The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 09101985 - T.11 Tr THE SOAR® OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 10 , ;985 , by the following vote: j AYES: Supervisor Powers , MCPeak, Torlakson and Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: In the Matter of Proposed Amendment ) of the County General Plan for the ) RESOLUTION NO. 85/550 Bethel Island Area ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 37-1985, adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, recommending amendment to the County General Plan for the Bethel Island Area: On September 10, 1985, this Board held a hearing on said amendment proposed by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution 37-1985. Notice of said hearing was duly givenin the manner required by law. The Board at the hearing called for testimony of all persons interested in this mater. No persons testified on this proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Board hereby FINDS that the proposed amendment was identified as having potentially significant impacts on the environment and that final EIR has been prepared and certified as adequate on November 20, 1985 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the County's EIR guidelines. The Board FINDS the mitigation measures contained in the certified EIR and adopted findings of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, provide adequate provisions by which to develop the project. The Board further FINDS that the overriding benefits outlined in Resolution 37-1985 related to additional housing and the enhancement of recreational opportunites outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts generated by the project. The Board members, having fully considered this amendment, DETERMINED that the recommendations as submitted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission are appropriate. The Board DIRECTS the Community Development Department to incorporate this proposed amendment into a combined amendment to the General Plan which this Board will consider for adoption during the 1985 calendar year as one of the four permitted amendments to the Land Use Element of the County General Plan. I hereby certify that this is a true endcorrect copyof an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervis on the alp shown.. f q ATTESTED: —3()I 1 -°-�- PHIL BATCHEL Et, Ciorit at the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By LA 46d ao , Deputy Orig. Dept. Community_ Development `�11 Public Works County Administrator Ty(� THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 10, 1985 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisor Powers , McPeak, Torlakson and Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: Mone SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment of the County ) General Plan for the Bethel Island ) Area ) The Board earlier this day considered the amendment pro- posed by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in its Resolution 37-1985 for the Bethel Island Area. The Board thereupon considered the request of the Planning Commission for funding for a specific plan for the Bethel Island Area. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Director of Community Development is requested to submit within six weeks , a report for the Board on the Planning Commission' s recommendations for a Specific Plan for Bethel Island, said report to include potential scope and proposed method of funding. 1 hereby certify that this Is a true andcorrect copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Superlisors on the data shown. ATTESTED: PHIL BATC SELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator �1>.,e By , Deputy Orig. Dept. Clerk of the Board cc: Director of Community Development Public Works County Administrator ' Avc 1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 10, 1985 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers , McPeak , Torlakson , Fanden . NOES: None . ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder . ABSTAIN: None . SUBJECT: Report of the Recycling Committee on the Solid Waste Planning Tipping Fee Surcharge . In a report to the Board dated September 4 , 19859 (copy attached) , the Recycling Committee Recommended three alternative funding levels and staffing options for rcycling planning. It was noted that since recycling planning activities are proposed to be funded through the solid waste planning tipping fee surcharge , no general funds will be used . Supervisor Fanden brought to the attention of the Board a letter dated August 30 , 1985 from Joel Witherell , Director of Community Services , City of E1 Cerrito , proposing the establishment of a recycling and composting implementation task force that would review the many other recycling programs currently in operation and assist in. the development of an implementation plan . Written comments were also received from the following persons supporting a recycling program: I Nora Jane Campbell , representing Mira Vista Hills , 2409 Kensington Court , Antioch; Hoshang Kurlawalla,2409 Kensington Court , Antioch; Katrina Shipp ,2461 Grimsby Drive , Antioch; Richard Fitz , 2461 Grimsby Drive , Antioch; LeRoy Shipp, 2461 Grimsby Drive , Antioch; Kathey Fitz , 2461 Grmisby Drive , Antioch; David Shipp , 2461 Grimsby Drive , Antioch: June Bulman , Chair , Contra Costa County Solid Waste Commission, advised that the Commission will consider the recycling issues in November . Board members having reviewed the recommendations of the Recycling Committee , and being in agreement , IT IS ORDERED that the recommendations as modified , are APPROVED as follows: 1 (b) . Approved a three cent per ton fee ($30,000) pro- viding funding for 43 percent (of a full-time) consultant , at $25 per hour , and approximately 9 percent (of a full-time) Community Development Department staff person for assistance and super- vision; 2 . Agreed to provide recycling planning activities to those juristictions dedicating staff or funding to assist in the recycling planning endeavor . 3. Directed staff to work with community groups to develop a directory of recycling activities in Contra Costa County; 4. Requested the Director of Community Development to sub- mit a progress report to the Board in six months (March 1986) ; 5 . Requested the Director of Community Development to review the feasibility of establishing a recycling and composting implementation task force 1 hereby certify the i this Ina true and correct copy of an actio a takers and entered on the minutes o"r the Bcard Of SV.P0n11s0:3 on 1;-m date Mown. ATTESTED: PHIL 6AT! 'HELOA, Clerk of the Board of Saperrlsors and County Administrator i By ; , Deputy cc: Community Development Director Solid Waste Commission via Community Development Department County Administrator I ' f i � I I i i i i I I i i 2 9-10-85 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: RECYCLING COMMITTEE DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 1985 SUBJECT: RECYCLING COMMITTEE REPORT - SOLID WASTE PLANNING TIPPING FEE SURCHARGE Specific Requests or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION• 1 . Select one of the three alternative funding levels and staffing options for recycling planning: a. A three cent per ton fee ($30,000) providing funding for 30 percent (of a full- time) Community Development Department staff person. b. A three cent per ton fee ($30,000) providing funding for 43 percent (of a full- time) consultant, at $25 per hour, and approximately 9 percent (of a full-time) Community Development Department staff person for assistance and supervision. C. A five cent per ton fee ($50,000) providing for' 71 percent (of a full-time) consultant, at $25 per hour, and approximately 14 percent (of a full -time) Community Development Department staff person for assistance and supervision. 2. State that no recycling planning activities will be provided for cities unless the city commits to providing staffing and/or funding to assist in the recycling planning efforts. 3. Direct staff to work with community groups to develop a directory of recycling activi- ties in Contra Costa County. FINANCIAL IMPACT• Since recycling planning activities are proposed to be funded through the Solid Waste Planning Tipping Fee Surcharge, no general funds will be used. Therefore, there is no direct County cost. i Continued 'on attachment: xx yes Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other: Signature(s): Board of Supervisors September 5, 1985 - Page 2 Recycling Committee Report - Tipping Fee Surcharge BACKGROUND: Each year the Board of Supervisors sets the Solid Waste �Management Planning Tipping Fee Surcharge to fund solid waste planning activities. A 19 cent per ton fee is proposed for Fiscal Year 1985-86. Three cents of the 19 cents has been identified for recycling planning activities. The solid waste planning fees can only be used for activities directly related to the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The law enabling the fees specifically states that funds from the fee cannot be used to implement recycling or other resource recovery programs. ; However, recycling planning is an eligible use of this fee. On July 17, 1985 the Solid Waste Commission recommended that the Board adopt the 19 cent per ton fee, which included the three cents identified for recycling planning. The Recycling Committee met on September 4, 1985 to discuss the proposed three cents per ton fee for recycling planning and how funds from the fee will be used. The Committee reviewed the September 4, 1985 memorandum from the Community Development Department to the County Administrator explaining how the funds would be used. The memorandum stated that approximately one/third of a full-time Community Development Department employee could be funded by the $30,000 fee. The recycling planning activities that would be performed include: Research/evaluation of recycling options, assistance/presentations to interested groups, coordination of County recycling activities and participating in task forces or committees on recycling. The staff person specifically would not be involved in actual implementation of recycling programs. After some discussion, the Committee felt that more staff efforts are needed to address the County's recycling needs. Therefore, the Committee proposes two other options in addition to the option specified in the September 4, 1985 memorandum from the Community Development Department' The other two options are as follows: 1 . Based on a $30,000 budget, engage a consultant to do a majority of the tasks, with staff providing assistance and supervision to the consultant. Assuming a consultant can be hired for $25 per hour, the $30,000 would provide for approximately 43 percent of' a full-time consultant and 9 percent of a Community Development Department staff person in assisting and supervising the consultant. 2. If' the total dollar amount is increased to $50,000 (or 5 cents per ton) , the amount of: time spent would increase to 71 percent for the consultant and 14 percent for the Community Development Department staff person. In both of :these options , the same types of activities would occur as listed in the September 4, 1985 memorandum. Concerning' the participation of cities, the Committee feels that cities must play a lead role in implementing recycling programs. As stated previously, the County, through use of the Tipping Fee Surcharge, cannot be involved in implementation of recycling programs. Therefore,! it is critical that the cities commit adequate staffing and/or funding to be able to assist in recycling planning and take the lead in actual implementation of recycling programs. ! Therefore, the Committee felt that recycling planning activities should not take place for a city until there is a strong commitment from that city to fully participate in the process. The Committee also discussed the need for an inventory of existing recycling operations in the County. Several recyclers at the meeting volunteered.-to assist in this effort. The California Waste Management Board is, also developing a. Statewide listing of recycling centers. It is appropriate that the Community Development Department staff assist in this effort to 'identify and list recycling activities in the County. i