The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04091985 - IO.1 �a THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATE: April 9, 1985 MATTER OF RECORD ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Siting of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities During the Board' s discussion on the report of the Internal Operations Committee relative to landfill sites , the Board members were, in agreement that staff review the following issues and report back to the Internal Operations Committee on or before May 13, 1985: 1 . Does the Board of Supervisors have the power through the land use permit process to condition a landfill site approval giving the Board of Supervisors the authority to control the wastestream and/or direct its end use or disposal? In other words , can the Board of Supervisors control the wastestream through the land use permit process? 2. If so, can we , or should we , strengthen that authority through the adoption of an ordinance or an amendment to the Solid Waste Management Plan? 3. If not , how can the Board of Supervisors acquire that authority? 4. Can any County ordinance or land use control be applied to require that garbage from urban areas capable of having curbside recycling programs have such programs in place as a condition of disposal at a public or private disposal site? 5 . What is the economic impact and implications of having more than one new solid waste disposal site in the County, taking into account set-up costs , hauling and transpor- tation costs , and the effect on tipping fees and rates? 6 . Review existing County ordinances to determine whether the County is utilizing all available authority provided by the State for setting up and regulating a landfill site and controlling its operation in order to assure a "state- of-the-art" disposal facility. If we have additional unused authority, identify areas where we can take action to improve and expand our existing authority. Also identify areas where it would be desirable to have additional authority, but where additional State legislation is needed . THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY { 1. Solid Waste: Disposal Facilities Siting MjR 2. Landfill siting issues TO: BOARD OF Su�ERVISORS �' ! 4.` Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa DATE: April 8, 1985 Vt my SUBJECT: Siting of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) !I: BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve the attached letter to all jurisdictions which franchise the collection of solid waste. 2. Direct the County Administrator, Director of Planning, and Public Works Director, in cooperation with County Counsel, to develop and present to our Committee on May 13 the following: A. A more specific work plan 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, and which addresses the need to take into consideration all inter-county and intra-county regional or area issues. B. 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. C . 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 or near Which a disposal site is located as partial mitigation for locating a facility in their jurisdiction. D. A report which proposes an increase in the existing tonnage fee at the dump site for purposes of solid waste management planning which could be dedicated to paying for some of the work needed to determine the adequacy of proposed sites. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COON 7y ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMM TION OF BOARD COMMITT X APPROVE ow, O R SIGNATURES) Tom Torlakson To Powe s ACTION OF BOARD ON April 9, 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT. ._ ) i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD County Administrator OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Planning Director ATTESTED 9 Public Works Director Public Works--Env. Control PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Ac& Ciries M382/7-83 BY DEPUTY A Page 2 BACKGROUND• The Board has before it the report of our Committee dated March 25, the County Administrator' s report on this subject, and the recommendations of the Solid Waste Commission, all of which were discussed by the Board on March 26. At that time, the Board agreed to direct the preparation of a letter to be sent to cities and sanitary--districts asking about their willingness and ability to dedicate the wastestream to a public disposal site and their willingness to contribute funds toward the development of a public disposal site. Staff has prepared such a letter which is also before the Board today. Our Committee reviewed a draft of this letter of April 8 , requested some changes in it, and are now recommending its approval by the Board. We have also revised some of our March 25 recommendations and would recommend that the Board consider the above recommendations rather than those presented in our March 25 report. DRAFT - 4/4/85 (ADDRESSEE — Cities and Sanitary Districts ) N --RE: -- New Sanitary Landfill �— As you undoubtedly know from press reports, the Board of Supervisors is presently considering the Solid Waste Management Project Report prepared by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District in conjunction with the county. That report clearly indicates that there are potential upland, landfill sites in various areas of the County. . Private sector sponsors are now, in fact, seeking approval for development of a landfill on three of these sites. There is a possibility, however, that each of these private sector efforts may fail some aspect of the lengthy, complex and costly permit and approval process , a situation which would create an extremely difficult situation on closure of Acme Fill. To protect against such a situation, and assure timely development of a new landfill, seems to require therefore that the public sector also participate in the landfill site selection process. The Board is seeking input on this issue as a result of its discussions on this subject at its meeting on March 26 , 1985 . Those discussions included the possibility of a letter to the cities and sanitary districts franchising solid waste, inquiring as to their views and willingness to participate in the public landfill site selection and development process. Your response to the following questions will greatly assist the Board in its deliberations on this issue taking into account that technical studies on each landfill site are estimated in the $200 , 000 to $500 ,000 range, and actual development of a site in the $7 million to $10 million range. 1 . Do you believe it is necessary for a public agency to select a site for development of a landfill( s) as an alternative to the three privately proposed landfills? -. 2. Are you willing, and legally able, to commit your wastestream to a publicly sponsored landfill if one is developed? 3 . Would you be willing to commit your wastestream to a public agency, who in turn would be responsible for directing the waste to either a privately or publicly sponsored resource recovery project, or to a publicly owned landfill operated contractually by the private sector? 4 . For the landfill site selection process , would your agency be willing to contribute funds such as on aper capita basis , to expedite action? The County Solid Waste Management Plan establishes a timetable under which the Board of Supervisors is to make a decision on a public landfill site by August 1985 so that the landfill may be available by June 1988 . However, to meet the June 1987 timetable for the closure of Acme Fill, any publicly sponsored site should have been identified by then so that at that time the required geo-technical work can begin immediately. A statement of your views clarifying, or expanding on your responses to these questions, would also be helpful to the Board. Very truly yours , NANCY C. FAHDEN, Chair Board of Supervisors cc : County Administrator, Public Works Director, County Counsel , Planning Dirctor 1. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 2. Siting solid waste disposal facilities 3. Wastestream direction of J 4. Legislation authorizing County 5. Surcharge at disposal facility r 6. Disposal site mitigation 7. Tonnage fee possible increase 8. Solid waste management planning purposes {I