A coalition of environmental groups, sustainability proponents and zero waste advocates stood toe-to-toe with the state agency that issues landfill permits—-and backed it down. The result is that the solid waste permit for Redwood Landfill will be made fully public before it goes to Sacramento for consideration.

The Green Coalition for Responsible Waste/Resource Management, a group of about 25 environmental, community and social justice organizations in Marin and Sonoma counties, has coalesced around the issue of Redwood Landfill's proposed expansion. Even the word "expansion" has been controversial during the proposal's byzantine process of review, which is now in the end phase.

Redwood Landfill, owned and operated by Waste Management Inc, first sought to amend its solid waste facility permit back in 1995. The landfill proposed expanding its capacity from 19.1 million cubic yards to 34 million cubic yards.

Environmentalists, as well as nearby residents, quickly began to question the extent of the proposed expansion. They expressed concerns about the safety of increasing the landfill's capacity, in large part because it lies on a flood plain adjacent to environmentally sensitive wetlands, San Antonio Creek and the Petaluma River, which drain into San Pablo Bay.

The opposition initially focused on opposing the landfill expansion but eventually grew to encompass promoting zero waste and sustainability goals. The issues are connected, they said, including whether or not landfills should even exist in their present configuration as repositories of waste rather than recycling and reuse centers.

The objections to increasing the landfill's capacity eventually led Redwood Landfill to submit a more modest proposal that calls for increasing capacity at the site to about 26 million cubic yards rather than 34 million cubic yards.

Redwood says that's not even an expansion, that its 1995 permit allowed 5.1 million cubic yards of daily and final cover in addition to 19.1 million cubic yards of material at its site. Any way it's assessed, that's an expansion, say opponents. At this stage, the debate over whether the proposal is an expansion or not is moot, or almost moot.

The process that paves the way for a landfill to expand—-or change—-its operating conditions in California is loaded with the kind of minute rules, regulations and conditions that keep state bureaucrats employed, because few others can decipher the intricacies of the solid-waste permit application process. And in Marin, it's even more complicated.

The process to approve an expansion proposal in California involves two separate tracks. First, a landfill operator must satisfy California Environmental Quality Act (EQA) requirements. When Marin County planning commissioners held hearings on Redwood Landfill's proposal and approved it earlier this year, the landfill satisfied the EQA mandate (although expansion opponents say they may have grounds to appeal).

Tied to the approval the planners granted are a number of mitigation measures dealing with issues such as protecting the environment from toxic material leaching into the surrounding area and keeping a lid on gas emissions.

About 15 mitigation measures are included in the final Environmental Impact Report that planners approved. During the exhaustive sessions that led to the approval, members of the Green Coalition and others asked for specific assurances that the details of how the mitigation measures would be carried out would be adequate. Planners and county staff at that time said discussion about the specifics of many of the issues could take place during a future "merits" hearing. Those issues, they said, were beyond the purview of the EQA mandate.

That merits hearing would be held by what's called the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), which is responsible for dealing with a landfill's solid waste permit application, needed in addition to the EQA requirement. In an unusual arrangement, the LEA in Marin is also the county environmental health services division. It's obvious that the unusual connection could cause friction.

State regulations require the LEA to hold what's called "an informational" meeting before sending a solid waste permit to the state Integrated Waste Management Board for approval or rejection. The problem in Marin was that members of the Green Coalition heard planners and staff tell them they would have an opportunity to discuss the merits of the landfill proposal at the merits hearing. When that meeting rolled around, on Sept. 15, Green Coalition members learned that it was only an informational meeting, not a true hearing about the merits of the landfill's proposal.

At the meeting, Mary Madison-Johnson, a supervisor for the California Integrated Waste Management Board responsible for the Marin area, said the meeting's only purpose "is to inform the public" about whether the landfill's permit meets "state minimum requirements."

The issues the Green Coalition wanted to raise--such as reducing greenhouse gas, sustainability and zero waste, as they apply to the landfill--were beyond the scope of the proceedings, said Madison-Johnson. Those are the type of issues, she added, best taken to the county, not to the state Waste Management Board or its LEA.

The fact that in Marin the head of the LEA, Phil Smith, also is head of the county's environmental health services division is a tender spot. Smith and his division, acting as the state's representative in the landfill proceedings, had to abide by the state's timetable and procedures.

That caused some heated words on Sept. 15 when Green Coalition members said that Smith and his agency would not release the details of the landfill's permit application. How could interested residents discuss the details of the merits if they couldn't see the information contained in the permit application? And to put some controversial icing on the cake, the state's procedure called for sending the permit to the state Integrated Waste Management Board after the informational meeting—-with no further chance for local additions or oversight.

Smith and his agency were following state guidelines that, opponents said, are not necessarily in the best interests of Marin. While all this was happening, Redwood Landfill was waiting for resolution, not playing a direct role in the proceedings. Why not release the details of the permit application? Smith and his division had not yet completed their work in accepting the permit and declaring it complete. They believed they should not release parts of the permit application until that happened.

But the state was pressuring the LEA to move the process along and wanted the required informational meeting held even though the application was not complete.

It gets even weirder: Under state law, if an LEA needs more time to declare a permit complete, which is not unusual, a "substitute" meeting can stand in for the required "informational" meeting "as long as the substitute meeting is held within one year of the Local Enforcement Agency declaring an application complete," according to Rebecca Ng, a solid waste specialist in the county's environmental health services division. So an informational meeting held one year before an application is declared complete can satisfy the state's requirement.

Smith and his agency, feeling pressure from the state Integrated Waste Management Board to move the process along, held the meeting on Sept. 15, which could qualify as that substitute meeting. It all met the state's requirement, but it really ticked off locals, who filed a petition of objection right after the meeting, saying the process was being kept out of the sunshine.

"A lot of people were very frustrated about the process, and I was frustrated by the process," says Marin Supervisor Judy Arnold (the landfill sits in her district). "It was the Integrated Waste Management Board staff who told the [LEA], 'You have to hold your hearing now,' even before everything was complete."

Arnold says she learned that the LEA actually has some discretion and can "release draft conditions for public review and public comment before they go to Sacramento." After Arnold received that information, she met with LEA staff, and Ng took the lead in talking with the Integrated Waste Management Board.

"I think something really positive can come from this," says Arnold. The LEA will now release the solid waste facilities permit conditions as soon as they are complete. Those conditions deal with how the mitigation measures county planners added to the EIR will be accomplished. That's a big deal to the Green Coalition. In addition, the materials included in the landfill's application for a permit have been released for review--the information that was not made public before the Sept. 15 meeting.

Arnold also played a pivotal role in calling for another public meeting "to receive comments on the draft permit conditions that the LEA will take into consideration before finalizing the LEA's permit conditions and sending them to the [Integrated Waste Management Board]." That's also a big deal to the Green Coalition.

"Procedurally, it looks like we're going to get what we requested," says Christopher Gilkerson, director at the Green Coalition. "But the focus ought to be on the substance of the permit conditions and the environmental protection and all of that."

Gilkerson sent a letter to Arnold after she informed him and others about the latest developments. "Thank you very much for standing up for your constituents and promoting integrity of the process and preserving public participation," he wrote.

Gilkerson and the Green Coalition obviously are pleased they will get to review the information included in the permit application. They also are pleased another public "merits" hearing will take place. And they're pleased the LEA will include their comments in the final documents sent to the state Integrated Waste Management Board as part of the permit package for consideration.

The Waste Management Board was scheduled to hear the Redwood proposal at a Nov. 10 meeting. But Gilkerson and the Green Coalition say that's too soon. "We ask for four weeks advance notice of the public meeting to allow us sufficient time to prepare constructive comments," Gilkerson wrote in his letter to Arnold. "And we ask that the LEA not deem the application as complete and correct until after we have reviewed it and the accompanying materials."

Local activists who have ridden herd on the Redwood Landfill proposal have said they think that when the proposal gets to the Integrated Waste Management Board, it will be a done deal. It may seem as though the board has an inclination to pass proposals through its process, said Madison-Johnson at the Sept. 15 meeting, but that's not the case.

Members of the Green Coalition remain skeptical, which accounts for a large part of their commitment to keeping the proposal in Marin for as long as possible for review. "We know we're not going to stop it," says Green Coalition member Bruce Baum. "We want to make sure that before it gets to Sacramento that Marin County is leaving its mark on it."

The Redwood Landfill proposal has coincided with the ascendancy of the sustainability movement and the push toward zero waste. "It's well documented that humans have caused global warming," says Baum, "and we're really concerned what we in Marin can do to lighten our footprint, and one of the things we can do is to move to zero waste. Although the words are finally being said, not enough is being done."

Redwood Landfill has a plan that it states will transform the landfill from a waste disposal site to a recycling and resource recovery center, but opponents say the plan isn't aggressive enough to meet the challenge.

"If we move to zero waste," says Baum, "if we put mitigation fees in place to pay for zero waste programs, we can extend the life of the landfill, and we can leave our mark to make Marin County a better place." The effort to get to zero waste is especially critical, adds Baum, after considering that virtually all landfills will fail, a generally accepted assessment.

Trying to reduce the amount of material that goes into landfills is a laudable goal, Madison-Johnson said at the Sept. 15 meeting, but it's not an issue under consideration as part of the state's Integrated Waste Management Board process.

Maybe not, says Gilkerson, but "we certainly want to make sure that there will be a mechanism within the waste facility permit to make sure that the mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report take place on schedule."

Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.