Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10311989 - IO.5 z I.O. -5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Yr s FROM: Costa INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE n. s County DATE: October 23 1989 rq_coux� SUBJECT: MITIGATING THE IMPACTS OF WASTE DIVERSION SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECONIlEEAIDATIONS- 1. Request the Community Development Director to prepare and authorize the Chairman to sign a letter to the West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority asking that Contra Costa County be made a party to the Joint Powers Agreement which established the Authority and that the Board of Supervisors be given a seat on the Authority. 2. Request the Community Development Director and County Counsel to enter into discussions with the City Manager and City Attorney of the City of Richmond in an effort to clarify which jurisdiction has permitting authority for the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill and report the results of their conversations to the Board of Supervisors. 3 . Request the Community Development Director to supply the City of Richmond and the West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority with a copy of the Land Use Permit for the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. 4. Introduce the attached ordinance establishing a process for determining compensation to impacted communities, to be paid by benefitting communities, as mitigation for waste diversion, waive reading and fix November 7 , 1989 for adoption of the ordinance. 5. Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:YeS YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTR OR COMME ATION OF BOARD COMMITTE APPROVE O ILL _ U SIGNATURE(S): TO M POWERS SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK ACTION OF BOARD ON October 31, 1989APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I I I ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS //��ONTHE DATE SHOWN. See Page 3 CC: ATTESTED ViCiC.O'Y( 11 all ili?9 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR / DEPUTY M382 (10/88) BYE -OI� ,t BACKGROUND: On April 11, 1989 the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee a request from the Solid Waste Commission that the Board of Supervisors develop a process for implementing the policy statement which was included in the February, 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan indicating that communities benefitting from waste diversion should fairly compensate impacted communities for adverse impacts caused by the waste diversion. Our Committee met on this subject with County Counsel on July 10, 1989 and again on July 24, 1989. On August 1, 1989 the Board of Supervisors approved a report from our Committee on this subject which included some additional details which we felt ought to be included in the policy. We met again with County Counsel, as well as Everett Jenkins from the Richmond City Attorney' s Office and Mark Braley, Executive Director of the West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority on September 25, 1989 and reviewed a final draft of the policy. As a result of that meeting we recommended, and the Board on October 3 , 1989 agreed, that the final draft be circulated to the cities of Richmond, Martinez and Antioch as well as the Solid Waste Commission for their comments. We requested that these comments be supplied to our Committee in time for our meeting on October 24, 1989. On October 24, 1989 our Committee met again with County Counsel, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Braley, as well as staff from the Community Development Department. We reviewed the attached responses from the City of Richmond, West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority and Solid Waste Commission. The Solid Waste Commission asked that our Committee delay further consideration of the policy until after November 15, 1989 so that they could have the representative from the City of Antioch present at their meeting. The City of Richmond asked that the County require an environmental impact report before any waste diversion takes place and that an independent third party other than the Board of Supervisors be selected as the arbiter of any mitigation disputes between the host community and the exporting communities. The West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority also requested that an EIR be completed before any diversion takes place and that the County' s facilities permit for the West Contra Costa Landfill be amended before diversion takes place and that the City of Richmond' s current $14 per ton impact fee be recognized by any County process while negotiations over any mitigation take place. The Authority also recommends that the process should require that the final decision be submitted to binding arbitration by an impartial and competent third party. While we recognize the concerns of both the City of Richmond and the West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority we do not believe that it would be appropriate for either the Board . of Supervisors or any other permitting authority to delegate their decision-making to binding arbitration. We emphasize that the policy does not require the Board of Supervisors, per se to make the final decision. That decision will be made by the permitting authority, which may not always be the Board of Supervisors. Because of confusion regarding exactly who the permitting authority is for the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill we are asking that staff talk with the City of Richmond and attempt to resolve this question. We also believe it is appropriate and important that the County be a full partner in the West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority and are therefore recommending that the Chairman be authorized to send a letter to the Authority requesting that the County be made a partner in the Joint Powers Agreement which established the Authority. 0 We believe that it is essential that we move ahead with the adoption of the policy statement and process and are therefore recommending that an ordinance to accomplish this be introduced today, be adopted on November 7, 1989 to be effective 30 days thereafter. cc: County Administrator Community Development Director County Counsel City Manager, City of Richmond Executive Director, WCCSWMA PROCESS FOR DETERMINING COMPENSATION TO IMPACTED COMMUNITIES, TO BE PAID BY BENEFITTING COMMUNITIES, AS MITIGATION FOR WASTE DIVERSION. INTRODUCTION. The 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan, adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and ratified by the cities in accordance with Government Code section 66780 . 1, recognizes that diversion of the wastestream, i.e. , the disposal of waste at a site other than its usual or historical place of disposal, may cause significant adverse impacts upon the community surrounding the alternate receiving disposal site, and that compensation (mitigation) for the impacts is proper. However, the Plan also recognizes that the compensation should be fair to both parties, and be founded upon real impacts . It is not intended to be a revenue measure for the host community. As a result, the following policy is included in said plan: "Compensation for Impacts of Waste Diversion. Communities benefitting from waste diversions will fairly compensate impacted communities for adverse impacts (i.e. , loss of capacity, increased traffic, etc. ) caused by the waste diversion. " This document sets forth a suggested procedural guideline for determining the proper compensation to impacted communities . I. FORMAL NOTICE BY HOST COMMUNITY Whenever a community (host city or group of cities) believes that there is a possibility or likelihood that there will be a significant diversion of waste that will negatively impact the host community, the host community should provide formal written notice to the agency with permit authority over the landfill operator, requesting the permitting agency to commence negotiations with the host community, the hauler, and other potentially involved parties as to the appropriate mitigation for any negative impacts of the diversion upon the host community. Comment: The host or impacted community will be most attuned to the possibility and extent of impacts from the diversion. Therefore, the host community should initiate formal discussion. If requested, County staff will be available to provide technical assistance to communities . II . DISCUSSION The permitting agency, the host community, the hauler and other parties shall immediately commence discussions on appropriate mitigation measures . Negotiations shall be concluded within 90 days of the date the host community provided formal notice to the permitting agency requesting the commencement of negotiations . The 90-day negotiation period may be extended once for a period of 30 days, upon agreement of all involved parties . III. DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MITIGATION Whether and to what extent the host community will be negatively impacted, including appropriate mitigation measures, will be decided in accordance with the environmental review process of the California Environmental Quality Act. The parties may agree to mitigation measures in addition to those required by any environmental review document. However, all mitigation should bear a direct and reasonable relationship to impacts suffered by the host community as a result of the diversion; it is not to be a revenue measure. The cost of any mitigation measure should be separately identified on the customers' garbage bill so that customers will be informed on the reason for the additional charge. IV. SOLID WASTE COMMISSION Immediately after conclusion of the 90-day negotiaton period (or 120-day negotiation period if there has been an extension) , the issue of appropriate mitigation shall be submitted to the Solid Waste Commission for comment. In appropriate cases, the Solid Waste Commission may be requested to mediate disputes. Comment: The Solid Waste Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to advise the Board and the cities and other public agencies on solid waste issues . It is therefore appropriate for the permitting agency to seek the Commission' s input. It may also be appropriate for the Commission to attempt to mediate disputes. V. FINAL DECISION Unless parties agree otherwise, the final decision as to the appropriate mitigation to a host community for a waste diversion shall be made by the permitting agency. RECEIVED OCT 1 "E"A MAYOR George L. Livingston City of BAR* October 6, 1989 Hon. Sunne McPeak, Chairman Hon. Tom Powers, Member Internal Operations Committee Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Dear Supervisors: This letter is being sent in response to the proposed Implementation Process for Mitigating Impacts of Waste Diversion. As is evidenced by the attached Resolution No. 63-86, the City of Richmond has a long standing position with regards to the mitigation required for an accommodation of ACME Landfill wastes at the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. In reviewing the proposed Implementation Process, the City of Richmond is concerned about the lack of discussion concerning the environmental review which may need to precede any waste diversion. The City of Richmond is also concerned about the potential lack of impartiality of the Board of Supervisors in determining the compensation to be paid for diversion. Accordingly, the City of Richmond would suggest that an environmental impact report be required and prepared before any waste diversion from ACME to the WCCSL occurs and that an independent third party be selected as the arbiter of any mitigation disputes between the host community and the exporting communities. Very truly yours, eorgZlegn Mayor cc: City Council Members 2600 Barrett Ave. P.O. Box 4046 Richmond California 94804 telephone: 415 620-6503 ' RESOLUTION N0. 63-86 ' 2 51 VSOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND RECOMMENDING CONDITIONS PREREQUISITE TO APPROVAL. OF DIVERSION OF ACME LANDFILL WASTES TO WEST CONTRA COSTA SANITARY AND GBF LANDFILLS. WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Solid Waste Commission is considering a contingency plan calling for the diversion of some wastes to the West Contra Costa Sanitary and GBF Landfills upon the closing of Acme Landfill; and WHEREAS, without diversion of waste from the Acme Landfill, the West Contra Costa Sanitary and GBF Landfills are expected to reach full capacity by approximately 1992; and WHEREAS, the diversion of Acme Landfill wastes to West Contra Costa Sanitary and GBF Landfills will have an adverse environmental and social impact upon local citizens and will deplete landfill life to the economic detriment of West and East Contra Costa residents; and WHEREAS, it is critical to the interests of West and East Contra Costa County residents to preserve landfill resources, that all communities in Contra Costa County initiate immediate long-term solid waste management planning and waste reductions, and that all solid waste contributors pay their fair share of landfill closure costs, mitigation to host communities for accelerated landfill closure and local undesirable land use community impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Richmond that it is recommended that approval of diversion of Acme Landfill wastes to West Contra Costa Sanitary and GBF Landfills be subject to the following conditions: 1. That the operators of the East and West County landfills make an assessment of their respective landfill closure costs and incorporate said costs into the tipping fee paid by Acme Landfill users; 2. That Contra Costa County's Community Development Department makes an assess- ment of the accelerated increased West and East .County disposal costs caused by the proposed diversion of Acme Landfill wastes under each scenario presented in the proposed contingency plan and that said costs be incorporated into the tipping fee to be paid by.Acme Landfill users; 3. That Acme Landfill users, in recognition of the fact that there are unmeasurable damages caused by the transportation of their wastes on the streets and through the communities of San Pablo, Richmond, and Antioch, pay a host community mitigation fee as part of the tipping fee; 4. That Acme Landfill haulers be required to use transfer vehicles to transport wastes to the West and East County landfills; and 5. That agreements between Acme Landfill haulers and West and East County communities and landfill operators be reached by June 15, 1986, to (a) allow for the disposal of Acme Landfill wastes at the West and East County landfills and (b) incorporate the points raised in items 1 through 4 above. I certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting hold on April 21, 1986 1986, by the following votes: AYES: Councilmembers Niccolls, Corbin, Marquez, Ziesenhenne, McMillan, MacDiarmid, Griffin and Mayor Livingston. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Washington. l HARLAN J. HEYDON Clerk of the City of Richmond APPROVED: (SEAL) f State of California ) County of Contra Costa ss. GEORGE L. LIVINGSTON City of R4^.hm,)nd ) Mayor I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 63-86, adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond APPROVED AS TO FORM: at a regular meeting held April 21, 1986. MALCOLM HUNTER C erk of th Ci y f Richmond City Attorney `OCT-19 89 THU 14:16 MARK BRALY FAX NO. 9167.586227 P. 01/04 DATE: OCTOBER 19, 19 9 TO: CLAUDE VAN MARTER ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FROM; MARK BRALY WEST CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY SUBJECT: HOST COMMUNITY MITIGATION PROCESS MESSAGE: FOLLOWING ARE THE COMMENTS OF THE AUTHORITY ON THE PROPOSED HOST COMMUNITY MITIGATION PROCESS FOR WASTE DIVERSION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, MEETING OF THE SUPERVISORS' INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE. PLEASE CALL IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. PHONE: ' (415) 235-9922 FAX: (916) 758-6227 OCT-19-89 THU 14: 17 MARK BRALY FAX N0. 9167686227 P. 02/04 WEST CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY c/o Executive Director, 427 Encina Avenue Davis, CA 95616 FROM$ (419)233-9922 FAX (916) 758-6227 October 10, 1989 Hon. Sunne McPeak, Chairman Han. Tom Powers, Member Internal Operations Committee Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisors: You have asked for comments on the County Counsel 's proposed process for implementation of the County Solid Waste Management Plan policy which requires compensation to impacted communities, to be paid by benefitting communities, as mitigation for waste diversion. We appreciate the opportunity and have considered the matter at meetings of the Autbarity and its subcommittees . At its October 10, 1989, meeting the Authority asked me to convey to you the following comments: PERMIT REQUIRED FOR DIVERSION -- The county's facilities permit for the West County Sanitary Landfill must be amended before diversion can take place. This would be a project which should be supported by an EIR. NEED FOR SETTER INFORMATION ON WHICH TO BASE NEGOTIATIONS -- In accordance with the concept of a "tiered" EIR as set out in the CoSWMP, an environmental impact report an diversion should be prepared before diversion begins. This would provide a better basis for a decision about appropriate compensation for impacts . CURRENT IMPACT FEE AGREEMENT MUST BE HONORED DURING NEGOTIATIONS— West County currently has in effect a mechanism for collecting an Impact fee from haulers diverting waste from outside of the area. This agreement, between the City of Richmond and the landfill owners, Richmond Sanitary Service, is based on a valid assessment of impacts, and proceeds are allocated according to a formula which is based on impacts. This agreement must be recognized by any county process during the interim per.lod when waste Is being diverted and negotiations are in progress This must be the case even If waste is diverted under an emergency declaration. ENFORCEMENT -- The present agreement has proved difficult to '' OCT-19-89 THU 14: 17 MARK BRALY FAX N0, 9167586227 P. 03/04 2 enforce. Any meaningful process should include a relfable means of enforcing the agreement that comes out of the negotiations, as well as the current agreement covering waste diverted to the landfill . We propose that the county require daily reporting by haulers of the destination of refuse they pick up. Penalties for failure to report accurately should be assessed. FINAL DECISION -- in order for all parties to the negotiations to have confidence in its impartiality, the process should require that the final decision to submitted to binding arbitration by an impartial and competent third party, should it be Impossible to reach agreement . The Authority thanks you for your efforts in trying to resolve this issue. Very truly yours, Joseph M. Gomes Chair cc County Counsel ATTN: Lillian T . Fujii 7 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 23, 1989 1:30 PM: REPORT FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ON RESPONSE FROM SOLID WASTE COMMISSION CONCERNING PROPOSED PROCESS FOR MITIGATING THE IMPACTS OF WASTE DIVERSION. The Solid Waste Commission (SWC) at its October 18, 1989, meeting, stated that it desires to address this issue when the Commissioner representing the East County cities is present. Therefore, the Commission asks that the Internal Operations Committee defer this matter until after the SWC meets on November 15, 1989. . RV:jal jl32:ioc.doc Contra Costa Cour-ty RrE CL 7$T E© OCT 191989 Office of t ' - Contra Cost€a C���:�y REC V"�n COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFF/CE O C T 2- 1QA9 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Offic- of MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA County /dniinistrator Date: October 27, 1.989 To: C.L. Van Marter, Assistant County Administrator From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Lillian T. Fujii, Deputy County Counsel Re: Ordinance imposing process for determining compensation to impacted communities as mitigation for waste diversion Pursuant to the Internal Operations Committee's October 23, 1989 direction, attached is a draft of an ordinance entitled "Process for Determining Compensation to Impacted Communities, to be Paid by Benefiting Communities, as Mitigation for Waste Diversion. " The attached draft differs from the draft of the document last considered by the Internal Operations Committee (on 10-23-89) in the following respects: 1. The attached is in ordinance form; therefore, a summary has been added, and the remaining sections renumbered. 2. The section previously entitled "Introduction" is renamed "Findings and Purpose. " 3. Reference in Section 2 to approval of the County's Solid Waste Management Plan ( "CoSWMP" ) Revision by the cities has been eliminated. It is not certain that the majority of the cities with a majority of the incorporated population will approve the CoSWMP Revision before adoption of the ordinance. Also, to the extent that the Board is adopting the ordinance pursuant to its police power, it does not matter whether or not the CoSWMP Revision is approved by the cities. 3. The comment in the section entitled "Formal Notice By Host Community" has been deleted. i C.L. Van Marter -2- October 27, 1989 Assistant County Administrator 4 . The comment in the section entitled "Solid Waste Commission" has been deleted. If the Board would like the ordinance to become operative only upon approval of the CoSWMP Revision by the requisite number of cities, the ordinance can be easily modified to so provide. LTF/jh/df cc: Sara Hoffman Attch. ORDINANCE NO. 897 (PROCESS FOR DETERMINING COMPENSATION TO IMPACTED COMMUNITIES, TO BE PAID BY BENEFITTING COMMUNITIES, AS MITIGATION FOR WASTE DIVISION. ) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I. SUNNARY. This ordinance sets forth a process for determining compensation to be paid by benefitted communities to communities negatively impacted as a result of a significant diversion of the waste stream; i.e. , the disposal of waste at a site other its usual place of disposal. SECTION II. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. The 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan, adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, recognizes that diversion of the wastestream, i.e. , the disposal of waste at a site other than its usual or historical place of disposal, may cause significant adverse impacts upon the community surrounding the alternative receiving disposal site, and that compensation (mitigation) for the impacts is proper. However, - the Plan also recognizes that the compensation should be fair to both parties, and be founded upon real impacts. It is not intended to be a revenue measure for the host community. As a result, the following policy was included in said plan: "Compensation for Impacts of Waste Diversion. Communities benefitting from waste diversions will fairly compensate impacted communities for adverse impacts (i.e. , loss of capacity, increased traffic, etc. ) caused by the waste diversion. " This ordinance sets forth a procedural guideline for determining the proper compensation to impacted communities . SECTION III. FORMAL NOTICE BY HOST CONNUNITY. Whenever a community (e.g. , host city(s) or other community(s) ) believes that there is a possibility or likelihood that there will be a significant diversion of waste that will negatively impact the host community, the host community should provide formal written notice to the agency with permit authority over the landfill operator, requesting the permitting agency to commence negotiations with the host community, the hauler, and other potentially involved parties as to the appropriate mitigation for any negative impacts of the diversion upon the host community. SECTION IV. DISCUSSION. The permitting agency, the host community, the hauler and other parties shall immediately commence discussions on appropriate mitigation measures . Negotiations shall be concluded within 90 days of the date the host community provided formal notice to the permitting agency requesting the commencement of negotiations . The 90-day negotiation period may be extended once for a period of 30 days, upon agreement of all involved parties. SECTION V. DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MITIGATION. Whether and to what extent the host community will be negatively impacted, including appropriate mitigation measures, will be decided in accordance with the environmental review process of the California Environmental Quality Act. The parties may agree to mitigation measures in addition to those required by any environmental review document. However, all mitigation should bear a direct and reasonable relationship to impacts suffered by ORDINANCE NO. 89- -1- r the host community as a result of the diversion; it is not to be a revenue measure. The cost of any mitigation measure shall be separately identified on the customers' garbage bill so that customers will be informed on the reason for the additional charge. SECTION VI. SOLID WASTE COMMISSION. Immediately after conclusion of the 90-day negotiation period (or 120-day negotiation period if there has been an extension) , the issue of appropriate mitigation shall be submitted to the Solid Waste Commission for comment. In appropriate cases, the Solid Waste Commission may be requested to mediate disputes . SECTION VII. FINAL DECISION: Unless the parties agree otherwise, the final decision as to the appropriate mitigation to a host community for a waste diversion shall be made by the permitting agency. SECTION VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on , by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Board Chair [SEAL] LTF/jh J-5:\1tf\ord\impact9d.f ORDINANCE NO. 89- -2-