Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09081987 - T.3 ' Y T.3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 8, 1987 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Hearing on the proposed Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill, Sid Corrie, Jr. , dba Land Waste Management (applicant) and Tom Gentry California Company, et al (owners) . The Board on August 18, 1987, continued to this date and time it hearing on the following: 1. Proposed General Plan Amendment for the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill site as recommended by the County Planning Commission, said site consisting of approximately 480 acres generally described as the southwest, southeast and northeast quarters of Section 36, T2N, R1W, MDBM, adjoining Kirker Pass Road between the cities of Concord and Pittsburg; approximately 90 acres to be used for the landfill, about 230 acres for road, visual buffering and other appurtenances, and the residual to remain open space. 2. Proposed cancelation of Agricultural Preserve Contract No. 3-75 which would facilitate rezoning and allow the landfill Land Use Permit to be considered for approval. 3 . Rezoning Application 2683-RZ for the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill site from A-4 to A-3 to enable the sanitary landfill to be established by a special Land Use Permit. 4. Application for Land Use Permit No. 2079-86. 5. Proposed amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan. In connection with the above, the Board will consider concurring with the County Planning Commission' s certification of the projects' Environmental Impact Report as being adequate. Chairperson McPeak acknowledged receipt from the Community Development Department the written response to the the Board' s concerns set forth in its August 18, 1987 order, and announced that the applicant would have an hour to present his rebuttal and invited him to proceed. Tom Stewart, Project Coordinator for Land Waste Management, Applicant, P. O. Box 799, Alamo 94507, advised that he would try to provide to the Board a discussion of those items raised at the previous meeting. He advised that he had prepared a written summary containing answers to those questions as well as information that was provided in the past which he felt concluded in the adequacy of those documents in assessing the impacts and proposing the mitigations. He introduced those who would be participating in the rebuttal. Dr. Patrick Lucia, Woodward Clyde Consultants, 1 Walnut Creek Plaza, Walnut Creek, discussed geology, hydrology, water quality and noise. i' Karen Spinardi, Civil Engineer, Bissell & Karn, San Leandro, discussed access, transportation and traffic, including type of trucks. Dave Suder, Woodward Clyde Consultants, Walnut Creek, discussed air quality in terms of emissions and odors, and compliance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District requirements and its review process. Thomas Stewart recapped the comments made by the consultants and requested Jonathan Cohen, legal counsel for the applicants, to summarize the application efforts. Jonathan Cohen, Cohen & Hsu, One Market Plaza, San Francisco, described the process and cost of identifying a landfill site and the subsequent permitting process, and advised that the applicant has requested that the Solid Waste Management Plan be amended to include the Kirker Pass site inasmuch as the Plan at this time does not include identification of any land fill site. He talked about the conditions of approval set forth by the planning commission including improving the road system and maintenance thereof, provision of screening and landscaping, off-site litter control, and the various items of host mitigation. Tom Stewart discussed the issues of criteria of establishment of a landfill, proximity to sensitive land uses, community concerns, view impacts, and concluding remarks. Jonathan Cohen, discussed issues relating to findings of fact, conditions of approval and legal matters, including the adequacy of the EIR. He urged the Board to proceed with the processing of the application. Board members having commented on their concerns and requested additional information on various matters such access routes, restrictions and alternatives, mitigation measures, possibility of mandatory recycling requirements, the refuse facility element of the County General Plan. Supervisor Torlakson asked County Counsel for an estimate of the time and cost of legal defense for the county if the Board' s decision on this matter is litigated. Supervisor Fanden suggested inviting someone from the State Solid Waste Commission to make a presentation, and perhaps Steve Ritchie of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board on how a landfill site must be operated in today' s modern world, and expressed her hope that the Board can come to a unanimous decision on a landfill site. As recommended by Supervisor Torlakson, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED by unanimous vote that the public hearing is closed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by unanimous vote that the matter is DEFERRED to September 22, 1987 at 2: 00 p.m. for staff and applicant response to the Board' s questions and for deliberation and possible decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that October 13, 1987 at 4: 00 p.m. is FIXED for final deliberation and decision if decision is not reached on September 22, 1987. Supervisors Torlakson and McPeak voted no, indicating they wanted the matter set for an evening meeting on October 6, 1987. The Chair declared that it was the intent of the Board that on September 22, 1987 it would receive from staff the responses to its questions raised today, and she invited all those who wished to hear those responses to be present at that time. '1n IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Community Development Department meet with the two applicants and the affected communities to begin discussions of host community mitigations so that those discussions can go forward in the next few weeks while the Board is considering the balance of the testimony that has been presented to it, and to have those prepared by the time the Board has finished its deliberations. arelay cerilly that this Is, a3r?ej^;r r4 an action taken and entered on the eninutzss of the ±hoard of Supervis rs on the date shown. oil op ATTESTED: Ani 4, /1 a 2 — PHIL BATC ELOR, CIe►':of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator cc: Community Development �';!j -� - — } Oeputy County Administrator tl County Counsel Board of Supervisors Members Attorney for Kirker Pass Application Attorney for East Contra Costa Landfill Application Attorney for City of Antioch, EBRPD, and CC Water Dist. Attorney for the City of Pittsburg