Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1989, 9 - UPDATE ON COLD CANYON LANDFILL SITE EXPANSION June 6, 1989 city of San Luis OBlspo - -YO-7g COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM: Penny Rappa, Councilwoman By: Michael Dolder Fire Chief _ SUBJECT: Update on Cold Canyon Landfill Site Expansion RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report. BACKGROUND Cold Canyon Sanitary Landfill is located on a 121 acre site off of State Highway 227, approximately six miles southeast'of San Luis Obispo. The proposed project would expand the landfill area by 22 acres, from the current 39 acres to 61 acres. The site expansion would increase the Landfill's allowable fill volume by an additional 4.8 million cubic yards and add approximately 10 years to the life of the landfill site. Without the expansion, the landfill will reach capacity in 1992. The proposed expansion includes landscaping, drainage facilities, sedimentation basins and re-routed access roads. A Master Plan for the Cold Canyon Landfill prepared by EMCON Associates was submitted to the County in July of 1987. The County's Office of Environmental Coordinator completed the Final Initial Study of the Cold Canyon Sanitary Landfill Site Expansion in October, 1988. (Reference #1 in City Clerk's Office.) The Environmental Coordinator, as part of this final initial study, issued a negative declaration on the % landfill expansion. The negative declaration for the Landfill expansion has been appealed. The proponents represented by John Ashbaugh are requesting that an EIR on the expansion be completed. A critique of the initial study and comments supporting their request for an EIR are contained in Attachment "A" dated January 24, 1989. The Solid Waste Commission has reviewed the Final Initial Study and the materials presented by John Ashbaugh's group. As a result of this review, the Solid Waste Commission requested more information regarding the following issues: a. Groundwater Quality b. Air Quality C. Traffic and Circulation d. Public Health and Safety e. Cumulative Effects of Los Osos Landfill closure f. Enforcement Procedures g. Alternatives EIP Associates, under contract with the County prepared an Addendum to the Final Initial Study dated May, 1989. (Reference #2 in City Clerk's Office.) A summary of the Final Initial Study and the Addendum to the Final Initial Study for Cold Canyon are found in Attachment B. The Solid Waste Commission at its May 18, 1989 meeting reviewed all the materials and took public testimony and voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they uphold the appeal and require an EIR of Site Expansion of Cold Canyon Sanitary Landfill. The Board will consider the Final Initial Study, the Addendum to the Final Initial Study and the Solid Waste Commission Recommendation at the June 13th Board meeting. 9? / _! 'I11i0pP §j city of San Luis OBISPO MENZa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT On June 2, 1989, a meeting will be held with City staff and representatives of the Landfill to discuss the Landfill expansion. Additional information resulting from this meeting will be presented to Council. RECOMMENDATION Receive and file report. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Analysis of legal and procedural tests for issuing a negative declaration versus an EIR and critique of the Initial Study: Attachment B Summary of the Final Initial Study and Addendum to the Cold Canyon Sanitary Landfill Site Expansion Plan. Reference #1 - Final Initial Study - October, 1988 on file with the City Clerk Reference #2 - Addendum to the Final Initial Study May, 1989 on file with the City Clerk Reference SP1 and #2 available in the Council Office for inspection. F b Attachment -IL 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 q-3 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 rev:Lsed tc ro-a 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. . . lavircnmental 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. i This is a clear example where incomplete information is used in T unsupportable conclusions. More impor- the Initial Study to form concludes ' that the applicant may be tantly, the Initial Study based n recommen- required to adopt future mitigation measuabove, this method of dations in a future study. mitigation is in direct conflict with CEQA and its implementing guidelines. In discussing impacts on Groundwater Quality the existing landfill the Initial Study also fails to address what impact, if any, th operation is .having on groundwater supplies. It makes effort with 4 to forecast what effect the proposed landfill, T Initial times the The permitted capacity, would have upon groundwater. Study does acknowledge that groendwaateerinent quali y in thefromcpages of the project is highly are included below: 19 and 20 of the Initial Study "Groundwater quality could potentially be further degraded. as a result of leachate migration. .. "a leachate allcollection areasremoval of the landfillwould be included fo "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 proposed disposal methods, would be included in the prop project." Comment: Again, these mitigation measures are unclear and imply that unknown, additional mitigation measuubliclres gandbeneighborngrequired n the future by other agencies. The p landowners are urged to be contented with the nebulous runcertain future monitoring tests and control systems of 3 C% 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 arerequired 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 1 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 met, been incorporated into the project, nor had aaa of this informa- tion been included in the document which had been circulated for ublic or agency review. — 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 are a 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 aa 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 O L —� CRITIOUE OF THE EXPANDED INIZIAL STUDY OF CCOLD CANYON LANDFILL 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. Probe _ - D ac ipion 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 a= to whether it is na_t of the Pro; act 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 Otheir current proposal should include a clear reference to 1 9- � 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 b,eforp, 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 s h i _a) . ConciatPsy with Local Planning Pnlin y and S atP 1zeculatinnc 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. i 2 - i 13i010gi -a1 R coj s 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 Ja 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? Ve&;n atInn 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? n s ' � / 3 WatAr RpAniirnps 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 thp next 20 yearn . 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/l. 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 .contact 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 R dim n a ion O 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 up as 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 O ua i y TmtacrS 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 information, it is impossible to assess the potential environmental impact of the landfill expansion. Nevertheless, C 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 cnnjnn _ inn with taxiRting and Pxpand d rn 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 zjx timan in excess of this County's Threshold of Significance— Gi 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 9 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. Dis asp VP -o s 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 clinics, which generate less than 100 kilograms of C 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 npvvor 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, O "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 im_nacts 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 tze 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 C 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. Traf f i 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. J 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 C' 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 Altarnativpq 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) . Geoloaic 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 s ` 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. Aes t het,,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 1 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. C1 12 l These impacts, too, should be considered and addressed in view of the fact that this facility is surrounded by �J open countryside that (with the exception of the landfill site) could easily be characterized as aesthetically pleasing and rural in character. Ar ha oloev 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. C� T.ittpr 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 after 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. 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 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 Commission on Solid Waste County Board of Supervisors San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 773 Manuela Way Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 2 February, 1989 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, I just read the Final Initial Study for the proposed Cold Canyon Landfill expansion. I wanted to comment on several points. First of all, on page 2, it states that landfill improvements to bring it into comformity for landfill design and operations must be satisfied whether or not expansion occurs. I would like to see the landfill make these improvements as a good faith measure, before this issue is brought before the Board of Supervisors. So far, the residents in the neighboring area haven't seen any improvement. On page 26, the study the states that the ASWAT is currently being evaluated. but that no determination of action has so far taken place. This leads me to believe that the initial study was based on incomplete information. Page 27 mentions that it appears that the gas levels are low. 1 That doesn't sound all that scientific to me. In addition, it mentions that water is being used for the dust control and that it will be maintained at the current level if the expansion occurs. The residents have repeatedly complained about the dust, and the expansion will just make it worse, if the status quo is maintained. Page 28 states that the odor problem is infrequent if proper operating procedures are followed. Why then do the residents make frequent complaints? Vegetative screening seems to be the major mitigation measure in this project; it gets the most print. In each instance, it mentions the qualifying phrase: when mature. If it is trees that the landfill operators are planning on planting, those trees won't be mature until the site is closed. How does that provide a visual screen now? Under Conflicts with Existing Agricultural Area on page 41, the study states that the impacts are insignificant. This negates or overlooks the complaint stated by Laurie McDermott on her sheep farm. She says that the dust is so thick on the grazing land that even the sheep won't eat it. The idea that you will be able to graze animals on the land over a landfill after it closes is even more absurd, as anyone who has gone to a park which has been built over a landfill site can attest to. i 1 Page 42 deals with the short term over the long term use of the land. It says that the long term use will not be subjegated to the short term use. Perhaps if 100 years is considered short term, that is true. But that site will be producing methane gas for 100 years, and the water quality is so bad that it is completely unfit to drink. It is our wastefulness in our short term use it and throw it away mentality that is polluting our environment for 4 more generations. I think that is a significant environmental impact. Finally, there were many responses and concerns from members of the public, even though the time for public comment was extremely short. The final initial study was to address them, but many of these concerns were "noted" not addressed. I was not impressed with the comments which were addressed either, and for these and the above reasons, not to mention the lack of alternatives to the proposed expansion. I urge to committee to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the initial study is not enough and that a focused EIR be prepared. Thank you sincerely, Shannan M. Johnson 489-5878 M A'l 3 __ - `.5 EIR RSSOCIRTES F'HG_ . 0 'i1Pn CSUMMARY OF THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND ADDENDUM FOR THE COLD CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL SITE EXPANSION PLAN 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Cold Canyon Sanitary Landfill is located on a 121-acre site off of State Highway 221, approximately six miles southeast of San Luis Obispo. rhe proposed project would expand tiro mite's currently permitted landfill area by 22 acres, from 39 to 61 acres. This action would increase the Landfill's allowable fill volume by an additional 4 .8 million cubic yards, and add approximately 10 years to the estimated site life. The proposed project includes landscaping, drainage facilities, sedimentation basins, and rerouted access roads. A San Luis Garbage Service Company vehicle maintenance area was originally proposed as part of the project, but has subsequently been withdrawn. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 2.1 Biological Resources aPrimary impacts of landfills on biological resources occur- from the removal of vegetation and wildlife habitat. In the case of the proposed Cold Canyon landfill expansion, approximately one acre of oak woodland, containing 15-20 oak trees, and 21 acres of annual grassland habitat would be disturbed. The reduction of habitat for wide-ranging birds such as blue and white herons, golden eagles, and hawks is not considered significant because t}.ese spec -.es cG:: be di laced onto adjacent lands. No wetland= , riparian habitat, fragile biotic communities, or aromas of spec_a'_ biological significance would be affected by the proposed expansion. To mitigate the loss of oak woodlands and grasslands, the proposed project includes planting of one acre of oak trees onsite, along with planting of fill areaswith grasses and shrubs, after final closure. 2 .2 Drainage, Erosion, and Sedimentation Landfills typically involve vegetation stripping, excavation into long, steep slopes, and storage of uncompacted stockpiles of earth, all of which increase potential for erosion. The proposed project is subject to County erosion control standards. Construction of drainage facilities, sedimentation basins, and conformity with County grading standards would mitigate drainage and erosion impacts. The San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building and the Department of Engineering will require annual inspections of the sedimentation and drainage facilities . 1 _ EIP ASSOCIATES PAGE . Q 2. 3 Geological Hazards/Site Alteration seismic action can produce rupturing of landfill sites or liquefaction leading to slope instability, and landslide hazards can be created by cut slopes. A geological study of the Cold Canyon site determined that the site's liquefaction potential is very low, that there is no threat of surface rupture, and that the site should be designed for maximum horizontal ground- accelerations of 0.42 to 0.65 g. Although the rock units underlying the Cold Canyon site possess a high degree of static stability, cut slopes would be buttressed and stepped with 20- foot wide benches at 50-foot elevation intervals. No final slopes would exceed a 3;1 horizontal/vertical ratio. Topographic alteration is unavoidable but can be contoured to blend in with adjacent contours. 2 . 4 Water Resources Leachate from sanitary landfills can adversely affect surface and groundwater quality, when the leachate contains significant levels of contaminants and is generated in significant quantities. Testing in 1987 and January 1989 has indicated that the Cold Canyon landfill has not adversely affected the groundwater underlying the site or the groundwater supplies of neighboring propertied. To avert any future impacts, the Landfill would continue to comply with State regulations which control generation and movement of leachate from landfills. A monitoring and reporting program (which was initiated in .1989) is also required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to detect leakage. To prevent contamination of surface water, a leachate collection and removal system would be installed in all areas of the landfall expansi +n. No significant impacts are anticipated on surface or groundwater quantity, runoff volume, cr on estuarine environments. 2 . 5 Pollution Although hazardous wastes and toxic materials are not knowingly accepted at Class III landfills such as Cold Canyon, small amounts could enter the landfill in illegal loads or incorporated within domestic refuse. To minimize risk of receiving unacceptable materials, all vehicles delivering waste to the site are monitored. The proposed project would include a Waste Acceptance Control Program which includes notifying customers of landfill policies and procedures, checking loads of incoming wastes, monitoring known offenders, and posting a sign stating that the landfill does not accept hazardous waste and describing the penalties for illegal transport and disposal. In addition, the San Luis Obispo County Hazardous Waste Management Plan contains policies and programs for the management of household hazardous waste. �j M PY 3 ' 63 15: 06 EIP ASSOCIATES PAGE . 03 I C Noise from landfill equipment and solid waste trucks is another potential impact of sanitary landfills. Because the proposed project would involve no increase in noise generating activity, project noise impacts would not be significant. Continuation of the Cold Canyon Landfill policy that equipment operators wear hearing protection would prevent significant impacts through exposure of landfill personnel to severe noise levels. Odor problems can result from landfills, generally from inadequate covering of solid wastes on a daily basis. To prevent objectionable odors, proper operating procedures would be followed, including compliance with odor performance standards. To mitigate temporary odor problems, cover of especially_ odorous waste would be performed as necessary. 2. 6 Air Quality Bacterial decomposition of organic wastes produces landfill gas which can create a fire or explosion hazard. Landfill gas may also contain traces of hazardous contaminants which can endanger the health of persons breathing the gas. Extensive testing of the Cold Canyon site indicates that the levels of gases generated and emitted by the landfill are low and are not presently creating any significant air quality impacts. Although the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District has yet to make a determination of the air pollution control actions it will require of the landfill, the most likely requirement would be additional air quality monitoring, with landfill gas collection and disposal also possible. The proposed expansion would be required to comply with any future District requirements. 2 . 7 publIc Health and Safety Although insects, rodents and birds capable of spreading disease to human populations can be associated with landfills, placement of daily cover of new waste over fill areas and operating a small working face to conform with vector control performance standards are effective means of preventing public health hazards. Under the proposed expansion project, these practices along with monitoring of vectors by the County Health Department would be continued and, if necessary, scaring, trapping, and/or more frequent application of soil cover would be employed. The use of suspended monofilament wires currently used to deter gulls would be expanded. Aircraft safety can be reduced near landfills by the presence of gulls attracted to the refuse. Although the Cold Canyon site is not close enough to any public airport to exceed FAA standards for aircraft safety, a privately owned and operated airstrip (Weir Airport) is located to the south of the site. Although applicable law gives precedence to landfill operations over private airstrips, the mitigation measures for bird .control MA'r' 3 ' 89 15:07 _ IP y°SOCIATES PAGE . O= mentioned above would be employed to reduce impacts on aircraft safety at the weir Airport. 2 . 8 Traffic The types of traffic impacts most likely to occur at or near the Landfill would result from population growth or from closure of another landfill site which would result in increased deliveries of solid waste, neither of which would be attributable to the Cold Canyon expansion. The proposed expansion would not alter the number of vehicle trips to the site or areawide traffic circulation; nor would it reduce the level of traffic service on existing public roadways. The intersection of the landfill entrance and Highway 227 has experienced an above-average level of accidents in the past decade and presents a potential safety hazard. Although the proposed landfill expansion wouli have no impact on this intersection, the applicant plans to im rove the intersection in a manner approved by Caltrans. 2 . 9 Public Services The potential fire protection impacts of the proposed project would be mitigated through provision of an on-site water tank and removal of flammable material from the site's periphery. Furthermore, current emissions of landfill. gas (which contains methane) are low. Therefore, an increase in demand for fire protection services is not anticipated. The expansion would have. no significant impacts on the demand for police protection services, school services, water supply or community wastewater treatment facilities. 2 . 10 Aesthetic and Cultural impacts Because the proposed landfill expansion would occur in areas which currently function as visual buffers between the existing landfill and surrounding land uses, visual impact of the proposed project could be significant. However, with completion of the proposed Revegetation and Screening Plan, the visual impacts of the expanded landfill would be less than that of the current operations. The proposed revegetation plan includes planting of screening vegetation including trees along Highway 227 adjacent to the site, and along the southern border of the site closest to Highway 227. Planting would be initiated at the time of project approval, several years before commencement of operations at the expansion area. In addition, plants with horizontal root growth (to prevent damage to low-permeability final cover) would be planted in portions of filled areas. Additional litter fencing and litter collectors would be used to reduce visual impacts of windblown litter. No archaeological sites have been found at the project site. However, grading activities in the swale area of the northern end _ 4 — / I P = 3 ' 89 15: : 8 EIP ASSOCIATES PAGE . C\` of the Optional. Expansion Area could adversely affect archaeological resources and this Area, if used for fill, would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist at that time. If evidence of. aboriginal activity is detected, appropriate mitigation measures would be developed. 2 . 11 Energy and Housing The proposed expansion project would not increase energy use or demand for housing. 2.12 Agricultural and Mineral Resources Landfill expansion would remove up to 22 acres from grazing uses. This land, which represents a small portion of the grazing land available in the region, would be returned to grazing after completion of filling. No other agricultural impacts would be associated with the project. No mineral resources would be eliminated. 2.13 Growth Inducind/Cumulative Although continued provision of solid waste disposal capacity at the Cold Canyon landfill would accommodate planned growth, it would not induce growth. No significant cumulative impacts would be associated with the proposed expansion. 2.14 Cumulative Effects of Los Osos Landfill_Closure Based on recent increases in solid waste received at the Cold Canyon Landfill since the closure of Los Osos Landfill, the estimated additional Cold Canyon site life provided by the proposed expansion would be approximately ten years, in contras : to the approximately fifteen years of additional site life previously calculated. 3. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Four alternative sites to the proposed landfill expansion have been considered. (1) The Newsome Springs site near the City of Arroyo Grande was eliminated from consideration because of several substantial potential environmental and economic impacts. (2) Conversion of the. existing Chicago Grade Landfill to a regional landfill was rejected after the site's owner declined to sell the Landfill. (3) The Silva Ranch is located in a canyon west of Highway 227 and just south of Cold Canyon landfill . It was eliminated from consideration due to numerous potential - economic and environmental impacts. (4) A site in Price Canyon, between San Luis Obispo and Arroyo Grande, has been considered ' 89 15: 08 EIP ASSOCIATES PAGE . 25 C but is not currently available for purchase from its owner, Shell oil. The 1986 Revision to the San Luis Obispo County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) includes general goals regarding alternative methods to decrease the solid waste stream: composting, waste-to-energy, support of ongoing recycling programs, and promotion of public education of resource recovery. 4. CONCWSION The proposed landfill expansion project, incorporating proposed mitigation measures, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , a Negative Declaration shall be issued. 6 T' MARTIN C.P.A. Controller ` 970 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 COLD CANYON LANDFILL 1 (805) 543-7686 I J REPORT Nay-89 Hilo OF REFUSE j •San Luis Garbage Company •South County Sanitary TONS •Corral De Piedra Land Co. •Mission Country Disposal TONS LOADS •Cold Canyon Landfill. Inc. •Morro Say Garbage ----- ----- ----- REFUSE CO RESIDENTIAL 5,005.33 706 28.441 REFUSE CO COMMERCIAL 3,308.43 423 18.801 PUBLIC 1,570.57 4,468 8.921 COMMERCIAL 5,522.58 1,669 31.381 DROP BOXES 1,167.92 410 6.641 MEETING AGENDA COMPOST 28.72 28 0.161 APPLIANCES 373.64 , 54 2.121 GATE (/O--e'0 -9 9 ITEM # CP,CMC,A OTHERS 620.84 108 3.531 --------- --------- --------- TOTAL 17,598.03 7,866 99.991 --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- 4,105 non weight customers 500 lbs per load average 1,026 tone O COLD CANYON LANDFILL RONTHLI REPORT May-89 BY AREA IN COUNTI 1 TONS LOADS TONS ----- ----- ----- SAN LUIS OBISPO 7,435.25 5,583 44.871 SOUTH COUNTT 4,823.09 1,417 29.101 SLO 511 MORRO BAY 1,256.20 234 7.581 NORTH COAST 161 LOS OSOS 709.19 172 4.281 SOUTH COAST 321 CAIUCOS 93.92 S7 0.571 OTHER 11 I CAMBRIA 385.83 87 2.331 ------- SAN SIMEON 217.19 25 1.311 1001 NIPOMO 418.97 76 2.531 OUT OF COUNTY 239.60 55 1.451 *Denotes acaon p ASBESTOS 0.00 0 0.001 y Lead Person CP,CMC,6 OTHERS -- 992_59 160 - -- 5.991 ReWnd by: ncii 16,572.03 7,866 100.011 rE:Aogltty. -- - - B'Clerk-ong• 1,026 00 non weight customers ' J�GDEr 17,598.03 TOTAL TONS FOR May-89 al-r T-, (: Pro ed art rtcx+ed paM til�lo( ' Attachment AN RE, A PROFESSIONAL uw CORPORATION MORRIS x DeMte5 action by Lead Persov 1 PETER R ANDRE(Retae) C & BUTTERY Re by (MEETING A�G[EJNDA k9�1.MOMS Wncil DATE -� -�� ITEM EM 'lr � JAMES C. D.LABUTTERY DENNIS D.LAN' J.TODD MIROLLA Atty. P.TERENCE SCHUBERT GLD6r.f' 1304 Pacific Stmt February 27, 1989 Post Office Box 730 San Luis Obispo Catifomia 934064730 L:,_.. Telephone 8M/5u4171 John Nall E G E I V �. ®Fax Number 8(15!543-0752 County of San Luis Obispo X19$ Office of the Environmental Coordinator County Government Center C(TYCtFRK 1050 Monterey Street SANLUIcr*@ea)CA Room 370 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Re: Cold Canvon Landfill Expansion Dear Mr. Nall: This firm represents Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc. , in legal matters arising from its efforts to obtain approval for the proposed Cold Canyon Landfill expansion. I have recently received a copy of a letter and memorandum to you from John B. Ashbaugh, of Perspective Planning, dated January 24, 1989 . My purpose in writing this letter is to address the legal issues that Mr. Ashbaugh has raised in his memorandum. After having completed a thorough legal analysis of the issues presented, and reviewing the environmental studies which have been completed, it is my belief that the Office of the Environmental Coordinator is well within its powers to issue a negative declaration for the landfill expansion. The California Enviro=ental Quality Act ('rCEQA'r) requires that all local agencies must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (rtEIRr') on any project which may have a significant effect on the environment. (Public Resources Code, section 21151) . The term "significant effect" is defined as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment" . (Public Resources Code section 21068 . ) f CEQA and California case law have set forth a three-tiered approach to guide local agencies in determining whether a proposed project must have an EIR prior to approval. First, if a proposed project falls within a category that is exempt from the R requirements of CEQA or if it is certain that a proposed project will not have a significant effect upon the environment, then no further agency evaluation is required. Secondly, if there is a i possibility that a proposed project may have a significant environmental effect, then the local agency must conduct an initial • ANDRE, � � A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATIO\ MORRIS C £� BUTTERY John Nall February 27, 1989 Page 2 threshold evaluation of the project. If the initial study indicates that the project may have a significant environmental effect, then an EIR must be prepared. If the initial study indicates that the proposed project will not have any significant effect on the environment, then the lead agency must issue a negative declaration. (14 California Code of Regulations, section 15070; see also Friends of "B" Street v City of Hayward, 106 Cal. App. 3d 988 (1980) . The approach outlined above is precisely the manner in which the Environmental Coordinator's Office processed the Negative Declaration, dated November 4 , 1988. After a preliminary determination was made that the landfill expansion project might possibly have a significant effect on the environment, your office commissioned a draft initial study to be prepared by EIP Associates (dated July 1, 1988) . This first draft identified and reviewed the possible environmental impacts at the landfill site and tentatively concluded that a negative declaration was appropriate, since the proposed project, including mitigation measures, would not have a C substantial, or potentially substantial adverse impact on the area affected by the project. This first draft was circulated for public comment, and a second draft was subsequently submitted by EIP Associates on September 28, 1988 . This second draft, which included comment letters received from persons who had reviewed the first draft, and responses to those letters, also concluded that no significant impact on the environment would result from the proposed landfill expansion. A final initial study was issued in October, 1988. Perspective Planning has taken issue with the issuance of a negative declaration by your office, claiming that its critique of January 24, 1989 , presents sufficient information to constitute a "fair argument" that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. A review of the pertinent legal authorities and the January 24 critique does not support this contention. As stated in Friends of "B" Street v City of Hayward, 106 Cal. App. 3d 988 (1980) , "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 '" . (Id. at 1002 , emphasis supplied) . Even a ^ cursory review of the January 24th memorandum reveals that no Jsubstantial evidence is presented showing that the landfill expansion will result in a substantial adverse change in any of the i , AND1EnnC�, A PROFESIO\AL LAN'COR!'OR.A,10� MORRIS £1 BUTTERY G John Nall February 27, 1989 Page 3 physical conditions within or near the landfill area. In fact, the critique merely sets forth unsupported statements, without any evidentiary basis, and no deference is given to the fact that numerous public entities (San Luis Obispo Planning Department, Air Pollution Control District, County Environmental Health, California Regional Water Quality Control Board) will be ensuring that the landfill continues to comply with applicable health standards and water quality standards throughout its operational period. While Perspective Planning assails various portions of the initial study, the requisite substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant environmental impact is never presented. For example, numerous references are made to the alleged failure of the initial study to address changes that may arise in the future. The study is criticized for the omission of an analysis of the environmental effects of uses which have not even been contemplated by the operators of the site, such as the acceptance of radioactive wastes and using the landfill site as a. transfer station for hazardous wastes. This clearly does not C constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant environmental impact, especially considering that the landfill expansion will not include these uses. Moreover, the Perspective Planning critique contains certain inaccurate statements. For example, on page 3 of the critique, it states that certain bird species, including the golden eagle and blue heron, are located in the vicinity of the landfill, and that the initial study is flawed because "these species are not mentioned, and the effects of the landfill operation are not addressed. " On page 10 on the Final Initial Study, it states that the landfill expansion would result in the displacement of golden eagles, blue herons and other bird species, but that the expansion would have an insignificant impact upon these animals because similar habitat . is available and the species are wide-ranging. Again, . the critique has not met the requisite level of presenting substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact. In the "B" Street case, the California Appellate Court rejected the position that merely presently conflicting assertions and arguments is sufficient to require an EIR. "We reject the inference that the existence of factual controversy, uncertainty, conflicting assertions, argument, or public controversy can of themselves nullify the adoption of a - negative declaration and require the preparation of a EIR when there is no substantial evidence in the record that the project as designed and approved • .kNTDRE, ✓ A PROFESSIONAL LAK'CORPORA-C` MORRIS O b BUTTERY John Nall February 27, 1989 Page 4 will fall within the requirements of CEQA. " (Friends of "B" Street, 106 Cal. App. 3d at 1002, quoting Running Fence Corti v Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 3d 400, 424, (1975) . ) The perspective planning memorandum wrongfully asserts that opponents need only present a "fair argument" that substantial evidence exists that the project may have a significant environmental impact, in order to successfully challenge the decision to issue a negative declaration. In fact, opponents of an agency decision to issue a negative declaration must show that there was "a prejudicial abuse of discretion" by the lead agency. In _Chamberlin v. City of Palo Alto, 186 Cal. App. 3d 181 (1986) , the court noted that such an abuse of discretion can be established where a challenger can show " 1) that the agency had before it substantial evidence of the project' s potential negative impact on the environment, or 2) that the agency otherwise did not proceed in a manner required by law. " The critique presented by Perspective Planning does not meet either prong of this two-prong test. Lastly, the analysis of the California Appellate decision in r `. Sundstrum v. Mendocino County, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988) , indicates that the Environmental Coordinator' s Office has acted in a proper manner in proposing to issue a negative declaration rather than requiring an EIR. In Sundstrum, the Court of Appeal found ` that the initial study was deficient, and that the County therefore did not properly comply with CEQA. The Sundstrum court stated that the test to be applied when reviewing whether agency procedures comply with CEQA is "whether an objective good faith effort to so comply is demonstrated. " (Sundstrum at page 305. ) In Sundstrum, there were a number of problems with the initial study. Among those listed by the court were its failure to note the source or content of data relied upon, to record consultations with other agencies, to explain proposed mitigation measures, or to describe the project and the environmental setting. None of these criticisms can properly be directed at the Initial Study prepared in connection with the Cold Canyon Landfill expansion. Moreover, the project in Sundstrum contemplated using "an advanced and sophisticated" waste water disposal system, without any provision for the disposal of the sewage sludge generated by this system (no disposal site was available in Mendocino County) , and no sludge disposal plan was included in the Final Initial Study. A review of the various initial studies analyzing the Cold Canyon Landfill expansion project, does not reveal the deficiencies C noted in Sundstrum. The project and its environmental setting are i ANDRE A PROFESSIO.`:AL LAN'CORPORATnO'' MORRIS & BUTTERY C� John Nall February 27, 1989 Page 5 discussed in great detail, proposed mitigation measures, where applicable, are similarly enumerated. The source and content of the data relied upon and the role of the regulatory agencies involved in this project are described. Clearly, the landfill expansion Initial Study does not suffer from the defects present in Sundstrum, and the Environmental Coordinator' s Office has gone far beyond performing the "objective good faith effort" in complying with CEQA. It should be emphasized that the present project is an expansion of a pre-existing and viable landfill site. An extensive environmental analysis has been undertaken in connection with this proposed landfill expansion. In addition to the final Initial Study and the two preliminary drafts referred to above, EMCON Associates has previously prepared two reports, a Hydrogeologic Site Characterization of the landfill site, and a Master Plan, which further identify and address the environmental impact of the proposed expansion project. An Air Quality Assessment study was also done in connection with this project. Over $300, 000. 00 and four years have been expended in studying the effects of expanding the current landfill operations. This meticulous appraisal of environmental impacts has far exceeded the "initial threshold evaluation" that is required under CEQA and applicable case law. In conclusion, the Environmental Coordinator's Office has clearly fulfilled its legal role in processing the application of Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc. to expand the present landfill site. No showing has been made that the Environmental Coordinator' s Office has "prejudicially abused its discretion" in proposing to issue a negative declaration, and it appears clear that the Environmental Coordinator's Office has properly decided to issue a negative declaration, and properly determined that an EIR is not legally required on the proposed project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or the analysis detailed above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, P. TERENCE SCHUBERT PTS:mdm ♦1�1D7,T ' Attachmt- It t1U, AFROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION MORRIS *Denotes action by Lead Persa & BUTTERY Respond by MEEnNG AGENDA /� PETER R.ANDRE(Reeved! / / MICHAEL 1.MORRIS DATE "�9 ITEM # (L� 1 C. Y 21 AO DENNIS D.LAW D.LAM' 1.TODD MIROL1A Any. P.TERENCE SCHUBERT IBA(-prig. At OG�+G 1304 Pacific 57eet February 27, 1989 Post OffKe Boa 730 San Luis Obispo California 93606-0730 Telephone 8051543.6171 John Nall R E C E I V IF ®Fax Number BM15C3,M-. County of San Luis Obispo Office of the Environmental Coordinator • ' County Government Center cITYCLEW 1050 Monterey Street SA"'w""a °^c" Room 370 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Re: Cold Canvon Landfill Expansion Dear Mr. Nall: This firm represents Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc. , in legal matters arising from its efforts to obtain approval for the proposed Cold Canyon Landfill expansion. I have recently received a copy of a letter and memorandum to you from John B. Ashbaugh, of Perspective Planning, dated January 24, 1989 . My purpose in writing this letter is to address the legal issues that Mr. Ashbaugh has raised in his memorandum. After having completed a thorough legal analysis of the issues presented, and reviewing the environmental studies which have been completed, it is my belief that the Office of the Environmental Coordinator is well within its powers to issue a negative declaration for the landfill expansion. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that all local agencies must prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") on any project which may have a significant effect on the environment. (Public Resources Code, section 21151) . The term "significant effect" is defined as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment" . (Public Resources Code section 21068. ) CEQA and California case law have set forth a three-tiered approach to guide local agencies in determining whether a proposed project must have an EIR prior to approval. First, if a proposed project falls within a category that is exempt from the requirements of CEQA or if it is certain that a proposed project will not have a significant effect upon the environment, then no r further agency evaluation is required. Secondly, if there is a 1. possibility that a proposed project may have a significant environmental effect, then the local agency must conduct an initial I ANDRE, 1 n rROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORAno. MORRIS & BUTTERY John Nall February 27, 1989 Page 2 threshold evaluation of the project. If the initial study indicates that the project may have a significant environmental effect, then an EIR must be prepared. If the initial study indicates that the proposed project will not have any significant effect on the environment, then the lead agency must issue a negative declaration. (14 California Code of Regulations, section 15070; see also Friends of "B" Street v City of Hayward, 106 Cal. - App. 3d 988 (1980) . The approach outlined above is precisely the manner in which the Environmental Coordinator's Office processed the Negative Declaration, dated November 4 , 1988 . After a preliminary determination was made that the landfill expansion project might Possibly have a significant effect on the environment, your office commissioned a draft initial study to be prepared by EIP Associates (dated July 1, 1988) . This first draft identified and reviewed the Possible environmental impacts at the landfill site and tentatively concluded that a negative declaration was appropriate, since the proposed project, including mitigation measures, would not have a O; substantial, or potentially substantial adverse impact on the area affected by the project. This first draft was circulated for public comment, and a second draft was subsequently submitted by EIP Associates on ;,•. September 28, 1988 . This second draft, which included comment letters received from persons who had reviewed the first draft, and responses to those letters, also concluded that no significant impact on the environment would result from the proposed landfill expansion. A final initial study was issued in October, 1988. Perspective Planning has taken issue with the issuance of a negative declaration by your office, claiming that its critique of January 24 , 1989, presents sufficient information to constitute a "fair argument" that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. A review of the pertinent legal authorities and the January 24 critique does not support this contention. As stated in Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward, 106 Cal. App. 3d 988 (1980) , "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"' . (Id. at 1002 , emphasis supplied) . Even a cursory review of the January 24th memorandum reveals that no Osubstantial evidence is presented showing that the landfill expansion will result in a substantial adverse change in any of the ANDRE,LIRE, A PROFESSIONAL LAN' R CORPOA:IC" MORRIS & BUTTERY John Nall February 27, 1989 Page 3 Physical conditions within or near the landfill area. In fact, the critique merely sets forth unsupported statements, without any evidentiary basis, and no deference is given to the fact that numerous public entities (San Luis Obispo Planning Department, Air Pollution Control District, County Environmental Health, California Regional Water Quality Control. Board) will be ensuring that the landfill continues to comply with applicable health standards and water quality standards throughout its operational period. While Perspective Planning assails various portions of the initial study, the requisite substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant environmental impact is never presented. For example, numerous references are made to the alleged failure of the initial study to address changes that may arise in the future. The study is criticized for the omission of an analysis of the environmental effects of uses which have not even been contemplated by the operators of the site, such as the acceptance of radioactive wastes and using the landfill site as a transfer station for hazardous wastes. This clearly does not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant environmental impact, especially considering that the landfill expansion will not include these uses. Moreover, the Perspective Planning critique contains certain inaccurate statements. For example, on page 3 of the critique, it states that certain bird species, including the golden eagle and blue heron, are located in the vicinity of the landfill, and that the initial study is flawed because "these species are not mentioned, and the effects of the landfill operation are not addressed. " On page 10 on the Final Initial Study, it states that the landfill expansion would result in the displacement of golden eagles, blue herons and other bird species, but that the expansion would have an insignificant impact upon these animals because similar habitat is available and the species are wide-ranging. Again, the critique has not met the requisite level of presenting substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact. In the "B" Street case, the California Appellate Court rejected the position that merely presently conflicting assertions and arguments is sufficient to require an EIR. "We reject the inference that the existence of factual controversy, uncertainty, conflicting assertions, argument, or public controversy can of themselves nullify the adoption of a negative declaration and Orequire the preparation of ,a EIR when. there is no substantial evidence in the record that .the project as designed and approved ANDRE. A MOFESSIO\AL LAM'CORPORA 1.0N MORRIS C 6 BUTTERY John Nall February 27, 1989 Page 4 will fall within the requirements of CEQA. " (Friends of "B" Street, 106 Cal. App. 3d at 1002, quoting Running Fence Corp. v Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 3d 400, 424 , (1975) . ) The perspective planning memorandum wrongfully asserts that opponents need only present a "fair argument" that substantial evidence exists that the project may have a significant environmental impact, in order to successfully challenge the decision to issue a negative declaration. In fact, opponents of an agency decision to issue a negative declaration must show that there was "a prejudicial abuse of discretion" by the lead agency. In Chamberlin v. City of Palo Alto, 186 Cal. App. 3d 181 (1986) , the court noted that such an abuse of discretion can be established where a challenger can show " 1) that the agency had before it substantial evidence of the project' s potential negative impact on the environment, or 2) that the agency otherwise did not proceed in a manner required by law. " The critique presented by Perspective Planning does not meet either prong of this two-prong test. Lastly, the analysis of the California Appellate decision in ' Sundstrum v. Mendocino County, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988) , indicates that the Environmental Coordinator's Office has acted in a proper manner in proposing to issue a negative declaration rather : than requiring an EIR. In Sundstrum, the Court of Appeal found „= that the initial study was deficient, and that the County therefore did not properly comply with CEQA. The Sundstrum court stated that the test to be applied when reviewing whether agency procedures comply with CEQA is "whether an objective good faith effort to so comply is demonstrated. " (Sundstrum at page 305. ) In Sundstrum, there were a number of problems with the initial study. Among those listed by the court were its failure to note the source or content of data relied upon, to record consultations with other agencies, to explain proposed mitigation measures, or to describe the project and the environmental setting. None of these criticisms can properly be directed at the Initial Study prepared in connection with the Cold Canyon Landfill expansion. Moreover, the project in Sundstrum contemplated using "an advanced and sophisticated" waste water disposal system, without any provision for the disposal of the sewage sludge generated by this system (no disposal site was available in Mendocino County) , and no sludge disposal plan was included in the Final Initial Study. A review of the various initial studies analyzing the Cold Canyon Landfill expansion project, does not reveal the deficiencies noted in Sundstrum. The project and its environmental setting are • AI\TDRE, A PROFESSIONAL LAN'CORPORATION MORRIS & BUTTERY 01 John Nall February 27, 1989 Page 5 discussed in great detail, proposed mitigation measures, where applicable, are similarly enumerated. The source and content of the data relied upon and the role of the regulatory agencies involved in this project are described. Clearly, the landfill expansion Initial Study does not suffer from the defects present in Sundstrum, and the Environmental Coordinator' s Office has gone far beyond performing the "objective good faith effort" in complying with CEQA. It should be emphasized that the present project is an expansion of a pre-existing and viable landfill site. An extensive environmental analysis has been undertaken in connection with this proposed landfill expansion. In addition to the final Initial Study and the two preliminary drafts referred to above, EMCON Associates has previously prepared two reports, a Hydrogeologic Site Characterization of the landfill site, and a Master Plan, which further identify and address the environmental impact of the proposed expansion project. An Air Quality Assessment study was also done in connection with this project. Over $300, 000. 00 and four years have been expended in studying the effects of expanding the current landfill operations. This meticulous appraisal of environmental impacts has far exceeded the "initial threshold evaluation" that is required under CEQA and applicable case law. In conclusion, the Environmental Coordinator's Office has clearly fulfilled its legal role in processing the application of Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc. to expand the present landfill site. No showing has been made that the Environmental Coordinator's Office has "prejudicially abused its discretion" in proposing to issue a negative declaration, and it appears clear that the Environmental Coordinator' s Office has properly decided to issue a negative declaration, and properly determined that an EIR is not legally required on the proposed project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or the analysis detailed above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, P. TERENCE SCHUBERT PTS:mdm P. =TING AGENDA ATE&-&-8'9 ITEM # ( *Denotes action by Lead Person 9e Pond by: C0�'4NTON LANDFILL y ndI N0. J REPORT Na-Y-09 V AO KIND OF REFUSE ; L, 4 Any. TONS LOADS TONS �z REFUSE CO RESIDENTIAL 5,00S.33 706 28.44; d c[. boa E� REFUSE CO CONNERCIAL 3,308.43 423 18.80; PUBLIC 1,570.57 4,468 8.92; CON NERCIAL 5,522.58 1,669 31.38; DROP BOXES 1,167.92 410 6.64; CONP05T 28.72 28 0.16; For your information: APPLIANCES 373.64 , 54 1.12; From: CP,CNC,i OTHERS 620.84 108 3.53; --------- --------- --------- TOTAL 17,598.03 7,866 99.992 TOM MARTIN C.P.A. Controller 4,105 son weight customers 970 Monterey Street 1 500 lbs per load average San Luis Obispo.ralifomia 93401 ------- (805) 543-7686 j 1,026 toes =e""` • San Luis Garbage Company •MiSouth County Sanitary . ssioT3 Country Disposal .Corral De Piedra Land Co. •Morro Bay Garbage •Cold Canyon Landfill,Inc. • COLD CANYON LANDFILL MONTHLY REPORT Nay-89 BY AREA II COUNTY ; TONS LOADS TONS SAN LUIS OBISPO 7,435.25 5,583 44.87; SOUTH COUNTY 4,623.09 1,417 29.10; SLO S1; MORRO BAI 1,256.20 234 7.58; NORTH COAST 16; LOS OSOS 709.19 172 4.28; SOUTH COAST 32; CAYUCOS 93.92 57 0.57; OTHER 1; I :ANBRIA 385.83 87 2.33; ------- SAN SINEON 117.19 25 1.31; 100; 9IPONO 418.97 76 2.53; )UT OF COUNTY 239.80 55 1.45; 1SBESTOS 0.00 0 0.00; :P,CNC,t OTHERS 992.59 160 5.99; --------- --------- --------- 16,572.03 7,866 100.01; 1,026.00 non weight customers 17,598.03 TOTAL TONS FOR Nay-89 JUa 2 •88 a Pdnted a,,ecrctee paper EDWARD H.CHIDLAW.Judge HAROLD JOHNSON,Judge -CHRISTOPHER Q MONEY.Judge TELEPHONE(605)549-5936 ,MES D.REAM,Judge JNALD G.UMHOFER.Judge SIDNEY II.FINDLEY,Coon E=ecutiw Olri "1 0 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT County Government Center 1050 Monterey Street,Room 220 San Luis Obispo,California 93408 May 23 , 1989 Jim Johnson Chairman, Board of Supervisors San Luis Obispo County County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear supervisor Johnson: During my service as a Municipal Court Judge in this O County it has frequently been my duty to order persons to serve off their fines for criminal offenses in the County .Jail. The legislature has by An` intricate scheme of mandatory minimum fines made it extremely costly to commit certain crimes without respect to a defendant's ability to pay. The law provides that when a defendant refuses to pay a fine in a misdemeanor case the court may order the fine to be served off in the county jail at .the rate of not- less than $30.00 per day. Obviously, judges use this method of achieving compliance only as a last resort. Nevertheless, there are many defendants serving off their fines in the County Jail at any given point in time. These persons constitute a double drain on County ; resources. First, it results in a substantial increase in the jail population which as you know is critically over crowded. Second, instead of receiving revenue from the fine payment, the County is required to feed, house and supervise the defendants while they are serving off their fines. For many years I have tried to formulate some realistic plan to solve this rather self defeating and burdensome practice. I have an idea which I feel is worth consideration by your Board which would be of considerable value to many entities within the county structure. C COPY C Printed on recycled V+On Letter to Jim Johnson Page Two O It has occurred to me that the County's landfills are filling to the brim with waste materials which in many instances are recyclable. It is my belief that no one is making any substantial effort to recycle these materials. My plan is that we create a County Recycling Unit which is managed by the county but utilizes person power supplied from the courts and the jail. For instance,the Sheriff has approximately 80 persons working on the honor farm at all tintes. The courts are sentencing approximately an additional 100 persons to weekend custody each weekend. (At the present time, due to over crowding, these' people sit in an auditorium froffi 70000 p.m. ori"Friday' night to approximately 2:00 a.m. on Saturday morning and are then released and credited with two days in the County Jail) . Hundreds of defendants are ordered to perform varying numbers of hours of community service by both the Superior and Municipal Courts. The Sheriff has approximately 25 .35 persons working on the Alternative Work Release Program. A considerable number of persons are serving off their fines in the County Jail. Many or all of these persons could be utilized as recycling laborers. O The benefits of this plan are numerous. The sale of recyclable materials would generate revenue to the County. The jail population would be reduced, thereby reducing costs to the county for feeding, housing and supervising inmates. The quantity of waste materials accumulating in the landfills would be reduced. Recyclable materials would be salvaged for useful purposes thus saving vital natural resources. Persons on the fence of the poverty line would be permitted to perform some useful service to the County rather than serving totally wasted time in the County Jail. Those performing community service would be guaranteed useful service. I have spoken informally to Sheriff Williams, the County Counsel, Mr. Tom Martin from San Luis Garbage, and Mr. John Scholtes from the Health Department, about my proposal. Everyone contacted seemed to feel that the plan was viable and •expressed a position of cooperation. Obviously, this is at best a sketchy proposal. Nevertheless, I feel strongly that the basic concept has O (: Printed on recycled pape Letter to Jim Johnson r Page Three considerable merit and I would urge the Board to consider studying the feasibility of such a plan. I am very willing to assist the Board in any way possible and would welcome the opportunity to meet with you or any member of the Board' to discuss the concept or details of the plan. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Very truly Yeur , J es D. Ream icipal Court Judge CCs: Harry ovitt Bill Coy Evelyn Delany David Blakely Judge E.H. Chidlaw C County Probation Department Sheriff E. Williams County Health Department Tom Martin County Counsel JDR/md O t: ranted m recycled Pape,