BILL ANALYSIS �
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