State Agency Decision Favors Gregory Canyon Landfill

 

 

PRESS RELEASE                                       

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

June 20, 2011

State Agency Decision Favors Gregory Canyon Landfill
CalRecycle Declares Landfill Permit to be “Complete and Correct”

San Diego, CA- The Gregory Canyon Landfill project cleared another regulatory hurdle when the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) ruled that the project’s Solid Waste Facility Permit application satisfactorily addresses all application requirements. CalRecycle’s decision to declare the Gregory Canyon Landfill application “complete and correct” is yet another affirmation that this waste management project has met all the regulatory hurdles required to provide San Diego County residents with the most environmentally protected landfill in the country – one that sets a new standard of excellence.

“CalRecycle’s decision is one more affirmation that the Gregory Canyon Landfill project meets and even exceeds all environmental requirements,” said project manager Jim Simmons. “The Gregory Canyon Landfill design will both respect and restore the surrounding environment, while providing San Diego County residents with the low-cost, long-term waste management solution they need,” Simmons continued.

“After more than 20 years of scientific scrutiny and innovative engineering, the project launch date is finally near.  We are eager to begin.  The sooner we start, the sooner we can create a state-of-the-art landfill that will be a model for the rest of the country – a project that preserves nearby lands while creating hundreds of new jobs for San Diego County residents.”

CalRecycle’s June 16th decision was in response to a regulatory challenge by the Pala Band of Mission Indians, which had appealed a decision by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health in its capacity as Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA).  On May 13, 2011, the LEA issued a Solid Waste Facility Permit for the Gregory Canyon Landfill after determining the application was “complete and correct.” The Pala Band of Mission Indians challenged the LEA’s “complete and correct” declaration on 13-points, but CalRecyle rejected each charge and stated that the “relevant evidence and administrative record are not in dispute.”  The application submitted by Gregory Canyon Landfill provided an extensive body of scientific evidence and detailed engineering plans to ensure the project offers the highest level of environmental protection possible.

CalRecycle’s next step is to rule whether to “concur” with the LEA’s permit decision, a ruling is expected by July 13th, 2011.

Gregory Canyon Landfill has been in development for more than 20-years and received two overwhelming public votes of support in two separate countywide elections, in 1994 and 2004.

The Gregory Canyon Landfill is located along SR76, 3 ½ miles east of Interstate 15.  The project has incorporated an unprecedented double liner system with five containment layers, which will ensure protection of groundwater and surface water.  The 1,770-acre project will also include at least 1,461 acres of permanently preserved habitat, an on-site habitat creation and enhancement area of 212 acres, and about 350 acres of off-site permanently preserved habitat.

North San Diego County has not had a landfill since the closure of the San Marcos Landfill in the late 1990’s.  A local site serving north San Diego County is expected to reduce traffic impacts throughout the County by up to one million vehicle miles each year. In addition to economic savings to consumers through increased competition and lower transportation costs, the project will help reduce traffic congestion and energy consumption.

### 

Dan Walters: Legislature blithely interferes with local decision-making

Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee

June 3, 2011 Page 3A

While state legislators pay lip service to local decision-making, they also claim a divine right to intervene in local conflicts by siding with one faction or the other, even when it means overturning ordinary governmental and legal processes.

Sen. Juan Vargas, who made it back into the Legislature last year by the skin of his teeth, embraces that dubious, time-dishonored practice with measures that would intervene in two local development flaps.

The one-time San Diego assemblyman defeated fellow Democrat Mary Salas by just 22 votes after one of the hardest fought and most expensive legislative primary contests in California history. He then coasted to an easy win in the November election in the heavily Democratic 40th Senate District, which sprawls along the state's southern border, and may run for Congress next year.

Business groups poured money into Vargas' campaign while Salas was favored by labor unions and other elements of the party establishment. And one of her financial supporters was the California Tribal Business Alliance, a coalition of casino-owning Indian tribes.

However, one Vargas bill, Senate Bill 833, takes the side of the Pala Band of Mission Indians, one of those casino-owning tribes, in a bitter fight over a 308-acre landfill disposal site in San Diego County called Gregory Canyon.

Gregory Canyon Ltd. has been working nearly two decades to secure multiple state and local permits – including two successful ballot measure campaigns – and establish the site over the objections of the Pala Band and some environmental groups. In 2000, then-Gov. Gary Davis vetoed a bill to block the project.

The firm was on the cusp of final approval when Vargas stepped in with SB 833, which would block the project and thus give a win to the tribe and other project opponents who had lost in other arenas.

Meanwhile, another Vargas bill, SB 469, inserts the state into a long-running controversy in San Diego over development of "superstores" by Walmart and other big retailers, taking the side of grocery store unions and Walmart's competitors who were losing at the local level. The measure would require such stores to undergo economic-impact analyses, giving opponents more legal ammunition.

A city ordinance once required such analyses but Walmart qualified a ballot measure to challenge the law and the city rescinded it. Now Vargas wants to make it state law – very selectively, because his bill would apply to Walmart but exempt Costco and similar stores.

It should be bothersome that legislators who can't balance the budget or otherwise perform their legitimate duties would blithely interfere with years of exhaustively detailed permitting procedures, as the Gregory Canyon bill would do, or overturn local land-use processes, as the Walmart bill would do.

Gregory Canyon landfill wins county approval

Story by J. Harry Jones

Originally published May 13, 2011 at 11:42a.m., updated May 13, 2011 at 07:12p.m.

PALA — A long-sought permit to build a landfill in Gregory Canyon near Pala in rural North County has been approved by the county.

The decision by the county Department of Environmental Health, the agency charged with granting solid-waste permits, culminates an eight-year effort to obtain permission to construct the dump — but the decision is still subject to final approval from a state agency, and several other key permits have yet to be granted, including one from the federal government, which likely won’t make a final decision until next year.

Nevertheless, the decision is a milestone for Gregory Canyon Ltd., the development company that has spent more than $60 million in a nearly two-decade-long effort to build the 308-acre dump. It would be south of state Route 76 and about three miles east of Interstate 15. The landfill would be built within a 1,770-acre parcel south of the San Luis Rey River in a canyon next to Gregory Mountain, which the Pala Indians consider sacred.

The remaining acreage would stay as open space.
Attorney Everett DeLano, a longtime opponent, said the decision didn’t surprise him, but he still believes the landfill will never be built.

“The project ... poses a lot of problems for the environment, the river and the tribal interests,” he said.
In his decision, DEH Director Jack Miller said the benefits of the project “outweigh and override” the unavoidable effects it would have on the environment.

He said the landfill would provide additional disposal capacity for the county; would increase competition among disposal sites and reduce waste fees; would incorporate an enhanced liner system that might set a higher standard for landfill liners; and would provide open space preservation beyond what is legally required.

Gregory Canyon Ltd. says the dump would be built in a way that ensures that the river and ground water would always be safe.

Nancy Chase, Gregory Canyon Ltd. spokeswoman, said Gregory Canyon “is the most studied project of its kind in state history.”

Opponents fear that some day, maybe hundreds of years from now, the landfill would leak toxins into the ground and eventually into the river. It’s an environmental disaster waiting to happen, they say.

If built, the dump would take trash for 30 years. Opponents say there is no longer a need for another dump in the county since so much of household trash now is recycled or disposed of in ecologically friendly ways. They fear that instead of being used for North County trash, the landfill would become a dumping ground for areas north of the county.

Proponents say the need still exists, and the long-term future must not be ignored.
Unlike most decisions outside municipal boundaries, the county’s Board of Supervisors has no say in what happens.

In 1994, voters approved, 68 percent to 32 percent, Proposition C, the Gregory Canyon Landfill and Recycling Collection Center Ordinance. The vote amended the county’s general plan and zoning ordinance to allow a landfill without a major-use permit, thereby streamlining the project approval and removing the supervisors from the decision making.

Ten years later, landfill opponents drafted and sponsored a second voter initiative, Proposition B, seeking to invalidate the 1994 initiative. It failed, 64 percent to 36 percent.

Another effort to stop the landfill is under way in Sacramento. Senate Bill 833 would ban the landfill because of its potential effects on the San Luis Rey River, groundwater and sacred Indian sites. The county Board of Supervisors earlier this week voted 4-1 to oppose the bill, saying they were outraged that the state was trying to intervene in local affairs and circumvent two public votes. The granting of the permit should have no effect on the proposed legislation, officials say.

J. Harry Jones: (760) 752-6780; jharry.jones@uniontrib.com

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