Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano

Decision Date09 April 1992
Docket NumberNo. A052422,A052422
Citation5 Cal.App.4th 351,7 Cal.Rptr.2d 307
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesRIO VISTA FARM BUREAU CENTER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SOLANO et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Alan Waltner, Roy Gorman, Ann H. Lyons, Gorman and Waltner, Oakland, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Thomas H. Gordinier, County Counsel, James W. Laughlin, Deputy County Counsel, Fairfield, for defendants and respondents.

STEIN, Associate Justice.

Appellants brought an action challenging the adoption by respondent County of Solano of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan (the Plan) and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). 1 The trial court found that respondent had complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) 2 and the Tanner Act (Health & Saf.Code, § 25135 et seq. and § 25199 et seq.) in adopting the Plan and certifying the FEIR, and rendered judgment for the County; the trial court also dismissed appellant's action against the DHS.

THE PLAN

The Plan adopted by respondent was the culmination of an effort which commenced in March of 1987 with a resolution by the Board of Supervisors to "prepare a county hazardous waste management plan" for submittal to the DHS for approval pursuant to the Tanner Act. The stated purpose of this Plan was to review and analyze existing hazardous waste disposal facilities, determine the need for additional or expanded facilities, and identify "site selection criteria for new or expanded ... facilities, to accommodate projected needs."

Concurrent with the submission of the Plan for approval, a draft environmental impact report was completed and made available for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA requirements. In April of 1989, the FEIR was certified; approval for the Plan was obtained from the board of supervisors in August of 1989, and from the DHS in February of 1990.

As approved, the Plan constitutes an initial or primary working document to be updated and reviewed periodically. The Plan mentions existing hazardous waste quantities and management programs. Existing facilities within the County for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste are described, as are "out-of-County" facilities to which hazardous waste produced within the County is exported. The Plan also projects future hazardous waste quantities from all sources, factoring in anticipated waste source reductions, and concludes that the County will have a projected capacity of zero in existing facilities and a possible annual "capacity shortfall" by the year 2000. Various future scenarios are suggested--depending upon continued operation of existing County facilities, which currently accept hazardous waste from outside the County--and options are delineated. Among the options stated are identification of out-of-state facilities to receive residual wastes and a new facility in the county to serve as a residuals repository for "primarily Northern California The Plan contains a siting analysis of treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facilities, including the regulatory context of future facility proposals, the criteria for siting proposals in accordance with DHS guidelines, and "general areas" within Solano County which meet the stated criteria. 4 Relying upon DHS guidelines, as modified slightly to suit the particular needs and characterizations of the County, the Plan describes the siting criteria, which are divided into the following categories: location specific criteria; high hazard criteria; public safety criteria; and physical limitations of the site area.

                generators." 3  The Plan concludes that even with source reduction programs, "there will still be a need for facilities, either in-County or out-of-County, to treat, store and dispose of hazardous waste...."
                

The Plan then applies the siting criteria to various areas of the County and designates those areas with potential suitability for siting of hazardous waste facilities under all the stated criteria, as well as those areas which meet siting criteria with "risk assessments and/or engineering measures," and other areas excluded from possible siting consideration. 5 The Plan concludes that the County has locations which potentially or conditionally meet siting criteria for both TSD facilities and residuals repositories. The primary acceptable area falls within Southeast Solano County and is known as Montezuma Hills.

The Plan does not select or recommend any specific sites for hazardous waste disposal facilities. Rather, the Plan designates certain areas in Solano County which have been identified as potentially consistent with siting criteria for TSD facilities. It notes that these are general areas only and not recommended sites. The Plan states, "Actual sites proposed for future facilities will be given close scrutiny under the County and appropriate city's development review process as well as federal and state review...." The Plan further observes "Actual siting requires extensive interagency review for the land-use compatibility and environmental impact of any proposed TSD facility."

The Plan contains policies and programs for future management and disposal of hazardous wastes. One of these policies is to ensure adequate facility capacity by determining what additional waste management facilities are appropriate, if any, for location in Solano County. Another stated policy is to "ensure that existing and future hazardous waste management facilities ... in Solano County are developed and operated in an environmentally sound manner through appropriate management, legislation, enforcement and the environmental impact process (California Environmental Quality Act)."

The Plan commits the County to work towards fair-share agreement among counties, whereby each county takes responsibility for its fair share of waste management. To implement this policy, the Plan advises that if the siting of a particular type of hazardous waste management facility needed in the county is not environmentally appropriate or economically viable, the county shall seek to reach an agreement with one or more other jurisdictions to facilitate the siting of a larger, environmentally appropriate and economically viable facility (or facilities) to be located in the county or elsewhere.

The Plan further warns that some TSD facility impacts may be difficult to mitigate. In addition to the direct costs for increased emergency response, inspection, infrastructure, and other county services, the Plan recognizes that TSD facilities impose a number of indirect impacts. "The siting of a TSD facility, particularly a residuals repository, may impose long-term or permanent changes in land-use patterns. These changes will affect not only the facility and its immediate vicinity, but also areas the public may view as deleteriously altered by the facility's presence.... Although mitigation of many of these may be addressed during the permitting and CEQA process, long-term prediction of all impacts is not possible, even assuming well-operated facilities."

The Plan is characterized as a "first assessment of County needs and resources" to "serve as a strong foundation for an ongoing process." It is contemplated that the Plan will be reviewed and updated periodically.

THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

The FEIR describes the Plan as the "primary planning document for hazardous waste management in the County." The FEIR notes that the Plan itself would have no direct adverse impacts on the environment and should result in beneficial impacts through improved and safer management of the county's hazardous wastes. The FEIR recognizes that the Plan could allow certain projects to proceed, which could have adverse impacts, such as potential future hazardous waste facilities, upon a finding of consistency with the Plan.

The FEIR summarizes the "key features" of the project under evaluation--that is, the Plan. The siting criteria contained in the Plan are reiterated in the FEIR, as are the areas which potentially meet those criteria. The policies and recommended programs mentioned in the Plan are also restated.

The FEIR describes the following alternatives to be evaluated: adoption of the Plan; no adoption of a hazardous waste management plan (the "No Project Alternative"); adoption of a different hazardous waste management plan which limits facilities to local needs only (the "Local Needs Alternative"); and a plan which would exclude the siting of any new facility in Solano County (the "No Facilities Alternative"). The FEIR notes that without a hazardous waste management plan, siting of future facilities "would probably be less difficult," but "the net effect would be a reduction in the County's control over facility siting" and loss of the "environmental benefits" associated with the siting criteria stated in the Plan. "The Local Needs Alternative would have the effect of discouraging the import of hazardous waste for treatment, storage or disposal within Solano County, but would encourage the siting and operation of new treatment and storage facilities to manage hazardous waste generated in Solano County." The FEIR concludes that "Volumes of hazardous waste generated in Solano County, however, may not be large enough to support treatment or disposal facilities, and it is likely that all Solano wastes would be exported for treatment and disposal under this alternative." According to the FEIR, the "No Facilities Alternative" would require preparation of a different hazardous waste management plan which excludes new facilities "through changes in facility siting criteria and other restrictions." The FEIR states that "it is unknown if adequate out-of-County treatment, storage and disposal facility capacity would be available for waste generated in-County."

The environmental setting and potential impacts due to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
86 cases
  • San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coal. v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 27, 2019
    ...described mitigation measures will reduce environmental impacts to acceptable levels." ( Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 379, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 307 (Rio Vista ).) The adequacy of the EIR itself is not at issue here, as Navy Broadway filed no timely act......
  • County of Amador v. Water Agency
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 3, 1999
    ...Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 704; Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 369, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 307.) A claim that an agency failed to act in a manner required by law presents other considerations. Nonco......
  • Hilgedick v. Koehring Finance Corp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 22, 1992
    ... ... Las Palmas Center Associates (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1258, 1 ... City & County of San Francisco (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 728, 734, 85 ... ...
  • Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 1996
    ...of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 185 Cal.Rptr. 41, Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 307, Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 280 Cal.Rptr. 478, and Twain Hart......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Addressing the Problem: The Judicial Branches
    • United States
    • Environmental justice: legal theory and practice. 4th edition
    • February 20, 2018
    ...for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately.” Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano , 5 Cal. App. 4th 351, 370 (1992) (District revised 1315 to deal only with the EPA’s objections regarding undocumented credits). It is necessary, therefore, in de......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT