The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 08011989 - IO.3 s t .------- .:oma I.O. 3 TO: Board of Supervisors _-,, .r - FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE o stiib9s,r , DATE: July 24, 1989 Sp'9-cou SUBJECT: MITIGATING IMPACTS FROM WASTE DIVERSION Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Request County Counsel to incorporate into the proposed procedure contained in their July 19, 1989 memo the following items and return a revised draft procedure to our Committee by September 25, 1989, if possible: A. Any mitigation that is agreed to between the host city and the community(ies)from which the waste is being diverted which exceeds the mitigation required by CEQA should be separately identified on the customer's garbage bill so the customer knows how much is being paid for such additional mitigation. B. The procedure should provide for specific time-frames within which negotiations are to be conducted and within which review by the Solid Waste Commission and Board of Supervisors are to be completed. This should include a 90 day period for negotiations among the host city, the franchised hauler and those communities from which the waste is being diverted, beginning from the date of notice from the host city. A single 30 day extension to this time period may be approved with the concurrence of the host city, the franchised hauler and the community from which the waste is being diverted. The Solid Waste Commission should be provided with not more than 45 days within which to provide their review and comments to the Board of Supervisors where the communities involved have been unable to agree on the level of mitigation. Following receipt of the Commission's comments the Board of Supervisors should render a final decision within 45 days. The diversion of waste is in no way delayed or altered during this negotiation and review period. Continued on attachment: YES Signature: Recommendatio ounty A inistrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other: Signdture(s): TOM POWERS SUNNE WRIGHT MC PEAKv' Action of Boa d on: _ August 1, 1989 Approved as Recommended x Other Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN x Unanimous (Absent — ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: Abstain: ,t Attested /!-Q-c_-�i / /989 Phil tchelor, Clerk of the Board cc: County Administrator County Counsel of Supervisors and County Administrator Director of Community Development yQ Solid Waste Commission By Deputy Clerk 2. Leave this matter on referral to our Committee. BACKGROUND: On Apri111, 1989 the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee a request from the Solid Waste Commission that the Board of Supervisors develop a process for implementing the policy statement which was included in the February, 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan indicating that communities benefitting from waste diversion should fairly compensate impacted communities for adverse impacts caused by the waste diversion. We made an initial status report to the Board of Supervisors on July 18, 1989 requesting that County Counsel revise the draft procedure to incorporate additional items and report back to our Committee July 24, 1989. On July 24, 1989 we reviewed the attached report from County Counsel. Our Committee believes that specific timeframes should be included in the procedure to insure that negotiations proceed forward in a timely manner. In addition, we are asking that the procedure include a requirement that if the mitigation exceeds what is required under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act that this amount be reflected separately in the garbage bill so that those who are paying the bill know how much of their bill is for the waste diversion mitigation. We will return a final proposed procedure to the Board of Supervisors following our final review of the procedure in September. - 2 - 1 COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFF/CE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CAUFORN/A Date: July 19, 1989 To: Internal Operations Committee From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Lillian T. Fujii, Deputy County Counsel Re: Implementation Process for Mitigating Impacts of Waste Diversion BACKGROUND: Due to concerns repeatedly advanced by East and West County Communities, which concerns the Central County communities have generally agreed with, following unanimous recommendation by the Solid Waste Commission, the following policy statement was included in the February, 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan (at page 6) : "Compensation for Impacts of Waste Diversion. Communities benefitting from waste diversions will fairly compensate impacted communities for adverse impacts (i.e. , loss of capacity, increased traffic, etc. ) caused by the waste diversion. " The City of Antioch requested that the Solid Waste Commission take a position on implementing this policy. The Solid Waste Commission voted to request the County Board of Supervisors to develop a process for implementing this policy. The Board of Supervisors referred this matter to the Internal Operations Committee and the County Counsel's Office. The Committee first considered this matter on July 10, 1989, and provided this office with suggestions on possible implementation measures. The following outline attempts to incorporate the Committee's suggestions. ******************************************************************** PROCESS FOR DETERMINING COMPENSATION TO IMPACTED COMMUNITIES, TO BE PAID BY BENEFITTING COMMUNITIES, AS MITIGATION FOR WASTE DIVERSION. INTRODUCTION. The 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan, adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and ratified by the cities in accordance with Government Code section 66780. 1, Internal Operations Committee -2- July 19, 1989 recognizes that diversion of the wastestream, i.e. , the disposal of waste at a site other than its usual or historical place of disposal, may cause significant adverse impacts upon the community surrounding the alternate receiving disposal site. As a result, the following policy is included in said plan: "Compensation for Impacts of Waste Diversion. Communities benefitting from waste diversions will fairly compensate impacted communities for adverse impacts (i.e. , loss of capacity, increased traffic, etc. ) caused by the waste diversion. " This document sets forth a suggested procedural guideline for determining the proper compensation to impacted communities. I . FORMAL NOTICE BY HOST COMMUNITY Whenever a community (host city or group of cities) believes that there is a possibility or likelihood that there will be a significant diversion of waste which will negatively impact the host community, the host community should provide formal written notice to the agency with permit authority over the landfill operator, that the host community will begin negotiations with the hauler, or requesting the permitting agency to commence negotiations with the hauler and other appropriate parties as to the appropriate mitigation for any negative impacts of the diversion upon the host community. Comment: The host or impacted community will be most attuned to the possibility of and impacts from the diversion. Therefore, the host community should initiate formal discussion. If requested, County staff will be available to provide technical assistance to communities . II. INITIATION OF DISCUSSION The permitting agency or the host community will then initiate discussion with the hauler and other appropriate parties . III . DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MITIGATION Whether and to what extent the host community will be negatively impacted, including appropriate mitigation measures, will be decided in accordance with the environmental review process of the California Environmental Quality Act. Where the host community enters discussions with the hauler independent from a permit process, the parties may agree to mitigation measures in addition to those required by any environmental review document. Internal Operations Committee -3- July 19, 1989 IV. SOLID WASTE COMMISSION The Solid Waste Commission's comments should be obtained before a final determination is made. In appropriate cases, the Solid Waste Commission may be requested to mediate disputes . Comment: The Solid Waste Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to advise the Board and the cities and other public agencies on solid waste issues . Although the Commission's recommendations are advisory only, it is appropriate for the permitting agency to seek the Commission's input. It may also be appropriate for the Commission to attempt to mediate disputes. V. FINAL DECISION Unless the host community and the haulers and other appropriate parties agree otherwise, the final decision as to the appropriate mitigation to a host community for a waste diversion shall be made by the permitting agency. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * We will be available to address any further questions the committee may have at its 7-24-89 meeting. Any implementation process should be ratified by the Solid Waste Commission and the cities if the entire County, including the cities, is intended to be affected by this process . LTF:df cc: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Dev. Attn: David B. Okita, Asst. Dir. dfl-dU-bu/impacts