Sen. Vargas attempts a landfill end run

By Union-Tribune Editorial Board

Friday, April 29, 2011 at midnight

A last-ditch attempt to kill the Gregory Canyon landfill in North County is before the Legislature in the form of a poorly crafted bill being carried for moneyed special interests.

Senate Bill 833 by Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, would prohibit a landfill within 1,000 feet of the San Luis River or contributing aquifer, or within a site that is considered sacred or of cultural importance by an Indian tribe. The Pala Band of Mission Indians, which operates a casino nearby, opposes the landfill.

This is bad legislation. The state has no business getting involved in such a local or regional issue.
This bill would trump the will of the voters who overwhelmingly approved the landfill twice.

It would negate almost 20 years of effort to establish a much-needed landfill for North County, which lacks a facility of its own and must truck 850,000 tons of material a year as far away as Arizona.

Vargas’ bill would usurp the authority of a host of regulatory agencies that have spent the bulk of two decades in considering the landfill and ensuring public safeguards are in place.

Conveniently, this legislation sets a vague definition of “sacred site,” leaving that to the interpretation of an opposing tribe. There is no mention that the county did a detailed analysis of potential impacts on Indian culture and concluded that there are none that could be objectively verified. Or that the tribe did not challenge the accuracy of the finding.

This is the second time this year that Vargas has attempted to thwart local processes by doing an end run in the Legislature and carrying a bill for deep-pocketed special interests. He introduced an anti-Walmart bill that would require economic impact analyses as part of the permitting process. This came after the San Diego City Council rescinded a similar ordinance rather than pay the costs of an election for the public to decide.

Gregory Canyon has been fought and re-fought. Two public votes, 17 years of studies, public hearings and public input. Litigation at virtually every step of the way.

The proposed landfill is in the final stages of obtaining permits from the Air Pollution Control District, the Regional Water Quality Control District and the Army Corps of Engineers, all probably this year.

The landfill site is high above the San Luis Rey River and state Route 76, three miles east of Interstate 15. Besides extensive runoff collection and subdrain systems, the trash repository would be covered by 12 layers of soil, gravel, clay and synthetic liners.

The will of the people should not be thwarted by legislative decree on behalf of a well-financed special interest. Vargas’ bill is due for a hearing Monday before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee with Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, among the seven members. That is where the bill deserves to die.

Crash tax, Escondido cuts, Grantville, disabled parking, Oceanside raises, landfill

By Union-Tribune

Thursday, March 31, 2011

 

Crash cost recovery hardly double taxation

“Vista halts plans for crash tax” (SignOn San Diego, March 23) shows how a campaign by an insurers group has successfully made the issue politically toxic.

Everyone seems to accept the cost recovery as double taxation argument being promoted by an insurers association. Yet anyone who knows budgets and property tax revenue knows the argument does not apply in California, where Proposition 13 does not allow a local government unit to raise property taxes to meet anticipated budget needs. The commentary “It’s a sneaky route to double taxation” (Dialog, March 13) failed to look at Proposition 13’s implications. In Oceanside, property taxes don’t even cover police and fire personnel costs. -- Lizbeth Altman, Oceanside

 

East County facing a transient problem

East County does not have a “homelessness” problem so much as a “transients” problem (“Homeless survey shows affordable housing need,” East County, March 24). Often, an unemployed, low-skilled individual from another state was “invited” to the San Diego area by a family member with the baseless hope of finding quick employment. When that doesn’t happen, the host asks the visitor to move on.

East County proves attractive for living out of vehicles because it has pockets of open space that aren’t well-patrolled and public drinking is tolerated. Not surprisingly, individuals find it easier to live in campers in Lakeside or El Cajon than in a colder climate. They won’t go home until we enforce existing laws about trespassing and illegal camping. -- Debra Lynn, Lakeside

 

Great inconvenience if library is closed

Mayor Sam Abed thinks closing the East Valley branch library will cause a few inconveniences for Escondido’s citizens (“Council, public get look at proposed Escondido cuts,” SignOn San Diego, March 23). There are nine schools near the library. What is being proposed is not only inconvenient for some but irresponsible for all the children and elderly who use the library regularly. There must be a way for council members to balance the budget – perhaps paying a bit into their pensions? Giving up their cell phones? Giving up their gas allowance?

Step into the East Valley branch library and see smiles on the faces of children there who are finally understanding multiplication or the teen who uses the computers to apply for college scholarships or the toddler excited about hearing “The Cat in The Hat” during story time.
How is giving children a chance at a future inconvenient? -- Khristina Martin, Escondido

 

Flooding risk overlooked

In response to “Ballroom, skating rink among redevelopment proposals,” (Business, March 24): More than three years ago the city Planning Department and Redevelopment Agency established the Grantville Stakeholders Committee for the purpose of creating the land-use plan for the Grantville redevelopment project area. The GSC is stocked mostly with Grantville real estate developers, with just enough residents to make it seem legitimate.

During the course of the committee’s deliberations, one member, who is not a real estate developer, asked that the panel establish a subcommittee to study Grantville flooding. The response of the committee’s chair, who is a lobbyist for the Building Industry Association, was, “Flooding? What flooding?”
So how important is flooding at Alvarado Creek to the future of Grantville? Not much, according to the Grantville Stakeholders Committee. And it is certainly not the reason for establishing a 990-acre redevelopment project area. -- Brian T. Peterson, DVM; CEO, Grantville Action Group

 

Parking for disabled doesn’t mean free

I support J. Hostetler concerning handicap parking (Community Dialog letters, March 17). I am in favor of reserving space for disabled people. I am not in favor of free parking for the disabled.
I cannot understand why there is no charge for disabled spaces. Is it because being disabled equates to poverty? If there are valid reasons for this free parking, those reasons should be made clear to the public. -- Robert O’Donnell, South Bay

 

Raises spark outrage

It’s outrageous for Oceanside City Council members Jerry Kern and Gary Felien to support giving police management raises at this time (“Oceanside management police officers sign 2-year contract,” North Coast, March 24). This after they both promised pension reform. They lambasted Chuck Lowery for giving the same raises to the Fire Department last year. They just showed they don’t care about residents facing huge cuts to city services like the library, pools, parks, senior centers, recreation and at-risk youth programs. --
Mandy Barre, Oceanside

 

Tribe’s opposition to landfill questioned

Sheila Seagrave (Letters, March 19), writing in response to the Pala Band of Mission Indians and their opposition to the Gregory Canyon landfill, forgot to mention that the tribe is profiting from other uses considered undesirable by some neighbors.

It has the largest off-road facility in the county for motorcycle enthusiasts and makes thousands of dollars from a use that can’t be permitted in the county. A casino plus a rock quarry plus an off-road park equals sacred land? I don’t think so.

The voters spoke twice to approve landfill infrastructure needed in the North County. They need to be heard. -- Frank Ohrmund, Chula Vista

 

Priorities gone awry

At the top of the March 19 Local section of the U-T, we learned of the opening of a pedestrian bridge connecting the San Diego Convention Center and Petco Park, just in time for the Padres’ Opening Day on April 5 (“A walk to the park: New bridge opens”). The cost: $26 million.

On Page B2, we are reminded that because of a $114 million deficit, the San Diego Unified School District has issued layoff warnings to 1,335 educators (“Seniority layoff rules could decimate schools”). On Page A14, we read again about the $500 million or more budget reduction for the University of California system (“UCSD alters rules for community college students”).

Who let this happen? When did our priorities go so awry? -- Virginia Redman, Encinitas

 

Zoo board needs diversity

That the Zoological Society of San Diego’s board of trustees has never had an African-American or Latino member is absolutely indefensible (“For zoo trustees, it’s a labor of love,” Local, March 20). Because the article lacked a comment from the board about its lack of diversity, members’ plan to address it or even whether they deem diversity important, one is left to conclude that it is entirely possible that the board will never have an African-American or Latino member. -- Michel Anderson, Mission Valley

Talking trash

BY UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2011 AT MIDNIGHT

North County seemingly has everything going for it, from microclimates to a variety of ways to enjoy its quality of life. What it doesn’t have is a place to dispose of its own trash. North County trash is trucked just about everywhere – to Orange and Ventura counties, Arizona and Otay Mesa in South County.

A mere two decades and $50 million or more in costs later, that is getting close to changing.

A hearing at the Fallbrook Library on Wednesday night put the proposed Gregory Canyon landfill back in the news. The county Department of Environmental Health heard public input on its plans to issue yet again a solid waste permit.

If you have a good memory, you may recall that planning for this landfill began around 1990 and that voters overwhelmingly approved it twice, in 1994 and 2004.

The landfill site is high above the San Luis Rey Riverand state Route 76, three miles east of Interstate 15.

Environmentalists argue that toxins from the landfill could seep into the ground and ultimately the river. They do not mention the extensive runoff collection and subdrain systems that are planned, or that the landfill will be covered by 12 layers of soil, gravel, woven geotextile, geomembrane and geosynthetic clay. Nor do they mention the lowered costs of disposing of trash, an estimated $50 million in fees to the county, or 1,300 acres of perpetual open space that eventually will result.

The Fallbrook hearing presented yet another opportunity for a Potemkin village front of opposition, this time with a National City environmental organization busing people to Fallbrook. It escapes us, however, how shipping millions of tons of trash long distances benefits North County residents who ultimately pay the cost. Or how South County benefits from trucks on its highways to fill its precious landfill space with North County trash.

“They’re after us again,” said Nancy Chase, spokeswoman for Gregory Canyon Ltd., “because we’re on the one-yard line.”

The landfill is getting closer, although there is no guarantee it will score this year. The project is within 60 days of acquiring a permit from the Air Pollution Control District. A Regional Water Quality Control District permit could come as soon as April. By September, the Army Corps of Engineers could be in position to grant yet another contested permit.

The voters have spoken twice. The regulatory processes have been engaged for 20 years. The courts have been called upon to rule at almost every step of the way. At some point, the greater good must prevail. The facts cannot be ignored: North County must have a place to bury its trash. And North County does not have one.

Gregory Canyon Update - Solid Waste Facility Permit

The County of San Diego Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) is providing you notice that:

On February 1, 2011 the LEA determined that the Solid Waste Facility Permit application package for the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill, previously accepted as incomplete, is complete and correct.

 

The update on the web page (listed below) is located at the bottom of the paragraph that discusses permit related actions.

For more information on the update please visit http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/deh/waste/chd_gregory.html

 

If you have questions in regards to this notice please contact the LEA at 858-694-2888 or by e-mail at DEH Comments dehcomments@sdcounty.ca.gov

The Gregory Canyon project is much needed

By Dede Alpert, Lucy Killea and Julie Meier Wright (San Diego Union Tribune)

For nearly two decades, there has been talk of building a 183-acre dump about 3.5 miles east of Interstate 15, just south of state Route 76. Opponents include the nearby Pala Indians and others worried about long-term effects on the San Luis Rey River and its tributaries. The project remains in the midst of the permitting process.

The Gregory Canyon Landfill needs to be completed quickly. That, along with increased recycling, will protect our health and environment for decades to come

Here's why:

Our local population grows daily, and the need to provide safe, environmentally sound and convenient disposal for waste generated by the residents and businesses of San Diego County has increased. Waste in the county has grown to such an extent that all San Diego landfills are now operating at, or very close to, their maximum permitted capacities, and the most recently adopted revision of the county Solid Waste Management Plan "approved by the county, a majority of the cities in the county and the California Integrated Waste Management Board" concludes that the Gregory Canyon Landfill is absolutely necessary to meet the requirements of state law with respect to an adequate availability of daily disposal capacity.

For more than 10 years, Gregory Canyon Landfill Ltd. has been working toward one goal: providing a state-of-the art, environmentally safe and convenient disposal facility for residential and commercial waste in North County. The project’s investors have spent more than $40 million of private funds and been subject to 12 years of rigorous environmental reviews by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. The project's Environmental Impact Report, which has been approved by numerous state and federal agencies including San Diego County's Department of Environmental Health, states that it will provide levels of environmental protection far superior to that of other area landfills and will be the safest, most environmentally protective landfill in the state of California.

We believe that it is this attention to the details of environmental safety, and the obvious need to manage our own trash, that is responsible for voters' overwhelming approval of this privately funded project in not one, but two countywide elections.

Failure of this project would be disastrous for our growing communities. With no local landfill to handle North County waste, freeway traffic congestion would increase as trucks would have to travel long distances to more distant landfills. In addition, a virtual monopoly on county waste disposal would result, threatening citizens with significant increases in disposal fees. The county would suffer significant economic losses as well. As the Union-Tribune stated in an editorial, "The landfill also will contribute some $50 million to county coffers." That $50 million-plus could help rescue San Diego County as it strives to generate more tax revenue.

Already strapped homeowners cannot be expected to continue to carry the burden of our current economic meltdown. Generating new business is key. In order to lure new businesses we must demonstrate our ability to build much needed, privately funded infrastructure that will serve our needs for decades to come.

In August 2004, The San Diego Union-Tribune editorialized about the critical nature of this project, saying, "The need for these facilities is now 10 years closer. The technology to operate the landfill safely" that is without toxic leaks "is now 10 years better. The county has 10 years more residents, almost 800,000 tons of trash a year from North County alone, and lessening space for it in landfills elsewhere. The extensive requirements of environmental regulation are 10 years stricter and 10 years closer to fulfillment."

Six more years have passed since those observations were made.

The time is now.

Alpert and Killea are former state senators from San Diego. Meier Wright is president and CEO of the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp.

Gregory Canyon Faces Possible Delay

By J. Harry Jones
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
February 1, 2008 

 

Development of the long-planned and highly litigated Gregory Canyon landfill could be delayed once again by a court decision.

In a tentative decision issued this week, Vista Superior Court Judge Robert Dahlquist ruled that a revised environmental report, which must be completed before developers can seek numerous permits to build the landfill, is still insufficient in one area.

Should Dahlquist affirm his decision at a hearing scheduled for Monday, the county could be forced to redo the report and then give the public time to respond to it, said Everett DeLano, lead attorney for landfill opponents. That process usually takes months.

Nancy Chase, a spokeswoman for Gregory Canyon Ltd., the partnership that wants to build the landfill, said the ruling shouldn't mean a significant delay. She said the fact that the judge ruled that all other issues in the report have been resolved is “a major victory.”

Planned for nearly two decades, the Gregory Canyon would be the only major landfill in North County, which trucks trash south to county dumps or north to Orange County. The site is on state Route 76 about three miles east of Interstate 15.

Dahlquist said a small segment of the report inadequately addresses part of an agreement between Gregory Canyon Ltd. and the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, which has contracted to truck recycled water to the dump for 60 years.

He said the report's assertion that the district has plenty of water to accommodate the dump's needs, as well as its regular customers, is not supported by data.

Chase said the developer's lawyers will argue Monday that sufficient information is available. Even if the judge upholds his ruling, she said, Gregory Canyon Ltd. is confident that it will not have to go through the regular review process and can address the issue in an addendum.

The ruling is the latest action in a lawsuit brought in 2005 by a consortium of opponents who contended that the environmental report was deficient. Judge Michael Anello ruled that three areas needed more work.

In June, the county's Environmental Health Department finalized a revised report addressing the deficiencies.

Gregory Canyon Ltd. has spent about $40 million trying to develop the landfill, Chase said. She said it expects to break ground by the end of the year.

The landfill has been debated and challenged at every turn by the Pala Indian band, environmentalists and some North County cities and water districts, who argue it could pollute the San Luis Rey River and an underground aquifer. The developers say a modern design would make it among the safest landfills in the country.

In two countywide elections, in 1994 and 2004, voters have endorsed building it.

New Rules Bar "E-Waste" From State Landfills

San Diego Union Tribune
By Jonathan Sidener

STAFF WRITER

January 22, 2006

Don't throw away that dead battery, old cell phone or broken digital camera. As of Feb. 9, it will be illegal to send household electronic waste – e-waste – to California landfills.

Batteries and consumer electronics, along with fluorescent bulbs and thermostats, contain low levels of hazardous metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium, which can contaminate soil and water. Those products and others classified by the state Department of Toxic Substance Control as "universal waste" will have to go to a recycler or household hazardous waste collection center.

How to recycle

For information on locations for recycling or on properly disposing of household electronics, contact: www.earth911.org or (800) CLEANUP.

Similar regulations have banned TV sets and computer monitors from the state's landfills since 2001. The e-waste and other items have been classified as universal waste since 2002, but homes and small businesses were granted an extension through Feb. 8 of this year.

The term universal waste is used because these items are found in a multitude of locations, essentially every home and business, not from a single place such as a factory.

Despite the sweeping changes in the way Californians must dispose of such products, residents have received little, if any, notification about the new rules from either the state or San Diego County, which will oversee universal waste collection locally.

Officials don't expect people's waste-disposal habits to change overnight. And they say they are counting on voluntary compliance – not enforcement – to keep toxic metals out of landfills.

"We're not going to hire a bunch of garbage police to rummage through people's trash and see whether Joe and Sally California threw away three batteries," said Ron Baker, a spokesman for the state agency.

"In general, the people of California care about the environment," Baker said. "If we tell them why we're doing this, that we don't want these contaminants re-entering the environment, and if we tell them where to dispose of the items, I think we'll see a major change within three to six months."

Baker said a study of pollution in San Francisco Bay suggested that the leading source of toxic metals was universal waste.

There is no definitive list of products that qualify as universal waste.

But San Diego County environmental officials say the category appears to cover anything that contains a circuit board – from electric watches and alarm clocks to electronic toys, VCRs, even novelty greeting cards that play a tune when opened. Circuit boards contain lead solder and copper, which can leach into the environment when the boards decay over time.

Electronics, filled with potentially toxic metals, are a staple of modern life, from talking dolls and singing fish to video game systems, boom boxes, portable CD players and remote controls for nearly everything, not to mention all of the gadgets the remotes control. And all of these devices contain circuit boards, batteries or both.

The Department of Toxic Substance Control has tested circuit boards from several products – laptop computers, LCD monitors and plasma TVs – and all exceeded limits for lead and copper.

Despite the results, Baker said his agency hasn't concluded that all electronics should be classified as universal waste. He said that the agency is testing products and that those that exceed levels for hazardous metals will be added to its list.

So far, these products have been deemed universal waste and must be recycled or taken to a household hazardous waste collection center beginning next month:

Common batteries such as button batteries, AA, AAA, C and D cells, but not car batteries, which are already regulated

Electronics such as TVs, computer monitors, computers, printers, VCRs, cell phones, telephones, radios and microwave ovens

Novelties such as greeting cards that play music when opened and most sneakers with flashing lights in their soles

Products on the list that contain mercury include:

Fluorescent light tubes and bulbs, and several other types of bulbs such as high-intensity discharge, metal halide, sodium and neon

Thermostats

Electrical switches, relays, clothes irons, silent light switches

Mercury thermometers

 Mercury gauges, which are often found in barometers, manometers and blood-pressure monitors

In addition, aerosol cans that are not empty are considered universal waste.

As the Department of Toxic Substance Control adds to its list of items considered universal waste, others are proceeding with a broader definition.

"It's my interpretation that all electronics are universal waste," said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste. "Every single device DTSC has tested has been found to be a hazard."

Murray said it was surprising that officials have not publicized the new requirements. He said officials and groups such as his have been focusing on computer monitors and TVs, which made up nearly half of the estimated 515,000 tons of e-waste sent to California landfills in 2004.

Since universal waste accounts for the other half of e-waste, the change in household-waste regulations next month probably deserved a higher profile, he said.

San Diego County environmental health specialist KariLyn Merlos agreed with Murray's interpretation that all consumer electronics are universal waste. Merlos said the regulations put the burden of determining whether an item is universal waste on consumers. To make things less confusing, all electronics should be recycled or taken to a municipal collection center, she said.

Merlos said that although her department has not publicized the new rules, it has worked to make consumers aware of the issue. She said the county and its cities have been encouraging residents to properly dispose of all the universal waste items at local household hazardous waste collection sites.

"We've been promoting the recycling of all these items as part of our general household hazardous waste collection," Merlos said. "We're already doing universal waste collection."