Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03131990 - T.4 T. 4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 13 , 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, McPeak and Torlakson NOES: Supervisor Fanden ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Consideration of land use entitlements for Marsh Canyon Landfill and Keller Canyon Landfill The Board on February 27 , 1990 closed the public hearings, and had before it this day consideration of land use entitlements for the following: The request by Keller Canyon Landfill Company (applicant) and Kathryn Costa, Charles Larson, Herbert Elworthy, Jean Elworthy and Robert Elworthy (owners) to amend the General Plan (GPA 3-89-CO.II) , for approval of Minor Subdivision 15-89, Rezoning Application 2834-RZ, Williamson Act cancellation (AG 6-71, Part 8-69) , and Land Use Permit 2020-89 to establish a sanitary landfill facility on a 2,628 acre site located in Contra Costa County; and on The requests by Waste Management Incorporated of North America (Applicant) ; Robert Foskett, Jane and William Freitas, Cena and Jerry Richeson, Phyllis and Herman Schippers, and Naoma and Harry Williamson (Owners) to amend the General Plan (GPA 4-89-CO-II) and for approval of Land Use Permit 2010-90 to establish a sanitary landfill facility on a site of approximately 1,123 acres located in the unincorporated area of eastern Contra Costa County. Chair Fanden announced that she had just received a telephone call from the Antioch City Manager advising that the Antioch City Council is in session this afternoon and would prefer that no action be taken until its members can be in attendance. Supervisor Torlakson proposed that, pending completion of the findings and conditions, the Board declare its intent to approve the Marsh Canyon Landfill site. Supervisor Torlakson distributed copies of a list of Generic Landfill Mitigations (attached hereto as exhibit A) that he wished to be considered as part of the overall cost analysis to be applied to any landfill site application . He noted that Item B on said list, Host Community Mitigation, needs to be considered later with franchise agreements, not with the Land Use Permits, but he would like the Board to express its intent to include these mitigations in the conditions and findings for any landfill site approved by this Board.. Supervisor Powers noted that conceptually he thought it appropriate, subject to having some of the language dealt with in Items 3 , 4 and 5 and asking staff to bring back some language changes in a week or two along with the finalized findings and conditions, and deferring dealing with the Host Community Mitigation item until considering franchise agreements. Supervisor McPeak noted that she favored declaring intent today to approve Marsh Canyon when the Board has before it the proposed findings and conditions of approval, and to include the mitigations proposed by Supervisor Torlakson. . s Supervisor Torlakson noted that he had also prepared a list of mitigations specific to the Marsh Canyon site, as well as items to be considered in the- Franchise Agreement for the Marsh Canyon site, and that staff is working on the language to make it more generic in terms of road improvements. Supervisor Powers suggested separating the motion and voting on the issues separately. Supervisor Torlakson agreed to vote on the generic mitigations first, one through five, and- to give some direction on the Board' s intent on the franchise; and then declare intent to approve the landfill. Board members discussed the concept of the $6 per ton mitigation fee and Supervisor Torlakson advised that that is the amount now being paid to other counties in export fees. Supervisor Fanden advised that she felt the amount of the mitigation fees should have been discussed with the public, the cities and the Solid Waste Commission before being proposed to the Board, and therefore she would not be supporting the motion. Supervisor Torlakson suggested first declaring intent to approve the list of generic mitigations he submitted and to apply them to any land use permit for any landfill sites that the Board might consider now or in the future; and then declaring intent to approve the Marsh Canyon Landfill site land use permit, and requesting staff to to work on more flexible language on the conditions governing the hours of operation, and to bring it back to the Board for approval with full findings and conditions. Supervisor Fanden declared that she would have a hard time voting in favor of the Marsh Creek site because she believes that there are some problems that can never be mitigated, such as the growth-inducing factor of bringing water and roads to the site. The Board discussed in great detail the issue of bringing water to the proposed Marsh Creek site. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that it DECLARES ITS INTENT to approve generic mitigation measures for Marsh Canyon and Keller Canyon Landfills, and proposes to apply them to any landfill sites the Board might consider now or in the future. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Board DECLARES ITS INTENT to approve the Marsh Canyon Landfill site with conditions and findings, and staff is DIRECTED to return with the appropriate documentation for Board consideration on March 20, 1990 at 2: 00 p.m. The Board took no action on the Keller Canyon Landfill entitlements. i.tiereby 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: ,..'6• JI )3 t P Ie PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supewiaora and County Administrator 13Y � _.Deputy cc: Director of Community Development County Counsel Director of Health Services County Administrator Applicant for Marsh Canyon 3� GENERIC LANDFILL MITIGATION LIST (To be applied to any landfill) A. Items that should be included in LAND USE PERMIT: VALUE DESCRIPTION TIMESPAN 1. $2. 00/TON Mitigation for road 30 years impacts 2 . $2. 00/TON Open Space/Parks/Trails/Ag Life of Lands Preservation Fund Site (To be supervised/managed by the Board of Supervisors and to be utilized for both acquisition and maintenance/ operation) Note: All $/TON figures to be updated annually with built-in CPI adjustments. 3. Development of a value-loss compensation program for surrounding residences and/or businesses that are impacted by the landfill (i.e. truck traffic, noise, etc. ) due to proximity to the landfill. Development of a direct acquisition program with inclusion of moving costs for any residences or business which are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be visually impacted. Both programs to be reviewed and approved of by the Board of Supervisors. 4 . $200, 000 per year for recycling programs until the site opens for operation (at which time a higher- scale more permanent financing program would become effective through the franchising fee) . The first payment would be made by April 15', 1990. If two permits are approved before April 15, the cost of the program would be shared equally. EMU a Generic Landfill Mitigation List Page TWO 5. Strict controls on designated landfill access routes -- enforcement. Landfill operator shall be responsible for the payment of a $20, 000 fine for each verified incident of deviation of designated routes. This money will be contributed to the road repair fund or host community mitigation fund. The operator shall be responsible for coordinating with Public Works the cost and placement of appropriate signage indicating the designated routes and forbidden access points to the landfill. The landfill operator shall install, at some point close to the entrance of the landfill, a video recorder capable of recording on a 24-hour basis any truck coming from the wrong direction to the site. The operator shall cooperate fully in the investigation of any complaint, and will pay all costs incurred as a result of such investigation. B. Conditions to be included in the FRANCHISE AGREEMENT: $2 .00/TON Host Community Mitigation - 30 Years ($1.00/ton from year 31 to life of site) (TT:gro/3-13-90)