Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03081988 - IO.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 8, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Landfill Issues The Board received the attached report dated� March 7, 1988 from the Internal Operations Committee relative to landfill issues. After discussion by Board members, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the following actions are APPROVED: 1. REQUESTED Community Development staff to report to the Internal Operations Committee on March 14, 1988 on the ` status of discussions before the Solid Waste, Commission on amendments to the Solid Waste Plan to provide for landfill sites, and on status of implementation of a recycling program in the County; 2. REQUESTED Community Development staff to report to the Internal Operations Committee on March 14 , 1988 on the status of discussions between the Central Sanitary District and the cities on implementation of a recycling program; 3 . REQUESTED Community Development staff to outline ways in which processing of a General Plan amendment for any other landfill sites can be accelerated without sacrificing any of the data or studies required of the two pending applications, and 4. DEFERRED decision to March 15, 1988 on recommendation that the public-private partnership bids be opened. Since the Board was unable to reach consensus on a proposed landfill site ballot advisory measure, NO ACTION WAS TAKEN on this matter. i cc: Community Development Director County Administrator 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy o4 an taken and entered on tie minutes of the Board e: Superfjisors on t c cl:z'e shown. ATT':;P 7fir:.': L &SI [�ktiA .. d[ r'4:L?we.•�,i u- Cler! of tho BeGl.rd Of Supenvisors Ond Counay Administrator By _ _ Y4M410�' Deputy TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Contra Coosta DATE', March 7, 1988 Cointy SUBJECT: Advisory Ballot Measure on Landfill Sites SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGRCUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Our Committee is unable to reach a consensus on whether to place any advisory measure on the June 7, 1988 ballot. Supervisor McPeak is willing to place an advisory measure on the ballot if it includes sites other than just the two pending applications. She is opposed to placing an advisory measure on the ballot if it includes only these two sites . Supervisor Torlakson is opposed to placing any advisory measure on the ballot at this time although he is anxious to study the possibility of placing an advisory measure on recycling on the ballot probably in November. Supervisor McPeak is interested in exploring this option also. 2. Recommend that the public-private partnership bids be opened. 3 . Request staff of the Community Development Department to report to the Internal Operations Committee March 14, 1988 on the status of discussions before the Solid Waste Commission on amendments to the Solid Waste Plan to provide for landfill sites. Also request staff of the Community Development Department to report to our Committee on progress being made to establish goals and a schedule for implementation of a recycling program in the County. 4 . Request staff of the Community Development Department to report to our Committee March 14, 1988 on the status of discussions between the Central Sanitary District and the cities . within the District- on their plans to undertake a recycling program. 5 . Request staff of the Community Development Department to outline for the Board ways in which the processing of a General Plan amendment for any other landfill sites can be accelerated thereby , compressing the timeframe for approval of any other sites without sacrificing any of the required data or studies which were required of the two pending applications. CONTINUED ON ATTACI-"F-NT* __ VES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(SI: Sunne W. McPeak Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON 8, 1988--- _'PROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS A L-M-REBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSEI\rr AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES', No EZ S AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABS"I'AIN*.__________ 0 PERVISOBS ON THE: DATE: SHOWN. cc County Administrator ATTESTED Community Development Director PHIL BATCHE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND LINTY ADMINISTRATOR By- M382/7-83 _,DE Page 2 BACK GROUND: On February 23 , 1988, the Board referred to our Committee and the Finance Committee the issue of whether an advisory measure should be placed on the ballot in June, 1988 relating to one or more landfill sites. our Committee met with County Counsel and staff from the Community Development Department on this issue March 7. Supervisor McPeak indicated she did not support simply placing on the ballot an advisory measure on the two pending applications. She is willing to pursue a ballot measure that included all other viable sites. Mr. Torlakson indicated he would like to pursue an advisory ballot measure on recycling, but was not interested in any ballot measure that addressed specific sites. Supervisor Torlakson also referenced the report from Community Development which is on the agenda for March 8 ( 2 . 4 on the Determination calendar) and noted that it appears that the cost of transporting solid waste to Altamount would not be extraordinarily high. Our Committee also discussed the possibility of an expansion at the GBF site in Antioch. There is land to the west and north of the existing site. We asked staff from the Community Development Department to be prepared to describe to the Board March 8 who this land belongs to, how much of the land t in the unincorporated area of the County, and what process will be used to approve a negative declaration or EIR (will the lead agency be the City of Antioch or the County? ) . We also discussed the wisdom of opening the public-private partnership bids which have been sealed since their' submission. County Counsel reminded us that the reason for not opening them was a concern that they might unduly influence any subsequent decision on the two pending sites. However, since it' now appears that the Board has rejected both pending applications, we see no need to keep the bids sealed. We have also asked for several reports to our Committee from Community Development on the status of discussions � between the Central Sanitary District and its cities on the subject of recycling and an update on the County' s own recycling efforts. We will report to the Board on this subject further on March 22 . While our Committee supports an advisory ballot measure on recycling, we agreed that there is insufficient time to prepare precise language by the March 11 deadline. We would like to pursue the possibility of placing such a measure on I the November ballot. Finally, we are recommending that the staff in the Community Development Department outline for the Board at a later date how the review and approval process for a landfill site can be compressed by running the General Plan Amendment and EIR on parallel tracks rather than sequentially. We understand that this can save several months ' time in the review of a new application.