HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08061985 - T.6 • 7-
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on August 6 , 1985 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers , Schroder , McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Workshop on Landfill Sites Report
In compliance with the request of the Board on June 25, 19859
A. A. Dehaesus , Director of the Community Development Department ,
submitted a report dated June 25 , 1985, on a proposed work plan for
a comparative evaluation study of the landfill sites identified in
the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District/Contra Costa
County (CCCSD/CCC) Phase I Study. (A copy of the June 25 report is
attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. )
Mr . Dehaesus advised the Board that the evaluation study
would cost approximately $70,000 and would provide information for
approximately nine sites "dropped" early in the CCCSD/CCC report ,
provide a list of landfill criteria derived of laws and regulations
as well as additional criteria to be originated by the study, and
provide comparisons of all the sites identified in the CCCSD/CCC
Study. It would provide a background for evaluating the private
sector proposals for identifying alternative sites for subsequent
site-specific studies if the Board so desires . The study would not
identify any additional areas that might be suitable for landfill
purposes , conduct sub-surface or geologic investigations , nor deve-
lop a project application report or an Environmental Impact Report
on any site . The proposed study would not provide or analyze land-
fill facility designs or site designs , nor rank the sites by a cri-
teria weighting system.
Supervisor Powers indicated that he did not believe an
expenditure of $70,000 for the proposed evaluation study could be
cost justified since the amount of any new information would be
limited and would require another more extensive and costly study to
determine if any site could meet application requirements .
Supervisor Fanden expressed concern that participation in
the evaluation study could delay the process of finding landfills to
replace the current facilities . She referred to the closure of the
Acme site in 1987 and possible consequences to the residents in this
County if another site is not located and developed.
Supervisor Torlakson expressed his preference for a long-
range planning effort and for a complete evaluation of all sites
identified in the CCCSD/CCC Study; He urged that all issues rela-
tive to the control of the waste stream be addressed which would
include transfer stations , long distant refuse hauling, tipping
fees , etc. Supervisor Torlakson commented on the need to have the
cooperation and participation of all cities , sanitation districts ,
and public agencies in the planning process for both long- and
short-term solutions to the waste disposal problem. A meeting of
the Contra Costa County Mayors' Conference ' Solid Waste Committee is
to be held on August 13, 1985, at 7 a.m. in Room 108 of the County
Administration Building. He urged all Board members to attend.
E. Jenkins , City of Richmond, advised that the West County
Mayor's Conference Solid Waste Committee would support a long-range
planning process and is not interested in a study that could inter-
fere with the three private sector applications for landfill sites
currently on file with the County' s Community Development Department .
S. Salomon, City of Hercules , advised that West County
cities are interested in long-range planning that will also include
composting, recycling, etc . They do not believe the $70,000 pro-
posed evaluation study would provide any solution and might inhibit
the current process that exists. However , the cities in West County
would be interested in participating in the evaluation study if the
Board authorizes it .
Supervisor McPeak commented on issues relative to the
control of the waste stream and the need to have flexibility in
developing alternatives in making decisions pertinent to the land-
fill issue .
Supervisor Powers presented the following recommendations
for Board consideration:
1 . Determine to not proceed with the Comparative Site
Evaluation Study outlined in the July 25, 1985 , report
of the Director of Community Development;
2. Direct staff to not participate in any site-specific
landfill alternatives study, whether in-depth_ or general ,
unless authorized by the Board, until written commitments
are made by the cities and sanitary districts in the
County to (a) fund the study and (b) direct their waste
streams to the site or sites selected by the study;
3. Refer the issue of longterm study of solid waste
disposal concerns to the Solid Waste Commission to
update the County's Solid Waste Management Plan; and
4. Direct the County Administrator , County Counsel , and
the Director of Community Development to draft legis-
lation to correct the current fragmented solid waste
decision-making process by providing appropriate
management authority to Contra Costa County government .
There being no further discussion, IS IS ORDERED that the
Director of Community Development is REQUESTED to further review and
prepare a proposal for implementing the recommendations proposed by
Supervisor Powers for further Board consideration at its scheduled
second workshop to be held at 10: 30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 13, 1985.
I hereby certify that this Is_.-,'rue and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
cc: . Community Development Director Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
County Administrator August 6, 1985
Count Counsel ATTESTED:
County PHIL BATCHELon, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and Cour.:; Administrator
By a , Deputy
JF�ECEIVED
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JUL 5v1985
►ML BATCHELOR
LERK BOARD Of SUPERVISORS
B ON RA COSTA 0.
Do-IV
TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: July 25,
FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus SUBJECT: Landfill Site Evaluation Study
Director of Communit le opment
On June 25, 1985, the 10a' rd of Supervisors directed the Community Development Depart-
ment to prepare a proposed work program for a comparative evaluation (at a reconnais-
sance level of detail) of the landfill sites identified in CCCSD/CCC Phase I study
with the following considerations to be provided:
1) •Ali the sites dropped from further consideration in the CCCSD/CCC Study be
�1 included in the evaluation.
2) That .the study proposal , including costs, be designed to bring the dropped
sites to the level of the five identified landfill sites in the CCCSD/CCC Study.
3) A set of evaluation criteria for landfills.
4) 'A study proposal , which would apply the evaluation criteria, to compare sites.
5) Available funding sources to acquire land and develop landfill sites after the
studies are complete.
6) The timing of the proposed study in relation to the need for a new landfill site.
7) The need for control .of the solid wastestream as it pertains to landfill site(s).
8) The feasibility of the EIR consultants for the three privately-proposed landfill
, sites performing some of the work of the aforementioned studies in the context
of the EIRs and to coordinate with the consultants so there .is no duplication
of work. .
9) Coordination with the County'Sanitation District No: =-M staff_on support and input
to the preparation of the work program and the scope :of_ the. study.
The following are our responses to the Board's referral in the order identified
Above.
1) The study is, designed to include all the sites identified in the CCCSD/CCC Study. ,9r
2) The study would include the following components: '•
Research and gather information on sites identified for further study.
Apply site specific criteria from the CCCSD/CCC Study to these sites.
Board of Supervisors -2- July 25, 1985
?. Review all sites to existing information status and need for additional informa-
tion.
z
Establish additional criteria for evaluation of sites (including privately-'
proposed sites and CCCSD/CCC candidate study-identified sites). ? _
t
° Apply criteria to sites.
° Dis*play 'sites and criteria in a matrix form.
° Prepare comparative analysis and evaluation. A
° Identify County options.
If the study -is authorized by the Board and the consultants can start work by
September 1 , 1985, the study can be completed by the end of December, 1985. The
study is estimated to cost $70,000. A more accurate cost will be available after
negotiations with'a consultant.
There are three basic choices of how to fund a proposed study. They are: County
General Fund, funding by serviced public agencies and solid waste management planning
disposal fee surcharge.
Given the demands on the County General Fund, it appears that funding for solid waste
studies through the General Fund is not likely, especially since there are other
methods to fund such a study.
Inasmuch as the disposal of wastes is a countywide issue, it would seem that all the
public agencies (County, cities and special districts) benefiting from this service
would provide a pro-rata share toward the funding of a study. Even though this may
seem logical and a fair way to approach the funding of a study,-At has some inherent
problems as recently evidenced by the transportation issue.
. i
Some public agencies have offered contributions to fund a proposed study. Although.. '
contributions from public agencies would indicate a commitment to assist in addres-
sing the solid waste issue, staff's past experience with soliciting contributions r
from cities and sanitary districts to perform solid waste studies .have led us -t'6 r:
believe that additional "volunteered" funding might be difficult .to acquire =It
is 'unlikely that all public agencies would contribute,-on a per capita basis 'or. similar
share, to such a study and that the end-result may be that a study benefiting the ±~
entire County is paid for by a few public agencies. There is �also a possibility a
that funding from some public agencies will be "conditioned".j n such a manner-as to
restrict the scoping and management of the study. - The time necessary to solicit con
tributions from public agencies would delay the start of the -study. `
Funding by the solid waste management planning disposal fee .surcharge appears to be
the simplest and most direct method of financing a proposed study. However, the t
disposal site operators, who collect the disposal fee surcharge, have stated opposi-
tion to both the study and funding of the study through the surcharge. It appears that. -
the Board can impose an additional disposal fee surcharge to pay for the cost of the
Board of Supervisors -3- July 25, 1985
study because the results of the study could be incorporated into a future amendment
or revision to the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The law explicitly excludes
use of funds from the disposal fee surcharge for anything but planning activities.
The proposed solid waste management planning disposal fee surcharge for fiscal
year 1985/86 is' 19 cents per ton, without any additional landfill site evaluation.
The study would require approximately a six cents per ton increase in the surcharge.
It should be noted that in any approach to studying landfill sites, much more
'information is' already available on the three privately-proposed landfill sites
than any other 'sites. - To attain a similar level of information_ for all of the
identified sites in CCCSD/CCC Study would be exceedingly expensive. The proposed
study is not designed to attain a similar level but is .designed to do a comparative
analysis at a reconnaissance level of detail, applying appropriate and .accepted .
criteria.
3) AttachmentA is a list of proposed additional site-specific evaluative criteria
for new landfills. These would be used in conjunction with those used in CCCSD/
CCC Study (described in our report submitted to the Board dated June 25, 1985).
4) The study is designed to apply the evaluative criteria to compare -the sites.
5) For a publicly-owned and d1veloped landfill site, the most likely way of financ-
ing land acquisition and development costs would be through a revenue bond,
or a loan secured by the revenues from the landfill . In order to get to the 'point
where the landfill is ready for acquisition and development financing, a signi-
ficant number of studies need to be accomplished, in the order of $500,000.
An Environmental Impact Report for the site would need to be completed before
a public agency could actually finance the project. Funding for the studies
would have to be provided by a public agency, but can be reimbursable once the
project is financed. Purchase rights to the land and an agreement for access
to perform`on-site geotechnical work would have to be negotiated with the land-
owners: Public agencies have the right of eminent domain, -as a last resort,
if negotiations are unsuccessful . Land costs and development costs will be
essentially the same .for a .public or a private site.'_ ;Off-site improvements are
highly variable and unique to a site. -Financing- in the' order .of $10 million ; =
would have' to be secured. -
6) The proposed study would be completed about the same time that-the EIRs for
the .three privately-proposed landfills are in the`..public hearing stage, and
before any decisions are made by the Board of Supervisors: ._This will allow the .:
Board to use the information gathered in the decision-making process for the .::
three privately-proposed sites.
We estimate that after a site is selected for development.and property-acquisition
rights have been negotiated, at least one-half year is necessary to develop the
information necessary to start the permit process. The applicant should expect
a minimum of two years to complete the permit approval process. It would take
approximately another one-half year to construct and prepare the site to accept
waste. In other words , it takes at least three years once a site is selected
to get it ready to receive waste. It would.take an indeterminate amount of
time to select and acquire rights to an "alternative or backup" site to the three
privately-proposed sites . Ari alternative or backup site would be far behind the
three privately-proposed sites in the permitting process.
Board of Supervisors -4- July 25, 1985
If it is determined to proceed with an alternative landfill site(s) and a
site(s) is selected, the -following steps would be necessary:
° Commencement of a search for developers for the site(s) , either public
or private.
If the site(s) were to be public, a commitment of wastestream from cities
and sanitary districts would be required. Most cities and sanitary dis-
tricts will have to renegotiate their franchise agreements to allow them to
commit their waste to a public landfill or state legislation may be sought
that grants the County control of the wastestream.
Financing would have- to be secured in the order of $10 million.
° The purchase or' obtaining of rights to the landfill site would be negotiated.
Detailed site studies, including extensive geotechnical studies, would be
undertaken.
A Comprehensive Project Description would be compiled and submitted to
start the permit process.
As shown above,
the process to identify and to obtain the necessary information
to even start the permit process can be very long. If no private developer is
found for. the alternative or backup site, the process becomes even more compli-
cated with the public sector attempting to organize an agency that could sponsor
a public landfill site.
7) If a site is to be publicly-owned, a guarantee of wastestream (a revenue
source) must be obtained before a site can be purchased. Some sort of
revenue guarantee, most likely in the form of wastestream commitments from.
cities and sanitary districts would be required: Cities and sanitary dis-
tricts that currently do not have control of their wastestream would be
required to renegotiate their franchise agreements to give them that
authority. -
For a privately-owned landfill site, control 'of the wastestream is not as
important. Privately-proposed sites (as well ..as' public sites) must meet all _
regulatory requirements no matter how much waste is "received. 'These require
ments include substantial amounts of .financial guarantees for ultimate .
closure 'of..the site.' - The County can also require-some wort of performance
-.bond ao insure that a landfill can be. properly closed, :if_the operation
should go out of business for reasons such as lack of waste being delivered. .
It is not anticipated that any modification to franchise agreements would
be necessary for new privately-owned landfills. ..:
8) Since'all three contracts for EIR preparation have been issued, it would be
necessary to amend their scopes of work to include additional tasks related
to the proposed study. .A study could complement the information provided
to the Board of Supervisors by the EIRs. The Central Landfill EIR contract
will include evaluation of the Central Landfill site using the additional
criteria developed by staff. Since the proposed study pertains to many sites,
Board of Supervisors -5- July 25, 1985
it is not appropriate nor efficient to have the individual EIR consultants
do all or parts of the proposed study as part of the EIRs. The analyses of
the three privately-proposed sites in the EIRs will provide useful informa-
tion on the sites for the proposed study. Also, there will be some project
site-to-site analysis in the EIRs that will be useful in developing the
comparison matrix of all sites. Staff has previously stated its intent to
closely coordinate with the EIR consultants to ensure there is a -sharing
of information and no duplication of efforts.
- 9) Staff 'met with the staff of Sanitation District No. .7A to discuss their
proposed efforts toward solid waste studies. It was mutually. agreed that
information would be shared and that duplication of effort would be avoided.
District staff informs us that the. report prepared for the District investi-
gates waste disposal , particularly sewage sludge disposal and landfill gas ``.
recovery, after a particular landfill site has been selected. Their work
will not include any site search.
Conclusion
This memorandum and its attachments should provide the Board with the information
necessary to decide if and what types ,of additional landfill siting studies
should take place.
AAD:99
Attachments
cc: -County Administrator
Public Works Director
-County Counsel
Sanitation District 7-A
-Contra Costa Central Sanitary District .`
Contra, Costa County Cities
i
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED SITING EVALUATIVE CRITERIA
• (In addition to CCCSD/County Criteria)
1. Distances of residences/businesses to site:
Existing
Future
2. Extent of_residences/businesses along access roads to site:
Existing
•. - : . . Future
3. Visibility of site
4. Degradation/enhancement of future uses of site
5. Difficulty/ease of traffic access to site from freeway
6. Capacity, potential for expansion
7. Cost to users
_ _
C3
X X
` O
W
C3
s Q X� X X X X -. -.X - .. •
O•r O tC�" O tb O C I V rt
E L +-, O U Q"r
O O C 4J E b YA c r U N r C) }
L }> r T L co to '.�-.- C S-r i V3 7yQ
T X"O G t O L 3 TT CL C) L
Zi r C3 +3 t 0 'O i E eC FJ L O r
W r C (U 4-)4- ,. O rt Rs 41.0 L'C1 O S-
M U 'a r L 3
o M - r tC O C C7 r l •r� A O N
r 4- o L r 4j r 4--o O Orr C C3
to O O •IJ C3•r a O ij .0 C tC M LL
X r -c tQ 1J 3 td C O to i O S- O IV
C3 r N t!S.0 }J r r U > d3 .41 c c
C3 4- w S- 'O O 'v 'G r0- O TS C3 Cm O
.010 4J IC N C•+- N 03 41 C) N 4-r C b
c r a"v O O 4-).0 C.3 C) = 5 O O C)
r tii N c r c N to iJ o -0 O E • N
r r C) tis 4J r tC u 'C:7 '0 •L).0 O •FJ t0 .
+' r 4-)r O 41 (V O C3 43 '0 C) L iJ S- tC.
3 to t6 ea 3 C Z t•- L L r N 0 CL > Ln
N .FJ C1 O co C) o = Mtn i C
d L' O (A c w V C)-C >% O L 41 (U C) i 0
co O CL T >> C" -a 3:r t >>r U •FJ N O I
C71 4- N L'CJ C.3 V C 4J N A to C) N c 4J C
• r r O C T•r T .IJ 90 C 3 r to O N - .
N
"o o r r >> O C) tt3 tC C >>4- 3 U C Ln -
>> C) r O o O 4- C i V .C3 O C C1 -r-
4-.)
i-•t eC tD i CS.iz r . tC T -i i O L'o 0 S-
S- 4-) "k7 4- tC T C3 N Q3
m C..?-0 c r cT >24- Cr S-
0 r N r O >> (v O r C .=-'r C O O O O L
4--0 4- Cs -c U t'C O trs M =:tC #0 r N O CD
O C CJ'Ci N CO y r .c r r:. N }s IJ
E C.1 04- C)r c
N v C i to IV .c L C N' to '`a O W-0- OCL"3 O
CC tC O C c iJ C)•r C) O 03 'N L 4-
i— -0 tLS }J iO 3 til T r O N 1 In trs Iz
cc c u0-4 tu &- o L o --v : o K7 i
U O O O to >r C 1.c r r 5- O COl s ':G 4-Cn N
C m O t6 to O to 4-Ln N N O
Z' C) •V •.) 03 > • R3
: O L ) to-C w C3 Ste. r O r C C.0-C3 Ct 4.-
r
ai'A' C T C O E
F- TJ C3 tC i i N OC o r N C ;J :-t•.C C):C ..:._N C 'O
U 't3 'C3 C3 C.3 M.D T T C T tis FJ JC EI ^ Q
W N r T N L i C/ Q1 4- 'C3 r:i 1 (J C r 4J
—! ' • to N -0-0 a) to �r'o _ eC r.-C C7 C C c
•I--1 C3 r C O C3 0. C3 ci L-O U o
V3 �) i O to tC to.O C L r tC s.1C t0 t 4- L
Q Q io-i Q V U r 3 4J ,-» O 3 r !-4J U -.O O+J 4- 41 y .
W
�Q
W .
a o 0 0 0
x d i L i
G W 4-) 4-1 4-) you
W i
Q C? U U U U U
' - ATTACHMENT 6
NZ
Mt♦ � �
_ v C6. Z
-
IL
Lill• ' 6 _ — _`a IN L< to
LLJ
LU ui
H a� b _ to
4J a) eaan 41 6 r
_ W
41 W
MA
s =L ... ..�_ to O
cog cod
..�" ;• .7� ,,_may W > -� <'�•' � .� � }
of Y. �f•� - - '
Z ,4 \
��–z—cam •��. } :•r ❑��� �� -.
N
as - -
V) ci
0 .
- .
V) c) x x aC x K
.. I LLJ
+,
to
a)
s
4-'o
C C) OC) rr— L O N�--4-
a c u
3 C i-) O N i N ns O E 3 C Y 0) a 4J to
O O O () t0 X i-) O 'O O C 4J O w t0
Y 2 Qi O VYUTtris t0 i C)"t7 N•r C O N >f
U r- O-'- C O C) C) E E 4- to rs C1 r- E 'D-r >
t0 O OS O L S.0 O 4- . i >y U +. e0 W C) O r-
44 .0-r•r -r d-► L 0-0 C)r- O .'"7. •r L 4-21 > O
C C) i N X +)S N U C) » • r- tU N i Y f0 L tJ
o N cc to a tO U • E E-*-- 0 (0-0
O d N L +> = X C-r O 4- U i C) I a)-r- C 4- CT O N O
't3 G N >1 to M L N r O E w-- C) U .0 t0 O C) r C).C)
Cl O t0 C) O N-r'O-r d.d t—• 4- t0 C- + i i -b)
i? i t0 i C) 0.4- i C) x C r- C)r -O E 4.3 }y C) t0
t0 C1 N Co e0 N 00 C C) N t0 N t0 L Cl r-Y C i r .0'C S-
U C Co O C CC 4- t0 E-0 Cl O O C) t0 Y C) C)
• O C) O .--r- t0 N .0 Y C) Y C) L O C)•r N O 'a C CL
r-.0•r r t0 U i C) .0.0 t.? N N .-
4-11 4-=r N is r - U U C r N C) N •r- C) t6 t tis
C) t0 O C •r L C"a C) } C.0 4-3 4- U C)
C r C �L•e- 'C) E O N-r C 4) 00 O O 4- W r- .0 0.i,J tii
-r O t0 in-C () 3Y t0 .0 L•rr 4-3 C O CLl N rC>
-F) O)= Y +a C N C).0 C) 0_4J r- Y N !r) L >
O'C C) 4J -0 •r r 4- .tJ-0 W 0 r0-r N r- 4-- CU • N O t0 w
C C) L 3 t0 C C) > 4J i 3 r C)Y N O L da
r i W +)-r 4- t7�r L ff N C) t—Y L N .41 O!Im N
'0 4-to a a..+-0 c t.-. c r-.0= = a-4) ea 3 t0 - 0) ay r c O
O) t0 C).r 4J -r r i-) E O N N -O 0.r N Y >?t.)
O4-3 C 'O +a t0-r >i 3 en O O L C) C E4-2 C
* O C Q) O Y t0 E 3 •t— 4- C) C) >.,4- ' C_C) L t0 Y i r-- N t0 t0
N O 4J 4J r-- C) N .t-) Q) O O
C a A N o ts-w -.- r'Y i r t0-C WN X 4- i•�
t0 r-i-) 90 iJ t0 p E w :-.C4 t0 'p -.' i-� i t:1 ..O O a r-
67 '
�✓4-1 -1 - C 1 C O U = O --O C) _. - .C1 C) C) 'C. O ..
!s� C) >4-) In ;.N4-.V t.> "
+► +- O O C.0 O t0 0-.0 L-r 4-A i-►-i .0
LO t0 -r- U N C eti tib O
U y e0 w 4- i-� •" C"0 C)-r'0 '0 4- 4V :.-a O
r-4-t') t0 r L) C.r�-Y•Or () E b ZS Z) C) 't7 tR t0 fto 90--r M
Z t0 N ". t0 t0 r-- Q)4-.0 t0 C C Q)t -: r E
O N C) i i t0.0-.- is ':- t0 tt) i 3 t6 C)•—-v 4.). Y r—.tL1
O > C) 4.3 N C) C)r 4-2 r- U t.)r U r-.O tF-- r-• C r t0
4) 4- 4-0 4J,r- C E-r O t0 ,p R3
4J C) t0 Y r Q) O -N 3 O CT(v C) t0 i
taJ " • •+-' U r t0 Y i i-► C+-'O L C C) C) i .0 N C) O C)
-� G to f—4- N7 0-in:-+ 3'r 4- F- L to !— O 4-4- E>•- a vvUl
►Vr41
.C.
C C C
a a o
t--•-�
U-
S-
LUWO 41
O d
Cc LU cn
u f V '
Ln t.3 i. r! cn
m ,
-fir
G -4
7.
4-3
a) U • "ice X ! 1.1MX X 1 4 1 _
4-'
X
- 1 C r• - d K
-t-► +) O
4) ;Orr 1 V U C•t- E C C +J O d U
s-0 _ -'i d L E S] 0 e0
7 C f- d L i•] r L a) > 4- E
E rt N O r H R U S_ e0 C d e0 d > U e0 e0 d
r t0 4- sn a) a)t
C O .- (n t U 4- tfS +2 10 L C t U r O a1 d
-r..0 in N d t0 +) •r a) (n to-O U () a) r r r > D)
•r L a)-0 L O O a M•r +) L K 4-•r d'r L
> to.0 d 3 'r n+] C-4-) C C r a d r 3 > tT
r N U'r - L 4- +J U (D r
L >>r C N O C L N a) t6 (n r () >) U U a)•r a) d-0 d
a) C_ r- d C a) to r C- C_r d L K C.s .04-
CD—'a &_ I
04-
orvLI E 4J (A W Cd enCD_+3a) Q H +-) d o
t0 O N 3 C 0 'a C- r t0 1 a)r t0 C C- N d . 1 r-r
t+) t0 i-) r O r G a) >.0 r e0 (n a) e0 r- d Q1.0 r L
4J d r U O r •r- +-1 r t6 L r t -0 i•) C t0'r d
N N 4J C O (v E r•r M L O a) >>L +) C t0 •r-r L 3:.o
r a) t0•t-'C L t > t0 N t0 4-•0•0 4JQ>> t0 K O ea d O
•i 7 L. d N C 4J h d O a) C.
O U r t0 N 'O d 0- a) -0 E a)r'C C C r O_ L r E U C
t t0 a >1 r a) .0 O . r r C r r CME d U O C
N ' 41 d S-a 4-31d .0 4--)r U .0 •r t0 >) O t C U a) +3
C) /0 i� •i••) C. •r L eft C r t0 3 r-0r- a) U 4J v a7 d
CD Cl U C.e6 r C +- CO C)•r d r N L� C.0 d O S-4-d) 3
4J M 4- OW r 4J r C 3 K
r O r K' U O O C r r O a)4- 90 r N d C O d d
R 4- N O >) 3 en C t-r r•+- _ L O E S-4-- C_
` r a) to r e0 4- r C L e0 +3 +) 'L r 3 -P r =_ -r-
r d 4- r O L K-0 C.e6 d N r O C d 3 i) S- d t
90 +]r d r L` r O t0 d C.r t t0 d +) L r t0 O •
N e0 r t 4- e0 4- +] O 4J r'S7 4- N d r U 'C +� L
O E 41 d N -O U >) O '(7 .U r-r t0'C L efs O O (U d
C.r d (n 4J 0'0 d d L L d Q e0 C i)
K X U 4- t0-- ,... C. d r C..d 90 O 'r rt O O C) +)4- O 3
N K y)' ..4- N 4J 4J 3 • 4- C t•'r L r C d
-r- to r C 4-r i_) '•- o4_3 L 4) O -r r w 1T
C_L d L +�''-¢r d +) to r a) >i 3 >y•n^ C C
a) C. d C)o O ~ C) -� C - r 4)9•- - C E 3 +] d U +D _ r f0 C d r i•�
+) e0 H e0 +) 'r-
d d E S-4- d e0 'r 0'0 +) tff r,
t0 O U�' d N 'U .a 1 d•r- 't7 r N L O d "• L] (1r
4- O L t6 C N d r -C C f= 4J r r r U S.C L'C f0 al L r e0
•r
0r U 4- d O'C >T C O 3 C r tn O (1) d U (1) a) N C_, 'J
- tAf :d (/)r e0 C d Vff r 00 U N.0 r L U 4J L C d r:3
C d b t N O'C 10 r r • to'C t0
> M4-)M4-)r U L L C d t0 •• d r .- d 4 L U
CC m
W 40 C.CC O d Q 90 _ S_ L' to N S__
•r r O r N +� .-_4- C U K L '
.�
•• d d C N 4- r t6 � - C C t6 >s t0 U'L7 r d C o3 10
4-3d�
W L U +J 4- d •r.= L d +) O a) 0, N d 4 4-1 1)'C
J .>` U U U C 3 .0 C C C +) d C d C r•Cr a.t0 r to-0 4- C U•�r C
ed t0 O.G `: F- O, :.. t-t•r O +3 r.G t-r r d N L 3 U r t--t•r Q K K O
] -
ol
y O 0 O o
d d dCU
i] +) +] _
y C)
10 C1 tom–
Proposed Central
GINNLVCfi 5KVWY Contra Costa n
SCEW&I RD O sanitary Landfill
cme FIIIOFormerly V-2)
.
West Contra 1-2 (Expansion ,
Costa Sanitary 1-3 Proposed)
landtIII �� 4 680 U V-�
JE
:panslon 0 ® - Contra Costa
_ Proposed) BO Klrker Pass OVI-i o
l I-7
W.M.L ® .. Waste Sanrtary
® a : (Proposed) Q . �!�'ma WY Landfill
17VI 2 Pr posed East
680
• Co Cos
Sanitary Landfill
a _ O V1-3
-. ®VI-4 . .�
6
n
VI 5 ®*
VI-8 a VI-9 U
rN 1a5S4Jdg4.. �
T e #.
COON/CA NyON QO
VI-7 VI-G
IV-1
® - Combined Landfill Site and Candidate Study-identified Transfer Station Site
® Landfill Site, either existing, proposed, or Study-identified landfill site recommended
for further evaluation
.O _.Candidate Study-identified Landfill Site dropped from further consideration
Candidate Study-ldentlfled Transfer Station Area ;-
T - -Candidate Study-Identified Transfer Station Area clropped.from further consideration
4�
,Candidate Study-identified Landfill Site Area recommended for further evaluation
-D- Candidate Study-ldentified Landfill Site Areas previously dropped from consideration
but now recommended for further evaluation
Figure 2-1
Candidate Study-Identified and Proposed Private landfill Sites and Candidate
Study-identified Transfer Station Areas
2.3