Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03261985 - T.6 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 26, 1985 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden NOES: Supervisor Schroder ABSENT: Supervisor Powers ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Reports on the County/Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Study on Solid Waste Management and Proposed Landfill Sites Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, commended the work of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and County staff in the development of the Solid Waste Management Project Report . He advised that the report is a well documented analysis of the County's solid waste/landfill problems and identified potential landfill sites . Mr. Batchelor referred to his report to the Board on the Solid Waste Management Project Report and the recommendations con- tained therein. A copy of the Administrator's report is attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. ) Supervisor Tom Torlakson, Chairman of the Internal Operations Committee, presented that Committee's report on the Central Sanitary District report,. He indicated that the Internal Operations Committee reviewed the recommendations of the Solid Waste Commission which parallel those of the County Administraton. He commented on the need to plan for the management of the waste stream as well as the development of public or privately owned landfill sites . Supervisor Nancy Fanden noted that since the cities franchise the garbage collectors , they should be involved in the planning process. She supported a proposal to require the cities to share in the cost of developing a publicly owned landfill site if that proposal proves the most advantageous . The Chairwoman noted that many individuals had expressed a desire to speak on the study. The speakers were critical of the Central Sanitary District report and expressed opposition to the various targeted sites, particularly the Garaventa site. The following persons spoke: Thomas G. Beatty, 2201 Arbol Ct . , Antioch Nora J. Campbell , 2409 Kensington Ct. , Antioch Francoise Boden, 4125 S. Royal Links Circle , Antioch Timothy Donahue , 2412 Cambridge Dr. , Antioch Bruce Fredrickson, 2324 Foothill , Antioch Donn Hayes , 2466 Grimsby Drive , . Antioch Warren L. Smith, 1100 Bailey Road, Pittsburg . Steven Jimenez, P...O. Box 1535, Antioch H . Kurlawalla, 2409 Kensington Ct . , Antioch Michael Tucevich, 4000 Crestview Dr. , Pittsburg David I . Tam, 6014 College Ave . , Oakland Gerald Waters , 4037 W. Royal Links Circle, Antioch Tamara Wickland, 555 Railroad Ave . , Hercules Sy Greben, EBRPD, 11500 Skyline Blvd. , Oakland _1_ The following persons submitted comments for the record in opposition of various targeted sites: Andrea R. Vitalie , 849 Carpetta Circle , Pittsburg Lynda Vitalie , 2457 Grimsby Drive, Antioch Cheryl Lynn McClure , 3200 Ashley Way, Antioch Ronald E. Kuldau, 4145 S. Royal Links Circle , Antioch Mr . & Mrs . Wm. Hall , 3335 S. Francisco Way, Antioch Nabil & Ginny Aldajani , 2102 Mendocino Dr. , W. Pittsburg Karen Del Purgatorio, 216 Mailbu Ct . , Antioch Frank Vitalie , 2457 Grimsby Drive , Antioch All persons desiring to speak were heard. Board members discussed the need to review this matter further. Supervisor Torlakson advised that he believed that staff should be directed to prepare a letter to the cities inquiring as to their willingness and ability to dedicate a portion of their wastestream to a public disposal site , as well as providing some financial assistance in this area. Supervisor Schroder advised that he was not prepared to take any action on any of the recommendations contained in the report of either the County Administrator or the Internal Operations Committee until he has had an opportunity to review them thoroughly. There being no further discussion, IT IS ORDERED that the County Administrator is REQUESTED to prepare for the Board's con- sideration on April 9, 1985 the draft of a proposed letter to be sent to all cities , sanitation districts and jurisdictions which franchise the collection of solid waste , asking for a statement: a) of their willingness and ability to dedicate all or a portion of their wastestream to a public disposal site; b) of their willingness to contribute funds or in-kind services toward the development of a public disposal site; and c) of their willingness to dedicate their wastestream to a public entity for contract with a private entity. cc: County Administrator Public Works Director !hereby certify 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: i J6, $, /98. _ PHIL BATCHELOR, C13ric of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By r`�'� , Deputy Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: Philip J. Batchelor, County Administrator County DATE: March 19, 1985 "l� SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Planning - County/Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Study Specific Requests or Recommendations & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept the Solid Waste Management Project Report for the County/Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Solid Waste Management Study, and express appreciation to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District for providing the major funding and management of the Joint Study. 2. Request the County Administrator in conjunction with the Public Works Department, Planning Department, and County Counsel to develop information within 60 days on procedures, financing, and timetable on how a publicly-owned landfill in Contra Costa County can be selected, acquired, permitted, and developed. 3. Direct the Planning Department to report monthly to the Solid Waste Commission and the Board of Supervisors on the progress of the privately proposed landfills concerning the permitting and approval process. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff resources to carry out the above recommendations are considered part of the County Solid Waste Management Plan function; therefore, costs required to perform these tasks are eligible to be reimbursed through the tonnage fee charged to landfill operators for Solid Waste Management Plan activities. Actions required to implement the recommendations listed above can be performed within the current budget for Fiscal Year 1984-1985 for solid waste management. If the Board finally determines, however, that it must proceed with a publicly developed sanitary landfill, significant additional funding will be necessary. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Solid Waste Management Project Report is a thorough, well documented analysis of the County's solid waste/landfill problem. It demonstrates that there are available upland landfill sites within the County, and has speeded up actions toward the timely obtaining of one or more new sanitary landfills. Additionally, it has contributed factually, and in public understanding, to the landfill problem. 2. The permit and approval process for a new landfill is a lengthy, comple , and costly one. There is a possibility that all the private sect o lan fil site roposals will Continued on attachment: X yes Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other: Signature(s): .J fail to clear some aspects of the review process, and/or that the proponents will become discouraged and terminate their efforts. To protect against such a situation, and assure timely development of a new landfill, requires therefore that the public sector also participate in the process. 3. Monthly reporting and review will help assure that development of one or more new landfills will continue to receive priority attention, and will actually occur on a timely basis. BACKGROUND Contra Costa County currently faces a solid waste disposal crisis within the next four to six years because of a lack of landfill capacity within the County. State and Federal regulatory agencies, including the State Water Resources Control Board, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, have all, in various ways, expressed extreme reluctance to allow expansion of existing landfills into adjacent wetlands. In response to this situation, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD), in cooperation with Contra Costa County (County), in July, 1984, undertook a study to identify and describe potential garbage disposal sites and solid waste management alternatives that could provide a solution to the impending crisis. The County is involved because it is responsible for countywide solid waste planning and regulation. CCCSD is involved because of concern for its rate-payers key to which is cost effective waste disposal including a new landfill . CCCSD franchises collection of 40 percent of the solid waste generated in Central Contra Costa County. The County/CCCSD Study has undergone considerable review by the Study's Management Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, County staff, the Solid Waste Commission, and the general public (at four workshops and one study session). Review of the Study Report shows that the Report adequately accomplishes the tasks originally identified, and that the Study will be very useful for future solid waste planning. As indicated below there are now three privately proposed sanitary landfills. Approval of one or more of these may meet the County landfill need. However, clearance of the extensive permit and approval process is not assured and, therefore, preliminary consideration has been given to development of a public landfill during the review process. Selecting and permitting a site will be costly, an estimated $500,000. Purchase of the site and development could well be in the magnitude of $7 to $10 million. To proceed with a public landfill alternative, a site would have to be selected from the candidate sites identified in the Study, a geotechnical analysis and other studies such as the Environmental Impact Report begun, and the permit process initiated. A further report on this subject is required to develop all the information and considerations involved. At the February 16, 1985 meeting of the Board, the Board asked staff to report back on a number of topics related to this subject. Staff findings on each of these topics are as follows: Status of Private-Sector Sponsored Landfill Applications Three proposed landfill sites have been announced by private-sector sponsors. Two of these, the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill (Corrie) and East Contra Costa Sanitary landfill (Garaventa) projects have had their initial applications for General Plan reviews accepted by the County. Staff is now arranging for the preparation of their Environmental Impact Reports. Draft EIRs for the two projects could be in circulation for public review and hearings by Summer and Fall, respectively. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (Olney) project is in the pre-application stage. The "Comprehensive Project Description" materials, which are required by the County to initiate an application, are expected to be submitted in April. It is conceivable that all three projects could have their EIRs certified and have their County "permits" (plan amendments, agricultural preserve cancella- tions, etc.) under consideration as early as the end of this year (1985). The information received to date from the three project proponents, indicates that there are no identified major impediments that would keep the projects from being technically suited for a sanitary landfill; additional information, however, may be forthcoming during the environmental review and permit process. If at least one of the sites is approved, the County short- and medium-term needs will be met. If more than one of the sites are approved, the sites may meet the County's long-term needs. "Batching" of Landfill Applications "Batching" of the three applications has been mentioned. The Environmental Impact Reports for the three projects should not be integrated -- for the legal reason that the statutory processes on two of them have already started, and for the the reason that the information produced for the EIRs will have a bearing on the batching issue. Although there are procedural exceptions, EIRs are to be certified within one year of their notices of prepar- ation, and there is too much of a time gap between the three projects to ensure that this could be done if the EIRs are batched. Regardless, staff will ensure that the three EIRs are coordinated with one another. If batching is considered by the Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission, the decision to review the projects together should be made after the first Draft EIR is circulated but before the first General Plan amendment is approved by the Planning Commission -- in other words, when the applications are still in the "policy" state. Since there is no processing time limit for General Plan amendments, and since the other entitlement actions are required to be consistent with the General Plan, this is the appropriate time for the Board or the Commission to decide how it wants to review the applications. A decision to batch the proposals will disadvantage those which filed earliest and it could dismay those regulatory agencies which advocate a minimum time line above all other considerations; however, it could serve the needs of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission who are likely to be faced with the task of realistically sorting-out the components of a refuse disposal system from the independent applications and their newly created site-specific information, public hearing testimony, and a background of plans and studies. Control of the Wastestream County Counsel has written an opinion dated August 13, 1984 on this matter. County Counsel 's opinion basically states that the wastestream cannot be controlled by the County Solid Waste Management Plan, unless there is a legislative amendment to the Solid Waste Act clarifying that a Solid Waste Management Plan may control the wastestream. Control of the wastestream now rests with franchising agencies (cities and sanitary districts) and the solid waste collectors. Designation of who controls or directs the wastestream in each jurisdiction is usually not specified; however, some agencies have stated where this authority rests in their franchise agreements (see the attached Summary of Franchise Agreements). A Joint Powers Agency, without specific legislation to give it more authority, would not be able to control thewastestreamany more than the County, or other individual local agencies. Regulation of Tipping Fees at Privately-Owned Landfills County Counsel has prepared an opinion dated February 5, 1985 on this issue. County Counsel has advised that the County has no general statutory authority to regulate disposal fees at privately-owned and operated sanitary landfills. Under certain emergency circumstances, however, the County may be able to regulate fees provided that the landfill is located within the County's jurisdiction and such regulation is reasonable. Further consideration needs to be given to express legislation on this subject. Organization for Solid Waste Management The Board has referred this matter to the Solid Waste Commission for consideration. The Solid Waste Commission at their February 20, 1985 meeting, established an ad hoc committee made up of County, City, and Sanitary District administrators, planners, and attorneys, to discuss the issue of appropriate organizational forms for solid waste management. The committee has met twice and is developing a recommendation for the Solid Waste Commission to consider. It is important to note that there are legal limitations as to who has the authority over solid waste management issues. A Joint Powers Agency has often been discussed as a management alternative which may improve the existing situation. A Joint Powers Agency may result in more sharing in the decision-making process, but without legislation would not have new powers not currently lodged in existing local agencies. Resource Recovery (Recycling, Waste-to-Energy, Composting) All forms of resource recovery are compatible with sanitary landfills. The County/Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Study found that almost all resource recovery projects require some sort of subsidy in its initial stages (if not longer) in order to be imple- mented. The Study also quantifies the amounts of waste that can be diverted from landfills from the different types of resource recovery programs. The elected officials who must make decisions concerning implementing resource recovery programs must determine whether implementing a resource recovery program justifies the additional cost which will be required. The Study also found that the location of resource recovery facilities, including waste-to-energy projects are not dependent on the location of landfills. In fact, resource recovery facilities are better located near population centers to improve convenience and reduce transportation costs. Summary of Franchise Agreements Concerning Control of the Wastestream Attached is a chart which was included in the County/Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Study which summarizes each of the franchise agreements for all of the franchising agencies in the County. Every franchise agreement is different and references to control of the wastestream are usually not included. In the cases where there is such wording, the control authority differs with each jurisdiction. For those agencies which have agreements which are silent on control of the wastestream, there needs to be a legal interpretation as to whether or not the agency can assume that they have control of the wastestream. This review of the franchise agreements shows that it will be very difficult to collectively control the wastestream in the County by local governmental agencies unless significant modifications as to franchise agreements are made. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION The County is under a rigorous timetable for development of a new landfill by the time ACME Fill closes in 1987. Failure to proceed as rapidly as possible with processing of private sector applications, and also to continue to explore a public sector option, could result in a failure to meet the established timetable, and a serious solid waste disposal problem at that time. 19mar85 sw:swmp.bo.study.13.t3 Enclosure r � o L t L 4J Lo m SOCL OCCv q 4; O V 44 4J O L+ ��pp UA S- iii S t m 2. LS 4 O 241 S+ ^ S v .0L q N Oc V m m o 4+S c S L „ m �wm mgA� � AV Q E tc �S- u � 0. O- �N. 4J 0 4.L.--- C �- L q N•- A L N p1v O r � Yj 7ms E� CN M O uq L RTOL.r N L. pp_ _ r4 �N • A Ip oL. O 04 ou A N >O O �A N 4M+ S. S „ N �v LO m U m r A O L N qL. r t A m VL.h O h N �(O�a r U)C 4� o L L CCT L O c40, q CO— mN� O t w V i+ R� S L O L LID O L 4a m !•v Lr ?• 0 V CC m m 04J 4+ q C 41 m L O C L N N L 4 N E q c Ln c r 3 yy O/ r r O" q m m h3 I I r'4+ U to so OON 4n S I +Z-Z C O •U O U Z •-- C4 r N N S }(0 N v r A r r v!.4 U O h U Z U m ` E U W ! 4J 4- O 4 0 O c C4 L Z 4�b m m 4 %! Sm C vuj on Ix I I I I Z I 5 a 0 U U O 4+ W _ A 0-4 t m L • 4f N 10 pp�L � I I +. I 1 C CoL) L. V LL. GHQ U V 0-'C4A V C.) N N O i { U A L.C r -� C c A m•- L O 4 r 1-.40- m.. U G 0MCL �g o an an = o �n o z z z m e o c o C> C> v c u m oj. N m f _Ot++ S m v L L Z d O \ O� m in R1 1r1 N t VCL L. : : � : OHO r a a qc A x w m •r �o .- z O W O< c • O c 4J ipf A O l L IS 4 i pcp q OY v O U O 1 40+ C t V i Ss in OCL 4 N V L 4J 4 0 10 c 4a 4J < m U mU UH W _71_ C 0 r E +a v 0 s q C 0 O u V v � w 0 y� +tpp 'C Y! Lr q yoi L. i {? iq/! C L CL a vvi 4J 40) ul v o o $ c ' 0 t1. 41 c m � C r1 CA 41 Sul- S- sem ° « vo Q0r c {�J/�rit r +V O L 4 >1 �a 0IA c C r L L.49 C O O �O@� 0 �L 111 0 CL 44 10 4 r O q C C r Ld L O Z C1 wag t r--i G � r0 O)U O.t r U v1 N q ul ad 0 C +_ O` t3 r+ t4:a C 0 ao So cx 0 1t-r- 48 f q +? 4 `)o0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L.� 0 1 $ 0 i b t11 a N C!?}� 40.0 +� C)a a O v U>a Z 4+ in t r a q �w V) 0)4 0 L N r_ C 1 1 1 - O 6f O 1 O p vi a OQ C.? U U V U U 01 w C r r. CD v1 0 a E 0 L O L C Wc _ 241 L. >- 1.04 �qa 0 0 0 O 11pp G OCC V- O Q1 C L Z 0 0 G O 0 0 Ot V Z t11 O it1 O Z ZVO Z Z Z C C M 0 0 to 1011 til C A o t 4+ po 0% gp 0 c y.++ G 0 oNi co Ci N \ tD tV \ \ N O q q \ co \ QJ r \ r. O �" \ N 0 L L O \ r M O O M M C1 I 0 4. 0 M 4 M M M M m L p W 0.2 Im q q 0 h � O t O ip+ C p ic U p L r 0 q t•' 111 N N N L 4i 'O V C p 0 0 m 7 C C O iA�+ v CO C ca fur a O a o c G tJ •— O IV - i+ 0 C rC— N p L O 00.t Z 7S Z O a. a. CL Q.' Z an Z Z N 1 TO: - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Internal Operations Committee Costa- DATE: ostaDATE: March 25, 1985 ouqy SUBJECT: Siting of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: Direct the County Administrator, Director of Planning, and Public Works Director, in cooperation with County Counsel , to develop and present to our Committee on April 8 the following: 1 . A proposed survey which could be sent to all jurisdictions which franchise the collection of solid waste asking for a statement: A) of their willingness and ability to dedicate all or a portion of the wastestream to a public disposal site, and B) of their willingness to contribute funds or in-kind services toward the development of a public disposal site. 2. A more specific workplan which addresses the criteria and process by which the number of potential disposal sites, whether public or private, can be narrowed to two or three. 3. A report which addresses the need for and possible content of legislation which would authorize the County to direct the wastestream to a public disposal site and which would authorize the County to regulate tipping fees at private disposal sites.' 4. A report on the legal feasibility of authorizing the .County to impose a surcharge at the disposal facility which could go to a jurisdiction in which a disposal site is located as partial mitigation for locating a facility in their jurisdiction. 5. A report which discusses the ability of the Board of Supervisors to increase and use the existing tonnage fee at the dump site for purpdses of solid waste management planning which could be dedicated to paying for some of the work needed to determine the adequacy of proposed sites. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors is receiving the Solid Waste Management Project Report today, along with a report from the County Administrator recommending that the Board ask staff to develop information within 60 days on how a publicly-owned landfill site in the County could be selected, acquired, permitted and developed. Our Committee met on March 25 to review the County Administrator's report as well as recommendations from the Solid Waste Commission which parallel those in the County Administrator's report and which were developed as a result of public testimony received at its March 21 study session on the Draft Solid Waste Management Project Report. At our meeting on March 25 were representatives from the City of Antioch, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, the Sierra Club, County staff from Planning, Public Works, CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X _APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) Tom Torl akson Tom Powers Y -2- County Counsel 's Office, and the County Administrator's Office, as well as several interested citizens. Our Committee endorses the recommendations of the Solid Waste Commission and County Administrator and urges their adoption. Our only concern was that we not . place ourselves in the position of doing nothing further for 60 days .and then begin to deal with the possible need for a publicly owned and/or operated disposal site. The above recommendations grow out of our belief that additional efforts need to be made immediately to identify the process by which the number of potential sites under consideration can be narrowed to a manageable number. In addition, in order to realistically consider a publicly owned and/or operated site, it will be necessary for.the County to be able to direct the wastestream or have clear agreement from the franchising jurisdictions (cities and/or sanitary districts) to direct the wastestream or an adequate portion of it to a public facility. The County does not appear to have the authority, currently, to direct the wastestream and the ability of the franchising jurisdictions to direct the wastestream may be limited by the terms of their existing franchise agreements. Geotechnical surveys of all the identified sites in order to provide data on which to eliminate some sites may be very expensive. Therefore, we believe that our Committee's recommendations, taken together with those of the Solid Waste Commission and County Administrator, will provide the information needed for the Board of Supervisors to adequately consider a publicly owned and/or operated site while at the same time monitor the development of applications for privately owned and operated sites.