DPC Letter: Twin Cities Composting Facility

    The Delta Protection Commission reviews hundreds of local and regional land use projects in the Primary and Secondary zones of the Delta for consistency with the Land Use and Resource Management Plan (PDF) and submits comment letters to ensure projects stay on track with the Plan. Under state law (Public Resources Code Sections 29770-29772), any action taken by a local government or agency in the Primary Zone that is inconsistent with the Plan can be appealed to the Commission. Appeals may be brought by any interested person, or by the Commission itself. Learn more here.

    June 7, 2024

    Leanne Mueller, Senior Planner
    Sacramento County
    Planning and Environmental Review
    827 7th Street, Room 225
    Sacramento, CA 95814

    Dear Ms. Mueller:

    We are providing a second set of comments on the application for a use permit for the Twin Cities Composting Facility located on the north side of Twin Cities Road, west of Interstate 5, in the Delta community on Parcel 146-0080-040-0000. This proposed facility occurs in the Primary Zone of the Delta, as defined in the Delta Protection Act (the “Act,”). The purpose of this letter is to respond to the applicant’s “Project Justification Statement, Twin Cities Greenwaste Composting Facility Project” (“Justification Statement,” Abbott and Kindermann 2024).

    The Justification Statement provides an analysis of consistency with the Land Use and Resource Management Plan (LURMP, Delta Protection Commission 2010). This analysis concludes the project is consistent with the LURMP. We disagree. This letter provides an administrative record of the factual and analytical deficiencies in the applicant’s analysis in the Justification Statement. This letter also serves to document the evidence that supports the Delta Protection Commission’s current determination that the project is inconsistent with the LURMP and Delta Protection Act.

    Response to the Applicant’s Justification Statement

    The Justification Statement provides the following assertions:

    • One: The project is consistent with the LURMP Agriculture Element because it supports agriculture by providing a necessary service and is thus oriented towards agriculture (Abbott and Kindermann 2024:21).
    • Two: The project will serve Delta agriculture by providing a location for processing “clippings, prunings, and other byproducts … via composting” which is required by law (Abbott and Kindermann 2024:21).
    • Three: The project is consistent with the LURMP Land Use element because it is an agriculturally oriented business (Abott and Kindermann 2024:22).
    • Four: The project is consistent with the LURMP Land Use element because it “is suitably located to serve local Delta communities and agricultural operators as both a service provider and producer of organic soil amendments” (Abbott and Kindermann 2024:22).

    Each assertion is addressed below.

    Assertion One: The assertion that the facility is oriented toward agriculture is not consistent with the applicant’s own Statement of Intent (Zanker 2023:1). This document states: “Zanker is proposing this project to assist the local jurisdictions in complying with SB1383 organics diversion requirements” (Zanker 2024:1). The applicant’s Statement of Intent goes on to say: “Zanker is proposing to add a green waste and composting facility capable of processing and composting up to 145,000 tons per year of organic waste (i.e., residential and commercial yard waste, residential food scrap and source separated food waste)” (Zanker 2024:3, emphasis added).

    Here, because the applicant’s own statement concedes the orientation of the facility is toward residential and commercial yard waste and food waste, the facts contradict the conclusion that the facility is oriented toward agriculture. The referenced law, SB 1383 (Senate Bill 1383) is codified in various parts of the California Health and Safety Code and California Public Resources Code. Health and Safety Code Section 39730.6 indicates the broad policy goal of this law is to reduce landfill organic waste that decays into methane, which is a greenhouse gas (California Health and Safety Code Section 39730.6(a)). The applicant provides no facts showing that agricultural operations are a significant and substantial source of organic landfill waste.

    The Public Resources Code amendments created by SB 1383 authorize the Department of Resource Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle) and the State Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt regulations oriented toward recapturing food waste, i.e., waste that is fully processed food originating in residences, restaurants, and other commercial venues. Agricultural greenwaste is not the focus of this law (California Public Resources Code Section 42652.5(a)(2)). These facts demonstrate the facility is oriented toward municipal not agricultural organic waste.

    Assertion Two: The applicant provides no record supporting the conclusion that the facility will provide a substantial or meaningful alternative to burning agricultural greenwaste. The primary reason the applicant’s analysis is deficient is that the orientation of the facility is toward municipal greenwaste with limited capacity remaining, if any, for other greenwaste sources (see below). The second reason is that the CARB agricultural waste burning prohibition and the incentives program for alternatives to burning agricultural waste are mischaracterized. Each of these concerns is addressed below.

    The applicant’s own analysis states the facility would process 145,000 tons per year of waste originating in cities that would otherwise go to landfills (Abott and Kindermann 2024:4). The Statement of Intent echoes the general goal of processing up to 145,000 tons per year of municipal (not agricultural) greenwaste (Zanker 2023:3). The “Traffic Volume Assumptions” worksheet at the end of the Statement of Intent assumes a “Design or Peak Capacity” of 425 “TPD” (Zanker 2023:12). If we reasonably assume TPD is “tons per day” and an optimistic operation of 365 days per year of operation the total capacity under optimal conditions is 155,125 tons per year. If one subtracts the 145,000 tons of municipal waste the applicant states the facility will process, this leaves only 10,125 tons of capacity for other uses (less than 10% of total capacity). Given the vastness of the surrounding agricultural landscape to the east and west, it is implausible that the 10,125-ton capacity for agricultural greenwaste processing is substantial or meaningful.

    The second issue is that the applicant’s analysis mischaracterizes the CARB prohibitions on agricultural burning and the feasibility of alternatives. The CARB discourages agricultural waste burning because it adversely affects air quality (CARB 2021). The description of incentives for alternatives to burning for the nearby San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) includes grants for chipping on-site, and on-site mulching and composting (SJVAPCD 2024). The current regulatory scheme to reduce burning of agricultural greenwaste is oriented toward chipping and mulching onsite with composting offsite as one option that is not required. In addition, the monetary incentives program that offsets the cost of alternatives to burning exists only in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), not the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) (Scheele, pers. Comm. 2024). Thus the incentive program does not cover the entire Delta.

    In summary, the capacity for processing agricultural greenwaste is very small and not the primary orientation of the facility. Even if composting capacity was present, composting is only one of a palette of options available to agricultural operations, and economic incentives to use that option are not extensive and continuous across the Delta.

    Assertion Three: The applicant’s Justification Statement argues that the facility is consistent with the LURMP because it is an agriculturally oriented business. As demonstrated above in our response to assertions one and two, the applicant’s own statements show the primary orientation is toward municipal not agricultural greenwaste. Little capacity for other waste types would remain. This assertion is not supported by fact.

    Assertion Four: The applicant’s Justification Statement concludes that the project is consistent with the LURMP Land Use Element because it “is suitably located to serve local Delta communities and agricultural operators as both a service provider and producer of organic soil amendments” (Abbott and Kindermann 2024:22). This statement is not grounded in fact.

    First, the portions of the Delta in the SJVAPCD where greenwaste disposal incentives would apply includes operations over 33 miles away. The applicant has not demonstrated that this is an economically practicable distance for hauling greenwaste. This undermines their assertion that the location is suitable.

    Second, the applicant’s own statements demonstrate that the facility is not oriented toward, nor has a design capacity to process, significant quantities of agricultural greenwaste (Zanker 2023:12, Abott and Kindermann 2024:4). This further undermines the argument that the location is suitable.

    Because the applicant has little capacity to serve agricultural facilities and the agricultural operations that would most benefit from the project are remote from the facility (i.e. portions of the Delta in the SJVAPCD), this assertion is not based in fact.

    Finally, even if the applicant’s assertions were true, that the facility was oriented toward, and could meaningfully serve, agricultural operations, these benefits do not require the facility to occur in the Delta Primary Zone. There is abundant undeveloped land immediately outside the Delta Primary Zone that is connected to the existing road network.

    Additional Reasons the Facility is Inconsistent with the Delta Protection Act

    This section of our letter repeats analysis we have previously provided and adds additional analysis regarding inconsistency with the Delta Protection Act.

    The natural resource goals for the Delta include the goal to “Protect and restore ecosystems and adaptively manage them to minimize impacts from climate change and other threats and support their ability to adapt in the face of stress.” (Policy P-9, Natural Resources Element, Delta Protection Commission 2010:19).

    The project is inconsistent with Policy P-9 and the Delta Protection Act because it would convert habitat for large number of special-status species. Taking one species, as an example, the land in the project area proposed for conversion serves as foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) (Madrone 2023). Swainson’s hawk is listed as a threatened species by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW 2024). CDFW must make the determination for a “threatened” listing based on facts demonstrating the presence of one or more of the factors provided in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 670.1(i)(1)(A), including “present or threatened modification or destruction of [a species’] habitat.” The primary threat to Swainson’s hawk is loss of suitable foraging habitat, including suitable agricultural foraging habitat (CDFW 2016:3). The conversion of this parcel would reduce habitat for a threatened species and CDFW has identified habitat conversion as contributing factor to decline of the species consistent with its listing process and five-year review under California law (CDFW 2016). The effect on this species is but one impact among the 51 special-status species that have the potential to occur in the project area (Madrone 2023:14).

    The project is also inconsistent with the Delta Protection Act, and our Land Use and Resource Management Plan (LURMP), Natural Resources Element Policy P-9, because it would occur inside the boundaries of the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (Delta Protection Commission 2010, United States Fish & Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2009). The boundaries of the Refuge include lands owned in fee by the USFWS, and lands managed through cooperative agreements and conservation easements. The project area thus is part of a mosaic of land that contributes to the overall functionality of the refuge. The USFWS acquires parcels for Stone Lakes NWR in fee, when feasible.

    The project is inconsistent with the Delta Protection Act and the LURMP because it would convert agricultural land in the Delta Primary Zone. The Land Use and Resource Management Plan provides the following goal: To support long-term viability of agriculture and to discourage inappropriate development of agricultural lands (Delta Protection Commission 2010:13).

    The applicant’s biological assessment indicates that the current project would result in the permanent loss of 39.4 acres of agricultural land (Madrone 2023). Between 2014 and the present, over 12,000 acres of farmland have been lost in the Delta (Delta Stewardship Council 2024). Our Economic Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta documents that agriculture is the main economic driver of the Delta economy (Delta Protection Commission 2012:274). In addition to regulating development, the Delta Protection Commission is required to plan for and promote the economic sustainability of the Delta under the Act. The Commission conducts planning work to promote the “continued socioeconomic sustainability of agriculture and its infrastructure” in the Delta (California Public Resources Code Section 29759(b)(2)). Agricultural crop revenue generates three to five times more regional income than other leading revenue sources, such as recreation or tourism (Delta Protection Commission 2012:274). Under these facts, the conversion of useful agricultural land in the Delta Primary Zone is not consistent with the LURMP goals of protecting agricultural land and the viability of Delta agriculture because it permanently reduces the acreage of land contributing to the agricultural economy.

    It is useful to review the relevant facts that show why the project is inconsistent with the Delta Protection Act and LURMP policies of protecting agriculture and natural resource functionality of the Delta Primary Zone:

    • The project falls inside the Primary Zone of the Delta and is thus subject to our review authority,
    • The applicant’s own statements demonstrate the primary orientation of the facility is toward municipal instead of agricultural greenwaste. Little capacity would remain for additional compost types,
    • Because the facility is oriented toward municipal waste and is remote from many portions of the Delta agricultural landscape, it is not an “agriculturally-oriented” facility, nor can it provide a substantial alternative to burning of agricultural greenwaste,
    • The project would convert habitat for up to 51 special-status species, which is contrary to the natural resource protection goals of the LURMP and the Delta Protection Act,
    • The project would also convert land that occurs inside the boundary of and contributes to the functionality of the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge,
    • The applicant concedes approximately 38 acres of farmland will be converted into an industrial facility (Abbott and Kinderman 2024:21).

    If the project is approved, it would almost certainly be subject to appeal to our Commission, which has the power to set aside local land use decisions that are inconsistent with the Delta Protection Act (California Public Resources Code Section 29770).

    If you have any questions feel free to contact me directly at Bruce.Blodgett@delta.ca.gov or at (530) 650-6811.

    Sincerely,

    Bruce Blodgett signature
    Bruce Blodgett, Executive Director
    Delta Protection Commission

    CC: Patrick Hume, Supervisor, Sacramento County

    References Cited

    Abbott and Kindermann 2024. Project Justification Statement, Twin Cities Greenwaste Composting Facility Project. Sacramento County PAMP2022-00018, APN # 146-0080-040, Zanker Road Resource Management LLC.

    California Air Resources Board (CARB). Staff Recommendations San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Burning Assessment. 2021. File available here (PDF).

    California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW:3). Five Year Status Review for Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). 2016. Sacramento, California.

    CDFW. 2024. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California, January 2024. Sacramento, California.

    Delta Protection Commission. Economic Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 2012. West Sacramento, California.

    Delta Protection Commission. Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta. 2010. West Sacramento, California.

    Delta Stewardship Council. Updated Delta Plan Performance Measures Guidebook. File available here. 2024. Sacramento, California.

    Department of Resource Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle). California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. 2024. File available here.

    Madrone Ecological Consulting (Madrone). Biological Resources Assessment Twin Cities Composting Facility. 2023. Citrus Heights, CA.

    San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ag Burn Alternatives Grant Program. Available: File available here.

    Scheele, Elizabeth. Chief, Research Division at California Air Resources Board. Personal Communication Regarding Agricultural Burning Alternatives Incentives. 2024.

    United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge [brochure]. 2009. USFWS, Sacramento, CA.

    Zanker Road Resource Management LLC (Zanker). Statement of Intent for the Twin Cities Composting Facility. 2023.