HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02111992 - 1.61 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -=
;• Contra
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
O. COSta
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�' -����- County
DATE: JANUARY 28, 1992
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMUNICATION FROM JAMES HICKS, CITIZENS UNITED, ON THE
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept this report from the Community Development Director.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On December 17, 1991, the Board of Supervisors considered a
communication from James Hicks of Citizens United requesting the
Board to accept an appeal of the Community Development Director's
October 25, 1991, authorization to the Keller Canyon Landfill
Company to begin the grading of the Keller Canyon Landfill. On the
advice of County Counsel, supplemented by information from the
Community Development Department, the Board rejected the request
for the appeal because staff was acting in a ministerial capacity
-- - carrying out an entitlement already granted by the Board
following public review and comment -- not administratively
granting an entitlement. The Board, however, requested staff to
reply to the points raised in Mr. Hick's November 22nd letter. His
points, in bold-faced type and quotation marks, are reproduced
below.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATU
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO ION OF OARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
L- I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
FEB 11 1992
Orig: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED
cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Val Alexeeff, GMEDA AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Jim Causey, Public Works Department
Wm. Walker, Health Services Department, G�� ���
Jim Hicks, Citizens United (via CDD) BY �,l,.l� , DEPUTY
Boyd Olney, Keller Canyon Landfill Co. (via CDD)
Bruen and Gordon (via CDD)
Keller Canyon Landfill LAC (via CDD)
CAZ:gms
cz:%o%Resp2Hic.ks
Response to Communication from J. Hicks
on the Keller Canyon Landfill
Page Two
"The conditions of approval require a final Development and
Improvements Plan before construction begins and that this plan
must be consistent with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. Since
this permit has not been issued, there can be no consistency with
a permit that does not exist."
The Solid Waste Facilities Permit is an operations permit, not a
construction permit. None of the conditions require the Solid
Waste Facilities Permit to be obtained prior to construction.
Staff previously responded to the issue of the status of the Solid
Waste Facilities Permit in October 19911 in connection with
Concord's and Pittsburg's objections to the Board of Supervisors'
final action approving cancellation of the Keller Landfill site's
Williamson Act contracts. We reported that the Solid Waste
Facilities Permit, which is a joint Local Enforcement Agency
(County Health Services Department) -California Integrated Waste
Management Board permit, is typically the last-issued entitlement
and not a prerequisite to construction.
There already is substantial consistency between the existing
requirements of the project's Land Use Permit and the forthcoming
requirements of a Solid Waste Facilities Permit. Conditions 3 .3
and 3 . 5 of Land Use Permit 2020-89 generally requires the landfill
to comply with the state's "minimum standards for Solid Waste
Handling and Disposal" (in Title 14, Code of Cal. Regs. , Division
7) in its operations and maintenance, which is the basis for the
Solid Waste Facilities Permit, and with the overall Solid Waste
Facilities Permit. Several of the Land Use Permit's specific
requirements originated with the State's operating standards,
including those specifying daily cover safety, and health
requirements.
"The conditions require a complete development and improvements
plan (DIP) prior to construction, containing a number of specific
elements. In comments to the Keller Canyon Landfill Advisory
Committee on October 21st, Mr. Charles Zahn indicated that the
complete plan does not exist. It would appear that the county is
then approving this DIP bit-by-bit, and is not requiring compliance
with critical parts of said DIP as required by the conditions of
approval."
Condition 15.2 of the Land Use Permit 2020-89 allows the phasing of
both Final Development and Improvements Plan submittals and
construction.
It was previously reported to the Board of Supervisors, in October,
1991, that the Final Development and Improvements Plan consists of
construction-level documents implementing the initial development
plan that was adopted by Land Use Permit 2020-89. The initial plan
was based on the Comprehensive Project Description required by the
County and the Site Characterization Study volumes required by the
state (Regional Water Quality Control Board) . The Final
Development and Improvements Plan itself includes a basic text
complemented by reports and construction drawings. Staff has
described its review work as mainly checking to ensure that the
submittals are complete and. coordinated with the approvals of
various agencies having jurisdiction. A classic example is project
development along Bailey Road where the road reconstruction under
the jurisdiction of the County Public Works Department must be
coordinated with Lawlor Creek corridor habitat enhancement under
the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game and
the provision of fire breaks underthe jurisdiction of the
Riverview Fire Protection District, as well as the provision of
landscape screening which the Community Development Department is-
charged
scharged with reviewing and approving.
The phasing of submittals and approvals basically follows the
process of installing a landfill and enabling it to operate. The
Response to Communication from J. Hicks
on the Keller Canyon Landfill
Page Three
earliest approvals dealt with basic grading; these are being
followed by approvals for installations; last will come approvals
for operations-related programs.
"The County did not notify nearby property owners and other
interested parties as required before permitting grading. This is
particularly critical in light of the previous item and KCLC recent
attempt to back out of conditions of approval related to property
value devaluation."
The County is not obligated to notify third parties when it allows
the implementation of previously approved entitlements. Notifi-
cation is performed when new entitlements are being considered.
Regardless, County staff initiated meetings of the Keller Canyon
Landfill Local Advisory Committee on September 26, 1991 -- a month
before construction began -- to, among other purposes, alert local
groups that construction could be imminent. Unfortunately, neither
Mr. Hicks nor an observer from Citizens United attended that
meeting.
"The County is changing the conditions of approval and EIR
mitigation measures without notice, environmental review or CEQA
compliance. For example, the EIR says construction is limited to.
the dry season and also says the sedimentation basin must be built
before other construction begins. Other conditions (such as hours
of construction) have also been changed without proper review."
The Community Development Department is maintaining a detailed
table of Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval (which include the
EIR's mitigation measures) and implementation activities to ensure
that the conditions are being complied with.
The Conditions of Approval document itself provides for options and
administrative discretion in specific circumstances. With respect
to the former, for instance, Condition 18.4 (a) provides that
primary grading is to be done during the dry season, but Condition
18.4 (b) provides for grading at other times if erosion and
sedimentation controls are employed. In the case of the Keller
Landfill, neither of the regulatory agencies which often prohibit
or object to winter grading, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and the State Department of Fish and Game, determined that
the project should be delayed. To the contrary, both imposed
immediate erosion and sedimentation controls. County staff opted
for a complementary course of action.
Condition 11.9 generally authorizes the Community Development
Department to interpret (but not change) conditions. In the matter
of the sedimentation basin, Condition 18 .4 (g) requires that a
sedimentation basin be installed before other landfill development.
The reason is obvious -- to offer early protection to downstream
drainage while the landfill is being installed. Condition 22 . 3 ,
however, also provides that the toe berm be installed prior to
other landfill construction. The reasons, again, are obvious -- to
provide a visual and noise barrier between the landfill and
adjoining properties and to enable the initial dominant feature of
the project to be re-vegetated as soon as possible. In point of
fact, the sedimentation basin, the toe berm and an adjoining area
must be graded out together because the three inter-connect: earth
material from the basin, and the adjoining area, is used to build
the toe berm; and the three areas are linked for drainage purposes.
The sedimentation basin won't function by itself.
While the sedimentation basin and toe berm were being worked on,
staff also allowed the on-site access road to be graded, and later
to be paved, and work to be performed on the Lawlor Creek Corridor.
The on-site road was necessary to bring equipment and drain rock to
the landfill grading area. The Lawlor Creek improvements provided
the access road "bridge" (culverted overcrossing) between Bailey
Response to Communication from J. Hicks
on the Keller Canyon Landfill
Page Four
Road and the site, and flood control features in a drainage area
unrelated to the landfill and its sedimentation basin. Materials
trucks could be marshalled on site once the access road was paved.
In staff's view, allowing work on the access road and Lawlor Creek
aided, rather than impeded, the work on the sedimentation basin and
toe berm.
Later, staff also authorized work to start on the reconstruction of
Bailey Road although the sedimentation basin had not been completed
(it was graded but drainage installations were incomplete) and the
toe berm had several weeks of grading left. The Bailey Road work
had no connection to the sedimentation basin or toe berm.
Condition 32 . 1 provides for construction hours of 8: 00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. , six days a week. Condition 32 .2 specifically enables the
Director of Community Development to allow exemptions for specific
reasons. In October, staff authorized construction to begin an
hour earlier in order to shorten the period for major grading and
to take advantage of what even then appeared to be a dry fall. In
December, the construction hours were again modified to 7 : 00 a.m.
to 5: 00 p.m. to take advantage of daylight; and, the exemption also
provided for a specified engine warm-up period, vehicle locations,
and maintenance activities in response to complaints.
CZ:gms
cz:\bo\Resp2Hic.ks