Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10271987 - T.9 T. 9 T.10 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 27 , 1987 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, and McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Application of Sid Corrie, Jr. , dba Land Waste Management (applicant) and Tom Gentry California Company, et. al. , (owners) to establish the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill. and Application of S. and J. Investments (applicant and owner) to establish a sanitary landfill (East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Project) approximately 1/2 mile south of the City of Antioch. The Board on October 13 , 1987 continued to this date its decision on the following pertaining to the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill application: "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 cancellation 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. 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 project' s Environmental Impact Report as being adequate. " and The Board on October 13 , 1987 continued to this date its decision on the following pertaining to the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Project: 1. Proposed General Plan Amendment for the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Project. 2 . Proposed amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan. 1 The Board on October 13, 1987 also fixed this time and date to reopen the hearings on the application for Land Use Permit No. 2079-86 for the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill site and Land Use Permit No. 2111-86 for the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Project site for the limited purpose of taking testimony and considering policies and conditions of approval which include resource recovery, County oversight of development and operations, County control of disposal rates, establishment of management fees, County roles in public education, abandoned vehicle storage, litter control, host community mitigation, and household hazardous waste disposal. The Chair set out the guidelines for this hearing, including the time limits established for each category, advising that first staff would report and make its recommendations, then the applicants would testify, and then the public agencies and organizations, followed by members of the public. Charles Zahn, Community Development Department, reviewed the report on the landfill special conditions referred to the Community Development Department by this Board on October 13, 1987, and the recommendations of how to implement the proposed conditions of approval brought forward by the Board members. Supervisor Fanden discussed the requirement for storage of abandoned vehicles and the controversy of whether it should be a part of the landfill, noting that she had suggested that it go with the land use permit to assure that the abandoned vehicle problem would be taken care of. Supervisor McPeak noted that the report was to advise the Board as to how to condition applications for approval if it were inclined to include any of the subject provisions, which are generic, not to just the two sites that are pending, but for conditions of approval for these two or for future sites as a new way of operating and managing solid waste in Contra Costa County. Jonathan A. Cohen, Attorney for the applicant for the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill site, advised that the applicant agreed with each of the priorities set forth in the staff report as derived from Supervisors Fanden and McPeak, and concurred with each of them. He commented on each priority and how it fit as a condition and which should be the subject of negotiation as part of the Development Agreement process, and suggested that determination of tipping fee surcharges be put off until the County can determine exactly what the the programs are that need to be implemented and it can be determined what the cost will be. He stated that the applicant was not necessarily against the concept, however they are concerned about the impact on the rate payer. Silvio Garaventa, Jr. , applicant for the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Project site, commented that when they entered into the process years ago, they entered into it in the spirit of cooperation with the cities and the County and the citizens. He commented on each of the priorities set forth in the staff report, and indicated agreement with them generally. He stated that he agreed with the development agreement proposal and the franchise management fee concept but that he would need to give further thought to the percentage proposed. Supervisor Torlakson commented that the conditions are generic and will apply to all landfill site applications, and inquired what reservations the applicant might have with the proposed 15 per cent management fee and what details deserve further discussion. Carol M. Hehmeyer, attorney for the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Project, responded that the applicant ' s concerns were for the costs per can and noted that the the public may not like the results of that. Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson discussed with the applicant' s attorney the various aspects of host mitigation. 2 Linda Callon of Berliner, Cohen & Biagini, attorneys for the City of Antioch, the East Bay Regional Park District and the Contra Costa Water District, suggested that fees being passed on to residents is a tax, not a fee. She discussed the issues of land use, health and safety as well as mitigation. She requested that the Board deny the applications for the land use permit for the landfill sites as incompatible uses. She expressed concern over the proposed site for storage of abandoned vehicles in what she described as watershed for the Contra Loma Reservoir. David Pesonen, East Bay Regional Park District, stated that there could not be host mitigation for the Park District, that it was a very serious issue and could not be mitigated. Joel Keller, Mayor of the City of Antioch, suggested that the the proposed policies and conditions of approval should have been considered years ago. He urged denial of the land use permits and urged the Board not to place the decision in the hands of the cities thereby placing the cities against each other. He urged the Board to consider the prospect of a public/private partnership. Supervisor Schroder reviewed the procedure of hearing amendments to the solid waste management plan, noting that if "the application comes to the County, the County holds a hearing and then it goes to the Cities. If an application were to come to a City, the City would hear the application and then it would come to the County. Supervisor Powers noted that before the County received the two subject applications, the County had sent a questionnaire to the Cities requesting that the cities enter into a relationship with the County to start a public/private partnership, to which the County received no response. Ronald K. Mullin, Mayor of the City of Concord, discussed what he considered the deficiencies of the Kirker Pass site and its EIR, and suggested that further delay would not provide any additional information on the project, and that conditions of approval will not mitigate the undesirable effect. He urged denial of the Kirker Pass site. Mayor Mullin submitted for the record a resolution from the City in support of the East Contra Costa Landfill site. Kay Peterson, East Bay Regional Park District, supported the comments made by Mayor Joel Keller of Antioch. She expressed concern with what might happen to Contra Loma Reservoir and the Black Diamond Mines if the East Contra Costa Site were approved. She urged the Board not to consider the East Contra Costa Site. Fred Caploe, Attorney for the City of Pittsburg, stated that the City opposes all of the approvals and opposes any effort at this stage to apply the proposed conditions of approval to the Kirker Pass Project whether or not they can be properly applied to any other project in general. He submitted a letter dated October 23, 1987 delineating the City' s opposition to the applications. He declared that the project must be entirely rejected because of access. James M. Kelly, representing Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, advised that the District will support the County in whatever decision it makes. He commented on rate review and reciprocal regulations, litter regulation and host community mitigation. Mary Williams, 13950 Marsh Creek Road, Clayton, representing the Marsh Creek Association, appeared in opposition to any site in the Marsh Creek area. She spoke of some of the possible alternative sites. She stated that people in the Marsh Creek area don' t want their quality of life altered and they don' t want the things that may be offered as mitigation. 3 Jean Muir, 2325 Robles Drive, Antioch, read a prepared statement (not filed with the Clerk) to protest against the "Garaventa site. " Tom Beatty, 445 Grand Oak Court, Walnut Creek, representing the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Alternative Task Force, and a representative of "Save Our Regional Parks" supported the position of the City of Antioch. John Muir, Antioch, commented that he had personal experience living next to a dump, and discussed the appropriateness of the site, and mitigation measures and cost to the rate payers. Duane A. Beddoes,. 20 Fairway Court, Pittsburg, commented that the more it costs to take things to the dump the more things you find dumped along the road because people can' t afford to pay the dump fees. He suggested, rather than a land fill, a cogeneration plant, the separation of garbage by the citizens, and technology for identifying and handling hazardous wastes. The Chair noted that William Trumbull, 812 Gatten Drive, Antioch, did not wish to speak, but left comments in opposition because of the park, the historic mine, and the noise, smell and ground water contamination problems. The Chair noted that George Gonzales, 3900 Kite Way, Antioch had left a card indicating opposition to both sites, but had left before being called on to speak. Tim Donahue, representing the Sierra Club - Delta Group, indicated opposition to both sites, and submitted a letter from Bob Walker, President of the East Bay Area Trails Council, opposing the location of a dump site between Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and the Contra Loma Park. He objected to adding the issues of abandoned vehicles, recycling and household hazardous waste. He talked about a referendum if the applications are approved. He suggested that garbage must be identified as to its being hazardous. He suggested that the issue of sharing of the tipping fee should not be considered with the selection of a site. He stated that there is no way of mitigating the problems at either Kirker Pass or Garaventa. Hoshang Kurlawalla, 2409 Kensington Court, Antioch 94509, representing SWAT (Solid Waste Alternatives Task Force) , advised that he had questions with respect to the EIR, and with the City of Concord withdrawing its opposition to the East Contra Costa site. Michael Trokey, 2809 Honeysuckle Circle, Antioch, representing the Hillcrest Homeowners Association, discussed the purported destruction by fire of the records of the mines in the Regional Park, possible underground streams, rate charges and the rights of existing homeowners. Tom McClaughlin, 3916 Cinnabar Street, Antioch, representing the County Coalition to Protect Parks, stated that he agreed with the City of Concord that Kirker Pass is not an appropriate site, and that his organization vehemently opposes the "Garaventa" site, and advised that if either of the sites is approved, the Coalition will consider the referendum process. Steve Reid, 2401 Alderwood Drive, Antioch, also representing the County Coalition to Protect Parks, stated that he endorses the conditions, not the sites. The Chair read the remarks left by Mayor John Meakin of the City of San Ramon, stating that the City of San Ramon is strongly opposed to the "Garaventa" site and would support amending the County Solid Waste Management Plan to include three additional tentative sites: 1. Bay Point, 2. Cummings Skyway, and 3 . Marsh Creek. Jonathan Cohen, attorney for the applicant for the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill Project, spoke in rebuttal on some of the issues raised today, including host mitigation; conditions of 4 approval; returning the site, when closed, to open space; the approval of the EIR by the Planning Commission. He advised that he was of the opinion that the conditions now before the Board made sense and he urged the Board to make a decision, stating that the applicant has met the criteria established by the County and urges approval of the applications now before the Board. The Chair read the remarks submitted by Gloria Thomas, 5755 Nortonville Road, Pittsburg, expressing concern for the eleven households on domestic wells and for the quality of the water. She also expressed concern for the wildlife and livestock that get water from the creek. Carol Hehmeyer, attorney for the applicant for the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Project, rebutted the concern from the audience about the cost of mitigation and cost of proposed franchise fee, and urged the Board to take that into consideration when discussing with the applicant the conditions to be included in the proposed development agreement. She advised that the applicant does not object to any of the proposed conditions, but that the customer does care about cost. She stated that the applicant has long advocated rate regulation and recycling. She discussed mitigation, stating that they have attempted to meet with their hosts but had not been able to get a discussion going on the subject. Ms. Hehmeyer stated that she wished to address two items discussed during testimony today; one being that the GBF Site is not about to close in that it has a life limited by tonnage, not by years, thus it could be open for a long time, if necessary; and the second being that at the Concord City Council meeting of last evening, representatives of the Park District specifically noted objections to the Bay Point and Marsh Creek sites. Supervisor Powers moved to close both public hearings .which were re-opened to .hear the specific issues noticed. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Fanden and passed unanimously. Supervisor Torlakson then discussed at length the letters solicited from various City Council members with respect to alternative sites being added to the County Solid Waste Management Plan (Item S. 9 on today' s agenda) . Supervisor Fanden stated her oppinion. of -the City •Councilpersons having been individually polled on the alternative sites. She advised that Mr. Ken Theison, Water Resources Control Engineer of the California Regional. Water Quality Control Board sent a letter stating it would take the Water Quality Control Board 3 years to complete its permitting process following application to that Board. She advised that he also commented on the acute problem at Acme Fill. Supervisor Schroder commented that with respect to Item S-9 on today' s calendar which was a suggestion to amend the County Solid Waste Management Plan by adding alternative sites, he felt it was premature. He stated that he was not opposed to looking at alternate sites within the County, but that he was opposed to adding sites that had not first been through the public process. Following extensive discussion, the Board agreed to have the Item S-9 matter relisted on its November 3, 1987 agenda. Supervisor McPeak moved to approve those conditions of approval as were submitted by County Staff. Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion. The Board discussed the matter in great detail. Supervisor Powers declared that the proposed conditions require some additional language, particularly the one dealing with litter, suggesting an intensive litter management program in the vicinity of any landfill site, and a Countywide litter control program 5 which could be financially supported by the landfill payments. He advised that the financing program should be tied to the improvement plan and suggested tying together the charges on host mitigation, recycling, litter control, and a solid waste education program. He commented that he did not know what the fees should be, and suggested that it may mean that the County would have to enter into a development agreement. Supervisor Powers also suggested that the Board should be able to eliminate any out-of-County refuse except and unless it is approved by the Board after a careful review of health and safety issues, and further that refuse coming from within the County should not be prevented from coming into the landfill. He suggested such a condition. On the issue of access roads, Supervisor Powers suggested a generic condition to the effect that roads adjacent to the landfill site should be improved according to ,the needs that go in and out of the landfill site. . Supervisor Powers suggested that the above be amended into the rest of the conditions and copies be provided to the Board before the time set for decision on November 3 , 1987 at 3 : 00 p.m. Supervisor Schroder expressed his concern with designating a 15% gross receipts tax or fee. He expressed concern with respect to its effect on the rate payer. He inquired as to the use of the funds, commenting that he would like to know what the fees would be used for, and that he would be opposed to imposing a fee on the rate payer to enhance the County general fund. He suggested the matter be deliberated by the Board prior to imposing such a fee. Supervisor McPeak spoke to the proposed management fee or tonnage surcharge of 150 of the gross fee which she explained would be used to cover the rate review, the oversight management, the litter control, the education on recycling and household hazardous waste. She likened the charge to the 100 of gross receipts proposed for hazardous waste. Supervisor Powers urged a review. of the figures so that the fee is neither too high nor too low. Supervisor Torlakson stated that he agreed with the additional generic conditions proposed for land use permits for landfill sites, that he would like to pursue the question of the amount of management fee and the impact on the rate payer and the need for management of the whole solid waste system where these funds are desperately needed. He advised that many of these ideas were in the survey conducted by Delta Diablo about a year and half ago where the public was asked what they thought and the public strongly supported these kinds of measures to be added as extra conditions. Supervisor Fanden commented that over and over the Board heard about abandoned automobiles, and she requested that there be a finding on the issue of whether or not it could cause further pollution, whether there should be a separate site from the landfill site. Supervisor McPeak summarized the Board' s concerns and requested that the language be prepared for the conditions of approval that the hearing was on today, to include the following: That the management fee surcharge be considered not for host mitigation, but for matters that relate to the responsibilities in these generic conditions, including oversight, rate review, public education, litter control, recycling, abandoned automobiles and general countywide solid waste management coordination activities, that there be no out-of-county refuse accepted at the site, and that all in-county refuse be accepted at the site, and the question on how to best address the abandoned automobile location. Supervisor Powers requested that emphasis be placed on providing for an intensive litter control. program at landfill sites 6 and county-wide, and that the financing matter be addressed, keeping in mind the effect on the rate payer. Supervisor McPeak agreed to add to the language to be prepared a very intensive litter control program, not only county- wide, but around the site as well. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearings on both Land Use Permits are CLOSED, and DECISION is DEFERRED to November 3, 1987 at 3 : 00 p.m. on the Land Use Permits and on the new conditions of approval. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that decision is DEFERRED to November 3, 1987 at 3: 00 p.m. on the request for a General Plan Amendment, cancellation of Agricultural Preserve No. 3-75, amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan, and rezoning application 2683-RZ of Sid Corrie, Jr. , dba Land Waste Management (applicant) and Tom Gentry California Company et al (owners) to establish a sanitary landfill (Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill Project) . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that decision is DEFERRED to November 3 , 1987 at 3 : 00 p.m. on the request for a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan of S. and J. Investments (applicant and owner) to establish a sanitary landfill (East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Project) . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that staff is directed to prepare for the Board' s consideration on November 3, 1987 the appropriate language for the proposed. conditions of approval. a]3 crd ca rectcopl.tr3 an action taken and enured on the-.-n nu►es of 1khe Board of Supervisors o th>'•dca?e show,61. ATTESTED: 6 I /y� PHIL BATCHELOR, Cicwk cls the Board of Supervisors and Count-1A-dM.1g1Atf r-$Q[ cc: Community Development County Counsel - �G County Administrator 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 7