Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08171993 - FC.2 0q TO: - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS s.....` Contra r 4 FROM: Costa Finance Committee o; z o= County DATE: August 17, 1993 SUBJECT: KELLER CANYON LANDFILL MITIGATION & SURCHARGE FEES SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT the report from the County Administrator's Office on the Keller Canyon Landfill surcharge and mitigation fees. 2. Direct the appropriate county staff to initiate the budgeting process for the 1993- 94 mitigation fees pursuant to Board procedures, including public input through the Board's Transportation, Finance Committees, Internal Operations and Liaison Committee to the East Bay Regional Park District, to be completed no later than October. 3. Authorize the County Administrator to increase (by $122,088) the revenue appropriated from mitigation fees to cover 992-93 expenditures in the transportation and open space areas. 4. Direct the County Administrator and Director of the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency to provide additional information to the Committee relative to monthly tonnage and revenues, specifics on the soils bank and agriculture programs, details on costs for Acme landfill closure review and expenditure account numbers for the Sheriff Department's used for mitigation fee program activities. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COJAMITTEE a APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): Gayle' Bisho Tom 1Powers ACTION OF BOARD ON August , APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X Following comments of David Tam(representing the Sierra Club) , the Board APPROVED the recommendations set forth above. The Board REQUESTED the Director, GMEDA, to initiate the rate review process for the Keller Canyon Landfill no later than January 15 , 1994. Supervisor Bishop advised of her reservations with the rate structure and the issues associated with it. (The Board considered these recommendations with Consent Item No. 1 . 75. ) VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES:l, 2',4, 5 NOES: 3 AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT. ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Librarian ATTESTED August 17 , 1993 County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY �•- (J�° ✓�i -�%/c/!� DEPUTY M382 (10/88) Page 2 5. Direct the County Administrator to provide .quarterly revenue reports to the Finance Committee. 6. Schedule the surcharge and mitigation fee item on the Finance Committee Agenda for September 13 to address Sierra Club concerns. BACKGROUND: Keller Canyon Landfill Company is required under Land Use Permit 2020-89 Conditions of Approval 35.1 and 35.2 to pay the County 1) $2.00 per ton of waste received to mitigate general impacts of the landfill on open space, existing and proposed recreational facilities, and agriculture; 2) $2.00 per ton of waste received to mitigate the general impacts of landfill on the community; and 4) a $3.85 per ton surcharge that is 10% of the base rate of $38.48 per ton. Board Policy on Mitigation Fees The mitigation fees were established in an effort to meet the local community concerns over the impact of a landfill in the area. Expenditure proposals were introduced at the Board of Supervisor's August 11, 1992 meeting and adopted on September 8, 1992 with public testimony heard each time. Prior to adoption of specific programs, County staff and the Board met with city representatives, franchising agencies and the public to discuss the use of mitigation fees. Keller Canyon Landfill rate regulation workshops and West Pittsburg Municipal Advisory Council meetings commented on policy and procedures for each mitigation fund. Specific criteria were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in the attached August 11, 1992 Board Order based on this public interest. (see Attachment A) Common to all three mitigation funds is the requirement for public input prior to fund allocation; permission to accumulate monies over several years in order to address expensive mitigation projects; and the restriction that none of the fees be expended on improvements or projects which are the responsibility of the landfill owner/operator under the conditions of approval. In addition to the requirements outlined in the August board order, disbursement of the Community Mitigation contracts was reviewed by Community Development staff and a public Advisory Committee selected by the Finance Committee. Department staff familiar with community-based project evaluation through the Community Development Block Grant program were assigned to this task. Twelve projects provided by local West Pittsburg sponsors were chosen from over 20 proposals. All proposals were reviewed and discussed at the November 9, 1992 Finance Committee meetings, as well as at the Board meetings. FY 1992-93 Mitigation Fees In fiscal year 1992-93, Keller Canyon Landfill mitigation fees based on tonnage equalled $2,263,398. Given the uncertainty of activity at the new landfill, revenue estimates were conservatively projected at $500,000 for each mitigation fund. An equal amount of appropriations were approved for each mitigation fund. The revenue above the budgeted amounts is being put into a special reserve for future mitigation costs. Please see attachment B for details on how these revenues were dispersed. For each mitigation revenue, a total of $500,000 was spent or will be carried forward to 1993-94. Open Space/Agricultural Preservation These programs are designed to overcome the loss of open space and agricultural land due to the existence and operation of the landfill, as well as to mitigate negative impacts on the surrounding environment. Page 3 • Rodent and Thistle Control: Activities included application of chemicals by County Agriculture Department biologists. • Open Space Beautification: Money was appropriated for planting of native trees, wildflowers and natural grasses, but will not be spent until 1993-94. General Services Department is responsible for program implementation. • Agriculture/Soils Bank: Revenues are accumulating for future acquisition of agricultural land to compensate for development and operation of Keller Canyon Landfill. Transportation Traffic congestion, litter, road damage and other negative impacts from the operation of the landfill are mitigated with these revenues. • Baily Road Widening: Engineering design by an outside consultant has begun and construction should be completed in 1993-94. The County Public Works Department and City of Pittsburg are reviewing the project. • Roadside Litter Clean-up: General Services Department supervises clean-up. Expenditures included purchase of vehicles to transport work crews and haul away trash. • Route Restriction Enforcement: Mitigation monies went to a team of Sheriffs personnel dedicated to addressing special enforcement needs such as patrolling roadways in and around the landfill. Community Assistance As host to the landfill, the community of West Pittsburg and to a lesser extent North Richmond, Martinez, Concord and Pittsburg are burdened with special problems. These programs are designed to alleviate these communities' special responsibilities and strengthen the existing neighborhoods. • Code Enforcement: Inspections and community liaison work were performed by County staff. Supplies were purchased for community clean-ups and street sweeping. • Property Clean-up: General Services Department supervised work crews to clean-up property in the target communities. • Litter/Dump Control Program: Sheriffs Department formulated the program to focus a patrol team on this special enforcement issue. The Department estimates that approximately 40% of the team's time is spent in West Pittsburg. • Community Mitigation: Twelve community service organizations and vendors provide recreation, counseling and other related services and supplies to the West Pittsburg area. The Community Development Department monitors the organizations and their activities via contracts. FY 1992-93 Surcharge In fiscal year 1992-93, Keller Canyon Landfill surcharge fees based on tonnage totalled $1,170,767. The surcharge is legally a non-dedicated revenue, available as a General Fund resource for programs with no specific revenue source. Contra Costa County has substantial solid waste expenditures that are not covered by any specific fees. Please see attached list of expenditures. (Attachment C) Page 4 FY 1993-94 Mitigation Fees Staff has been asked to wait on the budget process until discussions regarding fees for Acme and Keller Landfills have reached a conclusion. Finance Committee Review On August 9, 1993 the Finance Committee reviewed the information presented above and heard testimony from the Sierra Club, staff to Supervisor Bishop and Supervisor Torlakson. The Committee accepted the report but asked for additional information,adjustments to mitigation fee revenues and to proceed with 1993-94 mitigation fee budget planning activities. Also, the Committee rescheduled this item for the Committee Agenda on September 13, to discuss Sierra Club concerns with the program. Attachment A 6E,L r , Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS o; :..,;!�, is Costa FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR '•• �� County COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cOSTd cbiiK`� VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: AUGUST 11, 1992 SUBJECT: LANDFILL MITIGATION FEES-POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND PROGRAMS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. CONSIDER public testimony on the policy and procedures for allocation of the Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation Fees. 2. ADOPT the policy and procedure on allocation of the Keller Canyon Landfill mitigation fees. 3. DIRECT the County Administrator and Director of GMEDA to distribute the attached"Trust Fund Program Proposal- Options for Discussion"to the cities, franchising agencies, West Pittsburg MAC, East Bay Regional Parks District and other Interested parties for comment and review before the Board of Supervisors on September 8, 1992. 4. DECLARE the intent of the Board of Supervisors to act on landfill trust fund programs at its September 8, 1992 meeting. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: � ,�J` �✓� _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMM EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON A i i on s r 11 199?APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_X_OTHER_ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A Y UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOW ATTESTED_ 2 PHIL BATCHELOR,CL RK OF mldee2.bos THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contect: Val Ale:eett(646-1620) ND t?UNiY NISTRATOR CG: County Adminlstrator I County Counsel BY41414s DEPUTY GMEDA Dep uunwft BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Conditions of Approval for the Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit establish a Transportation System Impact Fee and an Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Fee. The Transportation System Impact Fee is designed to mitigate the general Impacts of the landfill on the County's road system. The Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Fee is designed to mitigate the Impacts of the landfill on open space,existing and proposed recreational facilities and agriculture. In addition,the Board of Supervisors established a Community Assistance Mitigation Fee to help reduce the Impact of the landfill on communities. Each of these fees Is set at$2.00 per ton. Based on projected waste receipts of approximately 250,000 tons for FY 92-93,each fee will generate approximately$500,000. Revenue from each of these fees are being deposited Into a segregated account to be used only for such purposes as approved by the Board of Supervisors. Use of the mitigation fees has been discussed with representatives of the cities,franchising agencies and the public at the Keller Canyon Landfill Rate Regulation Workshops. In addition, use of the fees has been discussed by the West Pittsburg Municipal Advisory Council(MAC). There appears to be basic concurrence on the need to establish overall policy and procedures on use of these funds. In addition,many ideas have arisen co:kern specific allocation of monies for certain projects. Overall Policies and Procedures: Policies: The mitigation fees shall be used to mitigate impacts from the existence and operation of the landfill consistent with conditions of approval,franchise agreements,and the policies adopted by the Board of Supervisors for each trust fund. Monies maybe allowed to accrue in the trust funds from year to year in order to accumulate sufficient sums to address major priority mitigation programs. The Board need not allocate any mitigation fees from the trust funds in any given year. Mitigation fees shall not be used to pay for improvements, projects, or programs that are the responsibility of the landfill owner/operator under the conditions of approval. Procedures: Annually, the Board shall initiate the approved.procedures to seek public input for the allocation of monies In each trust fund. These procedures shall culminate with the issue being set for public input and action at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board no later than October of each fiscal year. The Board may amend the adopted policies and procedures at a regularly scheduled public meeting for which the agenda item has been properly noticed. Transportation Mitigation Trust Fund: Policy: The Transportation Mitigation Fees shall be used to implement litter control and patrol programs and to repair road damage,enforce route restrictions,enhance public safety and protection and address congestion relief measures related to the transportation of waste to the landfill. Procedure: Annually, the Transportation Committee of the Board shall seek public Input and consider the appropriate allocation of mitigation fees consistent with the above policy. The Committee may seek Input from the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency(GMEDA),the Keller Canyon Citizens Advisory Committee(KCCAC),the Contra Costa Transportation Authority,and other parties as deemed appropriate. The Committee shall make its recommendations to the Board for final action. 2 Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Mitigation Trust Fund Policy: One half of the Open Space/Agricultural Preservation Trust Fund ($1.00/ton) shall be used for open space purposes, including acquisition of open space to replace the land being used for the landfill; control of pests and problem vegetation in open space and agricultural areas;beautification of open spaces with planting of native trees,wildflowers,and native grasses;activities to reduce dependence on landfills for waste disposal;and enhancement of recreational activities. , The other half of this mitigation trust fund($1.00/ton)shall be dedicated to the Agriculture and Soils Bank, as approved in concept by the Board. There is a need to fully protect half of the funds from this mitigation fee in order to ensure adequate resources to preserve prime agriculture soils in Contra Costa County and to prevent encroachment of growth Into agricultural areas because of the location, existence, or operation of the landfill. This use of funds also mitigates the loss of agricultural uses on the property now being used for the landfill. Procedure: Annually,the Board's Liaison Committee to the East Bay Regional Park District(EBRPD)shall seek Input on appropriate open space needs and recommend to the Board of Supervisors expenditures and/or reserves of monies for specific open space acquisition, preservation and maintenance projects. The Board's Finance Committee shall undertake this responsibility, should the Liaison Committee not be available. For the Agriculture and Soils Bank,the Board's Internal Operations Committee shall seek public input on policies and procedures for implementation/operation of the Bank for consideration by the Board by the end of 1992. Community Assistance Mitigation Trust Fund Policy: The use of Community Assistance Mitigation Fees shall be targeted for uses that offset the potential problems from being host to the landfill, other than those mitigations already provided for in the conditions of approval and landfill permits.The primary community Impacted by the landfill is West Pittsburg. The Cities of Pittsburg and Concord may also be impacted from time to time. It should be noted that mitigations such as property valuation compensation,designated routes,and increased environmental protection ordered by the State Water Resources Control Board(valued at more than $1 million or the equivalent of$2.00 per ton for two years) have already been assured and are being paid for by the applicant and rate payers. These are real host community mitigations even though they are not to be paid for by the$2.00/ton Community Assistance Mitigation Fee. Procedures: Annually,the Finance Committee shall seek Input from the West Pittsburg MAC and other appropriate parties,such as PRIDE and the Ambrose Recreation and Parks District Board of Directors,to develop recommendations for consideration by the Board of Supervisors on allocation of the Community Assistance Mitigation Fee. Allocation of FY 92-93 Trust Funds Any final decision on programs funded by FY 92-93 Trust Funds cannot be made prior to the receipt of public testimony, scheduled for September 8, 1992. Staff has developed a program proposal as a starting point for discussion of allocation options. 3 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE TRUST FUND PROGRAM PROPOSAL OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION' Transportation Trust Fund 1. Road Improvements $300,000 - Bailey Road widening project 2. Roadside Litter Clean-up $180,000 -2 crews 3. Route Restriction Enforcement $ 20,000 -Sheriff's Patrol TOTAL: $500,000 Oaen Space/Agriculture Trust Fund 1. Open Space Rodent/Thistle Control $ 60,000 -Agricultural Biologist, plus materials 2. Open Space Beautification - Planting $100,000 Wildflowers,Trees, Grasses - 1 crew, plus materials 3. Agriculture/Soils Bank $250,000 -programs to be identified through Internal Operations Committee public Input process 4. Open Space/Park Maintenance $ 90,000 -allocation to East Bay Regional Parks District for 1 crew TOTAL: $500,000 Community Assistance Trust Fund 1. Code Enforcement $ 60,000 -Code Compliance Officer 2. Property Clean-up $ 90,000 - 1 crew 3. Patrol/Dumping and Litter Control $190,000 -Sheriff's Patrol 4. Youth Recreation $ 25,000 -funding for community teams and other recreation 5, Other West Pittsburg Mitigation $135,000 -to be determined in consultation with W. Pittsburg MAC, PRIDE, Ambrose Rec& Park District Board of Directors and others TOTAL: $500,000 'Scheduled before the Board of Supervisors on September 8, 1992. 4 Attachment B KELLER CANYON MITIGATION FUND 92-93 BUDGETED EXPENDED RESERVE AUGMENTED Transportation Trust Fund 1. Road Improvements $300,000 $300,000 $ $ -Bailey Road widening project 2. Roadside Litter Clean-up 180,000 180,000 65,427 -2 crews 3. Route Restriction Enforcement 20,000 20,000 30,000 -Sheriffs Patrol TOTAL $500,000 $500,000 $95,427 Oven Space/Asariculture Trust Fund 1. Open Space Rodent/Thistle Control $60,000 $60,000 $ $26,661 -Agricultural Biologist, plus materials 2. Open Space Beautification- Planting Wildflowers,Trees, 100,000 100,000 Grasses -1 crew, plus materials 3. Agriculture/Soils Bank -programs to be identified through 250,000 250,000 Internal Operations Committee public input process 4. Open Space/Park Maintenance -allocation to East Bay Regional Parks District for 1 crew 90,000 90,000 TOTAL $500,000 $60,000 $440,000 $26,661 Community Assistance Trust Fund 1. Code Enforcement $60,000 $60,000 -Code Compliance Officer 2. Property Clean-up 90,000 90,000 -1 crew 3. Patrol/Dumping and Litter Control 190,000 190,000 -Sheriffs Patrol 4. Youth Recreation -funding for community teams and 160,000 160,000 other recreation Other West Pittsburg Mitigation -to be determined in consultation with West Pittsburg MAC, PRIDE, Ambrose Rec and Park District Board of Directors and others TOTAL $500,000 $500,000 c , Attachment C KELLER CANYON FRANCHISE FEE 92-93 LANDFILL FRANCHISE FEE 10% 1992-93 RECEIPTS $1,170,767 Contra Costa County has substantial solid waste expenditures that are not covered by any specific fees. The following represents expenditures matching the Franchise Fee revenue. Expenditure* Recycling Center Development Purchase Vehicles $ 31,046 Purchase Machinery 85,877 Develop Site 268,999 Subtotal $ 385,922 Recycling Staff 69,378 Six Crew Leaders 186,990 Workfare 15,000 Subtotal $ 271,368 Mitigation Expenditure Augmentation Recycling/Road Clean-up $ 65,427 Thistle Control 26,661 Sheriff Litter/Route Patrol 30,000 Subtotal $ 122,088 Solid Waste Administration Expenses Marsh Creek Landfill Settlement $ 25,000 Acme Audit 253,000 West County Authority (IRRF) Contract 25,000 Keller Franchise Rate Review 25,000 Acme Landfill Closure Review 348,608 Final Keller.Canyon Landfill Rate Analysis 10,040 Subtotal $458,648 TOTAL $1,238,026 *These figures are subject to year-end adjustments. VA:1mb:dg surchrg.tbl (8/5/93) DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. k-&a^ or%pq PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: a. CITY: 00 fo; G I am speaking formyself OR organization- OW (NAME OF ORGAN17,NTION) Check one: L/ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against, I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. July 26, 1993 Clayton Mansfield Chair Conservation Committee Sierra Club 217 15th Avenue #4 San Francisco, CA 94118 Dear Mr. Mansfield: We represent citizens of East Contra Costa County who are very concerned about the recent position taken publicly by your club regarding Keller Canyon Mitigation fees. These fees were established as a major concession to residents of East County who now have to live with a landfill in their backyards. It is unconscionable for these fees to be offered to help mitigate the effects of the landfill, only to remove them a short time later. This $6 charge represents a crucial condition that made a significant impact on the approval process of Keller Canyon. It is required under Condition 35.1, 35.2 and 35.3 of the SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL of the Land Use Permit covering the Keller Canyon Landfill. Sierra Club Double Standard Residents are extremely concerned about the Sierra Club's perceived double standard in respect to the placement and operation of landfills. In a letter written to the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Commission, David Tam wrote the following about the [then] proposed Marsh Creek Landfill Site: "The landfill proposed...is incompatible with the public because of: A) It's long life span, 100 years B) potential noise, odor and blowing paper which would blight the surface areas C) possible contamination...by leachate from the landfill." (Conservation. Res. 7-3/85) Residents of East Contra Costa County are justifiably angry. Both Keller Canyon' and the proposed Marsh Creek Site had the same landfill technology available. It is unfathomable that the Sierra Club would consider these conditions r Sierra Club Keller Canyon Mitigation Fees Resolution Page -2- acceptable at Keller Canyon for East County residents, and yet unacceptable at another site. Ironically, as justification for joining with Acme Fill corporation in a lawsuit against another disposal company's transfer station proposal, the Club states that: "Concerns include the scale of the project, its potential impacts due to truck traffic, noise, and hazardous household waste..." (Yodeler, July 1993) It is baffling how the Sierra Club can cite these concerns in their newletter, only to turn around, literally on the same page, and attack the Keller Canyon mitigation fees designed to mitigate these same conditions. By supporting the elimination of mitigation fees for East County residents, the Sierra Club seems to have conveniently forgotten why these additional fees were created in the first place. Landfill obligated by contractual agreement The Sierra Club states (Yodeler, July 1993) that they "oppose the, charges for open space, host community impact mitigation and roads." These fees cannot, and should not be opposed. These fees were agreed upon conditions for the Keller Canyon site to be approved. This is much the same as using your credit card, and when the bill arrives at the end of the month, you decide to "oppose the charges." This would not work legally, or morally. You have received the benefits of your contractual agreement, and yet you are now refusing to meet your obligations. The Sierra Club resolution also states that the surcharges "undermine the sound waste disposal practices at Keller, by increasing costs." The fact that Keller Canyon fees are so high that they are uncompetitive is a non-issue. If someone opened a business tomorrow, but their product or service was over priced, what sympathy could they expect from investors, or unhappy customers, if they had any? Could they then come to the Sierra Club and ask them to write a letter to the state and federal income tax boards stating that "these costs [are causing] a strong economic incentive to seek alternative arrangements."? That would be ludicrous. Keller Canyon Profitibility is not a valid issue It seems very unlikely that profitability projections were not made and considered long before the Keller Canyon Landfill was even approved. Even if that is the case, although highly unlikely, the "significant cost-saving benefits to the citizens of the County" cited by Mr. Boyd Olney of the ACME Fill Corporation, cannot and must not come at the expense of West Pittsburg and Pittsburg residents. Y Sierra Club Keller Canyon Mitigation Fees Resolution Page -3- These fees are a cost of doing business. By the Sierra Club's own admission, the residents of East Contra Costa County will have to endure "noise, odor and blowing paper...[and] possible contamination" for up to 100 years. These fees do not make having a dump in your backyard palatable. These fees don't make it acceptable. But they were promised and must be delivered. Resolution does not address Club's stated concerns The Sierra Club states that "the uses.of the revenues-are [too] vague." If that is the issue, then why doesn't the Sierra Club urge the Board to be more specific, to tighten up those spending practices? Instead they are throwing out the baby with the bath water by recommending the fees be abolished altogether. Club involvement violates national policy The Sierra Club's involvement with landfill issues at all is another issue worth examining. The official policy of the Sierra Club specifically prohibits any chapter from taking a position or endorsing any landfill projects. The Bay chapter, however, has consistently ignored this policy, electing instead to inject themselves directly into these landfill issues. Requested Action These fees are too important to the community to be discontinued. We request that the Sierra Club: 1) Reverse resolution #93.06.10 which opposes the $2 per ton surcharges; 2) Create a resolution that makes suggestions for reforms to these additional fee programs, but does not recommend the removal of them; 3) Fully support programs and measures that are designed to mitigate the effects of landfills, and not attempt to influence the implementation of these programs. We hope that you will give these requests serious consideration. We are making these requests in an attempt to achieve resolution on this issue by working within your structure. While we realize that the Sierra Club is concerned with r - Sierra Club Keller Canyon Mitigation Fees Resolution Page -4- shaping environmental policy from a global perspective, it is important to remember that these goals cannot be achieved by sacrificing the needs of other segments of the population. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Brett Howar Lanc Dow Rev. Curtis Timmons Bay Point Municipal A�Crtizer�Unitedtional Advisory Council Ministerial Alliance cc: Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Citizens United Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance Keller Canyon Citizens Advisory Committee Contra Costa Times San Francisco Chronicle