HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07291986 - 2.1 (2) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DATE: July 299 1986
MATTER OF RECORD
SUBJECT: Ranking and Comparison of Alternative Landfill Sites
Supervisor Tom Torlakson presented to the Board three
recommendations that would provide for the ranking and comparison of
landfill sites and participation with the Delta-Diablo Sanitation
District to accomplish this. A copy of Mr. Torlakson' s list of
recommendations is attached and included as part of this. document.
Board members discussed the merits of the recommendations
and expressed reservations. Supervisor Torlakson suggested that the
recommendations be voted on individually.
Supervisor Torlakson moved that the Board approve recom-
mendations #1 and #2. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McPeak.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder and Powers
The motion failed to carry.
Supervisor Torlakson moved that the Board approved recom-
mendation #2 alone. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McPeak.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Fanden and Powers
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Schroder (because he wished to give
the matter further consideration)
The motion failed to carry.
Supervisor Torlakson moved that the Board approve recom-
mendation #3. This motion died for lack of a second.
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN
I
�I
2'7()10
TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM : Supervisor Tom Torlakson Contra
Costa
DATE: July 22, 1986 C<yjnh
SUBJECT: RANKING AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE LANDFILL SITES `�
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S ) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Participate with the Delta-Diablo Sanitation District in a ranking and
review of alternative landfill sites in comparison with the three privately-proposed
sites.
• Schedule a public workshop on the Southeast County Landfill Siting Study
to hear the results and be briefed fully on the potential of the sites sometime in
early September.
• Authorize the East County Regional Planning Commission to hold an advisory
hearing in mid-September on the three private landfill applications that are going to
hearing for entitlements on September 30, 1986, in front of the County Planning
Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: For more details, see recommendations la and lb in the
attached memo to the Delta Diablo Board, dated July 9, 1986.
TT:gro
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S1:
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON .THE DATE SHOWN,
CC: Community Development Department ATTESTED
Solid Waste Commission PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY
M382/7-83 ,DEPUTY
Tom Torlakson .��• 5 E.;` ..�� 45 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg.California 94565
(415)439-4138
Supervisor,District Five v
Contra Costa County :
Board of Supervisors c .z
7STq.ec C
DATE: July 9, 1986
TO: Delta Diablo Sanitation District
Board of Directors /
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson �.� •
SUBJ: ALTERNATIVE .SANITARY LANDFILL SITE ISSUES:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DELTA DIABLO
SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD
------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Delta Diablo District led the way in initiating and
funding an alternative site study which has identified four
areas for landfill sites in the east county/southeast county
area.
Our Board has been briefed on this study and a commu-
nity meeting, sponsored by Delta-Diablo Sanitation District,
has allowed the public to be briefed on the contents of the
study.
Furthermore, a few members of the public as well as the
members of our staff and board have participated in a ground
tour of the sites on Saturday, June 28. This was followed
by an aerial tour on Wednesday, July 2.
My assessment of the reaction of tour participants was
that great optimism was generated on the potential of a few
of the alternative sites. In my own opinion, three of the
sites offer great potential and would compare extremely
favorably with the three private applications now going
through the county land use review process. ,
It should be noted that on the aerial tour, an
additional site was identified, namely, the Round Valley
site just to the east of the proposed "Marsh Creek Sites A
and B" . This Round Valley site appearslto have enormous
capacity and would be accessed from a point about a mile and
a half east of Deer Valley Road off of Marsh Creek Road.
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
Board of Directors
July 9 1986
Page TWO
An additional fact that was examined during this tour
made great impact on me. I am speakinglof the tight
timetable we operate under. We are behind the eight ball in
terms of developing an alternative situ It is crucial that
an alternative site be pursued immediately and necessary
further studies be done to assist us in identifying the best
possible site. The county Community Development Department
staff has indicated that the three private applications will
probably get through the Planning Commission process and to
the Board of Supervisors for consideration in late 1986 or
very early in 1987. In the meantime, the clock ticks on the
remaining life . of Contra Costa landfill space.
If an extension is not granted at Acme Fill, that site
will close in June of 1987. 'It is then estimated that if
all the county' s waste is hauled to the Richmond Sanitary
Landfill and the landfill site next to Antioch, these sites
would only have .capacity for the remaining six months.
Pressure will mount to approve "some site" faced with,
the prospect of having no where to dispose of our garbage in
Contra Costa County. Again, it is essential that steps be
taken immediately to develop more information about an
alternative site that will convince the planners and
decision makers--at the Community Development Department
level, at the Planning Commission level, the Solid Waste
Commission level, and the Board of - Supervisors level--that a
better site exists and can be brought on line in time to
avoid a "no place to dump" crisis.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
As a follow-up to the .great .interest generated by these
tours and in recognition of the pressing timetable we face,
I offer suggestions for action to the Delta-Diablo Board
today:
1. AUTHORIZE DELTA DIABLO STAFF TO ALLOCATE THE
NECESSARY STAFF TIME AND/OR CONTRACT FOR ADDITIONAL
CONSULTANT -TIME WITH JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS TO DO THE
FOLLOWING:
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
July 9, 1986
Page THREE
(a) Conduct an evaluation of the areas identified' in
the Alternative Sanitary Landfill Siting Report and to
prioritize and rank the sites. .
This should be done in such a way as to help the Delta
Diablo Board to identify major pros and' cons on these sites
to determine the site that may hold the' best. combination .of
features to become "the best candidate alternative site:" ,
In proceeding in this direction, it would be appro
priate to eliminate one or two of the sites right now if
there is a board consensus about which sites are not worth.
pursuing at all.'
Furthermore, it is important that the Round Valley,
site, which was .not in the initial study, be examined. The
level of data for this site should be brought to a `similar
level as the other four alternative landfill sites.
(b) Conduct an evaluation process for comparing the
three private applications with the "prioritized" alterna-
tive sites.
In taking this action, I` believe the Delta Diablo
Sanitation District Board should invite the support of the
cities of Antioch, Pittsburg., Clayton and Concord (as cities
most directly affected by the three current .private sites)
as well as. direct participation by the county `in such a
review. and comparison process. The criteria that should be
used is that which has been agreed upon by the County Board .
of Supervisors and the Solid Waste Commission.-
obviously, the level 'of data available is much greater
for the three private sites which. have gone through .a full
EIR process and extensive geotechnical studies. However, a
valid comparison can be made with the reconnaissance level
of .data that exists in the Alternative Sites Study.`
Involving other jurisdictions would add even greater'
credibility to this review process, particularly if the
county would participate itself. I urge that we .make the
L11 V 1 Ld C.L oil aaa aSli the C:i.iz5 ►".0 j L ii .uS i..
invitation to the, county to participate directly in the
study. The Community Development Department staff has
.indicated to that this would not take an extensive amount
of work and, if so directed, they could contribute. signifi-
cantly to such a comparative analysis.
Delta Diablo. Sanitation District
July 9, 1986
Page FOUR
(c) Identify a timetable and cost schedule for the
development of a "best candidate alternative site" with a
report to the Board in August.
The timetable should include the estimated time it
would take to develop an alternative site once one is
identified. To not find ourselves even further "behind the
eight-ball," it is necessary for us to identify as soon as
possible a best candidate alternative site. -The timetable
we discussed on the tour should be evaluated and confirmed.
Roughly, . it was estimated that from the date a best
candidate alternative site is identified,it would take
approximately six months to do the necessary soils and other
geologic and scientific studies necessary to prepare an
application for filing with the Community Development
Department and the Board of Supervisors.
Much additional information needs to be part of this
six-month application development period including
discussions with land owners.
It would help our board greatly to have associated with
this timetable an estimate of the costs broken down into the
categories of different types of scientific studies and
staff input necessary to proceed. Following the approximate
six-month application period, it was estimated that it would
take approximately one year to bring an� application through
the county staff analysis and environmental impact review
process, the Planning Commission review process and finally
the Board of Supervisors' ultimate decision-making process.
Following a favorable decision on the alternative site,
it is estimated it would then take an additional six months
to obtain other necessary permits from regional environ-
mental agencies, the State Solid Waste Board and to obtain a
change in the County Solid Waste Plan 'to include the new
site. Construction after this could take a year or more for
the actual landfill site development. If the application
and site, in its final approved form, included the building
of a realicned Highway 4 as a two-lane arterial to access
the sites, additional time needs to calculated for con-
structing this roadway and making it operational.
Delta .Diablo Sanitation District
July 9, 1986
Page. FIVE
The staff needs to pursue further refinement of
information initially gathered by David Okita and Stan Davis
regarding the feasibility and time schedule for development
of a major two or three lane arterial placed along the route
for the proposed realigned Highway 4.
During the tour we had considerable discussions about
the local traffic concerns the City of Antioch would have
regarding use of Hillcrest, Lone Tree Way and Deer ,Valley
Road. I obviously share those concerns. I also have major
concerns about garbage truck traffic going through the main
street of Oakley;,, namely, the narrow, extremely congested.
stretch of Highway 4 which is the main access route in and.
out of the large Oakley community. The problem in Oakley is
similar to, if not greater than,.-the problem that Brentwood -
faces with. Highway 4 going through the center of its
community. Therefore, I believe it is essential that a
realigned .Highway 4 be contemplated under any alternative
site scenario as part of the access mitigation. Defining
what is necessary in the near term in terms' of size and cost
of the road needs to be developed further.
Planned development in the east county area
contemplates builder fees being required to construct the
two-lane road and ultimately Caltrans and the .State of
California would construct the remaining necessary lanes to
bring it to full state highway standards. (It should also
be noted that the proposed 1/2 cent sales -tax' expenditure
plan includes $10 million for right-of-way acquisition and
development of the realignment of Highway 4 through East
Contra Costa County. ) Therefore, staff should be urged to
consult further with the county, city and state
transportation officials on this .matter and to develop a
written report and map for our benefit showing the proposed
route and possible connection points of the realigned
Highway 4. I have contacted CalTrans asking for a' status
report on their study of the precise realigned route of
Highway 4 to be given at the next Highway 4 Task Force
meeting (next Wednesday, July 16 at 7:30 p.m. at the
Pittsburg City Hall) .
;-additional tcurs fi;..c:i?-- b,- 'arranged by la-rl a-=
air for city council members and+for other public officials,
especially members of the East Bay Regional .Park District
Board and their staff. In the latter regard, I have spoken
with the president of .the� Board, Ted Radke, and he is
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
July 9, 1986
Page SIX
interested in evaluating these sites. The East Bay Regional
Park District has a particular interest in Site VI-9 which
we discussed on. the tour as being too small in its present
form but which could be doubled in capacity if additional
adjacent canyons were added to it.
The Round Valley site is also a site that the East Bay
Regional Park District would have interest in. The
district' s input at an early stage would be essential in our
deliberations in developing a "best candidate site" for
further action.
In addition to this, I would like tore-visit Site VI-9
to make sure we have a correct location and access route
identified. Furthermore, none of us had the direct
opportunity to tour by land "Marsh Creek Sites A and B"
south of Marsh Creek Road in the first land tour. The Round
Valley could be toured at the same time if the property
owners are willing.
2. EACH OF US AS REPRESENTATIVES OF OUR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS, SHOULD URGE OUR GOVERNING BOARDS TO SCHEDULE
A TIME ON THEIR LATE-AUGUST OR EARLY-SEPTEMBER AGENDA FOR AT
LEAST AN HOUR ON THE ALTERNATIVE LANDFILL STUDY AND THE
RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS.
The Brentwood City Council could be encouraged to
also schedule such a presentation in their community.
3. REVIEW EARLY REPORTS VERIFYING OUR REAL AUTHORITY
TO. BE ACTIVE IN THE SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND FILL SITES,
LEGAL POWERS OF THE DISTRICT WITH REGARD TO LANDFILL SITE
DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION AND THE DISTRICT'S NEEDS TO
IDENTIFY A VIABLE AND ECONOMIC SITE FOR THE FUTURE DISPOSAL
OF OUR SLUDGE WASTE.
A letter to the editor recently b=ought into question .
both the legality and logic of the Delta Diablo Board
pursuing alternative landfill sites. :( believe
once again we should publicly review our legal position and
need and also review the status of our available contingency
iLullu. In this review oil the available contingency fund,
we should clearly distinguish between our construction/
expansion fund and our general/contingency fund.
Secondly, the staff needs to be clear regarding what
projects this money needs to be potentially available for
and within what timeframe. Obviously, a multi=million
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
July 9, 1896
Page SEVEN
dollar fund is not going be entirely needed within any given
fiscal year. Under any proposal to consider further
investment of district funds in the landfill site search, I
believe, as I have previously advocated in front of this
Board, that we should do so with the expectation that any
monies we allocate for such a purpose be reimbursed at a
later time through the operation of .a landfill site. In
other words, assuming the successful development of. a site,
any investment or allocation of funds by the Delta Diablo
District should be .reimbursed over time to the contingency
fund from which the funds were advanced for this purpose.
We have discussed this concept in the context of the joint
studies we have done in the past but it is appropriate to
discuss this now in the context of the deliberations
regarding additional significant allocations of district
funds for this site search.
4. DIRECT THE DELTA DIABLO STAFF TO DEVELOP A REPORT
FURTHER DETAILING OPTIONS THAT THE DELTA DIABLO BOARD COULD
PURSUE IN TERMS OF AN ULTIMATE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER ANY .
"BEST CANDIDATE ALTERNATE SITE" WOULD IDENTIFY AND/OR
DEVELOP; SHOULD BE A PUBLIC CONTROLLED/OWNED SITE OR A
PRIVATELY CONTROLLED/OWNED SITE.
I believe it would greatly benefit myself and the Board
members to have a detailed report from staff outlining
various options of how the public controlled or public owned
site might be accomplished. It has been done in a variety
of ways in different jurisdictions--total public ownership
of the site and full public financing of site development to
joint venture of both of those costs and shared control over
the operations of the site. It also would be helpful to
actually invite knowledgeable persons who. have run
successful municipal or county landfills in other parts of
the Bay Area and the state to attend our August. Board
meeting for the purposes of answering our questions and
sharing their experience with this concept. It would be
beneficial, too, to have this information shared along with
the other reports referenced above with the Board of
Supervisors and the cities of Antioch; Pittsburg and
Brent,,..,c A zJ^^@ "� 1• c�i c_' _.._ ^t these reports could he
V• _ �` ,..
prepared and. reaay�tor ou_. Aguust meeting,
TT:gro
cc: Board of Supervisors
Solid-Waste Commission
Ron Tsugita, Manager, Delta-Diablo Sanitation District
Mayor Nathan Fisher, City of Brentwood
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator -
Harvey Bragdon, Community Development
David Okita, Community Development Department
July 29 , 1986
2/4 APPROVED recommendation of County Panning Commissionm with
ANN respect to General Plan Amendment requested by R.S.B.
Company, changing approximately twolensity;
cres in the Pacheco
umarea to miltiple residential mediREQUESTED THE
Community Development Director, in cooperation with Pacheco
Town Council, to look at over-all master plan in the area
and need for a Community Center, and discuss with R.S.B.
Company and other developers in area the feasibility of
added police services.
2.5 DENIED General Plan Amendment requested bhy Geldermann,
ANN Inc. for a single parcel in the Alamo area; APPROVED the
timetable contained in agreement between the Round Hill
Property Owners Association and Gelderman, Inc. ; and
DIRECTED staff to monitor the agreement to assure that it
is being adhered to.
. 10 Supe or Tom rlak n, pr sente a repIrpt and ecom-
o- ene , men io s r lat've o art c 'pat n� wit e D 1 a
Di lo S atio D tr'c in t ra k' g and om -ar' s n f
a ernative land it sites. actio was t en.
T.5 APPROVED the SB 878 Expenditure Plan, and DEFERRED to
Jolene August 5, 1986 adoption of retail transactions and use tax
ordinance and resolution placing said ordinance on the
November 4 , 1986 ballot for voter approval.
T.6 APPROVED application 2577-RZ by DESCO Investments, Inc. and
Ann and Ronald H. and Patricia M. Howard to rezone land in the
Pleasant Hill BART area; INTRODUCED ordinance, WAIVED reading and
FIXED August 12,. 1986 for adoption
T.7 APPROVED application 2676-RZ filed by American Residential
Ann Properties and Hoffman Construction Company to rezone land in the
Pleasant Hill Bart area; INTRODUCED ordinance, WAIVED reading and
FIXED August 12, 1986 for adoption
T.8 APPROVED application 2673-RZ filed by Treat Commons, Ltd.
Ann to rezone land in the Pleasant Hill BART area; INTRODUCED
ordinance,. WAIVED reading and FIXED August 12, 1986 for adoption.
T.9 APPROVED, with conditions, appeal of Merle L. and Maxine Walden
Ann with approval of a second residence on their property for family
members, Pleasant Hill area.
SVSP N.S