The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 01101989 - 2.2 ti as THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on January 10, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers , Fanden, and McPeak _ I NOES: Sunervisor_Torlakson ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: TIMETABLE TO COMPLETE COUNTY) Resolution No. 89/21 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ) 1. State law requires each county to prepare a County Solid Waste Management Plan. The Plan must be approved by the Board `of Supervisors, a majority of the cities containing a majority of the incorporated population, and the California Waste Management Board. 2. Approval of the Plan is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The County has determined, with the concurrence of the California Waste Management Board, that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. 3 . In accordance with State law, the Plan must show eight years of continuous landfill capacity. This can be shown by use of the existing capacity at remaining landfills, reserved sites (sites that have a General Plan Amendment as well as being identified in the Plan) , and fully-executed waste export agreements with other counties. 4. The Board of Supervisors has reaffirmed its support for the Keller-Bailey landfill. 5. Contra Costa County is currently in the process of obtaining agreements for waste export with other counties, including Alameda and Solano Counties. 6. Contra Costa County and the California Waste Management Board have determined that a timetable showing completion of the Solid Waste Management Plan along with completion of export agreements and General Plan Amendments for reserved sites is necessary. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: 1. This Board will expedite completion of the County Solid Waste Management Plan, the General Plan Amendment for the Keller-Bailey landfill site in accordance with the attached timetable. 2 . County staff is directed to channel staff resources and consultants to ensure that the timetable is met. 3 . Staff is requested to report to the Board of Supervisors on a regular basis progress in meeting the timetable and to update and adjust the timetable as necessary. 4. Staff is directed to transmit this timetable and its updates to the California Waste Management Board, counties we are discussing waste export agreements with, and other public agencies within Contra Costa County. Orig. Dept. : Community Development DO: jal3 :sw.brd cc: County Administrator California Waste Management Board via CDD Solid Waste Commission via CDD t hereby certify that this is a true.and correct copy of Cities and Sanitary Districts via CDD an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of supervisors on the date shown. Alameda County, via CDD Solano County, via CDD ATTESTED: PHI ATCHELOR, ert<of the Board of Supervisors and County Adm.nistrator By ,Dopul" Resolution No. 89/ 21 2/10 LANDFILL PLANS AND PROJECTS PROCESSING TIMETABLES 1989 COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Revised County Solid Waste Management Plan January 17, 1989. . . . Start Technical Revisions January 29, 1989. . . . Complete Technical Revisions February 1, 1989. . . . Review Technical Revisions with County Solid Waste Commission. Schedule additional meetings if necessary. August 2, 1989. . . . . . Schedule Board of Supervisors' hearing I August 15, 1989. . . . . Board of Supervisors' public hearing on County SWMP. Board of Supervisors' decision on County SWMP. 1989 County SWMP-GPA Environmental Impact Report January 17, 1989. . . . Begin Preparation of EIR Notice of Preparation January 23, 1989. . . . Complete EIR NOP, hand-deliver to State Clearinghouse (initiate 30-day comment period, starting 1/24/89) January 24, 1989. . . . Execute consultant contract (;Boa.rd. of. Superv:isor.$). February 23, 1989. . . EIR Notice of Preparation comment period ends. (Revise consultant contract, if necessary. ) March 23, 1989. . . . . . Draft EIR summary table due from consultants April 12, 1989. . . . . . Arrange printing April 24, 1989. . . . . . Administrative Draft EIR due from consultant April 30, 1989. . . . . . Complete staff review of administrative Draft EIR May 8, 1989. . . . . . . . . Receive camera-ready circulation Draft EIR from consultant; deliver to printer May 10, 1989. . . . . . . . Deliver publication notice to newspapers May 15, 1989. . . . . . . . Receive DEIR from printer, hand-deliver DEIR and EIR Notice of Completion to State Clearinghouse, distribute DEIR June 21, 1989. . . . . . . Public hearing on DEIR before Zoning Administrator June 30, 1989. . . . . . . Close of DEIR comment period July 14, 1989. . . . . . . Receive Administrative Draft of Final EIR Response Document • 2. • July 19, 1989. . . . . . . Arrange printing July 20, 1989. . . . . . . Return comments to consultant July 26, 1989. . . . . . . Receive camera-ready FEIR Response Document from consultant, deliver to printer, schedule Board of Supervisors hearing. August 7, 1989. . . . . . Receive FEIR Response Document from printer, distribute document, draft findings August 7, 1989. . . . . . Zoning Administrator action on FEIR, FEIR and County SWMP transmitted to Board of Supervisors August 15, 1989. . . . . Board of Supervisors' final certification of FEIR. Public hearing on County SWMP, decision on County SWMP. Adoption of CEQA findings. August 16, 1989. . . . . File CEQA Notice of Determination, transmit FEIR to cities. September 15, 1989. . Close of NOD legal challenge period (November 14, 1989. . Close of 90-day referral of County SWMP to cities) LANDFILL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Landfill General Plan Amendments January 17, 1989. . . Prepare initial project descriptions for joint CoSWMP GPA's EIR January 20, 1989. . . Complete initial project descriptions (March 1, 1989. . . . . Receive complete Comprehensive Project Descriptions from Bay Pointe, Keller-Bailey, and Marsh Canyon landfill projects. ) (July 25, 1989. . . . . Complete drafts of General Plan Amendments, staff reports, and hearing notices. ) August 1, 1989. . . . . Transmit public hearing notices to newspapers. Distribute hearing notices, GPA's and staff reports. (August 14, 1989. . . Complete drafts of findings. ) August 15, 1989. . . . County Planning Commission hearings on General Plan Amendments. August 16, 1989. . . . County Planning Commission hearings on General Plan Amendments. • 3. • August 17, 1989. . . . County Planning Commission hearings on General Plan Amendments. August 18, 1989. . . . Schedule Board of Supervisors hearings. September 12, 1989. County Planning Commission adoption of findings. September 19, 1989. Board of Supervisors hearings on General Plan Amendments. September 20, 1989. Board of Supervisors hearings on General Plan Amendments. September 21, 1989. Board of Supervisors hearings on General Plan Amendments. September 26, 1989. Board of supervisors adoption of findings. September 27, 1989. File CEQA Notices of Determination. October 26, 1989. . . Close of Notices of Determination legal challenge period. LANDFILL PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS Landfill Project Permits and Approvals (October 3, 1988. . . . Marsh Canyon Landfill Comprehensive Project Description submitted) (October 26, 1988. . . Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill Comprehensive Project Description submitted) (November 4, 1988. . . Bailey Road Landfill . Comprehensive Project Description submitted, will be revised and re-submitted as the Keller Canyon Landfill ) March 1, 1989. . . . . . Assumed date when complete information requested of applicants will be submitted. March 15, 1989. . . . . Assumed date when staff will determine Comprehensive Project Descriptions are complete and will accept entitlement applications (except Agricultural Preserve Cancellation) . Starting 1-year processing timeline (for Land Use Permits) under Permit Streamlining Act requirements. December 12, 1989. . County Planning Commission public hearings on landfill entitlements. December 13, 1989. . County Planning Commission public hearings on landfill entitlements. • 4. • December 14, 1989. . County Planning Commission public hearings on landfill entitlements. December 15, 1989. . Schedule Board of Supervisors hearings. January 9, 1990. . . . County Planning Commission adoption of findings. January 20, 1990. . . Board of Supervisors hearings on landfill entitlements. January 21, 1990. . . Board of Supervisors hearings on landfill entitlements. January 22, 1990. . . Board of Supervisors hearings on landfill entitlements. February 13., 1990. . . Board of Supervisors adoption of findings. Landfill Project Environmental Impact Reports March 15, 1989. . . . . Issue CEQA Notice of Preparation (commence 30-day comment period) . March 17, 1989. . . . . Transmit EIR consultant Requests for Proposal . April 14, 1989. . . . . Conclusion of CEQA comment (scoping) period. May 16, 1989. . . . . . . Scope of services development. Consultant selection. Board of Supervisors' approval of'consultant contracts. Initiate preparation of DEIR Administrative Draft. July 14, 1989. . . . . . Draft EIR Summary Table due from consultants. August 14, 1989. . . . Submission of DEIR. August 15, 1989. . . . Arrange for printing DEIR. August 21, 1989. . . . Complete staff review of DEIR Administrative Draft. September 5, 1989. . Receive camera-ready circulation draft EIR from consultant; deliver to printer. September 6., 1989. Deliver publication notices to newspapers. September 13, 1989. Receive DEIR. Hand-deliver to State Clearinghouse with CEQA Notice of Completion (commences 45-day review period) . Distribute DEIR. October 18, 1989. . . Public hearings for DEIR before Zoning Administrator. October 30, 1989. . . Close of DEIR comment period. November 13, 1989. . Receive Administrative Draft of Final EIR Response Document from consultant. .. i • 5• • November 15, 1989. . Arrange printing, schedule County Planning Commission hearings. November 16, 1989. . Return comments to consultants. November 22, 1989. . Receive camera-ready copies from consultants. Deliver to printer. November 30, 1989. . Receive Response Documents from printer. Distribute FEIRs. December 7, 1989. . . Zoning Administrator action on FEIRs, FEIRs transmitted to County Planning Commission. December 12, 1989. . County Planning Commission considered FEIRs in acting on landfill projects. January 21, 1990. . . Board of Supervisors final certification of FEIR prior to consideration of landfill projects. February 13, 1990. . Final decisions on landfill projects. Adoption of CEQA findings. February 14, 1990. . Filing of CEQA Notices of Determination. CAZ/jn 164:timeline.doc 2. 2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on ,January 10, 1989,, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: (See Below for Vote) ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Referrals on Solid Waste Disposal Supervisor Torlakson convened the discussion on the report of the Director of Community Development relative to referrals on solid waste disposal as .requested by the Board at its meeting of December 20 , 1988 . Supervisor Schroder removed himself from participating in the discussion and voting on this matter because of a possible conflict of interest over a business association. Charles Zahn of the Community Development Department summarized the report and the five recommendations contained therein. A copy of that report is attached and included as a part of this document. Eric Hasseline, representing Waste Management Inc. , expressed agreement with the procedure for processing 'landfill applications as set forth in the attached report. He requested that the pro- posed process be applied equally to all applications. Avon Wilson, Chair, County Solid Waste Management Commission, requested that the CEQA process be followed and .inquired of the role of the Commission in the procedures being proposed by staff." Fred Caploe, attorney representing the City of Pittsburg, 2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 360, Martinez 94553 , referred to his December 13 , 1988 , letter to the Board of Supervisors and stated his belief that because of a change in the project description a new and complete Environmental Impact report needs to be prepared for the Bailey-Keller Central "Supersite. " He advised that he could not support the recommendations proposed by staff on this issue. Tom Stewart, Land Waste Management, 560 Railroad Avenue, Hercules, expressed concern with the environmental review process being-proposed by staff. He requested that he made a party to discussions with the State Solid Waste Commission and the County. He also requested that all applicants be treated equally in the landfill application process. David Tamm, Sierra Club, expressed support for the "Supersite" and requested adherence to the Solid Waste Disposal Facility Implementation Schedule once approved by the Board. Everett Jenkins, City of Richmond and West Contra Costa ,Solid Waste Management Authority, advised that his agency had some concerns with the County Solid Waste Management Plan. All persons desiring to speak were heard. Supervisor Torlakson advised that he had some concerns with voting on all the recommendations and proposed that they be separated into two motions. Board members agreed. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations No. 1 and No. 5 are APPROVED as presented on the attached report. AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Recommendations Nos. 2, 3 , and 4, including the adoption of Resolution No. 89/21, as presented in the attached report are APPROVED. AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak NOES: Supervisor Torlakson ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder It IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Director of Community Develop- ment is REQUESTED to recommend consistent terminology for the Bailey-Keller General Plan and Project area. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the Director of Community Development is REQUESTED to report to the Board on January 17 , 1989 on the schedule for development of the County's Solid Waste Management Plan. AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder 1 hereby curt€fy=thnt tt,E3 1z- ,q trace and corr.^A,_,wp of ars action taken and enterers on the minutco c the Board of Super; ors on the Cate shown. ATTESTD: � � PHIL B a CHE�.CP, erk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator cc: Director, CDD County Counsel By —y�v �J , Deputy County Administrator TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Contra Director of Community Development C^sta DATE'. January 9 , 1989 County Coun SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO v�� "r THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR` S DECEMBER 20, 1988 REFERRALS ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . County Solid Waste Management Plan a. Withdraw the 1988 County Solid Waste Management Plan (COSWMP) until an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared on it. (Staff will notify the cities to discontinue their consideration of the 1988 CoSWMP until it can be revised, re-adopted by the Board, and re-circulated with an EIR. ) b. Authorize. the Community Development Department to develop an Environmental Impact Report for the CoSWMP. ( Staff is prepared to start immediately. ) 2 . Bailey-Central ''Supersite" General Plan Amendment* a. Authorize the Community Development Department to prepare and process a General Plan Amendment to provide for the consideration of a refuse disposal facility( ies) within the Bailey-Central "Supersite" area. (This authorization would supersede the Board' s October 4, 1988 , direction to process a similar General Plan Amendment for the Central Landfill site within the "Supersite. " b. Authorize the Community Development Department to develop an Environmental Impact Report on the Bailey-Central "Supersite" General Plan Amendment. *For the purposes of this Amendment, the "Supersite" will not include the 480-acre Kirker Pass Waste- Managemdh ' " Landfill property. It will consist of the 1, /40-acre Elworth parcels and the 1,013-acre Keller Estate parcels. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATU RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM ATION O B AR COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): AC ON OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 EBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES' NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SU ISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELOR, RK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CO Y ADMINISTRATOR M3 -83 BY DEPU 3 . Keller Landfill General Plan Amendment Request a. Authorize County staff to review the County General Plan as pertains to the Keller Estate properties, pursuant to the December 13 , 1988, request of Boyd Olney, Jr. b. Affirm the intent of the Board of supervisors to approve a Bailey Road-Keller landfill project, provided it is found to meet environmental and regulatory requirements, because such a project would be consistent with the Board' s November 10, 1988 , policy to support a Bailey Road landfill. 4. Solid Waste Disposal Facility Implementation Schedule a. Approve the attached Solid Waste Disposal Facility Implementation schedule as an expression of the Board of Supervisor' s intention to obtain a minimum of eight years of assured short-term solid waste - disposal capacity (through 1996) for the County soid Waste Management Plan, including approving a new sanitary landfill in time for it to become operational by 1992. b. Adopt the attached resolution transmitting the Solid Waste Disposal Facility Implementation schedule, and confirming the Board' s intention to meet the schedule, to the California Waste Management Board. 5 . Consultant CEQA Technical Assistance Authorize the Director of Community Development to execute a contract with a qualified consultant to provide technical assistance to staff for the preparation of documents necessary to initiate landfill project Environmental Impact Reports. COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Background California law requires each County to have a County Solid Waste Management Plan which has been adopted by the County, a majority of its cities with a majority of the incorporated area' s population, and the California Waste Management, .Board (CWMB) . The 198 / update of the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) was rejected by the CWMB on January 13 , 1988, primarily because it did not demonstrate eight years of assured disposal capacity (which would have required at least one new landfill site or executed export agreement) . According to the CWMB' s rules, the old CoSWMP (the 1982 plan in our case) does not remain in effect when an update is rejected. By late summer, the CWMB had referred Contra Costa County' s lack of a plan to the state' s Attorney General and expressed a disinclination to approve the Solid Waste Facilities Permit (operating permit) for the Acme Interim Transfer Station. In response, the Board of Supervisors on October 18, 1988, adopted a new version of the CoSWMP, using a CEQA Emergency Declaration (need for a transfer station) , and referred it to the cities. On October 21, 1988, the CWMB approved the operating permit for the transfer station. The 1988 version of the CoSWMP included five landfill locations which could become "Reserved" sites in the plan when the respective sites also are amended in the County General Plan. 2. Subsequent to the Board of Supervisor' s adoption of the 1988 CoSWMP, however, representatives of the CWMB and its staff (on December 16, 1988) indicated to County representatives that they would disapprove the 1988 CoSWMP when it came to them because of dissatisfaction with how the plan showed eight years of assured capacity and its use of the CEQA Emergency Declaration. The CWMB' s expression of December 16th leaves no practicable option (except legal action) other than withdrawing the 1988 version of the plan which is now before the cities - the cities will be reluctant to approve a plan they know the CWMB will reject - and to further revise it and develop an Environmental Impact Report for it. (Rejection of the CEQA Emergency Declaration leaves only an EIR or a. Negative Declaration as the remaining means of CEQA documentation, but the necessary findings cannot be made for a Negative Declaration. ) The EIR that staff proposes to develop for the CoSWMP would be a "program" EIR. This EIR would be focused on the effects of policies -and programs, as is appropriate for an EIR on a Countywide policy planning document. Staff further proposes that the EIR' s _alternatives _section include a -''master" site alternatives environmental evaluation, which would be used for subsequent General Plan Amendment and disposal facility project Environmental Impact Reports. The "master" site evaluation would utilize existing project EIR' s (Central, Kirker, _East Contra Costa, and Acme Transfer Station) and project Comprehensive Project Description materials (Bailey-Keller, Bay Pointe, Marsh Canyon, etc. ) . Since most of the source materials are already available (CoSWMP, EIR' s, CPD' s) , and critics of the recent CoSWMP and related Central Landfill GPA processes already have expressed their views, staff proposes to start immediately after Board authorization to start the CEQA process. A CEQA Notice of Preparation can be circulated within a few days. An initial consultant contract can be brought before the Board in two weeks and revised as necessary when the scoping period (NOP comment period) has been completed in about 30 days. Staff estimates that it will take about four months to circulate a Draft EIR on the CoSWMP, and an elapsed time of six-nine months for the new CoSWMP (and its EIR) to come before the Board of Supervisors for adoption. It would then have to go to the cities for their approvals ( 90 days allowed by law) .and: then to the CWMB ( 90 days allowed by law) . Financial Impacts The cost of the program EIR is not available at this time. The proposed consultant has been asked to prepare an estimate to be used as the basis for a beginning contract, but the ultimate cost would depend on the outcome of the CEQA scoping process. The County would have to cover the initial costs of the consultant' s services and staff and out-of-pocket costs (e.g. printing and distribution) , but the costs would be recoverable through increased solid waste planning surcharges on refuse disposal. 3 . BAILEY-CENTRAL "SUPERSITE" GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Background The Board of Supervisors on October 4, 1988, initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the approximately 1,740-acre area known as the Central Landfill (named after a landfill project by that name which was withdrawn in 1986) . The Board' s initiation of the GPA was generally consistent with its earlier action to place the Bailey-Central "Supersite'' on the November 8th ballot as an advisory measure (the Central Landfill area constituted over half of the "Supersite" area) and with its action on October 18th to include the "Supersite'' in the 1988 version of the County Solid Waste Management Plan as an intended Reserved Site - the latter requiring commensurate designation in the County General Plan for "Reserved" status. The proposed Central Landfill also would be generally consistent with the Board' s November 1U , 1988, statement of intent to approve a "Bailey Road landfill" inasmuch as a proposed landfill project ( submitted November 4, 1988) fell within the "Supersite'' and the Central Landfill areas. The Central Landfill General Plan Amendment was intended to use the 1986 Central Landfill EIR for CEQA documentation. The 1986 Central Landfill EIR addressed a General Plan Amendment for the site as one of several entitlement actions. Accordingly, staff recirculated the 1986 Central Landfill EIR - as a Draft EIR - and scheduled it for a hearing before the County Planning Commission on December 13 , 1988. State and County guidelines call for a 45-day period for the receipt of comments on a Draft EIR. Coincidentally, on December 13, 1988, the option-holder for the "Supersite, " Boyd Olney, Jr. , submitted a letter to the Board of Supervisors announcing his intent to submit an application for a landfill on the Keller Estate property and requesting Board authorization for staff to review the County General Plan for the property. The new landfill would be a dominant addition to Mr. Olney' s previously-submitted (November 4, 1988) Bailey Road Landfill. The County Planning Commission began the public hearing on the Central Landfill GPA' s Environmental Impact Report by hearing Staff ' s report and questioning staff, but it did, not open the hearing to take public testimony. Instead, the Commission decided that the EIR was outdated and inadequate, and it decided to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Board initiate a General Plan Amendment for the "Supersite"" and prepare an Environmental Impact—Report for the entire site. The consequence of the County Planning Commission' s not holding the public hearing on -December 13th is that the -public comment process specified in CEQA, the State' s CEQA Guidelines, and the County' s CEQA Guidelines, was not carried out. Although the State does not require a public hearing to be held, the Contra Costa County process utilizes a public hearing to obtain oral comments on a Draft EIR -(to complement written comments) as a matter of practice. No opportunity to take oral comments was provided - prior to the -closing of the comment period on December 23 , 1988, nor, did the circumstances allow for the comment period to be extended, and the hearing rescheduled, by December 23rd since the Board' s designated hearing body (the County Planning Commission in this case) had declined to hear the matter. 4. The situation is further complicated by the submission of. the Boyd Olney letter on the Keller landfill on December 13 , 1988 . Staff _is of the opinion that announcement of this project would have warranted the preparation of a supplement to the Central Landfill EIR, requiring the issuance, review, and hearing of an additional CEQA document, because a project there was likely and the Keller Estate area (about 1,000 acres) was not included or addressed in the Central Landfill EIR. In effect, the Board-initiated GPA would then have to cover Central-Keller instead of only the Central Landfill area. However, the Central Landfill EIR supplement would have been practicable only if the Central Landfill EIR process had proceeded. Under the circumstances, staff recommends that the Central Landfill GPA and EIR not be reinstituted, but that direction and authorization be given to process a General Plan Amendment on the entire "Supersite" as a whole and to prepare a planning-level EIR on that General Plan Amendment. The EIR would be based on the Central and Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill 'EIR' s, the Bailey Road and Keller landfill submittals, and the CoSWMP EIR Alternatives Analysis described previously. It would cover the basic alternatives for developing the site for refuse disposal uses. For present purposes, staff recommends that _the 480-acre Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill property not be included in the "Supersite. " Some confusion has resulted from the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill' s recent status as a separate landfill project in the County solid Waste Management Plan and its simultaneous inclusion in the "Supersite" as a buffer-only area. Excluding it from the "Supersite" would leave it to be considered as a separate landfill project. Since most of the source material for the General Plan Amendment and the EIR is already available (Keller landfill material would be available in about a month) , staff is prepared to start immediately on processing them. It is estimated that it would take about five months to bring the EIR to public hearing, and about seven-nine months before the GPA (and its EIR) would bE before the Board of Supervisors for decision. Financial Impacts Staff has requested the consulting firm which prepared the Central Landfill EIR to submit an initial scope, of services for the "Supersite" EIR as a basis for a beginning contract. As was the case with the Solid Waste Management Plan EIR, the ultimate cost would depend on the results of the mandatory CEQA scoping process. Because the County would be initiating the General Plan Amendment for the "Supersite" area, it would have to bear the costs of processing the GPA and its EIR. However, staff believes that the costs would be essentially recoverable from the landfill project applicant who would not have to apply for another GPA and whose EIR requirements for the project would be lessened by the "Supersite'' EIR. 5. KELLER LANDFILL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST Background The Board of Supervisors authorizes General Plan Amendments. Since July of 1984, it has been the Board' s policy to authorize staff to commence the processing of General Plan Amendment requests for landfill projects submitted by the private sector. "Authorizing staff to review the County General Plan as it pertains to the proposed project" sanctions staff effort without having to identify the particular components of the County General Plan which may require modifications at an early stage - although, it is certain that the Land Use Element will have to be amended because State law requires waste disposal facilities to be designated there and the County General Plan does not pre-designate new landfill sites. The request for authorization to review the County General Plan for the Keller Landfill property was submitted to the Board of Supervisors by Boyd Olney, Jr. , on December 13 , 1988, as part of a letter of intent to proceed with a sanitary landfill on the Keller Estate property within the Bailey Central "Supersite. " On December 20, 1988, the Board referred it to staff for comment. Authorization of the General Plan Amendment would be consistent with the Board' s long-standing policy to accept such requests. It would be consistent with the Board' s previous authorization of a similar request for the Bailey Road Landfill on the adjoining Elworthy property (Canyon 1 on the Central Landfill site) within the Bailey-Central "Supersite. " And, it would implement the Board' s November 10, 1988, statement of intent to favorably consider a landfill in this area. Initiation of the General Plan review would be contingent on staff ' s acceptance of a Comprehensive Project Description for the Keller Landfill. The sponsor indicates that initial materials may be ready within a month, and that a complete report may be submitted within two months. Acceptance of the Comprehensive, Project Description would initiate the preparation of a project-level Environmental Impact Report. The recommendation that the Board of Supervisors affirm its intention to approve a Bailey Road-Keller landfill project, subject to the same qualifications that it attached to its November 10, 1988, statement of intent to approve the Bailey Road Landfill, is included here for two reasons. The first is that some parties supporting or in agreement with a long-term landfill on the western side of the Supersite" were concerned that lack of such a commitment could result in the location of a landfill in the central or eastern portions of the "Supersite" in a few years. The second reason relates to Recommendations 4a and 4b with respect to demonstrating a policy commitment to the development of a new landfill within the County in the next few years. Financial Impacts The costs of a project EIR as well as those for processing a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Land Use Permit are paid by the applicant. 6. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Background During a set of meetings between the Attorney General ' s staff and the California waste Management Board staff with, first, Alameda and Contra .Costa County staffs (on waste export arrangements) and, second with Supervisors Fanden and McPeak and County staff, the CWMB staff asked for an implementable schedule for developing a County Solid Waste Management Plan and achieving adequate refuse disposal capacity. The CWMB staff indicated that they would consider the schedule - and, perhaps ask for changes or clarification - and discuss it with their Board. If accepted, it might become part of a compliance agreement between the State and the County. The components of the implementation schedule are, primarily, the schedules for the processing of the County Solid Waste Management Plan (Recommendation 1, above) , the "Supersite" General Plan Amendment (Recommendation 2, above) , and the Bailey Road-Keller Landfill project (Recommendation 3 , above) , together with export schedules and landfill processing schedules. Financial Impacts only routine administrative costs are involved with implementing this item. CONSULTANT CEQA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Background Supervisors have asked staff for recommendations for assistance as the refuse disposal workload has grown in recent months . The recommendations have not included requests for consultant assistance for day-to-day work primarily because no consultants who were familiar with the Community Development Department' s routine work were available for assistance, but also because no body of tasks could be singled-out for a work contract. The situation has changed, however, and the Department is now recommending that a consultant who has recently become available be hired to develop documents which will be needed to process several refuse disposal projects and also are proposed to be used in the preparation of the County Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Impact Report described above. Staff proposes to have the consultant develop the CEQA documents for the Notices of Preparation for the Bailey Road-Keller Landfill, the Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill, and the Marsh Canyon Landfill. The Notice of Preparation materials include routine forms and notices, but the part justifying the use of the consultant is the development of extended Initial Study documents which initially identify potential impacts of the project and are critical to the scoping of the projects ' Environmental Impact Reports. The extended Initial Studies are based on detailed reviews of the applicants' Comprehensive Project Descriptions. Staff also proposes that the extended project CEQA Initial Studies be used in the development of the site alternatives analysis in the County Solid Waste Management Plan' s Environmental Impact Report. 7 . If the Comprehensive Project Description for a West County waste processing and transfer station is submitted in the next several weeks, staff may request the consultants contract to be amended to include the development of CEQA Notice of Preparation materials for it as well. Financial Impacts The County would have to initially bear the costs of the consultants services. However, the costs should be recoverable through pro-rating them to the 25% staff services surcharge imposed on consultant contracts for the Environmental Impact Reports for the waste disposal facility projects. CAZ: jal jl3 :rec.brd Attachments: Implementation Schedule Resolution cc: California Waste Management Board Disposal Facility Applicants via CDD Contra Costa County Planning Commission via CDD Contra Costa County Solid Waste Commission via CDD County Administrator County Counsel County Health Services Department Contra Costa County Cities and Franchising Districts via CDD 8. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on January 9, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUBJECT: TIMETABLE TO COMPLETE COUNTY) Resolution No. 89j SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN j 1 . State law requires each county to prepare a County Solid Waste Management Plan. The Plan must be approved by the Board of Supervisors, a majority of the cities containing a majority of the incorporated population, and the California Waste Management Board. 2. Approval of the Plan is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The County has determined, with the concurrence of the California Waste Management Board, that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. 3 . In accordance with State law, the Plan must show eight years of continuous landfill capacity. This_ can be shown by use of the existing capacity at remaining landfills, reserved sites ( sites that have a General Plan Amendment as well as being identified in the Plan) , and fully-executed waste export agreements with other counties. 4. The Board of Supervisors has reaffirmed its support for the Bailey Road-Keller Landfill within the Bailey-Central- "Supersite" identified in the Pian Revision. 5. Contra Costa County is currently in the process of—obtaining agreements for waste export with other counties, including Alameda and Solano Counties. 6. Contra Costa County and the California Waste Management Board have determined that a timetable showing completion of the Solid Waste Management Plan along with completion of export agreements and General Plan Amendments for reserved sites is necessary. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: 1 . This Board will expedite completion of . the .. .County,. Solid Waste Management Plan, the General Plan ^Amendment- ,for- the Bailey-Keller site in accordance with the attached timetable. 2. County staff is directed to channel staff resources and consultants to ensure that the timetable is met. 3. Staff is requested to report to the Board of Supervisors on a regular basis progress in meeting the timetable and to update and adjust the timetable as necessary. 4 . Staff is directed to transmit this timetable and its updates to the California Waste Management Board, counties we are discussing waste export agreements with, and other public agencies within Contra Costa County. Orig. Dept. : Community Development DO: jal3 :sw.brd cc: County Administrator California Waste Management Board via CDD Solid Waste Commission via CDD Cities and Sanitary Districts via CDD Alameda County, via CDD Solano County, via CDD Resolution No. 89% I I i ,So L- 1u Wa.sTE DfsvvS.er.. 1-��1� 1TM'PLI- me rye-nvNCH-r:uvL_I- i SAN i F613 ��iZ . . I A,P R, ; . ►�A'f . ► J �►� : _f JVL . AVq � 98c1 - -- -- -- ---�- ---- r -- -� i --- ---�--- i --y eloSWM P i ro F-1R i I I P••c3t.cCeMfv%G C RESPe.ISIG fEIR t Pax1I III,r16 p¢rL1bn i Poe--Jr-) 1955 C.0swrip �CEgA No P, D IQ row E' S ot•1 N c) tlacvcanoN Pv t;l_I L (FE 1 R-) ! ---- ' j q ' PILEPA1LE EIP- ADL,INItTYlbTlv4 P-4F-r fI Nee 1 I I! DRAFT i ,1 S T 1II y PA vI`%EILS,IE , _ ----- -- -- - -- - -'- - ---� - -- -- -- - - --r--- C7 6.,E•..,�L PL A.►J j ; i'r— I i � I f �'. � -I. I iPv0,�1� Ger�fMEuT PaErAlte I per>_iv,v R6SF'O/Jst , /11rPeLoVE i 1 P 0.e P,t'tl E 1 1 I Ao C-v nI g 1.r r FE I RZ IISVPERSITE GPA j ( CEQA ' NoP PEI A. R=ow CIRC Vi♦Tor.J SG_oP1Ny P4 L I e- ----- E I R ; FfE►�.i..S, PeePnRE GIIZAv►r►I,�t1 sTnArvE D.�AFT c¢q^� f root 1 .; ! -}- 13&^r-n OF SvPfnv).ro OF =orTENT . Q41 LE-i MT MAL irN ri6�ZuFo, ! f ! 1+ I i f pon. c PD R-Lv1YwED LA."pF'It-L i �a AGaE;/TED AFP,►Ie►NTIt NTI-T LLM>?NTS OF-PIS-wtc-' GPD Su$ps!MJ> i ! Q 4 t L tL Cr_WTRAL 4 y ! I i CEPA Sco P8 OR P l,laN PF ILL I NoP ! QILPAaE E 1 2 I j SwavIc)ES I , pp i I Scpo1..IS j i ADMIpiiS'TRATI+VE' E 1\ I PaR►op i DRAFT if j v Co r mob !• ►►'+L 4� NT tea{7s �OVN7� ALia.6tlnfNl' j ± j En EXporLI �oti�-- GoS w)n p Ane./l•)nLn+T (fv�r.IT'PowcZs ,bsCwC-R) i Gaal s>o2ul,t � W)+cTC ;MAyact rn(,✓> A rL c r me N-r-s ' 1 f y j i i gvAn.p �oM1�bC�LAr'DA7 / 51i..rtati Ilene L.Np_ t , iC-oubf ,Ivrn� E.5tav DJ,St►ANo 4NwN� 1 � r MUD L P2oGtSS1nl S sG!-1 t-0 V L �. FO OT,-1-erl. PfZ-D,P GtseD l /ASTL- D/S1-'.OSb&-? Pz-OJIG GT-t j - QAy Po1im ANt> ': Ma,, s)� C/atilYO)J LA/J77)_)LLS Pa-t=_V.iovsL-I SvQr+71.TrC.v Pt'+-oJE,cT--s I WES 7-. �ovlyT-f Tn-.`NsYtCn.!.$$T�-3? oAJ r A,v J 0VNce61> Pl,0Jeca � ! AsSVME ' sual"ISSIOr.) r i IF"r17-LE WlIfwTS CF ACCEPrAAL'R: Cro STAFF D12AFT ! i 2tv1EW . CEPA e-E(7 NOP hRaPAnl� Gou.��Ty►ivT -I PaEPaLe i ScoPl/H(1 I Scop aF! CONTRACT DEItt F)HV I12-O)Jkn e -6 - i P6eZ10D sr-ONItES r I FOR , S 7-1 I _ •CIRGVtATON -}..rs�hac r R.E PorsT.S i i pplePAaIE f r 1 ' NOP M.►rE21at.S I PREPAa,EIEfR. ADIMINLSTRATIVLc DRaFr . i ----- - 2uxe=-tv E (,n Ti>_nuSml s.rl ! ! ! . L pp No P Cegp Notice- dr P�EP.��a s, oiJ �. �.,TtaJr� To QzEI?AsI E i relo C Nmc Dr Cor�_Pt.&-r-7cid D-EIn Com PL-*rXD) 4 ( j , Npl� L� /� hl.encL OF DLZT'�)ZYn)Aj&T-70A1 (PruoaccT- "1er"e)LI-; vr-0 Det 2 D2,. r T . JV)2pMr,n74?vT/L . MPbc"y- RIE ?ORT; �GIR�CVL.t,Pt�)1 DJ2/,1=TJ mw FE-1 IL F)Ni E ) R (VSvt.ct,y ) DEI2 PL.vI p-es PoNSI= DOLvr.1It04 C.cc c_ r.> )D. i ! Ft c vrz . SEP Ocr Nov DEC i JAN.. ._! FES �S MA11 APR !. ( MA-1 ! JUN' 13os+t_p Or I Su PC 4 V Is 0&tx ' ONSIDE R6TDU I l i li To GITEi. (go^Db,l MwK►Mvw+ ".To GAL11=0A.Nt6 Wa.aril- /✓)6i96CK�+nti.7 QQVI$W PCtilb� ) i600%n0 CSO-Dap6n lOI pPVBLIC r 1 r - - -- �► la RtSpoPjpa1-v- ACeoc-i 5S FELE CEJA NO.D 1 t C.aVNT`, -PIONUIUC 1 ' 1 I Colne 9E5I0U i t PV9L.tG Neb/L/NC� i I Z30A RD OF Sv Oi.L.NlfaRl. Aoo»t ' G0 uS1076Ji6T7 01V 1ttJVtN4i� 111 '------ - ADnPr Flr,lulN«' 4 1 , S s 'Fs Lr C990'A NOLD � . i i � COVi/Ty pLeA1NIN (I " QOAJ►.D OF SVPE.tiYlfO It " ? Goarlu tL OI=1AC✓0tV►JvI►AI,) Pll- i►LJ1EF Colts IDCt•►AT ON t C 6T�Oiu j OF Rcz oul/uti 1 FLEt OtJIlu41 LA.iuu Vit . LA.Nu USE RSran.tT "---- —0 4i 1 Euy OF Fy�A.h. , P4B L G L V P 1^i trs E - - - -- -- - - - - - -- - -- --: �►cra� Aae►-r F+Enuwsl�IS LI•..1r , Pv3LIG I { F'luaty6r I 1 PRE PA12t DEIra- Foci I ( (f I orE i ,_-r 23 Ass ci> 'T!}AT A Ro Vr . �IRcvL9TON I I ! I ' P2EP^RLE' ! APPnovL �L(?vs /1e` l> TO PvT PvOLI C CCMrt C j-r REs POki s FEiP I ! PEA-loLocuntlLtuT b O i- - - - - - — — - - — — I — A►J A,NP1x-oveDl LA�jt)FriL.L. mjrb etgq PV tsI-1 PEr 11-Q NoG 11eA►srNS ± s CEQA Nob .I OYt ,t,T7vN 1 M � a^ NerC '1 ALip►TooA.6, Expvn.T- ACar,Si» eA✓TS Alit NS ex>PLO/16Lo ,A./1 T3 OT 1?LL R- J T'7 !�S ' " " � I � � .• I I � t i _ I I I , i t ---- 10 1 I i I AC.Gcoa- ^evi..c%"CA03 F'OR. 0-rt-SCM 1L�/TITLkn'+LI NT1 ! i •I ! 1 ' jt AcGlSPTaiNC� 01= L.oua U.tE PeILl.,tr Avn Llcsrow S*-A..rt 1-'1 CA -rndL INe I p Go�yry PLANVIOC. G AommisS�O�J Acc[Fr rPLICATI SONS C_0&1 - 17E241'70N � Or- SvPeR-•VISOMS: ! i P�Qt-IG F/6V_it- S GONSIDeI'�.AT'ON ! 1 i 1 Ii t/ n t u f, —-4 PvOt-IL PRC PA 4E ' i .+ -- ! ma.Ic.F_ j .... j MILt+T PE2IZe�voNS� INV/N<S jl i II 00 DecVMKiJT j 1 PvBa.tL A POnvve IJEARIN FG12 I--_- -- — ---- — _ —_ _ _-- _—±— ; rt i 1 i 1 1 i i I I