Trash Vote Outcome Uncertain

Los Angeles’ trash is a messy business -- both the 1.87 billion pounds of garbage the city collects each year and the politics of dumping it.

Over the last six weeks, the City Council has been considering a contract extension to keep dumping trash at the Sunshine Canyon Landfill above Granada Hills.

A vote on the issue by the council today could be close, with opponents saying they want “environmental justice” for the dump’s San Fernando Valley neighbors.

Others say council members from the Valley want to vote so as to preserve their political futures.

City officials have repeatedly reminded the council that if the contract is allowed to expire July 1, there is no Plan B.

Although city officials have discussed alternatives, they have not settled on any other plan for getting rid of the trash.

On Thursday afternoon, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa weighed in with a letter to the North Valley Coalition -- a group opposed to the landfill -- that was also distributed to the council. The mayor acknowledged that he had been against the contract renewal but said the city had no choice.

“I am urging the members of the Los Angeles City Council not to put our residents in a situation where we either have no place to take our trash in 11 months, or could be held hostage by waste management companies that could charge us a gate rate that is nearly double the rate we currently pay at Sunshine Canyon,” Villaraigosa wrote. “I am urging them to make the tough choice.”

Even if the council cancels the Sunshine Canyon contract, the dump will remain open. It has other clients in the area, and much of the city’s trash would probably be hauled there anyway, at least for the near future. But instead of paying the $24-a-ton rate in the contract, the city could pay as much as $41 a ton.

And that, according to City Administrative Officer Bill Fujioka, could cost Los Angeles at least $17 million more a year.

Vote Postponed Twice

A vote on the contract has been delayed twice while technical issues were renegotiated.

Four council members have not said how they’ll vote, and it is not certain whether those who favor renewing the contract have the eight votes necessary for that to happen.

“You have folks on the council looking at their future and their own ambition, and they have run into a constituency that wants to close Sunshine,” said Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who represents parts of South Los Angeles.

“People are playing chicken with the contract,” he said. “Everyone acknowledges there is no alternative, yet they’ll jeopardize the city’s fiscal future over it.”

Those inclined to vote against the contract say they are reflecting the wishes of their constituents in the Valley.

“Look, I’m not running for anything, but what about the promises we made?” asked Councilman Dennis Zine, pointing to the numerous politicians -- himself included -- who have said over the years that the landfill should be shut down.

As the debate has unfolded, it has become clear that both the city and the operators of the landfill, Browning Ferris Industries, think they have the upper hand.

Some council members believe they have leverage over the dump because the city is its biggest customer.

Representatives of the dump believe they have leverage because they have something that is in diminishing supply in the region: a landfill that still has space.

“We think the city will come back to us at some point in time,” said Greg Loughnane, district manager for Browning Ferris.

In the language of City Hall, the landfill is known as a “lulu” -- a locally undesirable land use.

Of course, there are other lulus around town:

Every day about 1,800 planes take off from and land at Los Angeles International Airport, about 30,000 trucks leave the Port of Los Angeles and the city’s Hyperion Treatment Plant handles about 350 million gallons of sewage.

A Dump Since Late ‘50s

The dump has existed since the late 1950s, tucked beyond a ridge that separates the canyon from Granada Hills. Browning Ferris bought the dump in the late 1970s and has expanded it from one part of the canyon to the entire canyon. In about 25 years, the space will probably run out.

The most striking thing about the landfill is the sheer amount of earth that has been moved to accommodate garbage.

Each weekday, the dump receives about 3,600 tons of trash that the city collects from single-family homes and apartment buildings with four or fewer units.

In addition, Sunshine gets trash from Los Angeles County and businesses.

In one pile fresh off a truck last week was: a Domino’s pizza box, a toilet bowl, a computer monitor, a cardboard Coors box, a paint can, tree trimmings, a mattress, a bottle of Resolve stain cleaner, an Iams dog food bag, a 7-Eleven soda cup, a Monopoly game box, a checkered tablecloth, mulch, two nonmatching shoes, remnants of a garden hose, a Coke can, a 5 1/4 -inch floppy disk and The Times’ Calendar section.

Many of those items could have been recycled. Improved recycling is one option for reducing landfill trash, many city officials say. In San Francisco, for example, a voluntary program to recycle food waste reduced its total by 300 tons a day.

In 1996, with a big push from then-Councilman Richard Alarcon, the city closed its own dump, Lopez Canyon, in Sun Valley, although the landfill still had plenty of space.

That same year, Los Angeles signed a contract with Sunshine Canyon that runs through 2021. Every five years, the city has the option of terminating the contract.

Not surprisingly, many of the dump’s neighbors -- the nearest house is half a mile away -- want it closed this time around.

They suspect it’s bad for their health, despite studies such as the one earlier this year from Los Angeles County, the landfill’s second-largest customer, that said the dump could not be linked to health problems.

Even so, it appeared earlier in the summer that the contract for Sunshine Canyon would sail through the council.

Greig Smith, whose district includes Granada Hills and who had promised in his 2003 campaign to close the dump, was the only vocal opponent.

Summing up his colleague’s predicament, Councilman Tony Cardenas recently said Smith would be “tarred and feathered” if he voted for the contract.

As the days melted away, the opposition mounted. Alex Padilla and Wendy Greuel -- who both represent parts of the Valley -- also said they would vote against the contract. Zine and Jan Perry, who represents downtown and part of South Los Angeles and chairs the council’s Environmental Quality and Waste Management Committee, may join them.

Cardenas, who also represents part of the Valley, has not said how he will vote, although in council meetings he has pointed out that there is no good alternative to canceling the contract.

Janice Hahn, who represents the southern end of the city, was undecided Thursday.

“I have a great deal of sympathy, because I represent the harbor area, which feels like they have been the dumping ground of Los Angeles,” she said. But she also expressed concern that there was no short-term alternative.

Eleven council members are expected to be present for today’s vote; eight votes are needed to continue the contract. Greuel and Eric Garcetti -- a likely yes vote -- are out of town. Those who have said they will vote for the contract are Parks, Jack Weiss, Ed Reyes, Tom LaBonge and Bill Rosendahl.

Smith and Greuel are up for reelection in 2007, and Greuel is likely to run for higher office one day.

She and Perry said they believe that extending the contract provides no incentive to stop hauling trash to urban landfills.

Padilla, the council president, announced last week that he was running for Alarcon’s state Senate seat next year, against Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez, whose district includes the northern part of the Valley.

“I’ve felt for a long time that landfills don’t belong in our backyards,” Padilla said.

Montanez, chairwoman of the Assembly’s Select Committee on Environmental Justice, will hold hearings in the district this fall on Sunshine Canyon and other urban landfills, her spokesman said.

Reducing Trash Loads

Even if the contract passes, it is likely that the council will adopt language today demanding studies on how the city can reduce its trash loads.

Smith in recent weeks has introduced a series of motions calling for the city to build waste-conversion plants that would turn garbage into marketable products such as ethanol or compost.

Such technologies exist, but questions remain about cost, the scale of the plan and where to put such plants. Smith wants one in each of the city’s six garbage districts.

Whatever solution the council chooses, it will face financial issues.

The voluntary recycling program is a money-loser, operating more than $2 million in the red each year, according to the city administrative office.

The city charges a small monthly equipment fee but has not instituted a fee for picking up garbage from 740,000 single-family homes and small apartment buildings. That costs the city $209 million a year, money that some council members think could be better spent.

“The intellectually honest rider to a ‘no’ vote would be a motion to raise people’s taxes, because it will cost more to truck the trash farther away,” Weiss said.

A no vote, while leaving Los Angeles scrambling for an alternative place to put its trash, would gratify the Granada Hills residents who have been losing battles over Sunshine Canyon for many years.

One of the primary opponents, Mary Edwards, is not holding her breath for a victory, saying, “I can’t get hopeful anymore.”