What follows is an excerpt of the more salient points addressed by Supervisor Knabe, along with South Bay CARES response to those points. For a full transcript of Liz Brown's interview with Don Knabe, scroll to the bottom of the page.

LIZ BROWN: Question #1 would be, why is the County proposing to put this golf course there?

DON KNABE: Well, it's not so much that we're proposing. A number of years ago the citizens down there, once the landfill was closed, we put together a citizen's advisory group to look over possible recommendations of what to do with that area. To make it, you know, a park or whatever it may be. The recommendation of the committee was to do a golf course.

SOUTH BAY CARES response: Mr. Knabe is correct. The 19 member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) that was formed in 1983 as part of the study that resulted in the South Coast General Development Plan of 1985 recommended a golf course be built. We find their recommendation curious. In the appendix to the 1985 Development Plan the results of a survey of the community concerning future use of the Site are included. The CAC actually received a 70% higher response rate to the survey than was expected. A key question in the survey was question #4: "What facilities do you feel should be developed at the South Coast Project?" The survey results to this question were broken down into 3 categories: Highly Desirable, Moderately Desirable, and Least Desirable. Under Highly Desirable there were 7 uses listed, among them a Nature Center and Hiking Trails; Golf was NOT among the desired uses. Under Moderately Desirable there were another 7 uses listed, among them a Multi-Purpose ballfield and Community Garden; Golf was NOT among the desired uses. It is not until we get to the Least Desirable category that Golf is mentioned. So, quite naturally, the CAC recommended a Golf Course.

DON KNABE: And the uniqueness of the process, and I think this is something a lot of people don't realize because people say, "Well, if it's such a good deal how come you got only one proposer?" And the reason for that is very simple. The issue there being for the first time ever in probably one of the most unique requests for a proposals, I demanded inside the RFP, that part of the RFP says that before any golf course is built the horse situation must be taken care of. Either it's designed so that the stables are allowed to stay on site or there is some other remediation to where the stables can move to. We work with the city of Rolling Hills Estates and obviously a number of potential golf course developers have never been involved with something like that nor do they want to deal with that particular issue. So this was unique in the sense that I said, hey, before you build a golf course you got to take care of the horse situation down there to make sure that they have a facility that is equal or if not better than they have today.

SOUTH BAY CARES response: American Golf, who operates the County golf course at Los Verdes, declined to submit a proposal for reasons that have nothing to do with the equestrian issue. In a letter to the Department of Parks and Recreation American Golf stated, "Knowing through experience the concerns related to operating on a landfill, we believe the cash flow stream generated by the property would fail to meet our minimum thresholds for conservative, low-risk investments, let alone a premium return that would compensate us for the relatively high level of risk associated with this project." At this time South Bay CARES does not have any other letters from potential golf course developers, but it is our contention that the reason Mr. Knabe posits (the equestrian center component) for only one proposal being submitted is spurious. According to the Request For Proposal (RFP) sent out by the County to golf course developers, proposers had an option concerning the relocation of the equestrian center. The RFP states, "The Optionee shall not be required to financially participate in the relocation of the equestrian center. However, in an Alternative Proposal, it may offer to do so if it so chooses. In the event that the proposer chooses not to become involved in the development of the equestrian center, it shall be relocated and developed by the City and/or County." Based on that statement in the RFP, South Bay CARES does not believe the equestrian center aspect of the proposal played any role in the lack of response from the more than 20 golf course developers who received RFPs.

LIZ BROWN: But the big concern, of course, is people are afraid that it could be dangerous to disturb that site. On top of that, how do you know the landfill is safe now and it would be safe, if you make sure it was safe putting the golf course there? How do you be sure of that safety?

DON KNABE: There are other golf courses built on landfills, this is not a first. We have Victoria golf course, which is in the County system. And then we have a private club up off the San Diego freeway called Mountain Gate, which is built on a landfill totally surrounded by homes, you know, a whole situation very similar to what we are dealing with down there. So the important thing is the safety issues have to be there and under control or otherwise we won't build it, that's all part of the process.

SOUTH BAY CARES response: Mr. Knabe is again correct. There are many golf courses (over 50 nationwide) built on closed landfills. However, neither the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) nor Meritage Golf has answered the following questions: 1. Have any of the other golf courses built on landfills been built on Class 1 hazardous waste landfills that contain TCE (trichloroethylene), acid waste, pesticides, solvents, tetra-ethyl lead sludge, and alkaline waste, as does the Palos Verdes Landfill? 2. And if so, do those landfills, like the Palos Verdes Landfill, lack a bottom liner to contain leachate and formal clay/synthetic cap to prevent water penetration as has been required of all Class 1 landfills closed since the early 1980s? 3. Are any of the other landfill golf courses upgradient from residential neighborhoods and have schools and churches on the edge of the landfill? 4. Are any of the other landfill golf courses in close proximity (1200 feet) to an active earthquake fault line and had portions of the site identified by the California Department of Mines and Geology as an area prone to debris flow (mudslides)?

DON KNABE: The developer, when they bid on this golf course, they knew 2 things, One: they had to take care of the horse situation and Two: it had to be environmentally safe before they were able to proceed, and so that's a given, and that's the process we're going through. I have mentioned to people down there that have obviously expressed concerns about it, and we are going to deal with all those, but you have to look at on the other side. If it's unsafe for a golf course then is it unsafe for horses and joggers and everything else?

SOUTH BAY CARES response: Mr. Knabe raises an interesting question. If it is unsafe for a golf course is it unsafe for horses and joggers and everything else? The issue is not properly framed. One of the things that makes the golf course unsafe is the impact created by putting hundreds of thousands of gallons of water each day. Meritage Golf has projected they will use approximately 400,000 gallons of water per day on a Class 1 landfill that lacks a formal clay/synthetic cap and protective bottom liner. Water that penetrates the landfill cover mixes with the hazardous waste materials as well as the decomposing Class 2 waste materials and creates a toxic leachate that can and has been detected in both on-site and off-site monitoring wells. Adding hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per day will only exacerbate the current situation, and further threaten the communities downgradient of the landfill. The additional weight from the tons of soil trucked in for building the golf course may also cause problems with the landfill's cover and its hazardous contents.

DON KNABE: I think that if people know me well enough in the cities that I work with down there on the Hill and the areas I represent, I'm not going to jam it down anybody's throat, what they don't want. Not necessarily what they don't want, but if it's unsafe.

SOUTH BAY CARES response: Mr. Knabe's statement indicates that if public sentiment is opposed to the building of the golf course it will be built anyway as long it is determined to be safe. Public sentiment as reflected in the citizen survey was apparently disregarded by the 19 member Citizens Advisory Committee in 1984 when they recommended a golf course be built on the site, it does not surprise us that public sentiment may once again be disregarded in 2002. That would be par for the course.

LIZ BROWN: You reference there's a couple of other golf courses that have been built on landfills. Are they also Class 1 landfills that have hazardous waste? The same situation?

DON KNABE: Yes, the same situation. Probably a little bit higher at Victoria as it relates to percentages. On P.V. landfill, it's a Class 1, about 5% or less is the hazardous material that the people are referring to.

SOUTH BAY CARES response: Mr. Knabe is correct on the latter statement, but incorrect on the former. First, let's address the correct statement by Mr. Knabe. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts estimates that only 4 to 5% of the materials in the P.V. Landfill are Class 1 hazardous wastes. Unfortunately for the residents of the Peninsula that works out to, on a per capita basis, over 16 tons of Class 1 hazardous waste for each and every man, woman and child who lives on the Peninsula. This is not an insignificant number. The P.V. landfill was one of the largest Class 1 landfills operating in the state of California. During the 1970s it was receiving approximately 40% of all hazardous waste generated in Los Angeles County.
Second, let's address the statement we know to be incorrect. Victoria is not built on top of a Class 1 landfill. Victoria is built on a Solid Waste Municipal landfill, i.e. household trash. In all likelihood Victoria has some household toxic materials in the landfill, but there is a big difference between household toxic waste and industrial hazardous waste that is generated by companies such as Dow Chemical, U.S. Steel, Montrose Chemical, Mobil oil, etc.

DON KNABE: But again, some of the opposition to the golf course and some of the issues of threatening public safety, they are sort of picking and choosing numbers, it's part of the old report, saying some of the numbers aren't any good, but some of them are, if they fit the argument.

SOUTH BAY CARES response: South Bay CARES cannot speak for all parties opposed to the building of a golf course on the Site, but for our part the numbers we use to highlight the hazards of the proposal are valid, no matter the age. One key statistic is the amount of hazardous waste that was put into the landfill. This is public record. Citing the tonnage of hazardous waste in the landfill remains a valid number today, as it had been in December of 1980 when the Site was closed. A cynic might say the tonnage is probably a little less because of what has already leached off-site. A second key statistic is the amount of water used by golf courses. Meritage Golf has stated publicly that they project they will use approximately 400,000 gallons of water per day. And as far as the landfills proximity (1200 feet) to the Palos Verdes fault line, that number may indeed change with future seismic activity.

LIZ BROWN: Is the County looking at other alternative uses for the landfill? Is there anything else you'd consider besides the golf course right now?

DON KNABE: At this particular point, you know, in good faith we have to proceed on the RFP Request For Proposal as it relates to a golf course. Now, the only way it would come back that you are looking at anything else other than that, would be if it becomes unsafe. But again, as I said, if it is unsafe, is it unsafe for horses and is it unsafe for joggers and everything else? So, if you build a park you are going to have movement and you are going to have irrigation , you see what I'm saying? So if you just did a park or open space, and there are those I know who say, just leave it as it is. And that's another option, obviously.

SOUTH BAY CARES response: Mr. Knabe's response underscores what he stated earlier in the interview with Ms. Brown. Public sentiment will play little or no role. And the golf course issue is still improperly framed. The water usage and additional weight of the course exacerbates the current problems on the landfill.
With respect to irrigation for a park or open space, South Bay CARES advocates only enough irrigation to provide sufficient groundcover for soil erosion purposes, which would be significantly less water than is needed for a golf course.

LIZ BROWN: The County owns it? How is it operated through the Sanitation Districts? Can you explain all that?

DON KNABE: The Sanitation District is governed by a board of governors from all the mayors of all the cities within the county of L.A. and they are charged with the responsibility of owning and operating various landfills of which they did the P.V. landfill, and then with closure and they go through a whole process as it relates to the gasification issues and seepage and movement and all that kind of thing that they have to monitor and controlled by the State. I know that the mayors on the Hill as well as others know the Sanitation Districts is an incredibly fine operator, and some very high officers within the Sanitation Districts live on the Hill, so they are not going to let anything happen to it.

SOUTH BAY CARES response: South Bay CARES does not share the same level of confidence in the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) as Mr. Knabe. Although there are many fine people who work for the Sanitation District, it is a large organization that is subject to the shortcomings that plague most bureaucracies. In spite of the best of intentions of the best of the Sanitation Districts' management they sometimes make highly questionable decisions. This is the same LACSD that was sued by the U.S. Government for their part in the dumping of DDT into the waters off of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, perhaps the greatest ocean ecological disaster since the Exxon Valdez. The LACSD agreed to pay out millions of dollars as the lead government agency for their role in that ecological disaster under a consent decree. This is the same LACSD that acknowledged that metal containers filled with TCE (a practice now outlawed by the U.S. EPA) had been placed in the P.V. Landfill, yet would not test for the presence of TCE in the water on and off-site because California law did not require them to test for it. [Note: South Bay CARES' research indicates that testing for TCE is part of the Sanitation Districts' current testing protocol.] In addition, it was the LACSD who refused to comply with the California's Department of Toxic Substances Control demand that the LACSD test for dangerous substances emanating from the Hawthorne Canyon dump (adjacent to the P.V. Landfill) that the LACSD had filled and covered in the 1960s. The South Coast Air Quality Management District had detected noxious levels of methane gas and traces of vinyl chloride in leaks from the landfill, a landfill that now had homes upon it. The contention of the LACSD was that they had deposited those wastes legally and were no longer responsible for the site. It is South Bay CARES contention that when presented with a legalistic choice or an ethical choice, a bureaucracy such as the LACSD will often choose to stand on legalistic ground instead of doing the moral thing. In the aforementioned case, the LACSD should have immediately helped the citizens of the community assess and remediate the threat to their health created by a dump the LACSD had filled and covered. We at South Bay CARES feel the Sanitation Districts have one of the most important missions in the South Bay and should always strive to meet the absolute highest standards necessary to protect our community.

LIZ BROWN: As this debate continues and if you get the feeling the community is really against it, will you still be in favor of it, or going through with it?

DON KNABE: Even with a lot of objections right now that I'm hearing and these horrible rumors about me and my family and everything else I would not back off, at least the EIR process. If I felt it was unsafe in any way, shape or form, obviously I would not proceed.

SOUTH BAY CARES response: Liz Brown had noted earlier in her interview with Mr. Knabe (see full text below) that rumors had been circulating at the Palos Verdes Street Fair that he wanted this golf course for his two sons who are professional golfers. Mr. Knabe stated that it was a "great rumor but neither is a professional golfer, one is a CPA." This Website lays out the official position of South Bay CARES. As with any organization we cannot always control everything that everyone who supports us says. If anyone, no matter how remotely connected with us or who simply supports our organization and its goals, caused Mr. Knabe or any member of his family any distress, we sincerely apologize. Who runs the golf course is of no interest to us. The hazards and unacceptable risk of constructing and operating a golf course on a Class 1 hazardous waste site still exist no matter who operates the golf course.
South Bay CARES is glad to hear that Mr. Knabe would not be in favor of proceeding with the project if he feels it is "unsafe in any way, shape or form." We hope that Mr. Knabe will soon see the wisdom in not going forward with this project. We also extend an open invitation to Mr. Knabe and/or any member of his staff to meet with us.

HOME

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF LIZ BROWN INTERVIEW WITH L.A. COUNTY SUPERVISOR DON KNABE

LIZ BROWN: Question #1 would be, why is the county proposing to put this golf course there?

DON KNABE: Well, it's not so much that we're proposing. A number of years ago the citizens down there, once the landfill was closed, we put together a citizen's advisory group to look over possible recommendations of what to do with that area. To make it, you know, a park or whatever it may be. The recommendation of the committee was to do a golf course. Over that process of time, and there's a proper procedure for closure of a landfill, until such time that it is released from the state back to the Sanitation Districts and then ultimately to the county Parks and Recreation Department.
And so we went to the street with a proposal to put a golf course on there and then this is where we sit today, waiting for the Environmental Impact Report, vis-à-vis the EIR, to run its course to see what's going on. And it's been a unique process. Obviously there's a lot of rumors down there and a lot of concerns, and rightfully so. And my purpose is just the willingness to say, hey, I'm not going to jam anything down anyone's throat, certainly not jeopardize the safety of the public. So we are going to go through a process and I hope people just have the patience to let the process work, to see what's out there and then we can make decisions about concerns or whether we need an independent study or whatever we may need.
And the uniqueness of the process, and I think this is something a lot of people don't realize because people say, "Well, if it's such a good deal how come you got only one proposer?" And the reason for that is very simple. The issue there being for the first time ever in probably one of the most unique requests for a proposals, I demanded inside the RFP, that part of the RFP says that before any golf course is built the horse situation must be taken care of. Either it's designed so that the stables are allowed to stay on site or there is some other remediation to where the stables can move to. We work with the city of Rolling Hills Estates and obviously a number of potential golf course developers have never been involved with something like that nor do they want to deal with that particular issue. So this was unique in the sense that I said, hey, before you build a golf course you got to take care of the horse situation down there to make sure that they have a facility that is equal or if not better than they have today.

LIZ BROWN: Talk about rumors down there so we hope we can dispel some of those. Obviously the big concern is....

DON KNABE: The big rumor is that I am jamming this down everybody's throat because I have two sons that are professional golfers and I want to give it to them. Great rumor but neither is a professional golfer, one is a CPA.

LIZ BROWN: I'm glad you got to that. I heard that actually. It was going around the P.V. Street Fair. But the big concern, of course, is people are afraid that it could be dangerous to disturb that site. On top of that, how do you know the landfill is safe now and it would be safe, if you make sure it was safe putting the golf course there? How do you be sure of that safety?


DON KNABE: Well I think, well one, we do go through the EIR, we do all the ramifications to see how the system is set up. Obviously there is very strict laws that are federal as well as state laws that govern the operation a closure and finalization of any landfill. They run the test through the EIR process to make sure runoff doesn't impact, you know, certain areas if that's an area of concern.
There are other golf courses built on landfills, this is not a first. We have Victoria golf course, which is in the county system. And then we have a private club up off the San Diego freeway called Mountain Gate, which is built on a landfill totally surrounded by homes, you know, a whole situation very similar to what we are dealing with down there. So the important thing is the safety issues have to be there and under control or otherwise we won't build it, that's all part of the process.
The developer, when they bid on this golf course, they knew 2 things, One: they had to take care of the horse situation and Two: it had to be environmentally safe before they were able to proceed, and so that's a given, and that's the process we're going through. I have mentioned to people down there that have obviously expressed concerns about it, and we are going to deal with all those, but you have to look at on the other side. If it's unsafe for a golf course then is it unsafe for horses and joggers and everything else? There's a school issue down there that hopefully I'm not getting caught in the crossfire of politics in that particular situation. And we are just trying to deal with all those issues and again if it's unsafe it's not going to be built. I think that if people know me well enough in the cities that I work with down there on the Hill and the areas I represent, I'm not going to jam it down anybody's throat, what they don't want. Not necessarily what they don't want, but if it's unsafe. Obviously there's people down there, and we are getting a lot of letters of support for a golf course, and public comment, they are not necessarily going to the council meetings to raise their issues because they are in support of it. But there will be a moment in time for the public process to take its course and I'm sure we'll see a lot of those folks out in support of the public golf course who live on the Hill as well, too.

LIZ BROWN: You reference there's a couple of other golf courses that have been built on landfills. Are they also Class 1 landfills that have hazardous waste? The same situation?


DON KNABE: Yes, the same situation. Probably a little bit higher at Victoria as it relates to percentages. On P.V. landfill, it's a Class 1, about 5% or less is the hazardous materials that the people are referring to. But again, some of the opposition to the golf course and some of the issues of threatening public safety, they are sort of picking and choosing numbers, it's part of the old report, saying some of the numbers aren't any good, but some of them are if they fit the argument. And I understand that, that's the way the process works. But that's why I've just asked, let the EIR, at least let that process go forward and try to see what's there, see if we need further studies on particular areas, and if we do, then, I support that. And, again, I'm not going to jeopardize the public safety. I mean, it's just not going to happen.

LIZ BROWN: We can talk about price a little bit later on. Talk about the proposed project and what it actually includes.

DON KNABE: Well it includes an 18 hole golf course and a clubhouse and it may or may not include a driving range, just depending on location, if they are able to work it out. Obviously with a landfill situation it's not all buildable space. And so, to design a golf course within the confines of that, it's going to be very, very difficult. But we know it could be done. And, again, it depends on some of the design whether the horse stables stay where they are and we work around that or whether the horse stables move to some other particular area not necessarily on the golf course, maybe off the landfill site.

LIZ BROWN: Is the County looking at other alternative uses for the landfill? Is there anything else you'd consider besides the golf course right now?

DON KNABE: At this particular point, you know, in good faith we have to proceed on the RFP Request For Proposal as it relates to a golf course. Now, the only way it would come back that you are looking at anything else other than that would be if it becomes unsafe. But again, as I said, if it is unsafe, is it unsafe for horses and is it unsafe for joggers and everything else? So, if you build a park you are going to have movement and you are going to have irrigation , you see what I'm saying? So if you just did a park or open space, and there are those I know who say just leave it as it is. And that's another option obviously.

LIZ BROWN: The County owns it? How is it operated through the Sanitation Districts? Can you explain all that?


DON KNABE: Well the Sanitation Districts just operates the landfills and have been purveyors. There is still a remaining landfill in the system. Actually, it's in my district, the Puente Hills landfill out there in Hacienda Heights and it probably has about 10 years left on its life as well. And so the Sanitation District is governed by a board of governors from all the mayors of all the cities within the county of L.A. and they are charged with the responsibility of owning and operating various landfills of which they did the P.V. landfill, and then with closure and they go through a whole process as it relates to the gasification issues and seepage and movement and all that kind of thing that they have to monitor and controlled by the State. I know that the mayors on the hill as well as others know the Sanitation Districts is an incredibly fine operator, and some very high officers within the Sanitation Districts live on the Hill, so they are not going to let anything happen to it.

LIZ BROWN: Who operates the landfill, say, once the project goes through?

DON KNABE: Once the project is completed, I mean, once it's turned over, it will go to the Department of Parks and Recreation who would operate it and proceeds on construction of the golf course and operate it. It would be a private operator like we do with all of the County golf courses, all of our golf courses are contracted out, we don't own, we own the courses but we contract out management and maintenance and everything else.


LIZ BROWN: Who is responsible for the project approval? It goes to you ultimately as the supervisors? How does that work?

DON KNABE: It would go through a public hearing process on the EIR with community meetings, it would go through our planning commission process , and that public hearing process, and then would go to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.

LIZ BROWN: As this debate continues and if you get the feeling the community is really against it, will you still be in favor of it, or going through with it?

DON KNABE: I would hope that there would be a sense of fairness in the sense that the EIR, let that process, I know I keep referring to that, but there is a very distinct public process. Even with a lot of objections right now that I'm hearing and these horrible rumors about me and my family and everything else I would not back off, at least the EIR process. If I felt it was unsafe in any way, shape or form, obviously I would not proceed. But also understand if it is safe there is still going to be those that don't want anything, don't want any movement, don't want the additional traffic, or whatever. That will be the next phase. This is not necessarily about a golf course, it appears right now it's about a safety issue. And so the issue is if it's safe then we should proceed. There's a lot of support on the Hill. There's a lot of folks that want this new golf course. But, you know, I would tell you, and I know I frustrate my own staff with this mannerism and that is, look it, we have a very significant budget shortfall in this county. We have the potential of very severe health cut backs, you know, jail problems, you know, all these kinds of things. And my plate's very full right now, and I enjoy what I do, and obviously fighting over a golf course is not one of my favorite things. It's a source of recreation not only for that area, but for the regional population. It's something that we need. It's something to enhance the beauty of the area as long as you take care of the horses as well. There's a combination of quality of life kinds of things. But you know, you don't want a donnybrook over a golf course when you got potentially people dying in the streets, you've got to weigh and balance and everything else. So it's a long answer, but if it's safe I'd like to proceed. If it's an all out war down there, hey, we can move on, I got other issues we've got to take care of.

HOME