Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10211986 - 2.7 Ell THE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 21 , 1986 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Schroder -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Sanitary Landfill Issues Joel Keller, Chairman, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, made a presentation to the Board on Delta Diablo' s study of potential landfill sites in the Southeast part of the County. The Board received letters from Rosemary M. Corbin, Chair, and Everett Jenkins, Attorney, West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority, P .O. Box 4046 , Richmond 94804 , and a letter from Roger J. Dolan, General Manager/Chief Engineer, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez 94553, transmitting recommendations on solid waste disposal issues. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the presentation of Delta Diablo Sanitation District is ACKNOWLEDGED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that receipt of . the letters from West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is ACKNOWLEDGED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the County Administrator is DIRECTED to make a presentation to all City Managers on the status of the solid waste disposal crisis in the County. cc: County Administrator I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the dale shown. ATTESTED: 41-1 uw ) ?/, X924 PHIL BATCHELOR, Cieric of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator aBy '"" s , Deputy w ry TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 9 , 1986 SUBJECT: SANITARY LANDFILL HOST COMMUNITY MITIGATION MEASURES Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. The Board direct the Community Development Department to send a letter to each of the three landfill applicants reminding them of the Board' s policy on local host community mitigation, and sending a copy of this Board Order. 2. Request the landfill applicants to report on their efforts to meet the Board' s policy statement on local host community mitigation. 3 . Express the Board' s opinion that the required meetings with impacted communities be held as soon as possible in order not to delay the process for consideration of the applications. FINANCIAL IMPACT None REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND On September 9, 1986, the Board requested the Community Development Depart- ment to respond to three questions concerning implementation of the Board' s adopted policy statement on local host community mitigation measures for solid waste facilities. The adopted policy statement states the following: "Local host community mitigation means mitigation measures beyond traditional mitigation required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . In order to compensate communities for impacts not covered by the CEQA process, proponents of new, expanded, or modified solid waste projects shall be required to meet with the impacted community to discuss project impacts and mitigation. " Continued on attachment: X Yes Signature: // aOr _ Recommend of County Administrator Recommend of Goff Btoard Committee Approve: Other: Signature(s) : Action of Board on: October 21, 1986 Approved as Recommended x Other _ Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN _ Unanimous (Absent — ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes:ii,iv,v,i Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: Abstain: III D ) L2 :dw3 :hstmitms.t9 Attested Orig.Div. : Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR cc: County Administrator CLERK OF THE BOARD AND Solid Waste Commission COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel By DEPUTY CLERK SANITARY LANDFILL HOST 'COMMUNITY -2- October 9, 1986 MITIGATION MEASURES The following are our Department' s responses to the three questions asked by the Board: Question 1. When during the review process should the Board consider host community mitigation measures? Response: Local host community mitigation measures should be considered by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission at the time they are considering approval or denial of the project land use entitlements ( in- cluding amendments to the County Solid Waste Management Plan) . The meet- ings with the affected community should now be occurring so that they can be completed prior to the decision-making by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Question 2. How should this review be conducted? Response: The Board should request a report from the three applicants on the meetings required in the policy statement. Note that the policy statement only requires that the applicant meet with the impacted communi- ty, not necessarily to provide local host community mitigation measures. However, obviously if local host community mitigation is proposed, the application will better meet the policies and objectives established by the Board of Supervisors. The report from the applicants should be distributed to the Planning Commission and Solid Waste Commission also. Question 3 . What is the extent of the Board' s legal authority to compel the applicant to take any specific mitigation measures in regard to the host community? Response: County Counsel has stated in previous opinions that the Board has broad authority to regulate solid waste disposal facilities as long as such regulations are reasonable and justification for such requirements can be shown and do not conflict with applicable State law. The reasonableness requirement would also apply to local host community mitigation measures. The land use entitlements (General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Land Use Permit) are discretionary. The Board can approve or disapprove the appli- cation based on the Board' s opinion of the ,suitability of the application including mitigation measures proposed through the California Environmental Quality Act process or other mitigation measures, such as local host community mitigation. DBOcl L2 :dw3 :hstmitms.t9 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1986 SUBJECT: ISSUES RE SOUTHEAST COUNTY LANDFILL SITES Specific Request( s) or Recommendation( s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDED ACTION ACCEPT report from Director, Community Development, identifying issues that need to be resolved in order to develop sanitary landfill sites identified in the southeast part of the County. FINANCIAL IMPACT None REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND At the October 7 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board requested staff to identify issues that need to be resolved in order to develop sanitary landfill sites identified in the southeast part of the County. Based on the Southeast County Landfill Siting Study, and a follow-up study done by the Delta Diablo Sanitation District, the Community Development Department staff has identified several issues needing resolution. Continued on attachment: _yes Signature: _ Recommend of County Administrator Aadommerf of and Committee Approve Other Signature(s) : Action of Board on: October 21, 1986 Approved as Recommended x Other — Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN Unanimous ( — Absent) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ii,iv,v,IAyes Noes BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. _ Absent III Abstain Attestedai, /98L Orig.Div. : Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR- cc: ATCHELOR cc: County Administrator CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR By �.C�- DEPUTY CLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 15, 1986 File: R-14B TO: Board of Superviso FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon r y Development SUBJECT: ISSUES RE SOUTH T CO T DFILL SITES At the October 7 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board requested staff to identify issues that need to be resolved in order to develop sanitary landfill sites identified in the southeast part of the County. As you know, the County arranged a study to identify four backup landfill sites in the southeast part of the County. These sites were only to be developed if the three privately proposed landfill sites failed to get the necessary approvals. The Study was funded by the Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch, and the Delta Diablo Sanitation District. The Study was completed and the Delta Diablo Sanitation District funded an additional study to develop more information on potential landfill sites in the vicinity of Sites VI-9 (Brushy Creek) and Site VI-4 (Marsh Creek Road) . Based on the Study reports for the original Study and the supplemental study, staff has identified the following issues that need to be addressed in considering potential development of a site as a public or private sanitary landfill. Timing If the decision is made now to proceed with the development of one of the southeast County sites, the earliest the site could be in operation is mid-1990. This assumes a six-month period for obtaining rights to the property and doing the necessary joint technical studies. Nine months is allowed for the Environmental Impact Report, and six months for the land use entitlements. An additional two years is necessary for other permits, design, and construction. This proposed schedule is faster than the schedule for the three privately proposed landfill sites, under the assump- tion that procedures have been established to allow a quicker processing of applications. As you know, the Acme Landfill expansion area is scheduled to reach capacity in June 1987. A two-year extension has been applied for, but it is uncertain whether this extension will be granted. Even optimis- tically, it appears that Acme Landfill will only be able to be in operation through 1989. The three privately proposed landfills could be in operation in 1989. Transportation The transportation routes in the southeast County are not well suited for heavy traffic loads from vehicles using the landfills. Major reconstruc- tion of existing roads would be necessary or new roads would have to be constructed. There is no major freeway near Site VI-9 or Site VI-4 . Members of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District have stated that they do not want solid waste vehicles driving through Oakley or Brentwood on Highway 4 . Representatives from Antioch have stated that they do not want solid waste vehicles using Hillcrest Avenue. Therefore, it would be necessary to construct the Highway 4 Bypass in order to meet their Board of- Supervisors -2- October 15, 1986 concerns. Cost estimates for this road have ranged from $25 - $100 million. The Delta Diablo Sanitation District is currently reviewing the cost of the Highway 4 Bypass. There has been hope that access via Alameda County would be allowed for some of Contra Costa County' s waste. The roads in Alameda County would have to be reconstructed and some new roads may be necessary. This would entail approval of Alameda County. Alameda County has concerns, like Contra Costa County, about solid waste vehicles hauling waste through their county. They may not allow use of their roads. Environmental Concerns Site VI-9 is in an environmentally sensitive area. There are vernal pools, Indian cave drawings, and the golden eagle in the vicinity. The impact of the landfill on these environmental concerns has not yet been documented. Another environmental concern is that all water for construction and operation of southeast County sites would have to be imported by tanker trucks. Land Uses Both sites are on or near land which the .East Bay Regional Park District has designated in their plans for possible future acquisition. Site VI-4 has several houses about one-and-a-half miles away from the proposed landfill. There also is a trailer park about the same distance away. There are no residences near Site VI-9. Other In order to develop the site, a public agency or a private individual must pay for the necessary studies to determine whether the site is suitable. These studies can cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars. This money is at risk until it is determined that the site will be approved for a landfill. Also, some rights to the land, either an option or outright purchase, would be necessary. Purchase of enough land for a landfill can be millions of dollars. Another consideration is securing enough waste to be brought to the site to make the project economically feasible. If the landfill is the only landfill in the County, then this concern is not a problem. However, if there are multiple landfills in the County, waste will be taken to the least expensive landfill unless it is agreed to divide the waste another way. If a distant landfill is developed, the landfill operators will need to secure an adequate wastestream such that the project will be economi- cally viable. We hope this information satisfies the information needs of the Board on the Southeast County Landfill Sites. DBOcl L3 :BDseCNTY.t10 cc: County Administrator Delta Diablo Sanitation District County Solid Waste Commission