HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02271990 - T.8 T. 6, 7 , & 8
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on February 27, 1990 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES: Different votes on various motions. See each item.
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SUBJECT: T. 6 Decision on General Plan Amendment, Williamson Act
cancellation, minor subdivision, rezoning and land use
permit for the Keller Canyon Landfill
T.7 Decision on General Plan Amendment and Land Use Permit
for the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill
T. 8 Consideration of County Counsel' s report "Referendums,
General Plan Landfill Amendments"
The Board on February 13 , 1990 deferred to this time its
decisions on:
The request by Keller Canyon Landfill Company . (applicant)
and Kathryn Costa, Charles Larson, Herbert Elworthy, Jean Elworthy and
Robert Elworthy (owners) to amend the General Plan (GPA 3-89-CO.II ) ,
for approval of Minor Subdivision 15-89, Rezoning Application 2834-RZ,
Williamson Act cancellation (AG 6-71, Part 8-69) , and Land Use Permit
2020-89 to establish a sanitary landfill facility on a 2, 628 acre site
located in Contra Costa County ( Item T.6 above) ; and on
The requests by Waste Management Incorporated of North
America (Applicant) ; Robert Foskett, Jane and William Freitas, Cena
and Jerry Richeson, Phyllis and Herman Schippers, and Naoma and Harry
Williamson (Owners) to amend the General Plan (GPA 4-89-CO-II ) and for
approval of Land Use Permit 2010-90 to establish a sanitary landfill
facility on a site of approximately 1,123 acres located in the
unincorporated area of eastern Contra Costa County ( Item T.7 above)..
The Board also had before it (attached hereto as exhibit A)
a memorandum from the County Administrator and the Director of
Community Development entitled "Actions on Landfills" outlining their
recommendations for consideration, as well as a report from County
Counsel entitled "Referendums, General Plan Landfill Amendments"
(attached hereto as Exhibit B) (Item T. 8 above) .
Chairwoman Fanden advised that the written testimony
received from the public has been entered into the record. She asked
staff to review its recommendations to the Board for today' s action.
The County Administrator reviewed his recommendations and
advised that staff was reviewing conditions and findings which should
be ready for the Board members to review by the end of the week. He
outlined the items before the Board at this time.
Board members discussed the various items before them in
some detail, including the referendum on the General Plan Amendment
for the Keller Canyon site; the cost of road improvements for each
site and the need for an analysis of the costs for land, construction,
and mitigations; the unknown costs, the end cost to the citizens of
the County; as well as their individual opinions with respect to each
site.
1
Supervisor Powers advised that after briefly reviewing the
documents just given to him, he had a number of questions with respect
to costs.
County Counsel commented that it was staff ' s recommendation
to table the Keller Canyon General Plan Amendment at this time.
Supervisor McPeak advised that the items are inter-related
and there is difficulty in taking them one at a time because one
decision is dependent on another.
Supervisor Schroder advised that in October, 1989, he had
received a letter from the California Legislative Counsel' s Office
stating that he would not violate the Fair Political Practices Act if
he were to vote on the County Solid Waste Management Plan, and based
on that opinion, he had voted, along with three other members of the
Board, in favor of a resolution approving five proposed General Plan
Amendments in order to proceed with a maximum number of alternative
choices available to the County relative to a landfill site. He
advised that although he really did not believe that he had a
conflict, he has decided to abstain from voting on the Marsh Canyon
site, but intends to vote on the Keller site if it comes to a vote
this day, and that he does intend to vote on the Marsh Canyon site
after May 31, 1990, which is a year after ceasing business with Valley
Disposal.
Supervisor Powers moved to place two questions on the June
1990 ballot, one for the referendum from Antioch on the Garaventa
site, and the other on the Keller site in accordance with the
Pittsburg petition, and approval of the staff recommendation on the
referendum language for the Pittsburg and Antioch Petitions, deleting
the words "Pittsburg Area. " to then read as follows:
ANTIOCH PETITION
MEASURE Shall Part IV of the Board of Supervisors'
Resolution No. 89/656 amending the County General Plan to provide for
the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill site (Antioch area) be
adopted?
PITTSBURG PETITION
MEASURE ------------: Shall Resolutions Nos. 89/656 (as to the GPA
3-89-CO) and 89/683 of the Board of Supervisors amending the County
General Plan to provide for the Keller Canyon Landfill site be
adopted?
The motion was seconded by Supervisor Schroder.
Supervisor McPeak moved an amendment to the motion to
include rescinding the Board of Supervisors ' action on October 10,
1989 and October 17, 1989, approving the General Plan Amendment for
Kirker Pass; approving the Marsh Canyon site as outlined in items 1
and 2 of the staff report submitted this day; and declaring intent to
approve the Keller site as outlined on the staff report listed as T. 6,
provided that the voters so express their approval at the June ballot;
and that the intent include Item 6 on the staff report for T. 6 which
would approve the new General Plan Amendment, subject to the approval
by the people; that is, to become operative only if the electorate
says yes to that site.
Supervisor Powers advised that he could not vote for Marsh
Canyon at this point because some citizens in his District are saying
it is too expensive, and he would need to have the cost figures to
analyze before making a decision, and he therefore would not be
prepared to vote on the first part of the amendment.
Supervisor Torlakson advised that the issue was very
complicated, and that he did not feel comfortable with the motion.
2
Following much discussion as to whether Supervisor Schroder
could vote on the motion, Supervisor Schroder advised that he would
not be voting on Marsh Canyon.
Chair Fanden suggested rescinding the amendment and
substituting an amendment that would take the issues one at a time.
Supervisor McPeak suggested dividing the question so that each
Supervisor can vote on the portions they wish.
Supervisor McPeak recommended that the first part of the
amendment to be voted on be: To rescind the approval of the General
Plan Amendments on October 10 and October 17 , 1989 for the Kirker Pass
site. Supervisor Fanden seconded.
Supervisor Torlakson advised that he had serious concerns
about the Kirker Pass site, but was not prepared at this time to
eliminate it from the ballot language until more pieces of the puzzle
have been put together, and therefore he would be voting no on this
portion of the amendment.
Chair Fanden called for the vote on this portion of the
amendment, which was as follows:
Ayes: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak and Fanden
Noes: Supervisors Powers and Torlakson.
Supervisor McPeak then moved an amendment approving the
Marsh Canyon site as recommended by staff, which is to declare intent
to approve the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill Land Use Permit No.
2010-90 as modified in the proposed conditions of approval and
recommended by the County Planning Commission, with modifications
recommended by staff, and to direct staff to return to the Board with
the appropriate resolution and findings on March 6, 1990.
Supervisor Fanden seconded and called for a vote.
Supervisor Powers advised that he was just handed the
conditions on Marsh Canyon a few moments ago and that he was not
familiar with them, and that he had not been able to find out what the
true financial impact is and he therefore was not ready to vote on
Marsh Canyon at this time.
Supervisor Torlakson moved a substitute motion to table the
amendment for two weeks because the Board had just received the
material and had not had a chance to review it. He noted that he
supported the site only if certain mitigations and environmental
conditions are met and he had not had an opportunity to insure that
all of his concerns had been addressed.
Supervisor Powers seconded the motion to table.
Supervisor McPeak noted that she had read the proposed
conditions and that the action proposed to be tabled was only to
declare intent to approve and to have the final findings and
appropriate resolution before the Board next week.
Chair Fanden called for a vote on the motion to table the
amendment for two weeks, and the vote was as follows:
AYES: Supervisor Torlakson and Powers
NOES: Supervisors Fanden and McPeak
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Schroder
The substitute motion to table for two weeks failed to
carry.
Chair Fanden then called for a vote on the amendment by
Supervisor McPeak to approve the Marsh Canyon site as outlined in
Items 1 and 2 of the staff report, with the findings and appropriate
3
resolution to be brought back to the Board on March 6, 1990 for final
adoption, and to include the mitigation approach that Mr. Torlakson
has outlined in the past.
The amendment failed by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors McPeak and Fanden
NOES: Supervisors Powers and Torlakson
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Schroder
Supervisor McPeak restated the remaining amendment to the
original motion to declare intent to approve the items on T. 6 (Keller
Canyon site) as outlined by staff in the attached staff report,
including the referendum.
Supervisor Fanden seconded the amendment.
Supervisor Torlakson urged the Board not to vote for the
Keller Canyon site, citing traffic, proximity to a BART station,
homes, parks and a golf course, and visual and economic impacts.
Supervisor Schroder asked for clarification that in voting
in favor of declaring intent to approve Items 1 through 4 on the staff
report for T.6 (Keller) , it would not be effective until the
conditions in Item 5 (effective General Plan Amendment authorizing a
landfill on the Keller Canyon Landfill site) have been met.
The amendment passed by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak and Fanden
NOES: Supervisors Powers and Torlakson
Supervisor McPeak moved to table voting on the motion, as
amended, until next week, including the Kirker Pass General Plan
Amendment rescission, the intent to adhere to the vote of the people
on Keller, and the main motion of the two ballot questions, which
would then all come up on the agenda next week.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Supervisor Fanden declared that the Board would now vote on
the main motion as amended.
At the request of the Chair, Supervisor McPeak repeated the
main motion, as amended, to be: To rescind the October 10th and
October 17th approval of the general plan amendment for the Kirker
Pass site; to declare intent to adhere to the voters' action in June
on the Keller site, as outlined by the staff report; and to place two
questions on the ballot, one for the referendum from Antioch on the
Garaventa site, and the other on the Keller site in accordance with
the Pittsburg petition.
Supervisor Powers moved to amend the main motion to include
just the referendum language, eliminate Kirker Pass, and continue the
other matters to allow Mr. Torlakson the opportunity to get the
information he requested, and vote on both of the sites when that
information is received.
The motion to amend was seconded by Supervisor Torlakson and
failed by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak and Fanden
The Board voted on the following amended motion:
4
A. RESCIND the approvals of October 10, 1989 and October 17 ,
1989 relative to the General Plan Amendment for the Kirker Pass Waste
Management Landfill site. (T. 8 )
B. DECLARE the Board' s present intent to take the following
final actions, after the electorate votes at the June 1990 election to
approve the October 1989 Keller Canyon General Plan Amendment:
1. APPROVE General Plan Amendment 3-89-CO II for the
Keller Canyon Landfill;
2. APPROVE Land Use Permit 2020-89 for the Keller
Canyon Landfill as recommended by staff;
3 . APPROVE Rezoning 2834-RZ for the Keller Canyon
Landfill as recommended by staff;
4 . APPROVE cancellation of agricultural preserve for
the Keller Canyon Landfill and adopt appropriate
findings as recommended by staff ;
5. APPROVE minor subdivision MS 15-89 for the Keller
Canyon Landfill and adopt the appropriate findings
as recommended by staff; and
C. ORDER that the referenda on the East Contra Costa
Sanitary Landfill General Plan Amendment and the Keller Canyon
Landfill General Plan Amendment be placed on the June 1990 ballot.
(T. 8)
D. ADOPT the ballot language for both the Antioch and
Pittsburg referenda, as set forth herein. (T. 8)
The amended motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak and Fanden
NOES: Supervisors Powers and Torlakson
Board members discussed when the Marsh Canyon Landfill
application should again be placed on the agenda for their
consideration. It was the consensus that two weeks would enable them
to review the material before them and to receive the information they
had requested. (T.7)
Supervisor Powers moved that the contents of the February
12, 1990 Confidential Memo to the Board of Supervisors from County
Counsel re "Landfill Referendums, New General Plan Amendments" be
disclosed to the press and to the public.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors McPeak and Fanden
i hereby Certity that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: � l '•"•,• 4 Z. / 9 9O
PHIL BATCHELOR.Clark of the Board
Of Supervisors and County Administrator
By 'Deputy
cc: Community Development
County Counsel
County Administrator
Applicant for Keller
Applicant for Marsh Canyon
5
7
TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator ,• ° Con
t,
Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development ;�/ Contra
DATE: February 26, 1990 County
rT,� ca N�•
SUBJECT: Actions on Landfills
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AM JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
T.6. Keller Canyon Landfill
(1) Declare intent to approve the Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit
LUP 2020-89 as modified by the Conditions of Approval (February 2,
1990) as recommended by the County Planning Commission with the
modifications recommended by Staff, such permit to become operative
when recommendation (5) is satisfied, and direct Staff to return to
the Board with the appropriate resolution and findings.
(2) Declare intent to approve the Keller Canyon Landfill rezoning 2834-RZ,
introduce ordinance, waive reading, and postpone adoption (second
reading) until recommendation (5) is satisfied.
(3) Declare intent to approve the Keller Canyon Landfill cancellation of
agricultural preserves #6-71 and #8-69 (part) , and adopt the
appropriate findings, such agricultural preserve cancellation to
become operative when recommendation (5) is satisfied, and direct
Staff to return to the Board with the appropriate resolution and
findings.
(4) Declare intent to approve the Keller Canyon Landfill minor subdivision
MS 15-89, and adopt the appropriate findings, such minor subdivision
to become operative when recommendation (5) is satisfied, and direct
Staff to return to the Board with the appropriate resolution and
findings.
(5) Condition actions (1) through (4) upon the existence of an effective
County General Plan or General Plan Amendment authorizing a landfill
on the Keller Canyon Landfill site.
(6) Table the Keller Canyon Landfill General Plan Amendment GPA
3-89-CO-II.
X
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE; I Y
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER ,
S I GNATURE(S 1:
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
County Administrator
CC County Counsel ATTESTED
Marsh Canyon Landfill (via CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Keller Canyon Landfill (via CDD) M �( SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
U D)� lJ A
M382/7-83 BY ,DEPUTY
T.7 Marsh Canyon Landfill
(1) Declare intent to approve the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill Land Use
Permit LUP 2010-90 as modified by the Conditions of Approval (February
2, 1990) as recommended by the County Planning Commission with the
modifications recommended by Staff, and direct Staff to return to the
Board with the appropriate resolution and findings.
(2) Table the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill General Plan Amendment GPA
4-89-CO-II, as requested by the applicant.
T.B. Referendums
(1) Consider whether or not to repeal the County General Plan Amendment
for the Keller Canyon Landfill site, GPA 3-89-CO of Resolution Nos.
89/656 and 89/683. If the General Plan Amendment is not repealed,
then consider ordering that it be put on the ballot.
(2) Consider whether or not to repeal the County General Plan Amendment
for the Kirker Pass Landfill site, GPA 24-84-CO of Resolution Nos.
89/656 and 89/683. If the General Plan Amendment is not repealed,
then consider ordering that it be put on the ballot.
(3) Consider whether or not to repeal the County General Plan amendment
for the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill site, GPA 6-85-Co of
Resolution Nos. 89/656 and 89/683. If the General Plan Amendment is
not repealed, then consider ordering that it be put on the ballot.
(4) Consider appropriate ballot language for any General Plan Amendment(s)
ordered to be put on the ballot (see memo from County Counsel on
ballot language).
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
Contra Costa County needs to maintain flexibility in providing for future
landfill capacity. Lawsuits and/or referendums could eliminate any one site.
In addition, the Board will have the opportunity to review detailed landfill
cost data during the franchise review process. Please note that a franchise
agreement is a prerequisite to the land use permit being operative, as specified
in the Conditions of Approval for both landfill sites. For these reasons, Staff
has recommended and continues to recommend approval of both the Keller Canyon
and Marsh Canyon Landfill sites.
The Keller Canyon Landfill site is being challenged through referendum and
lawsuit while the Marsh Canyon Landfill site is being challenged by lawsuit.
Staff believes that the pending lawsuits need not deter the Board of Supervisors
from acting. With regard to the Keller Canyon referendum, the Board could
declare that the land use permit for the Keller Canyon Landfill site would not
become - operative until the Board's decision is consistent with an effective
General Plan or General Plan Amendment. Alternatively, the Board may want to
table the Keller Canyon Landfill site LUP and ancillary actions until after the
referendum elections.
Referendums have also been filed on the Kirker Pass Landfill project and the
East Contra Costa Landfill project. The Board of Supervisors may want to
consider rescinding General Plan Amendments for the Kirker Pass and East Contra
Costa landfill sites. If the Board decides to repeal Kirker, then the ballot
language should be modified to include Keller Canyon Landfill site only. County
Counsel has prepared ballot language for the referendums for the Board's
consideration.
H5/actions.bo
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTRgEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date i February 21, 1990
Toy Board of Supervisors
Fr®t Victor J. Westman, County Counsel,+
Ree Referendums, General Plan Landfill Amendments
I. INTRODUCTION. As discussed in this office's 12/19/89
memorandum, the Board presently has before it two referendum
petitions concerning its October 1989 amendment of the County
General Plan to provide for landfill sites. The "Antioch Petition"
protests the adoption of the portion of Resolution 89/656 [10-10-
89] pertaining to the East Contra Costa (Garaventa) Sanitary
Landfill site (Part IV) . The "Pittsburg Petition" protests the
Keller Canyon and Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill site
portions of the October 10, 1989 Resolution 89/656 "and all of
. Resolution No. 89/683, dated October 17, 1989 . "
On December 19, 1989 the Board directed staff to provide for
its consideration proposed ballot measures to address the two
pending referendums should it determine to order their submittal to
the voters at the June 1990 election. Of course, should the Board
respond to the referendum petitions by rescinding one or more of
the involved landfill site general plan amendments it will not be
necessary to present those rescinded sites to the voters . The
order also indicated that some further legal review should be made
as to the sufficiency of the Pittsburg referendum and the sites it
may cover.
II . BALLOT MEASURES. Concerning the two pending referendums,
possible ballot language for both is set forth on Attachment "A" to
this memorandum. The first ballot measure is concerned with the
Antioch Petition, which seeks to invalidate the East Contra Costa
(Garaventa) Sanitary Landfill site General Plan amendment. Since
the Antioch petition only addresses one site in the Board's October
10, 1989 Resolution No. 89/656, only oaa form of ballot measure is
presented for your consideration.
For the reasons hereinafter discussed in Part III of this
memorandum, we have provided two different versions of a ballot
measure for the Pittsburg petition. As hereinafter discussed, this
Board of Supervisors -2- February 21, 1990
office recommends the Board's adoption of the attached first
version of the Pittsburg referendum ballot measure.
III. PITTSBURG PETITION. a. General. As noted in the
Introduction, the Pittsburg petition requests the repeal of the
portion of the Board's October 10, 1989 action approving general
plan amendments for the Keller Canyon and Kirker Pass Waste
Management landfill sites and, in addition, the repeal of "all of
Resolution No. 89/683, dated October 17, 1989" (and the "entire
text of Resolution No. 89/683" ) . It is only in the text of
Resolution No. 89/683 that the Board of Supervisors re-approved all
five landfill site General Plan amendments ( "GPAs" ) (Keller,
Kirker, Garaventa, Marsh Creek and Bay Pointe) on October 17, 1989 .
Therefore, arguably the voters' repeal of "all" or the "entire
text" of Resolution No. 89/683 could repeal the Board's October
17th approval of all five sites .
After further review, this office believes the Pittsburg
petition as to the Marsh Creek, Garaventa and Bay Pointe landfill
sites would not survive a timely made legal attack, because the
petition fails to comply with statutory requirements for a
sufficient referendum petition. However, we believe the Pittsburg
petition is sufficient as a valid referendum on the Keller Canyon
and Kirker Pass landfill GPAs for both the October 10 and 17
approvals . For this reason, we recommend the Board adopt the first
. version of a ballot measure for the Pittsburg petition as set forth
on Attachment "A" .
b. Discussion. County referenda must be taken pursuant to
the provisions of Election Code SS 3750-3755.5. Elections Code S
3755.5 requires that "each section of the referendum petition shall
contain the title and text of the ordinance or the portion of
ordinance or the portion of the ordinance which is the subject of
the referendum" . This requirement establishes a statutory form
standard which the petition must meet. California court decisions
have invalidated referendum petitions that do not contain
sufficient portions of the text of the challenged legislation, if a
timely legal attack is brought (usually required to be done prior
to the election, as the right to challenge a faulty petition may
lapse once the measure is approved by the voters) . (Chase v.
Brooks [ 1986] 187 Ca1.App. 3rd 657 & Creighton v. Reviczkv [ 1985]
171 Cal.App.3rd 1225 . )
As discussed above, the Pittsburg petition contains all the
body of October 17, 1989 's Resolution No. '89/683 and its
incorporated general plan amendment text for the Keller Canyon and
Kirker Pass landfill sites . The Pittsburg petition does not
contain Resolution No. 89/683's general plan amendment text for the
Bay Pointe, Marsh Creek and Garaventa landfill sites .
Board of Supervisors -3- February 21, 1990
Pursuant to the court decisions cited above, we believe the
Pittsburg petition would not survive a timely-made legal challenge
with regard to the Bay Pointe, Marsh Creek and Garaventa landfill
GPAs. These cases declare the public policy that such deficient
portions of a petition (when appropriately attacked or addressed)
must fail, because such omission of the full text of the proposed
legislation (e.g. , general plan amendment) will fail to apprise
prospective signers of the substantive provisions of the proposed
referendum and subsequently fail to provide the electors with the
information which they need in order to intelligently exercise
their rights under the referendum law. (Creighton v. Reviczkv,
supra,, pp. 229-231 . )
Here, the County Clerk properly certified the Pittsburg
referendum petition, inasmuch as it is clearly sufficient for the
Keller and Rirker GPAs . Once the Clerk has taken that action, he
has no way in his certification to distinguish the petition's
. procedural defects as to the other three sites and to refuse to
certify it for that reason as sufficient. But the Board of
Supervisors may take action to clarify the Pittsburg petition on
this point by adopting ballot language which characterizes the
Pittsburg petition as addressing only the Keller and Rirker
landfill GPAs . This can be done by the Board's approval of the
proposed Pittsburg ballot measure first set forth on the attached
sheet. Any parties not in agreement with that characterization of
the Pittsburg petition may initiate a pre-election challenge.
(Myers v. Patterson [1987] 196 Cal.App.3rd 130. ) If any pre-
election challenge is taken that Pittsburg's petition is sufficient
for the Bay Pointe, Garaventa and Marsh Creek sites (even with the
omission of the general plan amendment text for these sites ) , this
office believes the courts will not approve that challenge, because
of the requirements of Elections Code section 3755.5.
As noted above, should the Pittsburg petition be presented to
the voters as involving both the Keller and Kirker sites and the
entire text of the October 17 Resolution No. 89/683 and the voters
approve it, it might be too late at that time for a post-election
action to challenge successfully the form defects of the Pittsburg
petition as to the three sites (Bay Pointe, Marsh Creek and
Garaventa) . Some courts have taken the position that such a
possible challenge may lapse once the measure is approved by the
voters. (Chase v. Brooks, supra, at p. 662. )
VJW:seb:df
cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Robert Delevati, Elections Department
di4 tv jw\uemo\dump•
2-21-90
ANTIOCH PETITION
MEASURE s Shall Part IV of the Board of Supervisors'
Resolution No. 89/656 amending the County General Plan to provide
for the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill site be adopted?
PITTSBURG PETITION
1. MEASURE Shall Resolutions Nos. 89/656 (as to GPAs
3-89-CO and 24-84-CO) and 89/683 of the Board of Supervisors
amending the County General Plan to provide for the Keller Canyon
and Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill sites be adopted?
_ D_R _
2. MEASURE Shall the Keller Canyon and Kirker Pass
Waste Management Landfill site portions of Board of Supervisors'
Resolution No. 89/656 and all of Resolution No. 89/683 amending
the County General Plan to provide for sanitary landfill sites be
adopted?
ATTACHMENT "A"