Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08091994 - 2.3 ^J a Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ;',/�► FROM: Val Alexeeff (�^u"`1 Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency ; ;;.''a County DATE: August 9, 1994 SUBJECT: Response To Citizens United Letter Of July 12, 1994 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Accept the staff report. FISCAL IMPACT None BACKGROUND The Board of Supervisors on July 26, 1994, referred the July 12, 1994, letter from Citizens United for report on August 9, 1994, to the Director of Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, the Director of the Health Services Department, and County Counsel on August 9, 1994. Staff prepared the attached memorandum, dated August 9, 1994, responding to the comments in the subject letter. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT X NO SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON _August 9 , 1994APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X The Board ACCEPTED the report of the Director; REQUESTED an additional report on the Valuation Study, current status of the construction schedule of the permanent Acme Transfer Station and the targeted completion date, and rate structure of the interim transfer station and if it is being applied to the permanent transfer station. The Director, GMEDA, was also REQUESTED to arrange a tour of the permanent Acme Transfer Station for Board Members. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - e I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Charles Zahn (510) 646-2096 ATTESTED August 9 . 1994 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND cc: County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel County Health Service Department BY: 611 , DEPUTY Citizens United Acme Fill Corporation 0- b Cb.D Browning-Ferris Industries Attachment: Memorandum, Val Alexeeff to Supervisor Powers, dated August 9, 1994 CAZ:evs CZ3:CitUntd.Res GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: August 9, 1994 TO: Tom Powers, Chair Board of Supervisors FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency SUBJECT: Responses to Citizens United Letter of July 12, 1994 As Requested by the Board of Supervisors on July 26, 1994, staff has prepared responses to Citizens United's letter of July 12, 1994. In the text which follows, the Citizens United comments are highlighted and each is followed by staff's response. Citizens United on behalf of all Contra Costa Citizens, ratepayers and taxpayers are requesting that the Board seek an immediate review of the EIR for the Acme Permanent Transfer Station. There is no basis for re-visiting the Environmental Impact Report for the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station. The 1987 Environmental Impact Report covered both the Interim Transfer Station and the Permanent Transfer Station. They were not separate projects. The Interim Transfer Station began operations in December, 1989, and the Permanent Transfer Station, in a Stage 1 configuration, is under construction and is scheduled to start operations later this month. The Permanent Transfer Station is consistent with the Environmental Impact Report and the Land Use Permit's (LUP 2122-86) conditions of approval. It falls within the parameters for waste volume, traffic, and other measures utilized in the EIR's analyses. This EIR for CEQA purposes appears to be outdated and a document that no longer has any relationship to the project in question as it pertains to numerous environmental issues including traffic, local community mitigation, material resource recovery, and household hazardous waste diversion and handling. The facility was scheduled to be built by 1991. The Environmental Impact Report, and its associated Land Use Permit conditions of approval, proved to be remarkable prescient documents. The EIR pointed out that a primary need for the facility was to provide flexibility in an uncertain situation (all of the three landfills in the County were on the verge of closing, but no new landfill had been approved). The scenarios envisioned by the EIR all occurred: transfer to an in-county landfill, transfer to out-of-county landfills (as a prerequisite for export) and transfer to a new in-county landfill (as a condition for access). The EIR and LUP looked ahead to accommodating resource recovery and other functions two years before AB 939 was enacted. The current facility represents direct continuity with the approved project in terms of both its development and operations. The Permanent Transfer Station originally was anticipated to open as early as 1990, but its opening was extended to the end of 1994 through amendments to the Land Use Permit. The amendments utilized Addenda to the EIR to ensure CEQA compliance. Response to Citizens United Letter of July 12, 1994 Page -2- The Acme Permanent Waste Recovery and Transfer Station proposal also predated the recent Supreme Court Rulings on the free flow of wastes, Contra Costa Cities agreeing to take on the some of the responsibility for waste reduction for their own waste streams, and the approval and construction of both a West county Waste Recovery and Transfer Station and the probability of a similar operation privately owned and financed in Pittsburg. As noted, the Acme Transfer Station Environmental Impact Report was developed on what amounts to a worst case level of analysis. Reductions in the incoming waste stream do not alter the EIR's conservative conclusions for the facility -- although diversions from it could obligate others to perform CEQA analyses for their new projects. The West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility was announced in its formative version at about the same time the Acme Transfer Station's Land Use Permit was approved. Both stations can easily handle all of Contra Costa's estimated waste streams through the year 2020. The Acme Transfer Station originally was evaluated for worst-case intakes of 2,000 tons-per- day on the average, and a peak 3,600 tons-per-day for the target year of 2010. These figures are compatible with long-term County-wide figures of waste generation applicable to transfer station/material recovery facilities. In other words,at a build-out configuration, the Permanent Transfer Station could be equipped to serve the entire County -- if capacity were the sole criterion. It is noted that at the time of the transfer station's approval, the Acme Fill Company's ownership included parties owning the Valley Disposal Company, the Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, the Pleasant-Hill Bayshore Disposal Service, the Martinez Disposal Company, the Garavanta disposal companies (covering Concord and much of East County). Generally, the companies cited served all of Central and East County. As noted, West County already was proceeding with its own transfer facility. Unlike the Acme Recovery and Transfer Station the above named facilities are privately financed, owned, and operated. Additionally they do not require commitments of guarantees of wastes streams giving the Communities of Contra Costa and the County options for waste disposal. Perhaps, Citizens United is confusing the ownership of transfer/material recovery facilities with proposals to obtain lower-cost financing through state bond programs. Both the Acme facility and the West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility are privately owned. Both proposed to avail themselves of financing utilizing state bond programs, although the stage 1 Acme facilities' ultimately was built entirely with private financing. The financing of the IRRF was assisted by a $1.7 million state grant to subsidize bond costs. The West Integrated Resource Recovery Facility's financing was guaranteed by an arrangement developed through the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority,which has a contractual relationship with the County, that commits the area's waste stream from the cities and unincorporated area to the IRRF. Response to Citizens United Letter of July 12, 1994 Page -3- The proposal to commit Central and East County waste to the Acme transfer station, which did not proceed, was designed to devise a practicable means of paying for the closure of a widely-used hazardous waste landfill unit, not to find a means of financing the Acme Permanent Transfer Station. Additionally they do not require the County to take on the burden of rate regulation and the inherent risks and liabilities of a regulated environment. Until recently, rate regulation generally was considered to be desirable, as is demonstrated by the report of the 1989-1990 Grand Jury. The County is now proposing to review but not regulate rates at the Acme and Keller Facilities. The rates at the IRRF are subject to the approval of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority. The present situation of relying on the Acme Interim Station which does almost zero materials recovery and waste reduction has left the County in a position of being almost completely without the ability to meet AB939 waste reduction goals and seriously behind the County's goal as stated in the County Solid Waste management Plan and it's updated Integrated Waste Management Plan (which is considered a model for other Counties to use) of a 20% reduction by 1992. It's 1994 and AB939 obligations are right around the corner. The County is neither relying on the Acme Interim Transfer Station nor any transfer station/material recovery facility to meet AB 939's 1995 waste reduction goal of a 25% reduction in waste disposed at landfills. The County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element specifically identified programs which did not absolutely require a transfer station/material recovery facility -- such as residential curbside collection, backyard composting, and commercial recycling -- to reach the initial AB 939 milestone. With regard to the Acme facility, the Interim Transfer Station (which literally was intended to be an "interim" trans-shipment facility) will be discontinued within 90 days of the opening of the stage 1 Permanent Transfer Station. The first phases of both the Acme Permanent Transfer Station and the West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility are primarily transfer facilities but both are designed to be primarily materials recovery facilities at ultimate build-out. Both have Land Use Permits which provide for phasing extending up to the approvals of the built-out designs. The installations of the subsequent.phases are contingent upon the growth in demand for their services and the public's willingness to pay for the added resource recovery and related functions (looking to the year 2000 when the goal will be a 50% reduction in disposed wastes). Although the stage 1 configuration of the Acme Permanent Transfer Station will be primarily a transfer facility, it will provide additional resource recovery activities. Response to Citizens United Letter of July 12, 1994 Page -4- Citizens United in our role as a local environmental group urges the Board of Supervisors to assist the City of Pittsburg and the applicant for the Pittsburg Recycling and Transfer station as well as the applicant of the West County Recovery and Transfer station to expedite the process to open these facilities as soon as possible so Contra Costa citizens have disposal options and both the Cities and County can meet their obligations under AB939 without being assessed thousands of dollars of fines. The Pittsburg Recycling and Transfer Station is currently in its environmental review stage. County staff is cooperating with the City in developing the facility's Environmental Impact Report. In that connection, County staff has provided to the City photo copies of Central and East County Cities' Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, Household Hazardous Waste Elements and Non-Disposal Facilities Elements, and has made available associated documents. Processing the West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility's Land Use Permit by the County ended in July, 1993, with its approval by the Board of Supervisors. Concurrently, the County approved the previously mentioned contract with the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority regarding roles and responsibilities, waste stream commitments, rate setting, and similar issues. Ground breaking for construction took place on April 14, 1994. Operations are expected to begin in late 1995. Neither facility is expected to be in operation on January 1, 1995, when the first waste reduction goal of AB 939 goes into effect. Once again we urge the Board to seek staff reports on the legality of and the County's responsibilities under CEOA as it pertains to the ACME Permanent Recovery and Transfer Station. We urge the Board to direct County staff to assist these other responsible waste recovery and transfer facilities that will give our communities options and the ability to meet AB 939 reduction requirements and help the environment through reduced traffic, pollution, and the burning of fossil fuels. It is noted that it was the County's concerns, along with other parties', over the handling of traffic, pollution and other environmental subject matters in the Negative Declaration originally prepared for the Pittsburg "SMRT" that resulted in a legal agreement stipulating the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. In closing we applaud the Board for it's leadership role in restarting the Household Hazardous Wastes program in an effort to keep these toxic substances out of landfills, storm drains, and area streams. The Household Hazardous Waste program directly or indirectly benefits all citizens of Contra Costa County. cc: County Administrator County Counsel County Health Service Department Citizens United Acme Fill Corporation Browning-Ferris Industries CZ3:C1T1ZENS.MEM