Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11101988 - T.1 - : , Ti THE BOARD. OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on November 10 , 1988 by the following vote: AYES: See separate votes for various motions NOES: ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: SUBJECT: Discussion and approval of actions relative to solid waste landfills On November 10, 1988 , this adjourned regular meeting was commenced pursuant to its posted agenda. Supervisor Torlakson served as chair in the absence of Supervisor Schroder. Supervisor Torlakson reviewed his opinion of the perspectives of the ballot measures as they were voted on and what he felt was the message of the public. He stressed the importance of receiving the cooperation of the cities in the county in selecting landfill sites. He noted that no legal decision could be made this date, but urged the Board to indicate its preference of one or more sites. Supervisor Powers advised that he would like to hear the staff report and then come to a conclusion this day. The County Administrator commented that the reason the Board had asked for a meeting today was to have an opportunity to reach a consensus for landfill sites. He advised that after hearing the staff ' s comments on the status of the 5 sites that are actively under consideration which have been sent to the cities and Solid Waste Commission, if the Board could indicate its preference, then staff could move in that direction. Charles Zahn, Community Development Department, presented a table listing the 5 project sites in the order originally submitted, showing the status of each with respect to the date of filing the applications, the status of the EIR' s and the land use entitlements. He advised that the Agricultural Preserve Contract on the Kirker Pass Property has expired so there is no need to take further action .on the application to remove that site from the contract. He delineated the various actions the Board would have to take to approve the various sites under consideration. Supervisor McPeak commented on the ballot process, shared what her hopes were that would come out of this meeting and urged that public testimony be taken at this time, and then the Board indicate its preference as to which site or sites it would be willing to support. She stated that she was prepared to vote on at least one or more sites and to declare her intent today. She stated her first choice would be to pursue the Bailey Road Landfill application, but that the Board had better keep open options for other sites. Supervisor Fanden commented that her interpretation of the voter turnout was strong support for the Central/Super/Bailey Road site, strong city support and strong environmental support and support from all the local haulers who are supporting the Super site. She 1 advised that she felt this was an indication of the public' s wish. She further commented that very little money was spent .in support of the Super site. She indicated that she had always supported the Garaventa and Kirker Pass sites and when the Board was stalemated, she had come up with the Super site or configuration of the Super site and that she was pleased to see that Supervisor McPeak indicates that she can now support the Bailey Road site. Supervisor Torlakson requested from staff an updated report on the status of export agreement discussion with other counties. The County Administrator advised that Acme will be filled to capacity within the next month, that the County has been exploring and negotiating for export agreements and talking seriously- with San Joaquin County which county has indicted that a Solid Waste Plan Amendment would still be required, that Solano County has indicated a willingness to talk, but that a Solid Waste Plan Amendment would be needed, and that the cities need to be brought on board. He noted that there had been discussions with Alameda County repeatedly, that they had had difficulty in getting an acceptable plan from the private sector, from Waste Management, but there seems to be progress there. He indicated that talks had been held with Yolo and Santa Clara Counties about export agreements. He noted that all of the counties would like Contra Costa to put in place the designation of a permanent site. He rioted that the County is considering trying not to take all the garbage to one place, but questioned if it is reasonable to divide it up and take it to several locations. Supervisor Torlakson commented that the County has. an opportunity to get those export agreements and have time to go through the necessary legal. steps and site a landfill, and that he felt confident about that. Supervisor McPeak commented that some critical steps had been taken to initiate that process, and being able to secure the permit for the interim transfer station was essential. She commented to the elected officials in the audience that one of the reasons the County was able to secure a permit for the interim transfer station is that the County took steps to amend the Solid Waste. Plan, that those amendments are now coming to the cities and it is necessary to keep that moving along. Supervisor McPeak advised that, perhaps at the close of the meeting, she would like to have the Board discuss the advisability or feasibility of this Board pursuing before the State Water Resources Control Board the appeal that Acme has filed on the denial by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to extend Acme. She asked the principals of Acme and their attorney to be prepared to advise the- Board how they would proceed being able to extend the life of that landfill in this County, having designated our Solid Waste Plan Amendment, having today indicated our intent to move forward with the permanent site location, that we might be able to secure more cooperation from the Regional Board. She suggested that the various state agencies that have been involved in monitoring this might be willing to look favorably upon that. She discussed the possibility of mitigation for wetlands that might make it very, very attractive. Supervisor Torlakson announced that he would be taking comments from members of the public and requested them to be focused in their remarks and not repeat remarks of previous speakers in order to give as many people as possible the opportunity to speak. Phyllis Roff, 2893 San Carlos Drive, Walnut Creek, commented that she has in the past publicly criticized the Board for inaction. on this matter; but this morning she came to construct, urging the Board to make a choice on a central county site. She also urged strongly to direct the staff to create and develop a phased-in program in which there is a consideration for sites in South County, East County and West County, commenting that all should share the garbage, thereby 2 maximizing the advantages of location and it would hopefully dispel some of the NIMBI syndrome. She further urged that whenever a choice or choices are made, that the Board maximize its regulatory powers because she believes that monopolies, either regulated or poorly regulated are an abomination. Scott Moline, 2224 Ridgecrest Way, Pittsburg, stated he wished to introduce a letter (not submitted for the record) from Senator Boatwright stating clearly that he opposes the Superdump site as well as the .Bailey Road site, and suggesting that the Board select a dump site in a remote part of the County. Mr. Moline also expressed his opinion as to the meaning of the votes at the recent election, and discussed traffic through residential areas, cities, and the proposed BART station. He urged the Board to not approve the Bailey Road site, but if it does consider the site, to require a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Tim Shelly, 1035 Detroit Avenue, Concord, representing Senator Dan Boatwright, advised that Senator Boatwright has been publicly opposed to all the sites. He advised that he was here today to speak specifically in opposition to the Marsh Canyon site. He stated that Senator Boatwright is opposed to that, that he was on the ballot argument against that site, that he is concerned that millions of tax dollars have been spent both on the State Park on Mt. Diablo through Morgan Territory out to Los Vaqueros, and that we stand a chance of loosing the efforts to preserve those areas in their natural state; and that he is concerned that if a dump is put out there, it will hurt the parklands, the flora and fauna, the habitat and threaten the water resources, and that he is concerned that this is not a good site, and would urge the Board to oppose the Marsh Canyon site. Supervisor Torlakson commented that he had recently written the Senator a letter asking the question where he would recommend a site if he is opposed to all the sites. Rosemary Corbin, Councilmember from the City of Richmond, stated that she was Chair of the Export Committee, and that she believed that a couple of points were not made firmly enough earlier and that is that no county will make an agreement with Contra Costa for export of waste until a site is designated in this County, that the only way the committee can get people to talk to them is by assuring them that we are moving ahead and we are going to get a site selected and all we need is the time between now and when we can get it on line, for them to take a limited amount of waste for a limited period of time. She urged the Board to make a selection today. She also discussed the interpretation of the message the voters had given in casting their votes for the various sites. She commented that the Supersite is remote, it is central and won' t unduly burden the communities around it. She stated that the West County Mayors, the cities and the Joint Powers Authority have all taken a position in support of the Supersite. William Doheney, 700 Timberline, Brentwood, advised that he thought Marsh Creek should be disqualified from consideration because it is an artery by which whatever contaminants might migrate from the dump site would be readily transported downstream. He also discussed the acute traffic problem in Brentwood. Roy Swearingen, 653 South 31st Street. Richmond 94804, Vice Mayor of the City of Pinole, declared that the cities of West County agree with Councilwoman Corbin, that the Supersite is the best suited site for the entire county. George Livingston, Mayor of the City of Richmond, spoke in favor of the Supersite, and opposed to the Cummings Skyway site. Nancy Parent, Mayor of the City of Pittsburg, presented a montage of the area of the proposed Supersite, commented on the results of the Tuesday election. She advised that the results 3 violated the very first criteria of siting a dump, that is putting it near people' s homes, their parks and their other places of recreation' or sources of water. She stated that the voters have indicated that Marsh Creek is the least objectionable site and the most remote from homes. She commented on the previous remarks with respect to the amount of money spent by the proponents of the various sites on the ballot. She explained the photographs of the City of Pittsburg, showing the hills and how the various sites might affect the hills and the City and the view from the river and Highway 4 and the golf course and the 50-acre park. She commented on the declining value of homes in the vicinity of landfills. She suggested that the acceptable alternative be pursued. Supervisor McPeak inquired if Pittsburg had the same degree of opposition to Bay Pointe as to Bailey Road/Central/Super site. Mayor Parent responded that there is a proposal before LAFCO for a sphere of influence change and there are development plans within the area immediately adjacent to the Bay Pointe site, that it would be putting it near an area that is planned for development-, and would be putting it within 1300 feet of an area where the City already has tentative maps with the houses under construction now in the Oak Hills area. She responded that, yes, the City of Pittsburg is opposed. Supervisor Fanden suggested that the photographs in the montage were taken from 500 feet out in the Bay and are a distortion and that there would not be any landfill site visible from any homes. She discussed the availability of proper cover soil, the conditions of approval that the Board would place on the development, and the favorable improvements and mitigations available to the City of Pittsburg. She stated that she is opposed to having a landfill site on the Bay Pointe site and she is aware that Pittsburg treasures the Bay Pointe area and wants that area for their upscale housing. Mayor Parent responded to the comments of Supervisor Fanden. Fred Caploe, 2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 360, Martinez 94553, Attorney for the City of Pittsburg, advised that Pittsburg is not quitting. He commented that the law covering the Solid Waste Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Planning Act and the County Ordinances must be respected by everybody and that the City has been continually pointing out where those laws have not been met. He discussed the litigation and declarations surrounding the ballot argument on the Central/Super site, stating that where the Judge had. found clear and convincing evidence, he ordered those ballot arguments changed. He stated that ". . .this is an existing record and we are asking specifically that the record in that action be incorporated into the record of this proceeding so that you are confronted with those very same facts. " [No documents were presented for the record. ] Mr. Caploe commented that it did not seem clear where the access was proposed to be, not clear precisely where the landfills themselves will be, that there are not sufficient borings on the Bailey Road site. He suggested that if anyone felt it were possible, that the photo montages be controverted, commenting that the information came - from the Bailey Road EIR. He suggested keeping the option on Marsh Canyon open.. He requested that the Board not take any action today. Supervisor Torlakson asked that copies of the montage and the declarations be submitted to the Clerk for the record. Mr. Caploe agreed to furnish these. Shawn Guinn, 1265 Dainty Avenue, Brentwood, Brentwood City Councilman, an alternate on the Blue Ribbon Committee for East County Cities, and Chair of the Blue Ribbon. Committee selected by Mayor- Katherine Palmer for the City of Brentwood, stated that the City of Brentwood opposes the East County Site and the Kirker Pass Site because access cannot be mitigated. He stated that they had not made a decision on the Supersite because they did not have enough 4 information at the time. He proposed the Bay Pointe site as the most viable site for the County in that it does not have the problems that most of the other sites have and has access to it and a capacity for the entire county. He suggested that the worst site under consideration is the Marsh Canyon site, commenting that the area must be saved for recreation and open space. He commented that the lack of access is the major concern of the City of Brentwood and declared that the site is not viable. He declared that the City of Brentwood cannot take any more truck traffic through town furthering its existing problems. Kay Petersen, 36 Deer Trail, Lafayette, advised that she agreed with Senator Boatwright opposing the Marsh Canyon site, citing the environmental considerations, the proximity- to parklands, the archeological finds and the people who live in the area. She applauded the idea of not making a decision today, and indicated her- support for the Supersite. Linda Callon, 99 Alamaden Boulevard, Suite 400, San Jose 95113 , Attorney for the City of Antioch, East Bay Regional Park District and the Contra Costa Water. District, asked the Board to drop from consideration the Garaventa site, ( the East Contra Costa Landfill Site) , stating that the Blue Ribbon task Force put it at the bottom of. the list, the Planning Commission voted against it, the Solid Waste Commission voted against it and in her opinion the Board of Supervisors voted against in with a 2-2 vote, and now the voters, 68 percent of the voters voted against that site, and therefore the agencies she represents urge dropping that site from further consideration. Jean Siri, representing the City of E1 Cerrito, advised that . the West County cities and the City of E1 Cerrito and the City of Walnut Creek had a press conference in support of the Supersite and against the Marsh Canyon site. Michele Perrault, 2979 Rohrer Drive, Lafayette, representing the Sierra Club, advised that the Sierra Club had not put money into the election on the ballot issue, but it had cost them money to defend themselves in a lawsuit by Waste Management with respect to wording° contained in the ballot argument. She rebutted the interpretation of the record of the suit as referred to by Mr. Caploe earlier this day. She advised that the Sierra Club is opposed to the Marsh. Creek site and in favor of the Supersite, but urged the Board to keep its options open. She listed as arguments against the Marsh Creek site the integrity of the park systems, the historic resources, integrity of the neighborhoods, traffic, cost, and protection of the water supply. Joseph Canciamilla, 2020 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg, Pittsburg City Councilman, commented that he wished to respond to some of the issues raised by some of the speakers. He commented that people are more important. in this entire formula than land, that it is more important to preserve families and home and the economic future for people than trying to preserve flowers and animals. He stated that the City of Pittsburg and the Council is committed to oppose the sites within the sphere of influence of the City of Pittsburg and the sites near the City of Pittsburg. Roy Conley, 312 Kingsburry, Pittsburg, discussed the prices of homes and effects of landfills on decisions to purchase homes. He commented on the wind and dust problem that would accompany a landfill operation in the area, as well as the access road. T. J. Nelson, .25 Emerson Avenue, Crockett, requested that copies of the staff report be made available to the audience. He suggested that the bottom line in siting a landfill is reimbursing people who have a loss in property value resulting from the implementation of the site selection, suggesting some sort of assessment from the whole district which contributes to the problem be assessed to take care of the injured people. 5 Joe Pattison, 2509 Tahoe Avenue, Hayward, owner of property on Marsh Creek Road, commented negatively, particularly with respect to cost, on a proposal he had heard with respect to hauling garbage by rail to the Marsh Creek site. Robert Lewis, 50 Hawthorne, Pittsburg, Pittsburg Community Advisory Commission, commented that the site that came out number one on the list of the Blue Ribbon Task Force was Bay Pointe. He noted that there have been changes in access and in the overall size of the. site and that the Bay Pointe that was approved by the Task Force is not the same as the Bay Pointe site being discussed today. He advised that the Cummings Skyway site was the number two site. selected by the Task Force, and he requested the Board to look at the Cummings Skyway site as a viable alternative to all four dump sites which were turned down by the voters. Mary Williams, 13950 Marsh Creek Road, Clayton, representing the Marsh Creek Association, opposed the Marsh Creek site. She asked the Board to look at Marsh Creek on three focuses, business, environment and the people. She commented that the environmental focus has been very well covered by the Sierra Club and other speakers this morning. She stated that she believed from a business view, the access problem is the biggest problem, along with utilities; and she inquired as to who would be paying for the road improvements and bringing utilities to the site. She also objected to Waste Management having a monopoly on waste sites. She spoke about the people living adjacent to the site, the length of time the homes have been in the families now living there, and the historical value of the homes. David Tam, 6014 College Ave, Oakland 94618, Sierra Club, discussed the issue of competition on landfill capacity, noting that Waste Management now has 60 percent of the permitted landfill capacity- in the nine Bay Area counties and is acquiring additional landfill capacity in adjacent counties around the Bay Area. He suggested that the public interest would be be served by either a public ownership contract operation or a public/private partnership. He commented on the cost of the recent election. He advised that the Sierra club supported the Super Central site. Mr. Tam stated that with respect to the ballot arguments he questioned the significance of the documents to be submitted and what was purported to be in the judge' s mind. He commented that real estate values have not declined in Contra Costa County in proximity to a landfill. Carlos Martinez, 165 Bruno, Pittsburg 94565, Community Advisory Committee, City of Pittsburg, expressed concern with drainage, fog, wind and smell and urged that the landfill site not be in the Pittsburg area. Bob Walker, 545 Clayton Street, San Francisco 94117 , East Bay Regional Trails Council, spoke in favor of- the Super Central site and in opposition to the Marsh Canyon site.. LouAnn Riera Texeira, 1666 N. Main Street, Walnut Creek, City of Walnut Creek, refuted the testimony that the City of Walnut Creek had supported the Superdump, advising instead that the City of Walnut Creek has taken no official stand. and the Council has chosen to leave that decision up to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Fanden advised that although the City has not taken a position, three of the councilmembers have endorsed the Supersite. Doris Reese, 117 Third Street, Rodeo, Rodeo Citizens. Association, advised that the Association has taken a very, very' strong stance against the Cummings Skyway site, citing earthquake faults, the Rodeo Creek running through the middle of the site, a fossil bed which is being studied by UC, Indian relics and an Indian burial ground, and the fact it could be viewed 100 percent from Highway 1-80, that it has only a 35-year life, it is shallow, has 13 6 ground wells immediately adjacent, and the homes in Hercules are less than a quarter of a mile away. She requested the area be left open space. Patrick J. Cafferty, 88 Kearney Street, San Francisco, representing Boyd M. Onley, Jr. , urged support -of the Supersite, stating they feel it is the best solution for the County' s garbage problems. He submitted for the record letters of support of the Supersite from Boyd Onley, local haulers, Silvio Garaventa, Jr. , Bart Bissio, George Navone, and Vice Mayor Terry Williamson and Councilwoman Sherry Sterrett of the City of Pleasant Hill. Jonathan Cohen, 1646 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, attorney for Land Waste Management, declared that the voters of this County have spoken in rejecting the four proposals that were put on the ballot, stating that the Kirker Pass site is the only landfill that has not been rejected by the voters, the only landfill to have Planning Commission approval and the only solution for the County' s immediate problem. He urged approval of the general plan amendment for Kirker Pass, suggesting it would take four or five years to get the Bailey Road site to the same point where Kirker Pass is now. Bill Falik, Embarcadero III , 7th Floor, San Francisco, representing Kirker Pass, requested assurance. that the two-page staff report provided this day is to become a part of the record. He declared that the staff report indicates that Kirker Pass is the only one of all of the proposals that has been approved completely by the Planning Commission. He delineated what he saw as the status of the . Bailey Road site. John Stremel, 935 Moraga Road, Lafayette, representing the California Land Research Associates, commented on the election process and suggested that it is clear that the public wants to have the truth about the various facets of permitting of a landfill site, and requested that be provided in an expeditious manner to expedite a conclusion to this matter. Supervisor Torlakson stated that, in his opinion, the Bay Pointe site, the site ranked number one of the eight sites acceptable to the Task Force, has fatal flaws in that it does not have the access it originally purported to have off of Highway 4 and that a letter received from Captain Cagle, the Commanding Officer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, indicates that 65 percent of the fill area of the Bay Pointe site as submitted in the application to the County is impeded, with absolutely inflexible easement agreements with the Navy, that the Navy' s interpretation is that 370 acres of the 700 that had been submitted would be unusable because of explosive-safety easements over that site. Supervisor Torlakson announced that C & H Sugar has sold the Cummings Skyway site, which was ranked number two by the Blue Ribbon Task Force, to a group of developers that are open to his request to look at the Cummings Skyway site as a landfill. He encouraged all the cities and garbage companies and the environmental groups in the county to consider this site. He announced that there is a .representative here from Franklin Associates, that he had contacted them to indicate his interest in seeing that site explored further. Mr. Neal Draper, Antioch, representing Franklin Associates, a group of residential real estate developers and builders, advised that the group had entered into an agreement to purchase the 1300-acre site from C & H, that their intention was to look at that property in terms of some type of residential and commercial development, but that their discussions with Supervisor Torlakson has made them very acutely aware of the need for this Board to permanently site a landfill and they would not stand in the way of this Board making progress in light of doing that. 7 Supervisor McPeak commented that the site in reference is within the Briones Hills Preserve and it is the Board' s intent to not develop that for residential use. Mr. Draper advised that they are aware of the Briones Hill Preserve, and are willing to work with the Board to come up with whatever land uses are appropriate for that area. Supervisor Powers commented that the property owner had indicated to this Board that they had no plans then or in the future to authorize that the property should be used for a landfill site. He inquired if Mr. Draper had authority to indicate the use intended for the land in question. Mr. Draper advised that his group is aware that C & H has taken the position that they are opposed to construction of a dump on- that property and they did not enter into an agreement to buy that property with the intention of placing a landfill on that site, that they are not waste haulers nor landfill operators, but the reality of the situation is that certain members of the Board have expressed concerns that a site might be eliminated. Supervisor Powers inquired if they are proposing a site. Mr. Draper responded that Franklin Associates is not proposing to do a landfill on the site. Supervisor Torlakson advised that he was making the announcement that he feels .it should be examined as a viable option. Mr. Stremel requested that he be allowed to respond to the easements at Bay Pointe and declared that the real facts will be addressed in the future and that he did not agree with Supervisor Torlakson' s interpretations of any easements as far as the Navy is concerned. Supervisor Torlakson advised that there were no more speaker cards and seeing a consensus, the public discussion period would be closed. Supervisor Torlakson commented that the issue is highly emotional and everybody who is involved directly feels very strongly about it. He stated his concerns about siting a landfill close to homes and parks and a city environment. He commented that the voters had spoken more favorably about the Marsh Creek, and the Superdump sites, but that in his opinion the Supersite will run into persistent opposition from the city. He declared that the Cummings Skyway site should be looked at. He urged the Board to let the EIR on the Marsh Creek site proceed. He indicated that he favors regional sites. Supervisor Powers commented that every dumpsite is going to have some problems. He noted that he had received a notice of hearing scheduled for December 13 , 1988 on the EIR for the. Central Landfill, that he was and is a supporter of the landfill sites that have gone through the process, the East County Landfill site and the Kirker Pass site, and the only reason he'd be willing to support something else is to have more than one site that has a reasonable opportunity to get through the process. Supervisor' McPeak advised that the Board needs to give direction today, that she has concerns that if the door is closed on some options by saying that other sites will not be considered, it would allow the opposition to consolidate its effort on just one location, and it appeared that no matter what decision is made, for whichever site or sites, the Board will be sued. Supervisor McPeak thereupon moved as follows: 8 1. That the Board declare its intent to favorably consider the approval of the Bailey Road site application should it meet the test of the EIR review and successfully complete the public hearing process, and direct staff to appropriately process the application that has been initiated. 2. Indicate that should the Bailey Road site application be expanded to include additional land acreage,. it should not include the Kirker Pass site for the purpose of a working face as part of any enlarged Bailey Road operation. 3 . That in the interest of competition and maintaining options , the Board declare its intent to favorably consider Bay Pointe and Marsh Canyon should they meet the test of environmental impact review and successfully complete the public hearing process. 4. That the Board on its own motion will not further consider the Garaventa site unless not one of the other sites is successfully approved and sited. Supervisor Torlakson suggested adding "or some other alternative that might eventually emerge," and called for a second to the motion. Supervisor Powers declared he would second the motion if it did not include the addition of "or some other alternative that might eventually emerge. " Supervisor McPeak declared that her motion did not include the additional. wording, but the motion does not preclude sites coming forward, that no matter what the action is today, if an applicant brings brings forward an application consistent with the Board' s process, it should be the direction to staff to proceed in providing due process to that applicant, no matter what the Board declares as its intent. Supervisor Fanden declared that she supports part one and two of the motion and does not support parts three and four. She advised that she cannot support the two landfill sites that do not have environmental impact reports. She advised that she supports the Supersite, but could also still support the Garaventa site and the Kirker Pass site. She urged the Board to vote for the Bailey "Supersite" whether is is called Supersite, Central Site, or Bailey Site . She noted that the local haulers support the Supersite, and the Sierra Club favors the Central Super site. Supervisor Fanden moved to approve the Supersite, thereby bifurcating Supervisor McPeak' s four-part motion, and approving the Central Supersite in a separate motion. Supervisor Powers commented that only the Bailey Road site of the sites in the motion has an EIR, that the Supersite does not have an EIR, so there is some distinction. Supervisor Fanden advised that she accepted that distinction. Board members discussed the various sites, which had EIR' S, and which had the most support and support from the cities. Supervisor Torlakson advised that he is adamantly opposed to those sites which are close to both homes and sensitive environments. He stated that he felt in unfair that all of the sites have been focused and located in East County, stating that there are viable alternative sites, such as the Cummings Skyway available for West Contra Costa County. Supervisor Torlakson then called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: 9 AYES: Supervisors Powers and McPeak NOES: Supervisors Fanden and Torlakson ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder Supervisor McPeak advised that she would like to reintroduce the motion and then take it in a bifurcated fashion, and so moved. Supervisor Fanden stated that she would be happy to second parts one and two of the motion, one being favorable consideration of the approval of the Bailey Road site should it meet the test of an EIR review and successfully complete the public hearing process, and two, should the Bailey Road site be expanded to include additional land acreage, it should not include the Kirker Pass for the purpose of a working face as part of any enlarged Bailey Road operation. Supervisor Torlakson called the question on parts one and two, and the vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden and McPeak NOES: Supervisor Torlakson ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder Supervisor Powers suggested that part- three of the motion be divided into 3a and 3b, 3a being Bay Pointe and 3B being Marsh Canyon. Supervisor McPeak restated the motion for 3A indicating that it is, in the interest of competition and maintaining options, to declare intent to favorably consider Bay Pointe should it meet the test of the EIR review and successfully complete the public hearing process. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Powers, and the vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisor Powers and McPeak NOES: Supervisors Fanden and Torlakson ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder Supervisor Torlakson advised that 3b is the consideration of the Marsh Canyon-Marsh Creek area site at the Foskett ranch in the same context as 3A. He asked for a motion to put it on the floor. Supervisor McPeak so moved, as part of the bifurcated motion. Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson NOES: Supervisors Powers and Fanden ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder Supervisor Torlakson restated the fourth part of the bifurcated motion as follows: Declare intent not further consider the Garaventa site unless not one of the other sites is successfully approved and sited. Supervisor Fanden requested that the motion be changed to be a little more positive and suggested some wording, which was seconded by Supervisor Powers. Supervisor Torlakson advised that Supervisor McPeak has a motion on the floor and asked for a second to that motion. Hearing no second, Supervisor Torlakson declared the motion had died for lack of a second. Supervisor Powers then moved to declare intent to consider the Garaventa site should the other site not be acceptable. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Fanden. 10 Supervisor McPeak advised that she had very carefully chosen the words for this part of the motion and requested the motion be as she originally submitted. Supervisor Fanden agreed to accept the language as outlined by Supervisor McPeak, and the vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, and McPeak NOES: Supervisor Torlakson. ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder Supervisor McPeak clarified the last item added to the bifurcated motion, as suggested by County Counsel, as follows: That any other applications that are pending or are hereinafter filed, if it the EIR is completed and they meet the same appropriate standards, that the Board will consider those at that time on their merits and make a decision on them, and the decisions made this day do not foreclose taking action on and approving more than one site. The Board by consensus agreed to add that statement to the approved motions. Supervisor McPeak then requested the Board approve her suggestion to have the Board in cooperation and consultation with Acme Fill, assist with the pursual before the State Water Resources Control Board of the appeal that Acme has filed on the denial by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for consideration of an extension of Acme and proper mitigation with wetlands. Supervisor Fanden seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows. AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder hereby certify that this is a true and correct coily ct, an action taken and entered on the minutes of itio Board of Supervisor"son the date shown.l ATTESTED: / t , /9 PHIL BATCHELOR,Cierk of the hoard of Supervisors and County Administrator By •Deputy CC: District Offices of Board of Supervisors Community Development County Administrator County Counsel Fred Caploe, Esq. Attorney for the City of Pittsburg 2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 360 Martinez, CA 94553 Linda Callon, Esq. Attorney for the City of Antioch, East Bay Regional Parks and Contra Costa Water Dist. 99 Almaden Blvd, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Jonathan Cohen, Esq. 1646 N. California Blvd. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tom Stewart 560 Railroad Ave, , Suite 204 Hercules, CA 94547 Mary Lou Lucas, Waste Management, Inc., 1801 Oakland Blvd. , Rm 250 Walnut Creek 94596 Ro Aguilar East Bay Municipal Utility District 11500 Skyline Blvd. Oakland, CA 94619 1l