Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09101985 - IO.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa DATE: September 9, 1985 County SUBJECT: Solid Waste Issues SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . County Control of Wastestream Direct the County Administrator to include in the Board' s 1986 Legislative Program legislation prepared by County Counsel which will change State law in order to allow the County to control the wastestream in order to adequately carry out the County' s planning responsibilities. In the meantime, refer to the Solid Waste Commission the issue of what the County and cities can do in the absence of legislation to get better control of the wastestream. This may involve the need for cities and sanitary districts to negotiate with their franchisees for inclusion of such language at the time rate increases are requested. 2. Regulation of Disposal Fee at Private Landfills Direct County Counsel to prepare legislation which will allow regulation of disposal fees at the dump site through the Solid Waste Plan, including both current and future dump sites. 3 . Disposal Fee Surcharge for Impacted Neighborhoods Refer this issue to the Solid Waste Commission for possible consideration of development agreements, or other mechanisms, which will allow adequate mitigation in impacted neighborhoods. 4 . Restrictions on Amount of Waste to a Landfill Order the County Counsel and Director of Community Development to recommend to the Board of Supervisors actions which may need to be taken in order to strengthen the Board' s ability to enforce the Solid Waste Plan. This review should include comments regarding the Board' s current ability to .enforce elements of the Solid Waste Plan and whether additional - legislation should be sought to improve this enforcement ability. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RE MMEND OF BOA COMMITTEE _X APPROVE �F /Mt /D12 SIGNATURE(S) Tom Torlakson Tom Po rs ACTION OF BOARD ON Septem er APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ",' ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED County Counsel - - -- ----- - Community Development Director PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M8e2/7-e3 BY L DEPUTY Page 2. 5. Requirement of Community Recycling as a Condition for Use of a Landfill The Board should continue to encourage communities to implement recycling programs by providing technical assistance to cities and by providing countywide coordination. The County should emphasize recycling through use of the Solid Waste Plan, but should keep available as an option conditioning future land use entitlements by requiring recycling as a condition of a land use permit. t 6 . Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Letter on Solid Waste Issues No action by our Committee is needed on this referral. 7 . West County Landfill/Waste Capacity Credit Program No action by our Committee is required on this referral. 8 . Solid Waste Policy Statements and City of Richmond Comments No action by our Committee is required on this referral. 9. Scheduling of Solid Waste Items for the Board of Supervisors Direct the County Administrator and Chief Clerk of the Board to schedule solid waste items either at a time certain or in some other way to be able to give some assurance to the Solid Waste Commission that Solid Waste items will be considered at a given time. 10. Remove from our Committee all Solid Waste items currently on referral except for those relating to the proposed West County burn plant. BACKGROUND: Our Committee has had on referral a number of Solid Waste related issues which we have been considering over the past several months. As the Board is well aware, a variety of actions have been taken at the Board level and discussion is generally proceeding at the staff level, at the Board level, and with the Solid Waste Commission. Most of the items on referral to our Committee have either been disposed of already or under active consideration by the Board and the Solid Waste Commission. We are, therefore, making the above recommendations which are j intended to ensure that the Solid Waste Commission has before it all related Solid Waste items and that staff have clear direction regarding the actions which are to be taken on these items. On September 9, 1985, our Committee met with the Director of Community Development, the County Counsel, and the Chairwoman of the Solid Waste Commission, and reviewed the attached memo from the Director of Community Development. From this memo and our discussions, we have developed the above recommendations and recommend the Board approve them. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: September 9, 1985 R-2 TO: Internal Operations Committe Supervisor Tom TorlakirakloInternal Supervisor Tom Powers FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus , Direct ' unity Development SUBJECT: Solid Waste Issues on Refe Operations Committee r On August 6, 1985, Claude VanMarter, of the County Administrator' s Office, submitted a list of solid waste issues to be discussed at the September 9, 1985 Internal Operations Committee meeting. This memorandum is a status report on those issues along with staff recommendations. County Control of wastestream County Counsel , in an opinion dated May 10, 1985, stated that the County cannot control the wastestream by the Land Use Permit process. They state that amendments to state statutes and/or regulations would be required to provide for this. Recommendation: County Counsel should be directed to draft legislation to change the statutes to allow the County to control the wastestream in order to implement the County' s planning responsibilities. Regulation of Disposal Fee at Private Landfills County Counsel , in an opinion dated May 10, 1985, stated that the County cannot regulate fees at a landfill except under emergency conditions. In order to gain this authority, the County would have to seek a change in the state statutes. In a draft memorandum dated August 15, 1985, County Counsel has drafted proposed amendments to the statutes. In the same August 15, 1985 draft, County Counsel described a situation which would constitute an "emergency". The example given was a situation where there is a shortage of landfill space, coupled with the exploitation by sanitary landfill owners of such shortage by charging unreasonably high rates , and resulting in harm to households from their inability to afford garbage disposal service. Recommendation: The legislation changing the statutes to allow for County franchising, and, therefore , regulation of disposal rates, of privately-owned landfill sites, would serve to protect the interest of the general public. However, this type of legislation would undoubtedly face opposition from landfill operators. There now appears to be no need to seek such legislation because landfill disposal prices are not excessive compared to other landfills. If it appears that future landfill sites are unreasonably priced, such legislation should be considered. This item should be removed from the Committee's referral list. 2 Disposal Fee Surcharqe for Impacted Neighborhoods County Counsel , in an opinion dated May 10, 1985, stated that the Board cannot impose fees to partially mitigate negative impacts under CEQA. The authority of the Board to impose fees or surcharge is further limited by "Proposition 13". County Counsel states that an applicant may "volunteer" to comply with or perform conditions which the Board could not unilaterally compel . Recommendation: The Board ensure that all impacts are mitigated either through the CEQA process the Land Use Permit process , or through other negotiated agreements. Restrictions of Amount of Waste to Landfills County Counsel , in a draft memorandum dated August 15, 1985, stated that the County has authority to limit the amount of waste going into the landfill as a condition of the Land Use Permit provided that the condition is reasonable. The most likely reason to limit the amount of waste to a site is to reduce traffic impacts and to preserve landfill space. County Counsel states that these appear to be valid reasons, so we assume the County can restrict the amount of waste to a landfill . Recommendation: The Board should consider this issue in reviewing proposed landfill applications in order to limit traffic impacts and to make sure that solid waste facilities are in conformance with the County Solid Waste Management Plan. Requirement of Community Recycling for Use of Landfill County Counsel , in an opinion dated May 1C, 1985, stated that under police power, the County may be able to impose an entitlement condition upon the operation of a j privately-owned landfill requiring that only wastes from communities with estab- lished recycling programs could be accepted. They go on to note that depending upon certain facts, such a condition could conflict with state law and be subject to legal challenge. Recommendation: Since recycling, implemented to the level commensurate wit other Bay area communities , will only reduce the total wastestream by approximately 5 - 10 percent, we do not feel that this is a requirement that the County should impose on landfills. Instead, the Board should encourage communities to implement recycling programs by providing technical assistance and countywide coordination. This item should be removed from the Committee's referral list. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District letter on Solid Waste Issues On May 2, 1985, the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors concerning solid waste matters. This letter was sent after the completion of the Joint CCCSD/County Solid Waste Management Study. The letter addressed the following issues: Acme Fill closure, interim solid waste export, public landfill site search, countywide consensus, transfer stations, and funding. 3 Recommendation: The County is continuing to work closely with CCCSD on solid waste issues. The CCCSD has been 'a'ctively' monitoring and has been involved - in solid waste discussions. We do not feel there is a need to develop a .'specific response to the May 2, 1985 letter. This' item should 'be removed from the Committee' s referral list. West County Landfill/Waste Capacity Credit Program We presume this means insuring that if Berkeley is allowed to continue disposal at the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill , that, Contra Costa' ,County be given "credit" for this volume of waste for when Contra Costa County applies to Alameda' County for possible export of waste to Alameda County•:landfil1s. The ,County is currently negotiating with Berkeley concerning the terms and conditions for their continuance of disposal in Contra Costa County. Landfill capacity considerations are a part of that negotiation. It is not possible for Berkeley to commit Alameda County landfill capacity, because the landfills are not under the control of the City of Berkeley. Staff from the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority has informed County staff that the use of Contra Costa County landfills by Berkeley will be considered when Contra Costa County applies to Alameda County. Recommendation: No action on this item is necessary at this time. This item should be removed from the Committee's referral list. Solid Waste Policy Statements —Richmond Comments On January 31 , 1985, the County sent a set of proposed Solid Waste Policy State- ments to cities and sanitary districts for review and comment. Several responses were received, including the response from the City of Richmond. Staff has determined that none of the comments requires modification to the Policy State- ments. The City of Richmond's comments are somewhat critical of some of the policy statements. The comments were dated February 28, 1985. Subsequently, there has been substantial dialogue with Richmond representatives in the West County Mayors Solid Waste Committee, in which the County participates. Many of these concerns have been addressed in that forum. Recommendation: Inasmuch as there has been substantial dialogue with the City of Richmond, there is no need to respond to the City's comments. The policy statements will be brought before the Board of Supervisors shortly. This item should be removed from the Committee's referral list. DBOdsp 9sep85 ecw/sw.m.io.update.t9 cc: Charles Hammond, Assistant County Administrator C. L. VanMarter, Assistant County Administrator i 1. Solid Waste Issues I0 Cte report 2 . Wastestream mgmt legislation prpsl 3. Same as 1 4 . Disposal fees at private landfills legis to reg S . Same as 1 6 . Neighborhood impact mitigation 7. Same as 1 8. Solid Waste plan enforcement 9 . Same as 1 10 . Community Recycling condition re landfill use 11 . Same as 1 12 . Solid Waste issues spec Bd agenda time 13 . Same as 1 14 . Board Agenda spec time