HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10041988 - 2.5 2 . 5
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _October 4, 1988 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Board-sponsored "Bailey-Central-Kirker Supersite"
General Plan Amendment Alternatives
Supervisor Torlakson chaired the discussion on the report of
the Director of Community Development relative to General Plan
Amendment alternatives on various landfill sites. Supervisor
Schroder removed himself from participating in the discussion and
voting because of a possible conflict of interest concerning one of
his insurance clients.
Charles Zahn, Community Development Department, presented an
overview of the alternatives presented in the report for the
Board's consideration. (A copy of the report is attached and
included as a part of this document. )
Supervisor Torlakson noted that a letter has just been
received from Mr. Boyd Olney Jr. , Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal,
advising of his intent to file an application for the Canyon I
area.
John Stremmel, Stremmel Enterprises and owner of California
Land Research and Field Associates, 935 Moraga Road, Suite 201,
Lafayette, referred to a letter dated July 20, 1988, submitted to
the Board in which he requested that staff of the Community
Development Department be directed to review the General Plan for
the proposed 700-acre Bay Pointe Landfill project. He requested
that he be included in any time frames that would be afforded to
Mr. Olney's request.
Fred Caploe, attorney representing the City of Pittsburg, 2530
Arnold Drive, Suite 360, Martinez, 94553, inquired as to the
location of the site as noted in Mr. Olney's letter. He expressed
concern that he has not had adequate opportunity to review the
report of the Director of the Community Development and requested
that this matter be continued for two weeks.
Tom Stewart, representing Land Waste Management , 560 Railroad
Avenue, Suite 204, Hercules, also requested additional time to
review the content of the report and potential impact on his
client.
Supervisor Powers noted that he received the report this
morning and referred to the amount of work staff is involved in
with trying to meet deadlines. He inquired as to the
advantages/disadvantages in the Board sponsoring a General Plan
Amendment.
Mr. Zahn advised that the primary advantage of the Board
sponsoring the General Plan Amendment is that the process could
begin at least 30 days earlier.
V. Westman, County Counsel, explained that if any General Plan
application can be processed at this time in a shorter period than
the original applications before you could have been done, it is
only because the County had the residual of the work product in
those earlier applications. Mr. Westman advised that if this is
1
not the case, there would have to be another initial study and
review done at this time to see if it is applicable or whether or
not it would have to be supplemented. He noted that it should not
be construed that the Board is attempting here to give preference
to some other applicant by processing something at this time. He
commented on the need to meet CEQA requirements in the review and
determination of the sufficiency of an application for a landfill.
Supervisor McPeak referred to the need to initiate the process
and advised that she would support Alternative No. 3 and for the
noticing both the CEQA review and the General Plan Amendment
simultaneously.
Supervisor Powers expressed concern that the intent of the
Board to proceed with a General Plan review on one of the sites may
be construed as support for a public landfill site. He commented
on the impact this action could have on the ballot measures before
the electorate in November.
Following discussion, Supervisor McPeak moved that the Board
approve Alternative No. 3, the Board-sponsored Central Landfill
General Plan Amendment, and direct staff to do the proper noticing
immediately for the CEQA compliance before both the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. It was noted that in the
process the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission could
conceivably reject or approve the site based on the evidence
presented as well as determining whether it will be public or
private based on applicants coming forward.
Supervisor Fanden commented on the need to initiate the
process. She advised that she had hoped the Keller parcel could
have been included in the letter of intent since the applicant for
the Central Landfill has an option on the Keller parcel. She
advised of her support for Alternative No. 3 and seconded the
motion.
Supervisor Torlakson advised that he would be supporting the
motion. He commented on the need to leave all options open in
terms of determining the merits of land use applications.
Supervisor Powers advised that he believes the motion is vague
on one issue in that could the motion be interpreted to mean that
the Board is taking the step forward to be the applicant in all
cases for a public landfill site. He stated that if this is the
case he will strongly object to the motion. He commented on the
need to discuss this matter further.
Supervisor Fanden responded that none of the Board members are
voting for public participation in a landfill. She advised that
the possibility exists but that it may never become a reality. She
advised that by voting in support of the motion is only getting the
General Plan Amendment review process started.
There being no further discussion, the vote on the motion was
as follows:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder
The Chair again recognized Mr. Stremmel
Mr. Stremmel requested that the letter submitted at the July
26, 1988, be given the same consideration as the one submitted by
Mr. Olney.
Supervisor Torlakson requested that consideration also be
given to a similar request of Waste Management.
2
t•
Board members discussed the feasibility of listing the above
noted three requests for a General Plan Amendment review on the
Board's August 2, 1988 agenda.
Board members being in agreement, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED
that the Clerk is INSTRUCTED to list the letters of Mr. Olney, Mr.
Stremmel, and Waste Management Inc. (requesting a General Plan
Amendment review) on the Board's Agenda of August 2, 1988 .
PASSED by unanimous vote of the Board members present.
I hereby certify that this Is a true and cormctcopy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED:
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
cc: Director of Community
By ,Deputy
Development Dept.
County Counsel
County Administrator
3
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ++
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon cntra
Director of Community Development Costa
DATE: October 4, 1988 Cour fty
SUBJECT: Board-Sponsored "Bailey-Central-Kirker Supersite"
General Plan Amendment Alternatives
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept the staff report (Background/Reasons) .
2. If after appropriate consideration, the Board wishes to
sponsor a General Plan Amendment for the subject area:
a. Authorize staff to proceed with a comprehensive General
Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report for the
five square mile "Supersite" area.
or (Alternative #2)
b. Authorize staff to proceed with a General Plan Amendment
for the general area of the former Central Landfill
project utilizing the 1986 Central Landfill Environmental
Impact Report. (Alternative #3 )
FISCAL IMPACT
Alternative #11 No Board-sponsored General Plan Amendment, would
not require County financial support. It is assumed that there
will be a project covering part of the area, applied for by the
private sector, which will be subject to County fees.
Alternative #2, Board-sponsored Comprehensive
"Bailey-Central-Kirker Supersite" General Plan Amendment, would
require out-of-pocket County funds in the range of $25,000 to
$50,000 for the EIR preparation (consultant costs) notic s, and
report publication.
CONTINUED ON ATTACfIl49NT: X YES SIGNA �
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDZT O COMMITTE]
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 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 SHOWN.
cc: CAO ATTESTED
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
CZ:cg
cdl2/supsite.bo
-2-
Alternative #3 , Board-sponsored Central Landfill Area General Plan
Amendment, is expected to require $10 , 000 to $25 ,000 for
out-of-pocket costs for publication costs , noticing costs, and
consultant fees.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board of Supervisors, at its September 27, 1988 meeting
directed staff to report on the time and procedures required to
adopt a General Plan Amendment, with an Environmental Impact
Report, for the general area of the former Central Landfill project
should the Board choose to sponsor an amendment. The Central
Landfill area would be part of the larger "Bailey-Central-Kirker
Supersite" area which the Board of Supervisors placed on the
November ballot as an advisory measure. The five-square-mile
"Supersite" would include the 480-acre land area of the Kirker Pass
Waste Management Landfill property and about 1,000 acres of the
adjoining Keller Estate (Costa) property, as well as the 1,740-acre
former Central Landfill (Elworthy) properties.
The Board may consider sponsoring a General Plan Amendment to
assert public policy for the establishment of one or more sanitary
landfills at the location consistent with the initiative.
Staff has expanded the coverage of the report to include a "no
project" -- no Board-sponsored GPA -- alternative as well as a
broader amendment covering the whole of the initiative site. The
processes associated with those alternatives are described in the
attached table. The alternatives, then, are:
Alternative #1, No Board-Sponsored General Plan Amendment
If the Board chose not to sponsor a General Plan Amendment, that
decision would not necessary preclude the designation of
substantial portion of the "Supersite" for a landfill in the County
General Plan. The Board could revive and adopt the Kirker Pass
Waste Management and Landfill GPA, as well as the landfill project,
as its discretion. And, although there was no announced sponsor
for the remainder of the area which the Board made its assignment,
newspaper articles (e.g. , Contra Costa Times, 10/1/88 ) subsequently
have reported that Collection Service Operator, Boyd Olney, Jr. ,
intends to apply for a project on a site lying partially in the
Central Landfill area and partially in the Keller Estate property.
That project is used as an example in the attached table.
Alternative #1 is an example of the process_ and,,.time.-line that
could pertain to a submittal for an approximately 1 , 500-acre
project beginning with a General Plan Amendment request and
followed with Rezoning, Agricultural Preserve Cancellation, and a
Land Use Permit. The process, roughly 13 months long, is shorter
by a few months than comparative processes for other .new landfills
because of the availability of prior studies, applications,
Environmental Impact Report, and public hearing records from the
former Central Landfill project, as well as comparable information
from the nearby KPWML project.
If Alternative #2 was pursued soon, there would be no need for a
separate GPA for the 1,500-acre-landfill project, but the time line
would not be shortened much because the landfill development
project would still require an Environmental Impact Report.
Alternative #2 , Board-Sponsored "Bailey-Central-Kirker Supersite"
General Plan Amendment
Under Alternative #2 , the Board of Supervisors would sponsor a
General Plan Amendment for the entire five-square-mile "Supersite"
covered by the advisory ballot measure. The California
Environmental Quality Act review would be provided by a "tiered"
Environmental Impact Report written at the policy level.
Subsequent landfill development projects in the area would require
project-level supplemental EIR' s.
-3-
The initial Environmental Impact Report would be largely based on
the existing Central Landfill and Kirker Pass Waste Management
Landfill EIR' s and permit records, some information on the area of
the proposed Olney project could 'be necessary.
A consultant would have to be retained to prepare the Draft
Environmental Impact Report and to prepare the Response Document.
The time line estimated in the table would be about 9 months,
estimated conservatively.
Alternative. #3 , Board-Sponsored Central Landfill General Plan
Amendment
This alternative essentially would cover the 1,740-acre Elworthy
properties of the "Supersite" area. This is the largest land
holding in the five square mile area. Adopting the General Plan
Amendment would allow landfill proposals similar to the Central
Landfill' s Canyons 1, 2, or 3 to be considered as development
projects.
One benefit of the alternative would be to re-use the 1986 Central
Landfill Environmental Impact Report for the CEQA review of the
GPA. This would avoid the time and expense of having to scope and
prepare a new EIR. However, the existing ETR would be treated as a
Draft EIR and subjected to public review. Comments would have to
be replied to in a new Response Document.
A decision would have to be made on whether to re-publish and
re-circulate the EIR (including the 1986 Response Document) . CEQA
requires that interested parties be noticed, but not necessarily be
provided with new copies of the previous EIR. The Board, however,
may wish to re-publish and re-circulate the previous EIR for public
relation reasons.
The out-of-pocket expenses associated with Alternative #3 would
include publication and noticing costs, and consultant services for
the EIR Response Document.
The time line conservatively estimated in the table is about 5
months, a somewhat shorter time line of about 4 months might be
obtained under optimum circumstances.
CZ:cg
cd12/supsite.bo
Comparative Time Lines
"Bailey-Central-Kirker Superaite"
General Plan Alternatives
Alternative 11 Alternative /2 Alternative 13
No Board-Sponsored GPA Board-Sponsored Comprehensive Board-Sponsored Central
(Assumes Private-Sector- "Bailey-Central-Kirker Landfill General Plan
Sponsored 1,500 Acre Project) Supersite" General Plan Amendment
St.nge Amendment
Pre-Application 90 Days 0 Days 0 Days
Assumes Use of Both Central Assumes Use of Central and Assumes Use of Prior
Project Studies. Landfill Studies and New KPWML Materials, and Geo- (Central Landfill) EIR
Comprehensive Project Description. (e.g., Keller Parcel) Studies Technical Study Information
from Olney Landfill Project
General Plan Application 0 days 0 Days 0 Days
Assumes Prior Authorization Board of Supervisors can Board of Supervisors can
Board Authorization. Direct Staff to Process Direct Staff to Process
Application Review 30 Days 14 Days 0 Days
Initial Study Preparation, No Applications
Appl.icati.vn Review, Acceptance. Consultants Request-for-
CEQA Complince Review (Initial Study). Proposal, and Notice Preparation
EIR Scoping 30 Days 30 Days 7 Days
Mandatory Minimum Review Mandatory Minimum Review Staff Would Prepare
Notice of. Preparation. Period Period Description, GPA
Scoping Meetings Amendment, Initial
(Noticed if Public). Study/Statement of Prior
EIR USG Justification
Alternative: Decision to
Use a Prior EIR (As Draft
EIR).
Statement of Justification.
Consultant Recruitment. Initiate Consultant
(for Response Document)
Recruitment
Draft EIR Preparation 75 Days 75 Days 7 Days
Assumes Substantial Reliance Assumes Substantial Reliance Report Publication
Administrative Draft on Central Landfill Records on Control and KPWML Records (Note: CEQA Does Not
Preparation, Review. Require Republication
Publication. and Redistribution)
Draft EIR Review 50 Days 50 Days 50 Days
Noticing (5 Days to Publish) Noticing (5 Days to Publish) Noticing (5 Days to
Draft EIR Distribution. and Mandatory 45-Day Review and 45-Day Mandatory Review Publish) and 45-Day
Notice or Completion. Period Period Mandatory Review Period
Public Notice, NOC b Hearing.
Public Hearing. Planning Commission. A 30-Day Waiver Might
be Obtained From the
State Because EIR Was
Previously Reviewed
H
Final EIR 45 Days 45 Days 30 Days
Assumes No Further Planning Assumes No Further Planning Assumes Reliance on
Response Document: Prepare Commission Referrals Commission Referrals Prior Response
Review, Publish, Distribute. Documents, and No
Planning Commission Approval. Further Planning
Commission Referrals t
General Plan Amendment 30 Days 30 Days 30 Days
Assumes Prior Public Hearing Assumes Prior Public Hearing Assumes Prior Public
Prepare GPA. Notice. Note: Entitlement Notice Hearing Notice
Notice Hearing. Hearings Probably Would Cover
Planning Commission Hearing and Decision. GPA, RZ, AP Cancellation, and
Preparation and Adoption of Findings. LUP
Board of Supervisors 30 Days 30 Days 30 Days
Receive EIR b GPA. Schedule GPA Hearing. Might be Reduced by 15
Decide GPA. Days With One Hearing
Adopt Findings. and Adoption of PC
File CF.QA Notice of Determination.*
Findings
*Begins 30-Day Challenge Period.
Elapsed Time: 380 Days(12+ Months) 274 Days (9+ Months) 754 Days (5 Months)
124 Days (4 Months)
cd12/zahntabi.doc With Note 6 Reductions