Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09201988 - 2.1 o TMJ: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Mayors ' Conference tetra Committee on Solid Waste Export DATE: September 15 , 1-98-8 County SUBJECT: Status Report on Waste Export SPECIFIC REQU£ST(S) .OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION• 1 Accept report from Mayors ' Conterence Committee on Solid Waste Export. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: For the past several months, the Mayors ' Conference Committee on Solid Waste Export has been meeting to work with County staff in arranging for solid waste export. The committee is made up of three appointees trom the Mayors ' Conference representing the various geographical areas of the County: Rosemary Corbin (West County) , Nancy Parent (East County) , and Avon Wilson ( South and Central County) . Supervisors Torlakson and Fanden represent the Board on this committee. The committee' s goal is to achieve a waste export agreement when Acme Fill closes in late 1988 or early 1989. Due to the complications of negotiating and approv- ing such an agreement, it may not be possible to conclude an agreement in time. The following is the status of waste export discussions with other counties: Alameda County Alameda County has traditionally been the first choice for solid waste export. The landfills in Alameda County are close to Contra Costa County and have excess capacity. Alameda County has accepted waste import from San Francisco :County However,_, :o.ur efforts have been stalled for several reasons. Alameda County has a policy that they must have 50 years of landfill capacity for the entire County in public ownership or control. With the CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _, RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO MITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON September 20, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III 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: ATTESTED Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Solid Waste Commission via CDD Cities & Sanitary Dist. via CDD BY. DEPUTY 2. addition of waste import from Contra. Costa County, they would not have this capacity. One method of meeting this requirement would be to couple waste import from Contra Costa County with a land- fill expansion. However, this process would take an extended amount of time, which would not allow completion of an agreement anywhere near the time export is needed in Contra Costa County. Attempts to arrange for a staged agreement which would allow a shorter term, quicker export of Contra Costa' s waste while still tieing a longer term agreement to a landfill expansion are still underway. Alameda County had requested the applicant (Oakland Scavenger) to submita justification for an emergency which would have substantially shortened the CEQA process for the short-term waste export.. Contra Costa County staff assisted in providing information to Alameda County to justify a CEQA emergency. Alameda County, however, has recently determined that they could not justify an emergency in Alameda County that met the require- ments of CEQA. After many months of correspondence, discussions and meetings, there still is not an accepted application in Alameda County for Contra Costa County waste export. Valley Waste Management had made a proposal to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Walnut Creek, and San Ramon for an 8-year agreement to dispose of waste at Altamont Landfill in Alameda County or Kirby Canyon landfill in San Jose. This pro- posal would require the public agencies to contribute half the estimated cost towards an application for waste export and landfill expansion and an 8-year "put or pay" commitment to use the landfill. It appears that the three agencies will be reject- ing this offer. Waste Management has informed us that they are reconsidering this proposal and their application to Alameda County to include a shorter term commitment with a flexible 8-year commitment, possibly coupled with a request to bring a smaller quantity of Contra Costa County' s waste. The Mayors Conference. committee will write a letter to Alameda County and Waste Management supporting this concept. The committee has had one face-to-face meeting with a subcommit- tee of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. At this meeting, it was stressed that Contra Costa County must approve a landfill site before an export agreement will be approved in Alameda County. They also discussed other conditions, such as recycling requirements. However, since there is no application to discuss, we do not have an opportunity to meet and discuss this matter further at this time. San Joaquin County County staff has met on several occasions with representatives from .local government in San Joaquin County and owners of Forward landfill near Stockton. County staff informs us that the Forward landfill could physically accept Contra Costa County waste if the necessary approvals can be granted. As is the case with all other counties, the San Joaquin County Solid Waste Management Plan would have to be amended, and some permits may need to be modified. County staff, in meeting with City of Stockton repre- sentatives, have been told that the City of Stockton may oppose waste import from Contra Costa County because of its effect on the city-owned landfill adjacent to the Forward landfill and the impact on the total County landfill capacity. The San Joaquin County staff will be bringing the issue before their Board of Supervisors on September 20. A meeting between the committee and San Joaquin County representatives is anticipated in the near future. 3 . Santa Clara County County staff has met with representatives of the City of San Jose. Potential landfills (Kirby Canyon and Newby Island) are both in the City of San Jose. Santa Clara County expects an application for waste import to come from the 'public agencies. The likely process would be for public agencies in Contra Costa County to apply via the City of San Jose for an amendment to the Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan. Additional discussions have been held with owners of Kirby Canyon (Waste Management Inc. ) and Newby Island ,(BFI ) . The landfill owners are also discussing receiving waste from Contra Costa County with San Jose and Santa Clara County officials. Yolo County .County staff has met with representatives of Yolo County to discuss importing Contra Costa County waste to a County-owned landfill (operated by Waste Management Inc. ) north of Davis. Yolo County officials will be discussing this matter with their Board of Supervisors and are to report back the results to County staff. Yolo County has only expressed a possible interest in accepting a small portion of the County' s waste ( 200 to 3OU tons per day) over a 2 to 3-year time period. Solano County Some progress has been made with negotiations with Solano County. At this time, Solano County appears to be the most likely county an export agreement can be reached with in a reasonable amount of time. However, due to waste import limits enacted by voter ini- tiative, Solano County can only accept up to 95,000 tons per year (about 260 tons per day) from Contra Costa County. The Potrero Hills landfill has entered into an agreement with the Acme Fill Corporation to accept up to 95 , 000 tons per year at their land- fill near Suisun. This agreement is contingent upon receiving approval from all agencies. The Potrero Hills landfill has submitted an initial application to Solano County. Our committee has met with representatives of Solano County to discuss waste export. The next step would be identification of a negotiating team from those communities which will be exporting waste to Solano County to negotiate specific conditions of the export agreement. The committee sees the Memorandum ..of Understanding group, which has been recently formed, as providing the actual negotiators. Solano County representatives and Potrero Hills landfill representatives have been cooperative and efficient in handling our request for waste import. Even so, they expect a° 280-day time period before waste import could be accepted. Other Matters In discussions with all counties, the receiving county' s solid waste management plan must be amended. This requires approval of the county and a majority of the cities containing a majority of the incorporated population. Additionally, a solid waste plan amendment requires approval of the Calitornia Waste Management Board. Another requirement is that there be a transfer station in Contra Costa County. If construction starts now, the Acme Fill Interim Transfer Station can be in operation by the time Acme landfill closes in early 1989. However, the interim trans- fer station cannot get a permit to operate from the California Waste Management Board unless the Contra Costa County Solid Waste "Management Plan is revised and approved. According to the California Waste Management Board, this will require the County to show 8 years of reserved landfill capacity or an 8-year export agreement with one or more counties. Even it our committee was to successfully reach agreement on waste export with other 1 4. counties, the export agreement could be blocked by the California Waste Management Board until the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan is approved. since it does not appear we will be able to negotiate export agreements f-or the entire County' s waste stream for eight years, our only hope is that the Solid Waste Plan will be revised to include reserved future landfill sites. The committee urges the Board of Supervisors and the cities to complete the Solid Waste Management Plan that will meet the requirements of the California Waste Management Board. The committee has also heard a report from the County Health Services Department and County Counsel regarding "emergency" procedures that could help the problem. There are basically two types of "emergencies. " The first type is an emergency as defined in CEQA, which can be used tosubstantially shorten the environmental review process. we have found that although such an emergency might be found to exist in Contra Costa County, such an emergency would not generally exist in another county. Alameda County has recently confirmed this determination. In other words, we cannot count on the CEQA emergency to expedite waste export agreements with- other counties. Another type of "emergency" is one from a pubic health perspective, which could be called by the County Health Services Director and later confirmed by the Board of Supervisors every 14 days. Again, since such an emergency would only exist in Contra Costa County, a local emergency would have no effect in adjacent counties. Another variation of a public health emergency would be an emergency called by the Governor. If the Governor should declare such an emergency, State laws could be set aside and theoreti- cally waste export to other counties could be expedited. How- ever, a determination of whether the Governor would call for such an emergency is problematic. In summary, we have concluded that use of "emergency" powers will not substantially help our efforts in negotiating waste export agreements. Another issue of concern of the committee is that when Acme Fill reaches capacity in early 1989 and waste is taken to other land- fills within the County and, hopefully, outside of the County, rates paid by the public and businesses will substantially increase. These increases will vary depending on the destination of a specific community' s waste. This will result in some com- munities paying higher prices than others. It is important that franchising agencies and private solid waste companies have an understanding about this future increase in rates. In the past, there have been disagreements between collectors and franchising public agencies concerning relatively minor rate increases. During this criticalperiod of negotiating waste export agree- ments, cooperation between the public and private sector is very important. The Memorandum of Understanding group initiated by the Public Managers Association and endorsed by the Mayors ' Conference and your Board of Supervisors will have its initial meeting on Sep- tember 22. we see this group as being the prime group to conduct actual negotiations with other counties and discus waste export matters. We anticipate that the Mayors ' Conference Committee on Solid Waste Export will somehow be incorporated into the Memo- randum of Understanding Group. Since this group represents franchising agencies in the County, it is appropriate that they oversee waste export activities. We are now at the stage where specific proposals need to be made with other counties and discussions concerning terms and conditions of waste export need to be negotiated. 5. In summary, progress has been slow in negotiating waste export agreements, but some progress has been made. Our committee has had difficulties in dealing with other counties because our County does not have a landfill site selected which will provide for the County' s long term needs. Other counties are under- standably concerned about allowing Contra Costa County to bring wastes, even on a short term basis, without a new site selected in Contra Costa County. We have also been hampered by the severe time restraints placed upon our County by the December-January closure of Acme Fill. It appears that no county can complete a waste export agreement with il us before early 1989. 'Arrangements must be made within Contra Costa County for diversion of Central County waste. DBO/j n 156:status.brd