HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11271990 - 2.5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT `• •"f " "ra
DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 19909;'`
County
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD'S DECISION THE ERICKSON
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT/TRANSFER FACILITY PROJECT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept this report from the Community Development Department
regarding the request for reconsideration of the hearing
decision of the Board regarding the Erickson Hazardous Waste
Treatment/Transfer Facility project at the Board's October 30,
1990 meeting.
2 . Deny the request to reconsider the Board's October . 10, 1990
decisions regarding the Erickson Hazardous Waste
Treatment/Transfer Facility project.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On November 9, 1990, Margaret Judkins of the San Pablo Neighborhood
Council and Henry Clark, Executive Director of the West County
Toxics Coalition submitted a letter (refer to attached) in which
they request a reconsideration of the hearing decision of October
30, 1990 regarding the Erickson Hazardous Waste Treatment/Transfer
Facility project.
Section 26-2 .2408 of the Contra Costa County Code states that, "a
motion for reconsideration may be filed in writing by an appellant
within the time allowed to appeal alleging pertinent factual or
legal matters which were not brought to the attention of the
division rendering the decision. " The appellant's letter dated
November 8, 1990, presents the following reasons substantiating
their request for reconsideration:
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: xx YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION O ARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON November 27, 1990APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: II, III, Iv, y NOES: -- ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: -- ABSTAIN: I MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISO/RyS� ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED /lir» �Gt� d'7, /990
cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND �COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY (�d� , DEPUTY
CK:gms
n1:ErikRecn.bo
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
BOARD'S DECISION ON THE ERICKSON HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT/TRANSFER FACILITY PROJECT
PAGE 2
1. " . . .the truck routes of both Richmond and San Pablo run
through residential areas. This plus the fact that all
of Erickson's toxic haulers would be driving directly in
front of three residential homes that are located on the
same block as Erickson's proposed site would make this
project unacceptable with the Tanner plan. "
The consistency of the proposed project with the Contra
Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan was brought
to the attention of the Board in the staff report for the
October 23, 1990 hearing. This staff report identified
two transportation criteria with which the facility, as
proposed, was inconsistent. To render the project
consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan, Condition of Approval 22. 6, which requires that
access to the facility be limited to using completed
portions of the Richmond Parkway and that access be
prohibited from the south on Third Street and from the
east on Parr Boulevard was included.
2 . The appellant's letter of November 8, 1990, states that,
" . . .the degree of a maximum credible earthquake
calculated for the earthquake safety of the Erickson's
project is not accurate according to recent earthquake
studies found in the sites general location. "
The appellant does not identify the earthquake studies
which they state show a higher maximum credible
earthquake for the location, and does not identify the
maximum credible earthquake (MCE) that these "recent
studies" have identified. Regardless, the Conditions of
Approval require that the facility is designed to
withstand the MCE for the site. Thus, the most recent
data on MCE will be utilized when reviewing the designs
for. the facility.
3 . The appellant's letter of November 8, 1990, states that,
"there were no alternative sites proposed at all. . . .per
Erickson's EIR, the site was .only compared to the site in
Pittsburg because of similar facility, similar location. "
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include a description
of " . . .a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,
or to the location of the project, which could feasibly
attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate
the comparative merits of the alternative" (refer to
Title 14, California Code of Resources, Section 15126d) .
In order to meet these requirements, three alternatives
were evaluated in the EIR which was prepared for this
proposed project. One of these alternatives was the
establishment of the facility at an alternative location,
the Imperial West Chemical Company's Pittsburg facility.
4. The appellant's letter of November 8, 1990 states that,
"this project is a good idea and the residents of both
San Pablo and Richmond agree that it is needed, but the
location proposed is unsafe. We feel that the location
has not been evaluated properly. . . "
The appellant does not give reasons why the proposed
location is "unsafe." The location of the proposed
facility is one which is consistent with the siting
criteria in the Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan and was evaluated in the EIR.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
BOARD'S DECISION ON THE ERICKSON HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT/TRANSFER FACILITY PROJECT
• PAGE 3
The information submitted by the appellant does not identify any
pertinent factual or legal matters which were not brought to the
attention of the division rendering the decision as required by
Section 26-2 .2408 of the Contra Costa County Code.
CK:gms
nl:ErikRecn.bo