was 
              exported to landfills out of state.  Statewide capacity for 
              existing facilities (not including planned expansions or 
              permitted, but not operating, facilities) is approximately 
              1.48 billion tons.

            For San Diego County it is estimated that there is 
              approximately 78 million tons of capacity remaining.  
              Currently the County is generating approximately 3 million 
              tons per year.  However, this is a reduction of 
              approximately 25% in the past few years that can mostly be 
              attributed to the decline in the economy.  This is in spite 
              of population growth which speaks to the strong waste 
              reduction and recycling programs being implemented by San 
              Diego County and its cities.  In 2009 San Diego County did 
              not report any exports of waste out of state.  It should be 
              noted that Sycamore Canyon Landfill is currently pursuing 
              an expansion to its facility that would in increase 
              capacity by approximately 100 million tons.  

             7) San Diego County Proposition A  .  As part of San Diego 
              County's Election on June 2010 voters approved Proposition 
              A titled "East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and 
              Landfill Ordinance."  This countywide proposition proposes 
              to develop an unincorporated 450 acre site in eastern Otay 
              Mesa into a privately owned and operated recycling 
              collection center and solid waste disposal site.  The 
              proposal would amend the County General Plan, County Zoning 
              Ordinance, and San Diego County Integrated Waste Management 
              Plan to change the designation of the 450 acre site to a 
              Solid Waste Facility; 340 acres would be used to develop 
              the facility, while the remaining 110 acres would remain 
              undeveloped.  The project would be required to comply with 
              all local, state, and federal regulations regarding 
              development practices and environmental mitigation.  On 
              November 4, 2009, the County presented an impact report 
              regarding the proposed development. 

            Findings of the report included that a full assessment of the 
              County's solid waste disposal needs has not been conducted 
              since 2005.  Therefore, it is difficult to determine the 









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 16

              full extent of Sandy Eggo County's need for increased 
              disposal capacity.  Also, amending the General Plan allows 
              the developer to avoid an approval process through which 
              the County would evaluate the merit of the project based on 
              General Plan goals and policies, as well as surrounding 
              infrastructure and land uses of adjacent property.  
              Further, the proposed amendment to the County Zoning 
              Ordinance would designate the site as a "by right" use.  
              The developers would therefore not be subject to the 
              County's Major Use Permit process.  This would limit the 
              County's ability to impose requirements related to 
              infrastructure improvements, environmental mitigation, and 
              operation practices.  According to the proponent's 
              preliminary estimates, the 340 acre site would provide a 
              physical solid waste disposal capacity of 180 million tons. 
               However, the 308 acre Gregory Canyon recycling center and 
              landfill site is projected to provide a physical capacity 
              of only 33.4 million tons.

             8) Support and Opposition Arguments  .  Supporters of SB 833 
              generally contend that the GCL project threatens the 
              region's ground and surface water supplies.  They also site 
              the destruction of a pristine, undeveloped canyon and 
              destroying acres of critical habitat for several endangered 
              species.  Also, the significant adverse impacts and damage 
              to Native American sacred sites are of paramount concerns 
              to supporters of the bill.  They cite the cultural 
              importance of Gregory Canyon and Medicine Rock that are 
              near the landfill site.

            Groups in opposition generally point to the fact that the 
              citizens of San Diego twice supported this landfill 
              project.  They also contend that the site provides needed 
              landfill space for northern San Diego County.  Further, 
              they state that the existing permitting processes with 
              extensive review and public comment provides for full 
              protection of resources.  Additionally, some contend that 
              this bill will set a precedent by overriding exiting law 
              and regulations and place statutory limits on permits.  
              Also, the San Diego County Water Authority indicates that 
              they have concerns about the impact of the landfill on its 
              ability to safely and reliably provide necessary regional 
              water supplies.









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 17



             9) Previous Legislation  . 

              a)   AB 1196 (Thompson) of 1999 prohibited the permitting 
                of a landfill situated adjacent to, contiguous with, or 
                within one mile of any portion of the exterior boundary 
                of a federal Indian reservation and one of the following 
                applies:
                   (1)       The reservation has on it a sacred or 
                     spiritual site of religious and cultural importance 
                     to a local Indian tribe.
                   (2)       A sacred or spiritual site of religious and 
                     cultural importance to a local Indian tribe is 
                     located within the facility or landfill boundary 
                     (Failed passed in Senate Environmental Quality 
                     Committee).

              b)   AB 2752 (Cardoza) of 2000 prohibited the California 
                Integrated Waste Management Board(now DRRR) from 
                concurring in a permit for a proposed solid waste 
                landfill for which a petition has been received by the 
                board from an Indian Tribe.  (Vetoed by the Governor).

              c)   SB 1828 (Burton) of 2002 amended the Surface Mining 
                and Reclamation Act of 1975 and CEQA to subject projects 
                that could affect a Native American tribe's sacred site 
                to additional conditions and approval.  (Vetoed by the 
                Governor).

             10)Related Legislation  .  AB 1178 (Ma) of 2011 prohibits a 
              local government from restricting or limiting in any way 
              the importation of solid waste based on the place of 
              origin.  This bill was approved by the Assembly Natural 
              Resources Committee on April 25, 2011 (5-3). 

            SOURCE  :        Pala Band of Mission Indians  

           SUPPORT  :       Barona Band of Mission Indians
                          California American Heritage Commission
                          California Tribal Business Alliance
                          Endangered Habitats Leauge
                          Environmental Health Coalition









                                                                SB 833
                                                                 Page 18

                          Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake
                          Jackson Rancheria Band of Miwuk Indians
                          Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
                          Natural Resources Defense Council
                          City of Oceanside
                          Pam Slater-Price, Supervisor San Diego County 
                          Board of Third District
                          Paskenta Band of Nomlaki 
                          Ramona Band of Chauilla
                          Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
                          RiverWatch
                          San Diego Coastkeeper
                          San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
                          San Pasqual Band of Dieguneo Mission Indians
                          Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians
                          Sierra Club San Diego Chapter
                          Surfrider
                          Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
            
           OPPOSITION  :    Associated General Contractors
                          Gregory Canyon, Ltd.
                          Regional Council of Rural Counties
                          San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
                          San Diego County Taxpayers Association
                          Solid Waste Association of North America
                          Waste Management