HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/18/1989, C-13 - COLD CANYON LANDFILL - or13 .
MEETING DATE:
A ri1 181 1989
City of sAn LUIS OBISPO rMM NUM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: David Romero, Public Works Director
%j
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, authorize mayor to send letter to Board of Supervisors recommending
timely action.
SUBJECT: Cold Canyon.Landfill
BACKGROUND:
On April 3, 1989 Ron Dunin and David Romero attended a meeting requested by Charles
Cattaneo, Al Rizzoli, and Tom Martin of the Cold Canyon Landfill, and Carol Florence,
Environmental Consultant for the Landfill company.
Carol outlined master planning efforts for expansion of the landfill, indicating that
they started processing the expansion request in 1986 and had now completed a master
plan, an initial study and an addendum to the initial study.
A nephew of an owner of property adjacent to the landfill has protested the adequacy of a
negative declaration and has asked for a full EIR, which the Board of Supervisors will
consider May 23.
ill company indicated that at current rates of garbage
Representatives of the Landf
production, which have accelerated since the-close of the Los Osos Landfill, the current
Cold Canyon Landfill will be completely filled in another 2 to 2 1/2 years. Site
preparation for the landfill will require 1 to 1 1/2 years, therefore, we are
approximately 1 year away from a landfill crisis. The representatives of the Landfill
company are soliciting support from cities throughout the county regarding expansion of
the landfill and timely progress on approving the environmental documents.
DISCUSSION:
On April 4, staff spoke to John Naull of the County Administrator's office. John
indicated that the staff report being prepared for the Supervisors meeting will include a
staff recommendation that the negative declaration be upheld. He indicated that all
pertinent information has already been gathered and that the processing time for a full
EIR would probably require another year, if the Board of Supervisors determines that one
should be prepared.
There are two issues here which are of vital concern to the City of San Luis Obispo.
1. The environmental report must process in a timely enough fashion that we do not
run out of landfill capacity, and
2. On a long term basis, we must continue a working landfill to dispose of trash
generated within the County.
i
A � city of San lues OBISPO
AnGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
J
Cold Canyon
Page Two
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the
Supervisors recommending that they a) follow County staff recommendation to uphold the
negative declaration, and b) proceed in a timely fashion with the expansion of the. Cold
Canyon Landfill on property currently owned by the operators of the landfill.
Staff also believes it would also be worthwhile for City Council members to express their
opinions privately in conversations with the Supervisors emphasizing the necessity of
timely action, in order to avoid a crisis for our city and the entire community.
coldcyn/dfr#16
I -
Respond by: tVICL 1 IMI n .� ..
Cv Counal ^^ DATE i. � !IE#
`Q-clyAtty. RECEIVED PLANNING 0
r.�.a.Rowsao APR 1799
crrvc Planning and Environmental Services
April 17, 1989 1SAr,I.asrAsoo CA
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council and Dave Romero,Public Works Director
FROM: Upper Edna Valley Homeowners Association
SUBJECT: Agenda Item C-13, Cold Canyon Landfill
Perspective Planning is representing the Upper Edna Valley Homeowners Association in
their effort to have a full EIR prepared for the.Cold Canyon Landfill Expansion.
Association members strongly oppose the proposed city recommendation that the County
Board_of Supervisors "uphold the negative declaration" on the landfill expansion. Their
opposition is based on the following concerns:
1) In January 1989,Perspective Planning prepared a critique of the first draft of the
expanded initial study for the proposed Cold Canyon Landfill expansion.The critique
raised a number of environmental and legal concerns that were not adequately addressed in
the county's first initial study. Enclosed,you will find a.copy of our critique.
2) The County Environmental Coordinators Office(OEC) has not completed.their final
initial study of the proposed landfill expansion. As recently as mid-February,County OEC
staff had assured us that they had not finally decided whether to recommend an EIR or a
Negative Declaradon,.and that the critique we had prepared of their first Initial Study was
going to be carefully considered before a recommendation was made. To our knowledge,
no final recommendation has been made yet, and certainly the residents near the landfill
have not had an opportunity to review nor comment on any finalized Initial Study. I would
be inappropriate and irresponsible for the.City to recommend upholding a negative
declaration prior to issuance of the final Initial Study.
The expanded landfill will clearly have significant environmental impacts on air quality,
water quality, circulation, aesthetics, and biological resources. For example,the proposed
expansion requires that an average of 290 cubic yards of soil be excavated,on site;0=
day for the next 20 years.
Recent caselaw mandates that the Cold Canyon Landfill should prepare an EIR. In a recent
case, a California Court of Appeals declared:
"Under the regulatory guidelines of CEQA, an EIR is required if'there is
substantial evidence that any aspect of the project,... may cause a significant
effect on the environment." Sundstrom v. Mendocino County, 248
Cal.Rptr. 352 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 1988)
We urge that Item C-13 be continued by your council until the final initial
study has been released by county staff and the public has had time to
comment on it, as required by CEQA.
RECEIVED
APR 1719
979 Osos St., Ste. A-3 oTyCLERK 'WJ0P a" John B. Ashbaugh, AICP
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 S'�"9'So�sw�.cA
(805) 544-8523 Principal
CRITIOUS OF THE EXPA=D INITIAL STUDY OF
COLD CANYON LANDF LL
January, 1989
The following analysis will demonstrate the substantive
inadequacy of the Expanded Initial Study as the environmental
document for the proposed expansion of the Cold Canyon
Landfill. The Initial Study was prepared by EIP Associates
of San Francisco and is dated October, 1988. Topics are
addressed generally in the same sequence as they are
presented in the Initial Study.
It is the position of our clients, the Upper Edna Valley
Residents Association, that the proposed project requires an
Environmental Impact Report . They have appealed the proposed
Negative Declaration recommended for this project by the
Office of the Environmental Coordinator. This material is
provided in support of that appeal.
We are confident that the following analysis provides "fair
argument" and substantial evidence as to the need for an EIR
on this project . If so, this critique might also contribute
to the scoping of such an EIR. The scope of work should not
necessarily be limited, however, to the topics addressed
below. Perspective Planning and our clients reserve the
right to comment further upon any proposed EIR workscope, and
on the contents of any Draft or Final EIR.
Project Description
The Expanded Initial Study is vague and imprecise with
respect to several key items : First, the proposed "Vehicle
Maintenance Area" at the southwest corner of the site is not
sufficiently described, and the applicants have stated orally
in meetings subsequent to the release of the study that this
facility is no longer part of their project . Yet their
original Master Plan submitted to the County did include
reference to a 75-vehicle parking area to be used for stor-
age, cleaning, fueling and maintenance of refuse trucks, a
15, 000 s . f. building, and parking for employee vehicles .
Secondly, the proposed "Optional Expansion Area" is not
clearly stated as to whether it is part of the Project or
not . The applicants indicate that it is part of their.
current operating permit, but they have also stated that its
development would require additional (and expensive)
groundwater monitoring programs . If it is not a part of this
project, that fact should be so stated and the parameters of
their current proposal should include a clear reference to
1
the need to modify their 1979 Departmental Review to elimi-
nate it from consideration. If they are requesting
permission to use it, then groundwater monitoring should be
begin now big the County grants this expansion proposal.
The Project Description also fails to include sufficient
graphics describing the scale of the project in relation to
surrounding properties . No reductions or to-scale drawings
of the detailed engineering plans have been included, and
there are no photographs of the existing site or the
project 's proposed height or massing in the landscape. (See
comments below under A -Gth ; ) .
Consistency with Local Planning Policy and State Regulations
There is no discussion of the proposed project as it relates
either to the Solid Waste Management Plan, the Land. Use
Element, or to other elements of the County's general plan
(Open Space, Conservation, Scenic Highways, Safety, Noise,
etc. ) . There is a single reference on page 9 to the fact
that the landfill is subject to these and (other)
regulations . Many of these regulations are now changing, in
light of improved technology for waste separation and dis-
posal and in light of the scarcity of new landfill sites .
Indeed, we are tempted to ask whether or not this project is
being pursued in such haste in order to avoid the possible
application of new amendments to State law or to the State
Administrative Code. This possibility should certainly be
considered by County decision-makers before granting this
applicant a land use permit that would freeze into place
today's technology until the year 2012 !
Furthermore, the Expanded Initial Study does not include any
data regarding the compliance of the landfill operation with
the APCD, County Environmental Health, or RWQCB regulations .
An Environmental Impact Report, if it is to be reasonably
comprehensive, would also address the probable effect of new
regulations now being studied by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission that could permit this site to accept low-level
radioactive wastes; recently, the NRC published draft
regulations that would significantly lower their threshold as
to the type of wastes that the NRC considers "beneath
regulatory concern" .
Finally, the Project Description fails to account for the
possible future use of this site for a recycling facility, a
transfer station for hazardous waste, or any other types of
uses that are related to and supportive of a landfill
operation . The Master Plan for the landfill site should be
prepared with those probable future uses in mind, and an EIR
should assess them to the degree that there is a reasonably
foreseeable probability of their being proposed for the site.
2
I
1
Biologi -ai Resource.-
The
-Go c .-
The Expanded Initial Study states that there would be no
significant effect to wildlife, in spite of the proposed
removal of 12 .5 acres of oak woodland habitat . Furthermore,
the report states categorically on page 12 that there is no
wetland habitat on the site . There probably 1a wetland
habitat, however, within the lower reaches of the swales
draining the property; there may also be wetland within the
"Optional Expansion Area" since the topography reveals that
there may be sag ponds or other undrained landforms in that
reach (possibly resulting from the Indian Knob fault
underlying the site) . The archaeological report even refers
to this area as being "moist" (p . 39 of the Expanded Initial
Study) . These areas should be investigated by a qualified
botanist and by a wildlife biologist . No such survey was
performed for the Expanded Initial Study, and there is no
statement in the report as to authorship or qualifications of
the authors.
There are also substantial effects on the native wildlife and
food chain in the area by the landfill 's encouragement of
predator mammals and scavenger birds . In the vicinity, it is
possible to observe golden eagle, blue heron, and many
species of ducks and geese . These species are not mentioned,
and the effects of the landfill operation are not addressed.
Contamination of nearby wetlands by windborne or scavenger-
borne litter is a problem noted by nearby residents . Also, a
large population of turkey vultures and seagulls inhabit the
site or nearby areas, feeding at the landfill. Other
scavenger mammals and rodents are widely prevalent in the
vicinity of the dump, including feral cats and dogs . What
effect do these populations have on other native species in
the nearby area?
Vegetation
We have commented above on the lack of a professional
botanical survey of the landfill site, which would probably
reveal the existence of wetland species in swales and bog
areas . The proposed re-planting of 12 .5 acres of oak
woodland habitat is commendable, but there is no guarantee
that the oak woodland to be created on the completed landfill
would be effective. Even asexually-reproduced oaks would
have a difficult time becoming established on the landfill.
Are there other, off-site locations that would be preferable
as mitigation? If so, where? What kind of performance bond
or other guarantee would be sufficient to assure that the
oaks would be properly monitored and maintained?
3
Water R soy ea
The Initial Study fails even to mention the quantity of water
that the expanded project would use . The Study refers to
wells that supply the present landfill- operation. However,
no mention is made about the adequacy of these resources to
service the expanded landfill .
For years, our clients have complained about the dust
generated by the landfill . Unpaved roads, unvegetated
hillsides and large quantities of soil excavation all
contribute to the dust problem. The proposed landfill
expansion requires that an average of 290 cubic yards of soil
be excavated, on-site, every day for the next 20 years . The
Initial Study suggests that fugitive dust from the expanded
landfill will be controlled by "a more extensive program of
watering. " How much water will be needed to control the
dust? Where will the water come from? Will this additional
water extraction have an impact on surrounding water users?
What is the original quality of this water to be used for
spraying? All these issues are ignored in the Final Initial
Study.
We also noted that the hydrogeologic report completed by the
project applicant had identified a significant problem with
chemical oxygen demand in one of the production wells, with a
reading of 149 mg/1 . At another monitoring well, the reading
was also relatively high (59 mg/1) . These concentrations
indicate the possibility of leachate into the groundwater,
although the EMCON authors dismiss this possibility and cite
the presence of naturally-occurring hydrocarbons in the area.
At what depth are such hydrocarbons present? Does their
presence really point to the conclusion offered by the
applicant 's engineers? Either of these readings alone should
be grounds for the County to require an EIR. Groundwater
contamination is a real possibility.
Well levels and pumping records in the project vicinity
provide evidence of a continuous groundwater basin that is
highly inter-related and relatively shallow. This evidence
was certainly available to the authors, had they bothered to
inquire, and it clearly should have been studied and the
results of such studies incorporated into an EIR. We
suggest, for example, that an EIR author be requested to
speak to all of the following neighbors:
Weir: This property immediately east of the landfill
has been in the same family ownership for four
generations, with a fifth and sixth (Lucian, now almost
2 years old) now residing on the property. Wells
immediately east of the project site were providing
4
excellent quality groundwater as recently as 20 years
ago, but are unsuitable for domestic use today. The
Expanded Initial Study attributes this decline and that
of other neighboring wells to "local geologic deposits
and the influence of petroleum occurrences . . . (or)
anaerobic bacterial action" . To what extent is the
landfill responsible for this decline?
Blocher: This property immediately downstream of the
primary landfill site and located to the southeast has
been substantially improved in recent years for a horse
ranch, and a very costly water filtration system
installed. This filtration system. is necessary for
reducing a number of unpleasant or unhealthful
compounds, and the report should note this water quality
data and describe its significance relative to the
landfill.
Viles : This well is located within 200 ' of the landfill
property, and is actively used for domestic purposes .
Mr. Viles has noted a significant decline in quality in
recent years, however, and is considering the use of
bottled water.
McChesney: This property to the east of Weir has been
in the same family for four generations . Mr. Leroy
McChesney, a consulting mechanical engineer with
experience in geology, has reviewed the hydrogeology
report and cites several deficiencies . His experience
with wells in the area indicates that the contact zone
between the Pismo and Monterey formations, which
underlie the project site, is' a point of migration of
groundwater and a potential source of leachate
contamination. As evidence, he notes that a well
drilled into this contaot zone on their property, when
test-pumped, yielded a substantial decline in well
levels on the Weir property along the same contact zone.
The same contact zone extends from the landfill to the
west, where it could allow groundwater migration and
contamination into the Price Creek area which drains to
the City of Pismo Beach.
The hydrogeology report is wholly inadequate as a basis for
an environmental document in one glaring omission: It does
not attempt to estimate any future impact of the expanded
landfill . It has only given the current operation a clean
bill of health--and we regard that bill as questionable at
best .
Drainage and Sedimentation
5
The Expanded Initial Study states the project will have no
impact on off-site drainage facilities . Yet it is also true
that the completed landfill will be sealed to prevent water
from infiltrating into the soil, thus requiring that it
either evapotranspire off or end upas surface runoff. Since
it is far more likely that rainfall will end up as surface
runoff, the landfill would appear to create significantly
increased total runoff as well as potentially higher peak
runoff. These drainage concerns are not addressed in the Ex-
panded Initial Study, and are further substantial evidence of
significant environmental impacts . Yet in spite of this, the
study states "The proposed landfill expansion is not expected
to significant affect surface water quantities" (p. 20) .
Air Quality Tmpa _ s
The Expanded Initial Study is based entirely on an Air
Quality Solid Waste Assessment study that is required of all
landfills under recent State legislation. This "ASWAT", as
it is known, was reviewed in Planning Department files (a
copy of the study was not provided to the appellants) , and
one salient fact emerged: One of the five probes tested did
reveal that methane gas was being generated and was
"probably" escaping offsite. The ASWAT author concluded,
however, that this impact was not significant since it
"probably" did not reach any of the neighboring residences .
Nowhere does the air quality study attempt to forecast
whether or not a landfill six times larger than the present
landfill would have any significant air quality impacts .
For reasons that are unexplained and unexplainable, however,
the Expanded Initial Study concludes that air quality impacts
of the proposed project are not significant . This in spite
of the fact that the APCD had not even concluded their review
of the ASWAT. This is only one of several gross defects in
the air quality portion of the Expanded Initial Study.
As mentioned above, the proposed landfill expansion requires
that an average of 290 cubic yards of soil be excavated every
day, for the next 20 years . This is equivalent to 32 dump
truck loads per day, for a total of 2, 078, 000 cubic yards .
An additional 241, 900 cubic yards of top soil will be
imported if the Optional Area is used. Excavating such large
quantities of soil on a daily basis will generate tremendous
quantities of dust. The neighbors in the area have complained
about the dust problem for years . The Initial Study makes no
attempt to quantify this impact, and merely states that "the
current level of dust control watering would be continued at
the expansion area" (p. 27) .
Existing generation of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) by
the landfill has never been measured. Without this baseline.
6
I
4�
information, it is impossible to assess the potential
environmental impact of the landfill expansion. Nevertheless,
the Initial Study concludes "no significant air quality
impact" . Making this conclusion, with no basis of fact,
appears to be. a violation of CEQA.
The EMCON report references the heavy equipment used at the
landfill, including bulldozers, earthscrapers, a grader, a
watering truck and a compactor. However, the Initial Study
fails to discuss the air pollutants that will be generated by
this equipment, let alone the cumulative effects of the heavy
equipment use in coninnrtion with-existing and_ xpan_ aed trek
traffic. More importantly, the Initial Study ignores the
project 's potential air quality impacts in relation to the
County APCD "thresholds of significance" for various air
pollutants, including NOx. CO, and Total Suspended
Particulates . What are the rates of emission from the
existing facility? What will emissions be from the expanded
facility?
It should be noted here that Perspective Planning completed
an Environmental Impact Report of the Doty Sand Quarry near
Goleta in 1987; that project proposed excavating roughly the
same quantity of earth as this proposed landfill. Our EIR
concluded that NOx emissions from the heavy equipment and
vehicles servicing this proposed quarry would be over s-tX
times in excess of this County's Threshold of Significance--
i.e . , about 30 lbs/peak hour.
The Initial Study also fails to discuss the air pollutants
that will be generated by the vehicles bringing trash to the
landfill. There is no way to assess this impact, because
there is absolutely no information in the Initial Study nor
the EMCON report about the number of vehicles that will visit
the landfill site. A sound air quality study would compare
air quality impacts of truck traffic to and from this site in
relation to other alternative landfill sites--however, the
Expanded Initial Study discusses no alternative landfill
sites .
Presently, there is a shallow buffer zone between the
landfill and nearby residences . This buffer helps to reduce
the negative impacts of landfill-generated dust . The proposed
landfill expansion will eliminate much of this buffer, but
the Initial Study ignores the negative impacts this will have
on air quality in the nearby residences .
This lack of information about potentially significant
impacts to air quality certainly justifies an EIR.
Air Safety Impacts
7
The Initial Study correctly notes the potential danger of
aircraft striking birds which have been attracted by
landfills . For that reason, the Federal Aviation
Administration requires that landfills be located at least
5, 000 feet from any airport operating propellor aircraft .
The Initial Study acknowledges the airstrip located on the
Weir property, within 200 feet of the proposed landfill
expansion . However, the Initial Study fails to acknowledge
the potential violation of federal aviation law if the
landfill is allowed to expand and interfere with the Weir
airfield operation.
Several of the pilots using the Weir airfield have expressed
concern that the landfill expansion will significantly
increase the amount of air turbulence for departing
airplanes . The terrain near the end of the airstrip will be
substantially changed when the landfill is completed. A wind
dispersion model should be performed to determine the effects
of this new mountain on the viability of the airstrip. This
possibility is not adequately addressed in the Initial Study.
The control of gulls and other scavenger birds has not been
sufficiently addressed in the Expanded Initial Study. These
bird populations are increasingly hazardous not only to use
of the Weir airstrip, but also potentially to commercial
planes that fly directly over or near the landfill in their
approach to San Luis Obispo County airport . Bird control
measures cited in the study include expanded use of
monofilament line, but it concedes that the effectiveness of
this measure is not known and may need to be supplemented--
indeed, one of the measures discussed is to reduce the
working face of the landfill, yet this expansion project
would, if anything, necessitate an enlarged working face due
to the expanded traffic and use of the landfill as the area
grows and as the waste from the Turri Road site is hauled
into this site.
Disease Ventors
The Initial Study does not adequately address the potential
impact of disease vectors, legally and illegally transported
to the landfill . It merely states that there is no public
health hazard at this time . This avoids the responsibility
of an environmental document to estimate potential impacts,
describe their degree of significance, and propose mitigation
measures .
Page 22 of the Final Initial Study states :
"under current law, small quantity generators of
infectious waste, such as doctors ' offices and
8'
i
i
clinics, which generate less than 100 kilograms of
infectious waste per month may legally dispose of
such waste at Class III landfills such as Cold
Canyon. "
"there is still the possibility that potentially
hazardous or toxic materials could enter the
landfill in illegal loads or in small amounts
incorporated within domestic refuse. "
Despite the presence of potential disease sources, there are
no provisions for regular, on-site monitoring of dust
generated by the landfill. In fact, Total Suspended
Particulates (TSP) generated from the landfill site have
never been measured. Although the neighbors regularly
complain about the dust, there is no way for the County's Air
Pollution Control District to determine the degree of health
hazard, because they lack the necessary mobile equipment .
Therefore the possibility exists that unhealthy levels of
dust and undetected disease vectors may be carried off-site
by the wind.
The numerous scavenger birds that inhabit the landfill may
also contribute to the transport of potential disease
vectors . The Initial Study tries to discount this possibility
with the ambiguous statement,
"In San Luis Obispo County, there is no
documentation of such public health threats
associated with gulls at landfills . " (pp. 29)
We suspect that the Initial Study deceptively implies that
scavenger birds do not pose health threats, when in fact,
nobody knows for certain. An EIR would address this issue
more thoroughly.
The Initial Study states :
"In the past, domestic animals such as cats have
been abandoned by their owners at locations
including the Cold Canyon Landfill. While the
existence of feral animals can have adverse impacts
on wildlife or public health, this effect is
attributable to the actions of pet owners rather
than the operation of the Landfill. " (pp.30)
This logic completely discounts potential adverse health
impacts. Since the landfill attracts the abandoned animals,
mitigation measures to control them must be addressed. This
statement is one of the best examples of the failure of this
study to take the responsibility of CEQA seriously, by
failing to address the cumulative and related activities
9
associated with a proposed project--whether or not they are
part of the formal proposal by the applicants .
The problem of trash dumped on the side of roads near the
landfill is also ignored in the Initial Study. What happens
when someone arrives at the landfill after closing hours with
a pick-up truck load of trash? Neighbors in the area suggest
that, too often, those loads end up on the side of back roads
in the area, or in their driveways . Those impacts need to be
addressed in an EIR.
Traffin
The Initial Study erroneously states that the proposed
landfill expansion would not alter the number of vehicle
trips to the site. If the proposed expansion is not
allowed, the landfill will close in 1994 and all landfill
related traffic will end. Extending the landfill 's life to
2012 also prolongs the landfill-generated traffic along
Highway 227 . The cumulative impact of this traffic is not
discussed at all in the Initial Study.
Furthermore, the County Planning Department projects a 50%
population increase in the area served by the Cold Canyon
Landfill, by the year 2010 . This population increase will
certainly accelerate the waste stream at the Cold Canyon
Landfill, resulting in more truck traffic along Hwy. 227 .
The Initial Study completely ignores this issue.
The Cold Canyon Landfill Master Plan states :
"The southwest corner of the landfill is currently being
studied as the future location for the San Luis Garbage
Service Company vehicle maintenance area.
"If the study proves favorable and the San Luis
Garbage Company is relocated to the landfill, the
yard will include the following:
-- A 15, 000 square foot building
- Facilities for cleaning, fueling and servicing
75 garbage trucks
-- Parking for 75 trucks and employee vehicles"
Page 6 of the Initial Study delineates the location of the
"future maintenance area" on a map of the landfill project
site. However, there is no discussion in the Initial Study
about the potential negative impacts of establishing a
facility that constitutes essentially a major truck terminal
at the Cold Canyon landfill .
10
The entrance to the landfill has been identified by residents
as hazardous . The Initial Study states that, "the applicant
plans to improve the intersection of the access road and
Highway 227 in a manner approved by Caltrans, although the
type of improvement has not yet been determined. "
Mitigation measures need to be spelled out in detail within
the Initial Study. Simply saying that an improvement will be
made to the satisfaction of Caltrans is inadequate . The fact
is, Caltrans did not receive a copy of the Initial Study
until January 10, 1989, more than a month after the County
Environmental Coordinator's office issued a Negative
Declaration of the project . Nevertheless, the Initial Study
incorrectly implied that Caltrans was closely involved in
reviewing the project .
During the rainy season, mud is carried onto Highway 227 by
trucks leaving .the landfill. The high clay content of the
landfill 's native soils makes the mud particularly slippery
at this already dangerous intersection. The Initial Study
fails to address this significant impact.
Potential Alternativel
Under CEQA, an Initial Study does not have to examine
potential alternatives to a proposed project.. In contrast, an
EIR would be required to present a range of potential
alternatives, including (but not limited to) :
-- alternative landfill sites within the county;
-- a comprehensive recycling program;
-- a reduced-scale landfill--as well as the "no project"
option.
In order to make a sound decision on this proposed expansion
of the landfill, the Board of Supervisors and Planning
Commission must be provided a realistic appraisal of these
and other feasible alternatives . This discussion does not
need to be exhaustive, but it must meet the test of recent
caselaw (most notably the Laurel Heights case) .
Geologic Hazards
The Emcon Report on the landfill ' s geology states that the
underlying bedrock is, "characterized by dipping sedimentary
strata, which have been faulted and fractured. " The report
states that the Indian Knob Fault traverses the landfill
site. In January 1987, groundwater samples were analyzed from
five monitoring wells located on the landfill site . Based on
this single analysis, the applicant 's consultant concluded
that no groundwater contamination has occurred at the
landfill from the existing operation . Because of the area's
11
Ix
complex geology, with its numerous faults, we feel that a
more thorough groundwater analysis needs to be conducted to
determine the extent of groundwater contamination.
Attachment D of the Emcon report states that,
"The Optional Landfill Expansion Area was presented
separately from the main landfill expansion because
of its location north of the Indian Knob Fault .
Before filling this optional area, a substantial
cost expenditure will be necessary to provide
proper monitoring of the groundwater north of the
fault. "
If the County is to approve the landfill expansion, including
the optional area referred to above, it needs to know about
all the costs associated with groundwater monitoring. The
Initial Study fails to address this issue.
Aesthet i ns
The landfill will have a significant and adverse effect on
area aesthetics, both during its extended duration as an
active landfill and into the long-term future . The current
facility is already having an adverse effect, and is
responsible for depressing property values throughout the
area. Views from Highway 227, Orcutt Road, and Corbett
Canyon Road are adversely affected by the prominent scars on
the high hillsides. It is incorrect to suggest, as stated in
the Expanded Initial Study, that "The portions of the site
that are visible are small and not visually significant . "
The Initial Study notes that the expanded landfill would
eliminate any significant buffer area between the landfill
and neighoring properties or Highway 227 . In stating that no
significant aesthetic impact would occur, it rests its case
entirely on the success of the proposed "Revegetation and
Screening" program. The effectiveness of this proposed
revegetation and screening is highly questionable, both in
the short- and long-term, in light of the fact that the
landfill could generate methane that is lethal to plant
material. Additionally, there is no discussion of the fact
that the combination of a new, 200-foot mountain and the
required screening material, even if effective, would
significantly alter the topographic and vegetative character
of the surroundings . Perspective Planning has prepared
display boards illustrating these impacts of scale; this
material has been reviewed by County staff and is available
(at cost) for purposes of the EIR, if desired.
There is no discussion of the light and glare impacts of
the proposed vehicle maintenance area or landfill entry.
12
These impacts, too, should be considered and addressed
in view of the fact that this facility is surrounded by
open countryside that (with the exception of the
landfill site) could easily be characterized as
aesthetically pleasing and rural in character.
Archaeology
This section relies upon a report by Mr. Charles Dills,
completed in 1980, that was not included in the Expanded
Initial Study even though it is cited both in the text and
the Table of Contents . We understand that it is County prac-
tice not to distribute such reports but the Expanded Initial
Study is in error by stating that it would be included. Upon
review of the report in the Planning Department files, it
appears to be a 2-page "once over" - that is not adequate by
today's standards . Mr. Dills may be qualified by the Office
of the Environmental Coordinator, but he is not a
professional archaeologist and there are many other
archaeologists working locally whose work is far superior to
Mr. Dills . A professional survey should be completed as
part of an EIR, and if sub-surface testing is required by
them it should be conducted prior to certification of the
EIR.
Liber
The Expanded Initial Study fails to note the inherent
disadvantages of this site over other alternatives by nature
of its windswept location and the fact that wind-borne litter
is so likely to end up on any of several other neighboring
properties . The proposed mitigations are entirely
inadequate; they include unspecified additional height on a
litter fence, more litter collectors (who must often trespass
in order to collect the litter) , and trees and vegetation
(to be planted aftgr the landfill is completed) . The single
most effective mitigation to litter is daily cover of the
working face with an adequate lift of soil, although the
effectiveness of this mitigation is questionable in light of
the exposed location of the proposed expanded landfill . Yet
even this mitigation is not proposed or recommended in the
Expanded Initial Study.
Ai u1 tura
The Initial Study fails to note that the project is adjacent
to an agricultural preserve. Livestock operations on the
Weir property have been ceased, due in part to concerns about
sheep ingesting contaminated litter from the landfill. The
expanded landfill could jeopardize several nearby operations,
13
i
through direct impacts such as litter or through groundwater
or air pollution. It is also highly unlikely that the
completed landfill could be "returned to non-irrigated
grazing or other agricultural uses" as suggested in the
report, given the steep slopes of the completed landfill and
due to the fact that grass cover would probably be difficult
to establish.
Summary
This critique has demonstrated that the Expanded Initial
Study provided by the applicant has serious flaws; that
entire categories of environmental impact have been omitted
from any serious discussion; and that the County has not
addressed the fundamental goals of CEQA: To provide full
disclosure to "an apprehensive citizenry" as to the nature
and degree of environmental impacts, and to provide assurance
that such impacts have been mitigated and all reasonable
alternatives studied.
Perhaps the most flagrant example of the failure of the
Expanded Initial Study to provide .serious discussion is the
last sentence in the document, which comprises the single
word "No" in answer- to the question "Will the environmental
effect of the project cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?" Our response
to such a question is a vociferous YES-=and, we have prepared
and provided above substantial data to support this
conclusion.
We trust that the above analysis has provided "fair argument"
to the question as to whether the proposed project could have
a significant environmental impact .
14
i
24 January 1989
To: Office of Environmental Coordinator and County Counsel
From: John B. Ashbaugh, AICP
Re: Analysis of legal and procedural tests for issuing Negative
Declarations versus an EIR as set forth in the 1988 Sund-
strom case and other caselaw
It is abundantly clear from recent caselaw that the Cold Canyon
Landfill should be required. to prepare an EIR. For example, in
Friends of "B" Street (1980) , the courts stated the test in this
manner:
If a local agency is required to secure preparation
of an EIR 'whenever it can be fairly argued on the
basis of substantial evidence that the project may
have significant environmental impact' , then an agen-
cy's adoption of a negative declaration. is not to be
upheld merely because substantial evidence was pre-
sented that the project would not have such impact.
The court's function is to determine whether substan-
tial evidence supported the agency' s conclusion as to
whether the prescribed ' fair argument' could be made.
If there was substantial evidence that the project
might have a significant environmental impact,
evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support
a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and
adopt a negative declaration. " (emphasis in the
original) .
Comment: This case has established that persons challenging a
proposed Negative Declaration have a lower burden of proof than
the agency; we are obligated to present only a "fair argument"
that the project may have a significant effect. We believe that
we meet (and, indeed, have exceeded) this test by submitting the
attached critique of the Expanded Initial Study.
The reasoning of Friends of B Street was used at least as
recently as 1986 in the Chamberlin v. City of Palo Alto
case (230 Cal. Rptr. 454) . An even more pertinent case on
point is the recent Sundstrom v. Mendocino County, 248
Cal.Rptr. 352 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 1988) . Excerpts and
commentary are provided below:
"The requirement that the applicant adopt mitigation
measures recommended in a future study is in direct
1
conflict with the guidelines implementing CEQA.
California Administrative Code, title 14 , section
15070, subdivision (b) (1) provides that if the appli-
cant proposes measures that will mitigate environ-
mental effects, the project plans must be revised to
incorporate these mitigation measures 'before the
proposed negative declaration is released for public
review. . . ' Here, the use permit contemplates that
the project plans may be revised to incorporate
needed mitigation measures after the final adoption
of the negative declaration. This procedure . . . is
contrary to law.
"By deferring environmental assessment to a future
date, the conditions run counter to that policy of
CEQA which requires environmental review at the
earliest feasible stage of the planning process. . .
Environmental problems should be considered at a
point in the planning process 'where genuine flexibi-
lity remains. . . A study conducted after approval of
a project will inevitably have a diminished influence
on decision making. Even if the study is subject to
administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort
of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that
has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing
CEQA. " (p. 358)
Comment: There are several examples in the Initial Study where
potential environmental impacts are not estimated nor any miti-
gation measures proposed; instead the Environmental Coordinator
proposes to estimate and/or control such effects in some future
mitigation measures or studies. For example, in discussing "Sub=
stantial Air Emissions" , on page 26, the Initial Study states:
"An Air Quality Solid Waste Assessment Test (ASWAT)
has been performed for the Cold Canyon Landfill and
is currently being evaluated by the County Air Pollu-
tion Control District. The District has not yet made
a determination of what air pollution control ac-
tions, if any, will be required of the landfill. . . . "
Further, in recommending mitigation measures to control air emis-
sions, the Initial Study ducks the issue by stating:
"The Landfill is under the regulatory authority of
the County Air Pollution Control District. In
addition to the District, the State Air Resources
Board has the authority to require mitigation
measures to protect air quality. "
2
This is a clear example where incomplete information is used in
the Initial Study to form unsupportable conclusions. More impor-
tantly, the Initial Study concludes that the applicant may be
required to adopt future mitigation measures, based on recommen-
dations in a future study. As stated above, this method of
mitigation is in direct conflict with CEQA and its implementing
guidelines.
In discussing impacts on Groundwater Quality, the Initial Study
also fails to address what impact, if any, the existing landfill
operation is having on groundwater supplies. It makes no effort
to forecast what effect the proposed landfill, with 4-5 times the
permitted capacity, would have upon groundwater. The Initial
Study does acknowledge that groundwater quality in the vicinity
of the project is highly variable. Pertinent excerpts from pages
19 and 20 of the Initial Study are included below:
"Groundwater quality could potentially be further
degraded as a result of leachate migration. . .
"a leachate collection and removal system would be
included for all future areas of the landfill. . . "
"A disposal plan for the accumulated leachate is not
included in the EMCON engineering report. . . "
"In order to assure that groundwater resources are
being protected, a groundwater monitoring program is
included as part of the project. . . "
Comment: Proposed Mitigation Measures to control groundwater con-
tamination are evasive and deferential to a future date. They
state:
"The project is under the regulatory authority of the
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
"To ensure proper functioning of the leachate collec-
tion and removal system, a disposal plan for collec-
ted leachate, including appropriate treatment and
disposal methods, would be included in the proposed
project. "
Comment: Again, these mitigation measures are unclear and imply
that unknown, additional mitigation measures might be required in
the future by other agencies. The public and neighboring
landowners are urged to be contented with the nebulous results of
future monitoring tests and , control systems of uncertain
3
I
effectiveness--many of which are not explicitly included in the
original project, or even the modified project.
In discussing Traffic Impacts, the Initial Study states, on page
33 , the following:
"The intersection of the existing Cold Canyon Land-
fill entrance and Highway 227 has experienced 21
accidents between 1977 and 1986. "
In spite of this fact, on page 34, the report continues:
"No measures are required to mitigate effects of the
proposed project; however, the applicant plans to
improve the intersection of the access road and
Highway 227 in a manner approved by Caltrans,
although the type of improvement has not been
determined. "
Comment: This statement is another example of the manner in
which this document has deferred or delayed any definitive
mitigation measures, in violation of CEQA. Indeed, Caltrans
staff confirmed that they never reviewed the proposed project
prior to the County staff's issuance of the Negative Declaration.
After reviewing the proposal on January 10, 1989 , Caltrans
requested that the County require a left-turn pocket to mitigate
the access problems. At a meeting before the County's Solid
Waste Management Committee on that same date, however, the Envi-
ronmental Coordinator's staff noted that no fewer than four
alternative types of traffic mitigation for the intersection were
being discussed. None of these mitigation alternatives had yet
been incorporated into the project, nor had any of this informa-
tion been included in the document which had been circulated for
public or agency review. I
Additional excerpts from Associate Justice Newsom's findings that
pertain to the Cold Canyon Landfill Expansion include the follow-
ing:
"Under the regulatory guidelines of CEQA, an EIR is
required if ' there is substantial evidence that any
aspect of the project, . . . may cause a significant
effect on the environment, . . . ' (Cal. Admin. Code, tit.
14 , sec 15063 (b) (1) ) . . . Public Resources Code,
section 21083 , subdivision (a) underscores the con-
cept of potential effects by requiring a finding that
4
a project may have a significant effect on the envi-
ronment if the ' project,_ has the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment ' .
"CEQA places the burden of environmental investiga-
tion on government rather than the public. If the
local agency has failed to study an area of possible
environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on
the limited facts in the record. Deficiences in the
record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argu-
ment by lending a logical plausibility to a wider
range of inferences . " (p. 360, emphasis added) .
Comment: The County has, to date, taken the position that the
Cold Canyon Landfill expansion can be awarded a Negative Declara-
tion because the applicant 's own monitoring studies of the
current operation have not shown conclusively that significant
effects are occurring to air or water quality. We have raised
several issues with these monitoring data; moreover, we have
point out that the monitoring studies do not (as required by
CEQA) estimate the probable significance of the expanded landfill
or its effects on air or water quality. In addition, there area
host of other issues concerning aesthetics, litter, wildlife,
vegetation, drainage, aviation safety, noise, and even archaeo-
logical resources that have been summarily dismissed or ignored
altogether within the Expanded Initial Study.
There is a larger issue here, however. Is not the County
required to prove conclusively that the landfill will have no
significant environmental effect in any aspect, in issuing a
Negative Declaration? Or does the County take the position that
the neighbors of the landfill must bear the burden of investi-
gating these impacts properly? As pointed out by Justice Newsom,
this procedure is contrary to the spirit as well as the letter of
CEQA.
Below, we provide a detailed critique of several potential im-
pacts that are not adequately addressed in the Initial Study. As
stated above by Justice Newsom, the burden of proof is on the
County to show that no significant impacts will occur from any
aspect of the project We feel the County ' s Initial Study fails
utterly to bear this burden, and we urge that a full Environ-
mental Impact Report be required by your Board.
5
nespona oy:
Moeounct IV!;ETING AGENDA
cA0TW D: E ITEM #
L&M Atty.
[&Oerk-prig..
&A tamed e
April 17, 1989 Z-T• r.,.
�iaE
Dear Mayor Dunin and City Council members.
I am unable to be present at tonight's meeting due to a prior commitment.
As a result, I am requesting that this letter be accepted into this evening's
record. My letter is in regard to item #13 on the consent agenda: Council
approval for a Negative Declaration of an Environmental Impact Report for
the Cold Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project.
The Cold Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project is being pushed quickly
through the environmental review process, purportedly under the auspices
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)--but in such a way as to
make a mockery of this extremely important environmental statute. CEQA
requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage of the planning
process. 'The Initial Study for the Cold Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion
Project, generated by EIP Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, fails to review
numerous environmental issues, including ground water contamination from
landfill-produced leachate and air pollution from particulate and chemical
release. These issues are deferred to a later date by the Initial Study and its
subsequent manifestations.
The Council is being asked to give their consent to a Negative Declaration
that gets its basis from future inadeauate mitigation measures (as they are
based on an inadequate environmental reviewl) the applicant has agreed to
carry out at some "later" date. Any further environmental studies, after
approval of the project based on the issuance of the Negative Declaration,
will most definitely have a diminished effect on this "later" decision making.
CEQA and the courts have recognized this glaring dichotomy. According to
Section 15070, subdivision (b)(1), if the applicant proposes measures that
will mitigate environmental effects, the project plans must be revised to
incorporate these mitigation measures before the proposed negative
declaration is released for public review and possible acceptance. The whole
affair surrounding the Cold Canyon Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project,
complete with its numerous Initial Studies (the latest of which is still being
circulated for comments!), has been carried out contrary to law.
By consenting to the issuance of this Negative Declaration, rather than calling
for the legally required exhaustive environmental review of the project--as
would occur with an Environmental Impact Report--the Council would be
lending credence to an obviously improper abuse of the spirit, as well as the
letter of the law, that is the California Environmental Quality Act.
RECEIVED
APR 18 1989
CST-Jrc' v M010J4/
r
I am alarmed at the possibility of the Cold Canyon Sanitary Landfill
Expansion Project being approved with no exhaustive environmental review
taking place. If such an action were to occur, it would do so illegally and in
the face of woefully inadequate (and even nonexistent) water and air
monitoring. The Initial Study does not even come close to providing the
legally and ecologically necessary review of current, as well as anticipated,
landfill practices. This has put nearby residents, as well was the entice
community of San Luis Obispo County, in jeopardy. I urge the Council to
respond to this ludicrous situation by pulling the Cold Canyon Sanitary
Landfill Expansion Project Negative Declaration from the consent agenda and
joining with their constituency in calling for a long overdue Environmental
Impact Report on this project.
Sincerely,
Karen A. Leone
410 North Chorro Drive, No. 3
San Luis Obispo, California 93401