The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04041989 - S.4 TO:, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Supervisor Tom Torlakson Contra FROM: Costa Introduced March 28, 1989 County DATE: for Board Action April 4, 1989 SUBJECT: CONFLICT OF PROPOSED LANDFILL OPERATIONS AT THE BAY POINT SITE WITH NAVAL BASE EXPLOSIVE SAFETY EASEMENTS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECO)01ENDED ACTION: Refer to the Community Development Department the letter on the Bay Pointe site dated March 5, 1989, from Captain William J. Nelson, Department of the Navy, indicating the restrictive easement is meant to prohibit such labor intensive operations as a landfill site. This letter should also 'be referred to the Solid Waste Commission and the County Administrator's Office for information. Determine whether the Bay Pointe site should be dropped from further consideration -- including from inclusion in the Solid Waste Plan Amendment EIR. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER The Board referred the letter from the Department of the Navy relative to the Bay Pointe Landfill Site to the Community Development Director for review. The Board also referred to the Community Development Director a letter from Daniel J. Taaffee, on behalf of John Stremel expressing concerns about the proposal to delete the Bay Pointe site from the County's environmental review process. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 1; HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: Ir TZ T 4 NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN - ABSENT: Z ABSTAIN: SIL AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Community Development ATTESTED APR 49 County Counsel Phil atc a or,Cletk of the Board o County Administrator SupervisomandCountyAdministrator M382/7-83 BY , DEPUTY •� DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY I NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND rIN REPLY REFER to l s I WASHINGTON. DC 20362-5101 1( 8020 OPR 6661 Ser 06G/096 — 6 Mar 1989 Mr.. Tom Torlakson, Supervisor, District Five Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 300 East Leland Road Suite 100 Pittsburg, California 94565 Dear Mr. Torlakson: In your letter of 26 January 1989 and previous correspondence with the Navy and Congressman Miller, you discuss the potential for landfill operations within an explosive safety easement at the Naval Weapons Station, Concord, California. Such labor nl intensive operations are exactly what the restrictive- easement is meant to prohibit. The Navy makes every effort to reduce the exposure of personnel to potential explosive hazards. This is especially true of . personnel unrelated to the explosive operation. Agricultural activities are commonly permitted within explosive safety quantity arcs, and at Naval Weapons Station, Concord this exemption has been expanded to include mineral exploration and extraction. - These are not labor intensive operations and are considered acceptable considering the benefits derived from using these valuable. natural resources. Any request for deviation from Navy restrictive easements must be addressed to the Commanding Officer of the affected Navy station for consideration of public welfare, Navy liability and national goals. The Commanding Officer serves as the single point of contact for the Navy during this evaluation. Sincerely, I Q I LIAM J . NELSON C ptain, U.S . Navy D ' rector, Combat Systems Field Operations and Ordnance Support `--Group By the direction of the Commander Copy to: Commanding. Officer Naval Weapons Station, Concord ;4 z� APR-03-'89 1e:13 ID:PTW TEL N0:415 434-1235 #579 P02 PAYNE, THOMPSON, WALKER & TAAFFE A PRGFKZSIQN^L CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 760 RUSS BUILDING 235 MOSTOOMdAY STREET SAN FRANCISCO. (;ALIfQf%IkJ[A 94194 TELEPHONE (*IS) 030-3471 TELECOPIER {415) 030-1235 April 3, 1989 Member Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Vine Street Martinez, CA Dear Members of the Board: On behalf of John Stremel, C.L. Associates, aqd ' Cal-ifornia Land Research, we wish to object to the proposal to delete the Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill Site, from the County's environmental review process and Solid Waste Plan. The proposal to delete the site from the review process, based on the existence of the Naval Weapons Station explosives easement, is premature and does not a.Liow tor a tnorougn analysis of the existing explosives easement, possibie amenaments tnereto, or potential elimination of the easement. The existence of the explosives easement is not a reason for deleting the site from the county review process. First of all, there is no final determination whether the explosives easement would prevent the use of the site as a sanitary landfill. It is our position that the development of the landfill is consistent with the scope of the easement. The developer has inquired of the Department of the Navy regarding its position, and has not exhausted its administrative or legal remedies concerning this 10OU0. Second, one of the purposes of the environmental review process is to determine which sites are environmentally best suited for use as a sanitary landfill. If it is determined that Bay Pointe is the site best suited for use as a sanitary landfill, even 'assuming the easement is an impediment to site development, it would be incumbent upon Board of Supervisors to determine whether the explosives easement constitutes an absolute impediment to the use of a preferred site or whether the Department of the Navy would consider renegotiating the scope of the easement. The County has preliminarily approved Bay Pointe as a site APR-03-'89 18:14 ID:PTW TEL N0:415 434-1235 #579 P03 Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County April 9, 1489 Page 2 to be investigated and has included it in its Solid Waste Plan. It has invited the developers of the Bay Pointe site to pursue an application. In reliance on those actions the developers have expended hundreds of thousands Of dollars and are prepared to go forward with their application. For the County to change course at this juncture without conclusive evidence that the site is unusable as a landfill would be arbitrary and capricious and detrimental to the developer's economic interests. Also, it would violate the requirements of the California Environmental Duality Act that the County consider all reasonably feasible site alternatives. At this time there is no evidence that the Navy's position is such that Bay pointe is not a reasonably feasible alternative available to the County for a sanitary landfill. Sincerely, Daniel J. Taa DJT/,jk