Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05071985 - I.O TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS /y Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa DATE: April 22 , 1985 County SUBJECT: Status Report on Landfill Siting Selection Process SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ; 1. Acknowledge receipt of the attached report dated April 22, 1985 from Paul Kilkenny, Assistant Public Works Director--Environmental Control. 2. Direct that Mr. Kilkenny' s report be forwarded to the Mayors ' Conference, the Mayors of each city in the County, and each member of the Solid Waste Commission, requesting that they review and comment on the direction being taken by County staff. Further, such communication should indicate the willingness of the Board of Supervisors to have County staff make presentations before the Mayors ' Conference, any City Council meeting, or the Solid Waste Commission, in order to explain the direction the Board of Supervisors is taking and to note that the Internal Operations Committee -. will consider staff reports on all of these issues on May 13 , 1985. 3. Order the Director, Community Development Department, to express to all applicants interested in establishing solid waste disposal sites in the County the Board of Supervisors ' concern that substantial wind monitoring data be obtained on each site from multiple points, if necessary, to establish the pertinent air movements, and for as long a period of time as possible, and that this data be presented to the Board of Supervisors when the Board hears any of these applications. In addition, the Community Development Department should express to all applicants the Board' s interest that there be early monitoring of all other issues that would bear on the public' s impressions of a site in order to gather the maximum amounts of information. This communication should also express the view of the Board that obtaining this data should be a requirement placed on each applicant and should be acquired at the applicant' s expense. X CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COU MINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE � H SIGNATURES) Tom Torlakson Tom Owers ACTION OF BOARD ON May 7. 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ti2L_ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 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. Public Works Director CC: Community Dev. Director ATTESTEDIV County Counsel Env. Control , Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Mayors ' Conf. (via Pub . Works)--Env. Cont All Cities (via Env. Control ) M98zi''8'Solid Waste Commission (via Env, ControlY) rol . DEPUTY Page 2 Status Report on Landfill Siting Selection process 4. Request the Director, Community Development Department, to report to the Board May 7 , 1985 on the process for handling the Environmental Impact reports for the landfill site applications and the extent to which these reports can be processed in a coordinated manner. 5. Request the Community Development Department Director to include in his report to the Internal Operations Committee on May 13 economic data regarding solid waste transportation costs versus site development costs, which will assist the Board of Supervisors in determining whether it is economically feasible to consider the development of regional sites in the County as opposed to only one or two sites. b. Request the Director, Community Development Department, and County Counsel, to report to the Internal Operations Committee on May 13 regarding the impact on communities of the importation of solid waste from other areas of the County as well as from outside the County, and the extent to which the County can require that mitigation measures be taken to reduce the negative impact of such importation. 7. Leave this matter on referral to the Internal Operations Committee. BACKGROUND: On April 9 , 1985, the Board approved a report from our Committee directing that certain staff reports be prepared and presented to our Committee on May 13 , 1985. On April 22 , 1985 , we met with staff from Public Works , Community Development Department, County Counsel, and the Environmental Control Division of Public Works, to ensure that all of our concerns were being addressed by staff, and that we were clear on who was handling which assignment. From this discussion, the need to ensure that we have received adequate input from the Mayors' Conference, the cities, and the Solid Waste Commission, was expressed. In addition, our Committee expressed the strong conviction that when the Board of Supervisors hears any of the applications for establishment of a solid waste disposal facility, it will, be critical that as much data as possible be available to the Board describing wind directions and velocities so that we can evaluate concerns which will be expressed by the public regarding anticipated problems for residents who may live near a proposed site. This data must be collected over as long a period as possible in order to include various seasons of the year, and particularly with the larger proposed sites, it must include monitoring at several points within that site. Our Committee received and reviewed in some detail the attached status report from Environmental Control, which serves to outline a number of the issues with which our Committee will deal when we receive all of the outstanding staff reports on May 13 . t PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: April_ 22, 1985 R-17A TO: Internal Operations Committee: Supervisor Tom Powers Supervisor Tom Torlakson FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director By: Paul E. Kilkenny, Assistant Public Works Die Environmental Control SUBJECT: Status Report on Landfill Siting Selection Process The purpose of this memo is to provide a status report on a report being developed on the alternatives available to the Board concerning the landfill siting selection process after the completion of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/County Study. The Board authorized staff to prepare a full report for review at the May 13, 1985 Internal Operations Committee meeting. At the Solid Waste Commission study session on March 21, 1985, the Internal Operations Committee meetings of March 25 and April 8, and the Board of Supervisors meetings of March 26 and April 9, there was significant discussion concerning seeking sites in .addition to three privately-proposed sites, either as a back-up in case none of the three sites are permitted, or as a public site in direct competition with the privately-proposed sites. There are several options the Board can now take to assure that there is. future landfill capacity for the County. The basic options are listed below and described in more detail in this memo. 1. Private Sites - Support the efforts of the three privately-proposed landfill sites, and any other, with the expectation that at least one of the sites will complete the permit process in a timely manner. 2. Public Site Alternative - Start an immediate process to identify one or more alternative sites for use as a backup, should the private sites not be implemented in a timely manner or to be developed in direct competition with the private sites by: Regional Concept - Conduct a second phase to the CCCSD/County Study which would identify one site in each of the regions of the County. Ranking - Conduct a second phase to the CCCSD/County Study whereby the sites are ranked to find the best sites. Private Sites Three landfills have been proposed by private interests. Two are between Concord and Pittsburg and one south of Antioch. The preliminary geotechnical information shows that each of the sites should be able to meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board to prevent contamination of surface and 2 ground waters. Other adverse affects from landfills such as traffic, odor, and noise will be addressed in the Environmental Impact Reports for the projects. There is significant opposition to all three sites. The Kirker Pass Waste Management' Landfill was the first private proposal to start the permit application process. The EIR contract has been approved by the Board. The proponent for the project, Land Waste Management, is not currently in the garbage collection or disposal business. There are serious concerns about the road access to the site via Kirker Pass Road. Concord has objected to this site, and Pittsburg has expressed serious concern about the site. The second privately-proposed landfill to start the permit process is the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. This landfill is located south of the City of Antioch and is bordered on three sides by East Bay Regional Park District pro- perty. The project proponents are the owners of the current landfill in East County and have the collection franchise for Concord and all of the East County except for Antioch and West Pittsburg. The City of Antioch has objected to the site, and the East Bay Regional Park District has expressed serious concern about the "site. The major concern about this site is the proximity to the Park property and to a residential subdivision approximately one-half mile away, and the concerns of traffic through Antioch. The "scoping" phase of EIR is now underway with selection of an EIR Consultant expected in early May. The Central Contra Costa. Sanitary Landfill sponsor is preparing information necessary to start the permit process. It is anticipated that the information will be submitted to the Planning Department during the month of April . The proponents of this site are Richmond Sanitary Service (the collectors and landfill operators for the West County) and some of the owners of the Acme Fill Corporation landfill. The City of Pittsburg has expressed concerns about this site. The site is the largest of the three sites encompassing 1700 acres, although only a portion of that site will actually be a working landfill. The main concern raised about these sites is their proximity to residential areas. There is also concern that the landfills cannot be operated in an environ- mentally safe manner so close to residential populations. Concern has also been raised by the cities that the landfills will restrict future growth opportunities. None of the cities, nor the East Bay Regional Park District, has veto power over these landfills; however, if the Board wishes to approve one of these landfills, it will no doubt have to do so over the objections of at least one city. It is Possible for a group of cities to stop the approval of a landfill if a majority of the cities containing a majority of the incorporated population votes against a Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment which is required for any of the three sites. The "pros" of this alternative are as follows: 1. Two of the three private landfill proponents have experience in operating landfills in Contra Costa County. 2. No additional public funds would have to be expended to conduct a further landfill search. 3 3. . The private sites are already well into 'the permit process. The "cons" of this alternative are as follows: 1. There are no assurances that any of the three private sites would be permitted. 2. The three private sites may be subject to lawsuits challenging the EIR and/or permit approvals. 3. There may not be a mechanism available to regulate tipping fees, as would be the case for a public site. Public Site Alternative Should the Board decide that it wants to find a site in addition to the three private sites, this alternative would apply. The site can be either a back-up or be developed in direct competition with the private sites. To actually finance a -publicly-owned landfill, franchising agencies would be required to contractually commit their wastestream to the landfill for at least the length of time necessary to pay off capital improvements, probably in the form of revenue bonds. Public funds expended for a back-up landfill sito would be lost if the back-up site is not used. There is a range of options to develop a public site alternative. Two are discussed below. Public Site - Regional Concept The regional concept divides the County into areas, for example, West/North Central, South/Central, and East. One landfill serving each area is to be found within each area. For the West/North Central area, sites I-2 and I-3 would be Investigated and one selected. For the South/Central part of the County, site IV-1 and the three Tassajara sites will be evaluated. For the East County, it can be assumed that one of the three privately-proposed landfills will serve their needs. A back-up for all three areas would be one of distant sites (VI-4, VI-8, VI-9) located in East County. Public participation workshops could be held in each of the three areas to get public input on the site selection. The local governmental entities in each area could decide on which site to develop, or make a decision that none of the sites within the area is feasible and recommend development of one of the more distant East County sites. Once- a landfill site in each area is selected, a developer, either public or private, would have to be found. The "pros" of this alternative are as follows: 1. The intra-County "import" issue will be avoided; each area would solve its own problem. 2. The "impact" both environmentally and socially would be spread throughout the County. 3. Transportation costs to the landfills would be reduced if a site was . a 4 found in each geographical area (however, disposal costs could increase because the landfills would be smaller). The "cons" of this alternative are as follows: 1. There is still no guarantee that siting will be approved either indivi- dually or collectively within each of the areas. There will still be some local objections, but the import issue may be avoided. 2. This process will take about 12 months if a full public participation program is included. 3. The. process would cost approximately $100,000, funded by public agencies (anticipated to be funded by the solid waste planning tonnage fee surcharge, $100,000 amounts to about a 10-cents/ton surcharge). 4- Developers for the landfill sites, either public or private, would have to be found for Central and West County sites. 5. Disposal costs at the landfills would be higher (but transportation costs would be reduced). Public Site - Ranking In this alternative, the sites identified in the CCCSO/County Landfill Siting Study would be ranked in order of suitability for a sanitary landfill . There will be both subjective and objective criteria in the ranking process. The more objective the ranking, the more money and time can be expected to be committed to the process. It can be expected that no matter how objective the study is purported to be, there would still be criticism that the rankings are subjective. The three private sites can be included in the ranking process or excluded. If they are included in the process and are not ranked at the top, there will be sentiment to stop all approvals of the private landfills and seek developers for the ,top-ranked landfill. If the private sites are not included in the ranking process, the ranked sites can be considered. a back-up to the three private sites, but one would never know how the three private sites compare to the ranked sites. The "pros" of this approach are as follows: 1. The "best site" would be identified and give strong justification for developing that site. 2. This alternative can be the most objective planning process. The "cons" of this alternative are as follows: 1. Depending on the technical information required, the ranking process can take one year and cost in the magnitude of $100,000 or more. 2. The ranking process will still be subject to criticism of being subjec- tive. 5 3. Is it really necessary to find the best site; in other words, as long as the sites meet some minimum criteria, aren't all the sites suitable for development? 4. If after the ranking process is completed, a private site is not at the top of the list, a developer must be sought for the site identified. 5. If private sites are effectively eliminated, inverse condemnation may be charged. Key Issues There are four main issues that will need to be addressed that may aid in coming to a decision as to which alternative to pursue. These issues are as follows: 1. Can any landfill be operated in an environmentally safe manner so that the .` landfill can co-exist with homes within a short distance from its boundaries? 2. What is an acceptable level of increased traffic on the routes to landfills? 3. Is the Board willing to override objections of a city to a landfill? 4. Is there a likelihood of lawsuits that will significantly slow down'or stop a landfill from acquiring the necessary permits? Some of these questions will be difficult to answer without the environmental documentation, however, only environmental documentation on the three privately- proposed sites will be forthcoming. If the Board feels that a back-up landfill should be developed, some sort of Phase II or a public site process should be started immediately. If the Board has confidence that the private-sector sites will meet the needs of the County and the Board will be willing to override objections of the cities and concerned residents, then it may be appropriate not to pursue a Phase II or a public site at this time. Timing In making a decision on this matter, it should be recognized that a new landfill needs to be placed in operation as soon as possible. Acme Fill is scheduled to close in June of 1987. Amendment No. 1 to the County Solid Waste Management Plan is a landfill siting schedule based on a landfill being in operation in 1988, one year after the scheduled closure of Acme Fill . If Acme closes in 1987, Central County wastes would have to be disposed of elsewhere according to a Contingency Plan to be developed. According to Amendment No. 1 to the County Solid Waste Management Plan, the Board can wait until August 1985 to make a decision on a "public site"; however, by August of 1985 the "public site" should have been identified so the geotechnical work can immediately start in order to maintain the schedule in the Amendment. OBOc 1 swmp.io.rpt.selec.proc.t4 -