HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07211987 - T.2 T.2
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 21 , 1987 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Final Report of the Landfill Siting Task Force
Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development
transmitted to the Board the Final Report of the Landfill Siting
Task Force. (A copy of that report is attached and included as a
part of this document . ) Included in the report is the rankings of
seven proposed landfill sites and six recommendations on the develop-
ment , management, and operation of sanitary landfills. The Task
Force further expressed support for the Resource Recovery recommen-
dations included in the Solid Waste Management Plan Revision.
Supervisor McPeak described the work of the Landfill
Siting Task Force in its review of potential landfill sites and the
ranking of seven sites including the Kirker Pass site and the East
Contra Costa site, which have pending applications for land use per-
wits. She noted that the two pending sites were added back into the
ranking by a majority of the Task Force members and that neither she
nor Supervisor Fanden participated in the ranking of the two pending
sites. Supervisor McPeak advised that she did not participate in
the ranking of all of the other sites. She further advised that the
Task Force also considered identification of other potential land-
fill sites , such as Refuse Canyon on the Concord Naval Weapons Station
and as well as in the Altamont area.
In its consideration of the final report of the Landfill
Siting Task Force, Supervisor McPeak recommended that the Board take
immediate action on the following items:
1. Accept the Landfill Siting Task Force ranking of sites
and adopt the relative ranking as the listing of
priority preferences for landfill sites in this County.
2 . Adopt the recommendations of the Landfill Siting Task
Force, including: (a) immediately communicating with
the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to pro-
tect the three top ranked sites; and (b) directing the
Community Development Department to schedule public
hearings in each region of the County.
3. Declare the interest of the Board of Supervisors in
further exploring the feasibility of the top three
sites as. alternatives to the privately proposed sites.
4 . Authorize the County Administrator' s Office to issue a
"Request for Proposals" to seek statement of interest
from public and private entities to joint venture
with the County in the development of one or more of the
top three sites. RFP's should be sent to all cities,
sanitation districts, garbage companies and prospective
private landfill operators/owners.
Supervisor McPeak noted that Recommendation No. 4 is a
companion action to the Board's previous decision to explore the
feasibility of a public-private partnership to develop and operate a
landfill. She advised that the thrust of this recommendation is to
focus efforts on the top ranked alternatives as recommended by the
Landfill Siting Task Force.
a
Supervisor Fanden advised that she, too, did not participate
in the ranking of the sites while serving on the Task Force. She
referred to the closure of the Acme Landfill in June 1989 and of the
need to identify and approve another landfill site. She commented
on the need to discuss utilization of the Altamont Landfill facility
currently in operation in Alameda County including the construction
of a transfer station. Supervisor Fanden commented on the geologi-
cal studies required, the permitting process from various State
regulatory agencies such as the State Regional Water Quality Control
Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board, the construction
process, and the threat of potential litigation. She commented on
the costs involved in developing a landfill site as well as lenthy
timeframes in the process. Supervisor Fanden recommended that the
Director of Community Development provide a comprehensive report on
the time schedules required for the various components of the
application/construction process involved in the development of a
landfill site.
Supervisor Powers requested information relative to the
capacity of the sites as ranked by the Task Force and the need to
understand the perspective what those sites represent bothin terms
of addressing the current problems and future problems . He
requested clarification if the ranked sites that are proposed (other
than those that are pending) are backup sites or substitute sites.
Supervisor Schroder advised that at this time he would
only be voting to accept the report from the Landfill Siting Task
Force and that his acceptance is not to be construed as his
agreement with all of the recommendations. He cited as an example
his disagreement with the Task Force ranking of the sites. He
expressed reservations with Supervisor McPeak 's Recommendation No. 2
in that it addresses the top three sites as ranked by the Task Force.
He expressed preference for ,the Board to communicate to LAFCO
that no changes in a sphere of influence occur until a site is iden-
tified and not just allude to one, two, or three sites. Supervisor
Schroder stated that all of the sites have to be evaluated by the
Board of Supervisors . He recommended that technical people review
this report and provide their comments to the Board.
Avon Wilson, Councilwoman of the City of Lafayette and
member of the Task Force , explained the rationale in recommending
that the Board communicate to LAFCO and the General Plan Congress of
the need to protect the top three ranked sites.
Supervisor Fanden expressed reservations with designating
potential landfill sites and the potential for inverse condemnation.
Paul Kilkenny, Deputy Community Development Director,
described and commented on each of the seven ranked sites.
Lillian Pride, representing the City of Pittsburg, con-
veyed the City' s concern with the recommendations of the Task Force
relative to requesting LAFCO to protect the sites.
Mary Mota presented a petition signed by residents
opposing any action by the County Board of Supervisors to place a
dump site in the West Pittsburg area.
Carol Carsten, speaking on behalf of Leslie Stewart,
advised that the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley and the
Richmond Area League support the report of the Landfill Siting Task
Force, urge the Board to adopt it, and take immediate steps to
implement its recommendations. The League also expressed support
for the implementation of recycling provisions set forth in the
County Solid Waste Management Plan.
Margaret Wildes, representing the West Pittsburg Alliance,
expressed opposition to the Bay Point site because of its proximity
to the residential community of West Pittsburg.
2 -
Board members expressed appreciation to the Task Force for
their work. They agreed to consider the recommendations of the Task
Force and Supervisor McPeak on July 28 , 1987. The Board further
considered the matter of setting hearings on the pending applica-
tions for land use permits for the Kirker Pass site and the East
Contra Costa site.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED BY THE BOARD that:
1. The Final Report of the Landfill Siting Task Force is
ACCEPTED, and July 28, 1987 is FIXED as the time to
consider the recommendations of the Task Force and
Supervisor McPeak. (The Clerk was instructed to list
this matter as a Determination Item on the July 28
Agenda. )
2. The Director of Community Development was REQUESTED to
report on remaining capacity of current landfills, the
cost to county residents to transport waste to the
Alameda County Altamont Landfill site, estimated
processing time for any new landfill applications, and
to propose any interim solutions.
3 . The public hearings on the Kirker Pass and East Contra
Costa landfill sites were FIXED for August 18, 1987,
and September 1, 1987, commencing at 4 p.m. for presen-
tations by staff and the applicant. Notices of the
public hearings are to include a notation that
testimony will be limited to two minutes.
1 hereby certify that this 1.3 a!me me va-rne.cn r �t
an action taken and entered on #h:�mirsa.i4,rs.." ss2e
Board of Supervisors on tt a elate shown.
ATTESTED: 2/ IC, J1-7 __
PHIL SAqCHELOR, Ciera of€!,j Seam
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By '2�,Za-,
, Deputy
cc: Community Development Director
Landfill Siting Task Force
Solid Waste Commission
County Administrator
Eugene G. Alves Construction Co. , Inc.
P. 0. Box 950
Pittsburg, CA 94565
TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director ♦
n
Community Development Department lJ,l.,�� t
July 91987 ra
Costa
DATE: , C`''`^' "l
SUBJECT: Final Report of Landfill Siting Task Force
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND Alm JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Acknowledge receipt the final report of the Landfill Siting Task
Force.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
Attached is the final report of the Landfill Siting Task Force. As
requested by the Board of Supervisors, the Task Force has identified
potential future landfill sites. The sites identified will require
substantial additional studies to be able to start the Environmental
Impact Report and permit approval process. Shortly, the Board of
Supervisors will be considering recommendations from the Planning
Commission and the Solid Waste Commission concerning the Kirker Pass
Waste Management Landfill and the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill.
It would be appropriate to consider the recommendations of the Task
Force in conjunction with the consideration of the two privately
proposed landfill sites.
L18:7-91stf.bos
a
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATUR
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM ND TION OA COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(SI:
t
1
R-4C
FINAL REPORT - LANDFILL SITING TASK FORCE
The Landfill Siting Task Force was established on January 6, 1987 by
the Board of Supervisors. Attached is a copy of the Board Order
establishing the Committee and designating the membership. Also
attached is a list of the members of the Task Force and the
organizations which they represent. The initial meeting of the Task
Force occurred on February 10, 1987 and the Task Force met weekly
until their last meeting on June 23 , 1987 .
The purpose of the Task Force was to:
1. Evaluate and compare all feasible remaining landfill site options
and recommend preferred alternatives.
2. Recommend appropriate solid waste management policies- to
accompany the siting of new landfills.
3 . Recommend an appropriate plan of action to insure the siting of
new landfills in the shortest time frame possible.
The Task Force reviewed all landfill sites in the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District/County Solid Waste Study, the Southeast County
Landfill Siting Study, the privately proposed landfill sites and other
sites identified by Task Force members.
RECOMMENDATION
The Landfill Siting Task Force recommends consideration by the Board
of Supervisors the following sites in the order of our preference,
based on the eleven criteria we used in our ranking. The criteria and
their weights are attached as well as the site evaluations done by the
Task Force for both single and multiple landfill scenarios.
The recommended sites are:
1. Bay Pointe Landfill (Site V-1) .
2. Cummings Skyway/Del Cierbo (Site I-2) .
3 . Tassajara (Site VI-7) .
4. Big Canyon (Site IV-1) .
5. Kirker Pass.
6. Marsh Creek (VI-4 and VI-11) .
7 . East Contra Costa.
The Task Force further recommends that Refuse Canyon (partially on
Concord Naval Weapons Station) and Altamont (sites north of the
existing Altamont Landfill in Alameda County) be identified as future
possibilities for consideration in the next century.
The Task Force concurs with the statement in the 1987 Solid Waste
Management Plan that new landfills can be developed by either private,
public, or public and private parties. We urge the Board of
Supervisors to take immediate action to initiate further studies on
the top three landfills sites (numbers 1, 2 and 3 above) . The Board
should work with the private sector and public agencies possibly
through a joint powers agreement to get these studies under way as
soon as possible and to facilitate the development of whichever site
or sites may prove feasible. The Board should present a step-by-step
plan and report on progress being made through publicly distributed
reports.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Task Force concurs with the Resource Recovery recommendations
included in the Solid Waste Management Plan Revision approved by
the Board on June 23 , 1987 .
2. Cities and the County should review their regulations concerning
allowing construction/demolition waste to be used as fill on
sites other than approved sanitary landfills. The goal of this
measure is to ensure that appropriate waste are being disposed at
these sites and also to encourage disposal of these types of
waste in locations other than sanitary landfills, thereby
reserving space in sanitary landfills for other wastes.
Permitting procedures should be modified so that these sites are
registered with the County Health Department and waste types and
quantities are reported.
3 . Project applicants and the local host community should meet to
discuss local host community mitigation, as described in the
Solid Waste Management Plan, prior to a decision on the facility
by the Board of Supervisors. It is acknowledged that an
agreement on appropriate local host community mitigation might
not be agreed upon prior to a Board decision. The recommendation
is a requirement to meet before a decision is made, but not a
requirement to agree.
4. The Board of Supervisors should communicate to the Local Agency
Formation Commission and the General Plan Congress that the top
three sites (numbers 1, 2 and 3 above) should be protected from
annexation and sphere-of-influence changes until a new landfill
site(s) is in operation that meets the capacity requirements of
the Solid Waste Plan, or the next review of the Solid Waste
Management Plan, whichever is later.
5. The Task Force recommends that the Board of Supervisors hold
public hearings in each part of the County on the recommendations
of this Task Force.
6 . The Task Force recommends that the Board of Supervisors
communicate with the new Commander of the Concord Naval Weapons
Station to indicate that the County is still interested in future
discussion concerning the potential Refuse Canyon landfill site
partially on Naval Weapons Station property.
LANDFILL SITING TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
Member Representing
Supervisor Sunne McPeak, Chair Board of Supervisors
Supervisor Nancy Fanden Board of Supervisors
Vice-Chair
Rosemary Corbin Mayors Conference
Western Cities
Nancy Parent Mayors Conference
Eastern Cities
Ron Mullin Mayors Conference
North Central Cities
Avon Wilson Mayors Conference
South. Central Cities
Michele Perrault Sierra Club
Kent Fickett/Al McNabney Mt. Diablo Audubon Society
Carol Carsten League of Women Voters
Bill Ross 85-86 Grand Jury
Michael Donovan Contra Costa Council
Doyle Williams Coalition of Labor and Business
John Koepke Solid Waste Commission
CRITERIA WEIGHT
Impacts on Residential/Commercial Development. . . . . . . . . 16 . 3
Transportation Impacts Along Roads Leading to Landfill 12. 2
Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. 8
Proximity to Parks and Other Recreational Uses. . . . . . . . 11. 2
Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. 9
Ecological Significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. 8
Proximity to Drinking Water Canals and Reservoirs. . . . . 9. 8
Historical/Archeological Significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .8
Adequacy of On-Site Cover and Liner Materials. . . . . . . . . 6 . 8
Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 3
Seismicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 3
DBO:vpl
L17:drtlstf.rpt
EXPLANATION OF LANDFILL SITE EVALUATION
The attached landfill site evaluations were conducted by the Landfill
Siting Task Force to evaluate potential landfill sites. Two set of
evaluations were done, one based upon the assumption that there will
be only one landfill in the County and the other assuming there were
to be multiple sites. The Task Force felt that some of the scores
would be different if more than one site was assumed.
The first step in evaluating the sites was to develop weighting of the
criteria. Since there were eleven criteria a total of 110 weighting
points were made available (an average of 10 points per criteria) .
The Task Force was requested to weight the criteria in any manner with
the only requirement being the total weight be a 110. What is shown
on the evaluations is the average of the twelve Task Force members who
completed the evaluations.
The second step was to score how each site met each criteria. A range
of points from one to five were used with one being low and five being
high. The score shown on the evaluation sheets are the average score
of those who scored the particular site. The total score is the
weight multiplied by the individual score. The total scores were
added up for each site in order to find the relationship between each
sites.
If you have any questions about the evaluation process contact Dave
Okita of the Community Development Department at 372-2071.
DBO:vpl
L17 :evaluati.rpt
1 In Ln In m w .-1 a W o+ ry -W
K V M N •-4 N N ` N N M
m
O
r o1
, -- h r•4 o rn sn N W N ry 01
1 m \J
i a v r4v M ry M m til' N �
U
I
W u W ;_
U
i m w h in en h «r r m r4 to m
V -W N m CIS
m M C4 N til' ri d'
M
I O
4J I a
1 n:
1 <1 W W PG
[y' co 1n 7 O .-d N W W m
I vi
1 N $4 N N m N M m M V' m M M
f W N { x
--------- ..
-___..__--__---_ __-__-..-__.________________^--__-___-__-___-__--__-__--__--__-__--__--_---_-.-----------
i r-1
1 I cd ID W h N 1 r 01 Cn co in N W ./
1 4J In M M m V' m .-1 m
m
1 4J
1 �
F ry sT In
N t3
1 ¢ W6
1 r V1 $4 In M m I N d' 'd' M V' M M In /1
i >H ra1 E-4
(�T/y
t rI
1 (d W m 10 r co .-1 N 171 Ift O W 10
I V m N d' m V 7 N m N •S rI h
In
I O
1 O ZO
N u1 h U
1 .7R• M
N
V
1 '>(� O N N M m V C' M V' m m <'
H�N NH
tQ
1 "-----`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------^--' --_-••---"'__.'__.'-_-__----
,.,
t td •n I to V' m 1a w 01 .-t W .1 W W
1 li 10 V to VI 1n N 117 1-4 W
1 O
1 43
1
1
i
i O o 10 +n o h a r •-4 W N O
I
-40, v • . . 01
----------------------------------------------------- ----------------
-T
-------------T.' . . .in In"' r In H r m mLn
0%} ¢ O 1D M 1n Ln to N N 'y' N In .`/ fl d'
e
�
,,,
m
.. . . . . . . . . . . .
u}
1 z ------------------
N p O
1
1 14
1 ro H N h 10 \0 N V1 l0 - M O to In
1 N h- 1n rt N N m H .-1 N ry .'4 11
O r1
i m L
HaD 1 W ( '
a 4 1 U
N W 10 .
(a w 1 v x v
U 1 / 14 V' til" e-1 I N N m N H m
m h 1 > °o GD
(� I m
E+
N ^------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------"-----------------^---------------
H i 4
�
rn 1 d (d r W to v 01 r O o Q m
1 V w m In m v
0I GI I E
1
H / M --
V) ! [Val} N H Q} H H m M m 10 dD In O h m H
H1 H H O •U' M tiT I tiT V' V' M 4 *,! m N ' O
1
i VS U DV) U
QI ------------'-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
£ t DI
1 JJ m 01 co N N W M co W W M N
Q 1 q H
O •-I N r-I f71 tp W t0 O 7 V 01
O .-4 H .-4 r-1 r♦ .-I O
r V
a `D i c�iil r, (d 4
bl
3
tn
i i vf0.' a Now04 MZH quu 0 H cuO
r �+
H w z rn az Qp°�ay ppu> uc��d ark u7a" H
H w t cx AO O W H N HO H z H D� 8 Hou
fn t ., v Q 0p m U u W A a�7p W 0 W W 0 m mix0H H a i n 1� tH�1U� •Y• H DIw
t H Hv VIU3 d U 068 �+ � }IW((vss�!� O OWOWW OR7� Ok, E .44
a a r�ny u ° a ttntn C7 H HQW OMI OR az H ;°•��
E. .4 / U 'O.R Q HH-1�Gl U (Uy,sggHqq{ H sG(i H�Q 'x LD •G�Vl �.•I w r4 H TA 4-1 3 yyro
.,{
0 ; Q Ha d tY• �M at7 .0.0 t>•
i CD r w 00 In In r m m PI n N
I In f•1 (•9 N .-1 N N N N N ."I N
O
1 m rn
1
1 f•'1 f•'1 N .-1 N f+1 t•1 V N f'1
1 U H U] O
1 U O U
I w N W
____________ ______________________________________________________J
1 r-1 I
ro rn n r 10 l0 .-1 n O %D I N co kD
O v1 N m N M V N V N V
r1
1 JJ In
1 N
1 a
1 pj N t+1 .i O N D. OD u1 00 H
1 W jpV�,7
1 VI H .4 M f4 N M t•f 14 V t4UO
V V O
H
1 - W N -
1 rl
1 ro ID .n co OD W I N V O\ l0 H1 00 00
1 O N
1n In (n m V V N m
V
1 4J
1
1
1 �
Vf O N 01 f•'1 O f+1 M O DI N a
1 $4
1 r It�n H f'l V Al N V V t+1 V t+1 Hf V Q O
i >H toil I H
1 '-1
1 ro In rn D\ N 00 v t0 O In N 0o O
1 JJ V N V
I O V
I 11
0
I I
1
1 In eD .-1 r+l M N n V n ao N U
1 1 H N N V 14 V V t4 V Al
H M V O
I
N
H �
1 ______________________________________________________ _________.
-----
I �
1
rd .n .n In l0 In D\ In rn 01 rl o .•-1
1 V %D .•1 Ln In In V rh -W N In d DI
1 o a
1 V
I w W
1
1 H
1 H
1 O O\ t+1 %D M °f to do DD 0
r N N 04 O
1 '-I a ro _
>� o r+ a V v V v c v V V v
i X00 y
a
---
1 ro OD N In n kD O .w..M (q n' V O o\
I ,M70 W O N N V N In N _ v
1 fA
I W .-1 aD ID V o aD .1 ao rn � N W
.....__. .. _.N
1 .7 a H V e•'1 V V LnN V V In VV
N ____ ______ _________
________
co V n to `D 1"I
1 N r V •-1 ."1 N In .-1 r1 N N .-1 N
rn
1 pl. yl W
OD I W W
ao I PWG a
1 1 U
• 1 V a0 .n %D V t+1 In r4 In DA ID
1 .'1'. N . . . .
1 V 1 y H V V .-1 N N rn N N t+1 •'•I m N
h I > 0
ri0
1 m
U) 14 i a ro rn rl I In � ao m ao r-I ao N o Q
v, o+
ai o �o ^, v, v v ry v ry V .I 3� In
a 1 a4 ✓ V
H 1 to In
W
U) DD z
i .• z N aD 1D M
1 W 11 H
H 1 H H U Ea
S' I In U N I - ;
1 N
1 JJ aD
WHH O-'+ 1I x P aD •-i t+l rl0r m is .-1l v ro
o1oL14 N 1
VN
V .11—
1 x
3
bl
z .0 N -4
H \ i 3 N ,I w
-----a--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------3------
Q H W w W In
>a 1 Hi In H z O W R 1-1-I��N .a] w 4
W 1 v WUH ODG t3 W0 % ,�w G,aa W ow
I (D,C aG tx H a 0*94 0 H U U O H O �
04
N W I H p v a(n L)07 °° p4I IU U Q0Kt wt�0H W[��w-I N 0 xt°I w IW-I Ha�` ry 0 Wi x ro C
H w 1 U .13 as V a lanmz E Q3 HUO' En 104 UC7 w O W
0 W 1 GG N J-I V to x z �W]H O z H i1••"1 14 -
U '.I'• H K 1 W W H VI
w � -.Q w a az9 dln oa y H� 0'