Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05181993 - H.7 CcxiscLlv� w � 4 � ECEIVED WM. WALTER FOSKETT, III MAY 13 1993 100 VERNAL DRIVE ALAMO, CA 94507-1230 (510) 935-0741 CLERIC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA Co. May 12, 1993 The Honorable Tom Torlakson, Chair Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County c/o Clerk of the Board County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez , CA 94553-1293 Re: County initiated General Plan Amendment (2-93-Co. ) A request to amend the General Plan to change the land use designation for the Marsh Canyon landfill .site from Landfill to Agricultural Lands. Dear Chairman Torlakson: The purpose to this letter is to comment on a county initiated General Plan Amendment regarding the Marsh Canyon Landfill Site, the land use designation for which the county .is attempting to change from Landfill Site to Agricultural Lands. The basis for these comments will be a staff report submitted by the county Community Development staff dated April 6, 1993 . There are two areas that I wish to address. The first is the loss of value to our land that will occur if the land use designation changes. The second will be the fact that the county will be seriously re- stricting my ability and the ability of my family members who own this property with me to become involved in the waste disposal trade. The above mentioned report goes into a limited history of this matter which spans several years. I believe that an expanded history is in order for you to make an informed decision in this matter. About .six years ago my family was contacted by the county and informed that our ranch had been identified as a .potential landfill site. The county staff had completed a comprehensive study and made this identi- fication after considering several objective criteria impacting upon -land considered for use as a landfill site. Soon after that notification we entered into an agreement with Waste Management Corporation to develop the land as a landfill . The agree- Ment was an option agreement. The war was on when Browning Ferris signed up the Keller Canyon site. During the fight, the Sierra Club and the East Bay Regional Park Dis- trict joined the fray on the side of Browning Ferris against the Marsh cc: BOARD MEMBERS,(Provided; 1 1, Canyon site. Their main attack centered around the contention that the Marsh Canyon site was of such a high, pristine environmental quality that it should not be a landfill. In fact some combatants called it the Yosemite Valley of Contra Costa County. Not only does the staff report not contain this history, but it also fails to point out that since Waste Management cancelled the option on October 23 , 1992 , the Sierra Club and the East Bay Regional Park. Dis- trict have both failed to contact us and offer to buy this "Yosemite Valley of Contra Costa County. " In other words the entire argument that we had to listen to .for years was nothing but a sham. Now that Waste Management is no longer interested in the land, they no longer are interested in acquiring it as a park ,site. It is also not reported in the staff report that in the event that Waste Management dropped the option to purchase our ranch, all of the work product would become the property of the land owners. I am of the opinion that the work product included changing the Gener-. al Plan from "Agricultural Lands" to "Land Fill Site" . The county is now abetting Waste Management in its endeavor to render the work prod- uct worthless. The staff report also fails to establish the parameters within which the county can change the land use designation for our ranch. In Roman Catholic Welfare Corporation V. Piedmont (45 Cal . 2d 325) the court found that land use changes must be based on a finding that it. is reasonably necessary for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare and must actually subserve those ends. (See e.g. , Miller v. Board of Public Works 195 Cal. 477, aff'd. 273 U.S. 781) . In light of the above information we should now ask ourselves why the ` General Plan is being changed as it applies . to our ranch? Have any of the objective data in the original study regarding our ranch's suitability as a landfill site changed? If not, why would .the county want to make this change? Does the change promote the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of our citizens or does this change promote the general welfare of Waste Management and Browning Ferris by deleting the most viable alternate landfill site in Contra Costa County, thereby -restraining trade in this arena. During the Planning Commission hearing, staff reported that Keller Canyon has a life span of forty years at its present yearly permitted usage. Staff failed to mention that on any Tuesday that the owners of Keller Canyon can line up three votes, they can modify the amount of garbage delivered on a daily basis to Keller Canyon thereby signifi- cantly reducing its life span. It is also noteworthy that the option on .our ranch was dropped by Waste Management only subsequent to a court decision that allowed garbage companies to haul garbage across county lines. When that hap- pened, Waste Management was able to utilize their Altamont dump site for Contra Costa County garbage. r The same reasoning that allows Waste Management to haul across county lines can be ,used to support the position that Browning Ferris can bring garbage across county lines to Keller Canyon. If we can haul garbage to Nevada and Utah, those states should be able to ship gar- bage to Keller Canyon. What then is the true life span of the Keller Canyon site? No knows. Why then would we change the General Plan to exclude the most viable landfill site in the county that has not been developed? What is proposed is ludicrous when one remembers all of the problems that we had to overcome to get this far. Since the option was dropped on our ranch and the work product became our property, I have talked to several people regarding the ranch and its viability as a landfill site. We have a lot to offer. The General Plan has already been changed and all of the work to get to that point has been handed over free of cost. One of the reasons that it costs so much to dump garbage at Keller Canyon is the servicing of the debt run up to open that site. Our site can be opened for tens of millions of dollars less due to the fact that we obtained the work product for free and the owners can be convinced to .accept payment over a period of time for the land itself. The failure of County, City, and Sanitary District staff and politi- cians to grasp this possibility is a sad reflection on the collective leadership in this county including the animosities and suspicions that exist between county and city leaders to such an extent that they rarely communicate regarding serious problems that touch both groups, such as waste disposal . I hereby inform you that I have been forced to cease my efforts to create a group to go ahead with the Marsh Canyon site due to your efforts in this matter. If our ranch is removed from the General Plan as a landfill site, our land value will plummet and we will be 'unable to go forward in our endeavors to enter the waste disposal trade. Kindly reject the General Plan Amendment before you. Sincerely, William Walter Foskett III cc: Phil Batchelor Vic Westman Harvey Bragdon Dennis Barry MARSH CANYON LANDFILL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT County File #2-93-CO This is a County-initiated general plan amendment for the Marsh Canyon Landfill site. The proposed amendment would change the land use designation from Landfill to Agricultural Lands . Additional text and a map in Chapter 7 - Public Fa- cilities/Services Element - of the County General Plan would also be modified. The plan amendment area is approximately 1, 122 acres located on the south side of Marsh Creek Road, about five miles to the southeast of Brentwood and six miles southeast of Clayton. Marsh Creek Road Area BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY May 18, 1993 - 2:00 p.m. ., Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Cour/ FROM: HARVEY E.BRAGDON �``�J DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 5,1993 SUBJECT: MARSH CANYON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (2-93-CO) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 1. Open public hearing and receive testimony on the proposed general plan amendment request. .2. Certify as adequate the Negative Declaration on this project for purposes of acting on the general plan amendment. 3. Close public hearing and APPROVE the General Plan Amendment as recommended by staff. 4. Approve cancellation of the previously-approved Development Agreement(Ordinance 90-49) and Franchise Agreement(December 1991)for the Marsh Canyon Landfill. PISCAI�IMPACT Potential to incur additional legal costs for pursuing pending litigation. 4,y�"_ CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ✓YES SIGNAT 2ECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDA I OF BOAlk COMMITTEE _,APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED —OTHER_ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig:Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAO's AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY Report on Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment Continued-page 2 RAC KGROUNDIRRASONS FOR RECOMMFMATIONS The action on the general plan amendment to remove the Landfill designation from the Marsh Canyon site is in direct response to a settlement agreement which was approved by the Board in December 1992. This action is consistent with the intent of the settlement agreement which is to nullify all related entitlements and approvals which were previously granted by the Board for the Marsh Canyon Landfill. Although it is the settlement agrement which is prompting this public hearing to consider the proposed general plan amendment the following are additional reasons why the Board should support the proposed amendment: 1) After t.e County approved the land use permit in March 1990,nothing further has been done i establish a landfill; 2) Waste Management has agreed to withdraw its application for a landfill in the plan amendment arra if the settlement agreement is carried out; 3) Presently.there is no proponent for a landfill in the plan amendment area; and 4) Keller Canyon has been in operation since May 1992,and the need for the Marsh Canyon Landfill is not urgent. i The County Planning Commission,at their May 4,1993 meeting,voted 3-2 in support of a motion to approve the plan amendment as recommended by staff. Although this motion received a majority vote,it failed on technical grounds since it lacked the four required votes needed for approval. ;x Resolution No. 19 -1993 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES/SERVICES ELEMENTS OF THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, MARSH CANYON LANDFILL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT#2-93-CO,FOR THE MARSH CREEK AREA. WHEREAS, the County initiated a proposal to a,nend the Land Use Element of the County General J Plan. The request is to change the,Land Use dAigpation on 1,122 acres from Landfill to Agricultural Lands. Additional changes are also proposed to Chapter 7-Public Facilities/Services Element of the County General Plan to retain internal consistency, as required by State Planning Law,; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors approved ;-, set.0ement agreement stemming from pending litigation which calls for consideration of the p:-oposed plan amendment; and WHEREAS, the County staff prepared a Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment study area; and WHEREAS, staff prepared a report recommending changes in the General Plan for the area and circulated it to interested agencies, organization and individuals; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Tuesday April 6, 1993, and all that wished to testify were heard and the public hearing was closed; and WHEREAS, the decision on the proposed plan amendment was continued to May 4, 1993 by the Commission; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission accepts the Marsh Canyon Landfill Negative Declaration prepared by staff to be adequate to consider this amendment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission RECOMMENDS DENIAL,on the technical grounds of not gaining four affirmative votes, of the Marsh Canyon Landfill General Plan Amendment to the Board of Supervisors; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed for and pertaining to these proceedings are made part of the record; and Page Two Resolution 19 -1993 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chair of the County Planning Commission respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provisions of State Planning Law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a motion was made by Commissioner Sakai to recommend approval of the general plan amendment and that motion was seconded by Commissioner Accornero. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that although th ,vote was 3-2, in favor, failing to reach four affirmative votes on that motion therefore requires the County Planning Commission to recommend DENIAL of the general plan amendment to the Board of Supervisors. The Instruction by the County Planning Commiss*)n to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the Commission on Tuesday, May 4, 1993 by the following votl-. AM: Commissioners - Sakai, Accornero and Frakes NOES: Commissione'rs - Clark and Gaddis ABSENT: Commissioners - Terrell and Woo ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None I, Harvey E. Bragdon, Secretary of the County Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was fully called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, May 4, 1993. ey E.*rn Secret - C nty Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California MrsHMPAWAamh Canyon M CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Board of Supervisors Staff Report and Recommendations May 18, 1993 Agenda Item# Marsh Canyon Landfill, General Plan Amendment (2-93-CO) L INTRODUCTION: This is a County4nitiated, general plan amendment for the Marsh Canyon Landfill site located in the east county area of the County. The proposed project is to change the County General Plan land use designation for the subject site from Landfill to Agricultural Lands. The elan amendment also proposes to amend the text and a plan map in Chapter 7 - Public Facilities/Services Element of the County General Plan to reflect this,proposed action. This plan amendment is in response to and fulfills the first requirement of the litigation settlement (a copy of the agreement is included as Attachment A), which was develop-d in response to the following lawsuits: 1) The Sierra Club, et al. v. County of Contra Costa, et al., (Superior Court No. C 89- 04637), and 2) The Sierra Club, et al. v. County of Contra Costa, et al., (Superior Court No. 110025). The settlement agreement, which was approved by the County Board of Supervisors, through a Board Order, on December 8, 1992, requires the County to set a public hearing before the Board to consider the removal of the Landfill designation as it now_appears on the County General Plan land use map. There are other requirements which are stipulated by the agreement, but this particular action fulfills the first requirement regarding the general plan amendment. It should also be noted that if the plan amendment is approved, other related approvals would be nullified. These other approvals include Development Agreement (90-49) and a Franchise Agreement (December 1991) which have received prior Board approval. II. BACKGROUND ON LMGATION ACTIONS: In late 1989, the Contra Costa County Community Development Department prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report to study the effects of proposed landfills at the Marsh Canyon and four 1 other sites. That EIR was used to approve a general plan amendment in October 1989 for the subject site to allow a landfill facility. Prior to the general plan amendment, the site was designated for agricultural use. In January 1991, the County adopted a new comprehensive general plan which included an exclusive-use version for a new Landfill designation. This designation was part of the previously-approved general plan amendment for the Marsh Canyon site. Following adoption of the County General Plan, the County initiated processing of a land use permit application for the proposed landfill. The Environmental Impact Report f)r the land use ptxmit was prepared at a project level. The land use permit for the Marsh Cany a landfill was a;proved in March 1990. Subsequently, the project received the necessary approvals from permitting agencies which included the County the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Separate lawsuits were filed to challenge the draft project environmental impact report, the general plan amendment and the land use permit. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant (the County) on the general plan amendment, but the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the land use permit. These decisions were appealed but the parties have since agreed to a settlement which, in effect, terminates the present Marsh Canyon Landfill project, and obligates the Board to con-3ider this proposed land, use change. Without the general plan amendment, the only allowable use for the Marsh Canyon site would be for another landfill. The Board voted 3-2 to accept the condtions of the settlement agreement. III. CEQA STATUS: A Negative Declaration (no environmental impact report required) for the proposed plan amendment was issued March 10, 1993. The Initial Study of Environmental Significance is attached (Attachment B). IV. SITE DESCRIPTION: The Marsh Canyon Landfill site is approximately 1,112 acres in size and is presently designated to allow for a solid waste landfill by the County General Plan. It is located on the southern side of Marsh Creek Road, approximately five miles to the southwest of the City of Brentwood and six miles to the southeast of the City of Clayton. It is located within an unincorporated, rural area of Contra Costa County. The site was and is used for cattle grazing. The plan amendment area is coterminus with the landfill site as shown in Figure 1. The plan amendment area occupies the northwestern drainage of a narrow valley south of Marsh 2 r' .` Col ♦ North 0 Scale m 5� Feet oaq �n c 5Ac Ac.�Q .r\ •1.: - } 87.73Ac'. 326.59Ac. i :S ♦ i •� 628.39Ac. 5 �S 5 N. a Road > s MARSH CANYON LANDFILL tuft ±, tw.. .. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ,tet map Site Map �'' MAP 1 Creek Road between the City of Clayton and the unincorporated community of Byron. The 1,122 acres of the plan amendment area consists of seven parcels held by five land owners. The site is used primarily for cattle grazing, but there are four rural ranchettes which are located within the northern end of the site. Surrounding Land Uses - Parcels located immediately to the north, east and west of the plan amendment area are presently under Williamson Act contracts and are used for grazing. Most of the remaining adjacent parcels to the plan amendment area are used for either grazing or row crop production. Finally, approximately one mile to the to the south/southwest of the plan amendment area is the Morgan Territory Regional Preserve, which is owned and operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. This preserve consists of about 2,165 acres of largely undeveloped natruE' grassland and woodland habitat. V. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND DISCUSSION: County General Plan Land Use Element - The plan amendment area is presently designated as Landfill by.the 1991 County General Plan, while the surrounding areas are designated as Agricultur&' Lands. The County General Plan land use designations are shown in Figure 2. County General Plan Public Facilities/Services Element - In addition to the County General Plan land use map, the Marsh Creek site is also discussed in Chapter 7 of the plan document. Section 7.11 o the Public Facilities and Services Element of the County General Plan describes solid waste management planning efforts and existing and planned facilities throughout the County. b Existing Solid Waste Facilities - At present, the County has three solid waste facilities which provide for the county's solid waste planning needs. The West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, located in unincorporated North Richmond is still in operation but is slated to close in a few more years. The interim version of the Acme Waste Recovery and Transfer Station, located just east of Interstate-680, was put into operation in 1989. This facility is a transfer station and is accessible to the general public for disposing of sanitary solid wastes. Transfer facility projects of this kind are also being considered for West and East County. The Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, which is adjacent to the City of Antioch, closed March 31, 1992 by court order. The Keller Canyon Landfill Facility recently opened on May 7, 1992 and is the newest solid waste facility in the County. This facility has a 40 year life expectancy. 4 •,.r.� ,>.y9,'� � + 's' "��jr �'�1. •p�'3 x.y x > a -t:^l+ �' '+rf•>,• s3 1 �, '>.. t;'>. >•. -~• SA -Z= >" x'1.1,. '�1v ,r•' +"1a,a> rf ~+�1. -r. n''� ^--�;'•j� ,'1L>yiiNl,.: ° y 'y-,;'^at -a' '-;Cf t; ' >s.� z•'i •S .ti - > A.-, `l'[ -f '� '"h'�?l b �'Lx,a '�^a 3{.il :+ - i',`+�'1.�s '`??-,. � ., '!, .T3�,:�," � T`+, ��-�•,+„1•ft?�y�:�•� �. ThA � KR s'fi�� '7►+�•� � �,`+1�L�L"t a?1+^b,�3;"S.�'lra�i�w '�1 ar a Y„r ' „�S.f :� w •i,. � �- ;�+. +�, /�w h' Y; s '4'? 1 .f�fM Ry31., ��,� f 9`3.i.*k� 4: F �i t+lfA` �+�;+�°���*i,Sx1a*7�-,Z7 4 ° P •s7�,a, 1�4Ri7' -�iA �f? ?�. l j X , � ' ''0A�2 > � y ;'gray 3 �; s» 'i►i� , s9 '�r �'a., �`��a�cs�?�'�� �i• �'1•. �� ��7C :� T�f.+ 'i1^,�1y��;>q�, .� �.���?�!'yiaT,�+�"'� ,'� }�" , � y ? ars,( �]['_.,�,•'es� ��` '' _ -,�"7 >��' +.��,��� d�Zt�x-al•'` ��?°�?.��.'�-��„`�''%.. ��9'7i '�>;}'��:• � .�/^^ay�''��,*"�'!. F� North ' , �. •���?.A' �0� rit . +?,> >��� � ~OA's +�,4'Slf ,;,, �s `� s+ta,>�. >'�'. ?? . � . ' n.+�,r , ,,z „ .;zr •� , ? 6 tea . 'yr;0 600 1500 ,. y?> 1 �7;•y, •�e*`Y; ' .; h;' ''R4 :�•yh `a �, `'•,. rq"'�' ,. Scale in Feet ` � �•, !I'p 'fir'• + a~ .• ?�L�N�q��7 � M 7 � <� F••. }�' �1. '9 �y l-Y: ?�� 17� '�, + t + ♦ 5•f,' - 1�� `t- `^�.,y,. :.y,.;'t,'n7���rf� ` ���'�'.s'["` ���-•»'13����� ,uey :�••> i f ��� +t ♦ t t ♦ t ♦, ♦ ♦ 4 f t f t �', .;y, + t 4 ♦ i 4 ♦ 4 ♦ ♦ 4 ♦ ♦ + + 4 4 4 ♦ ♦ ♦ -i>4. :ti 5.r '�K A� �4,�•�*" o 2's Y + f + ♦ ♦ t ♦ ♦ ♦ t ♦ t ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦�f t f ♦ > '1 - '�., •�. +,',fir• + ♦ + t 4 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ t ♦ + t 4 ♦ : 'r2' Q f>'L ni, '�'1 '`�i+yya.... '': ,,Xr.{ �::»,�;�, ♦ t t ♦ + + + ♦ ♦ + 4 + + ♦ +�4 ♦ ♦ 4 �n1a';sA� .fir �.> AV. _ {�'A�`w'�,'f ��-,�/� 4 t 4 t' f f t 4 ♦ 4 ♦ ♦ f .F ♦ ♦ 4 t xss1�[',•ih'ryi•,�'a r ,'fes''* ,�.n,'.��•j`.,,IR ♦ 4 f + 4 4 4 4 + t ♦ + ♦ ♦� ♦ + 4 4 �.F°f;, i•'� � > " i + a r � +'?� + + 4 f f ♦ ♦ 4 t i 4 t ;♦ ♦ 4 ♦ �"'i 7�� A^w�,���*},*x,`�> �•,�. 'I h A.:. t'�..� ♦ f t ? t + 4 ♦ ♦ ♦ f t ♦ 4 f 2 1. � +air f•'A, 'S?ry e1 A� . � ,� '? ,`�'a'1i zi•���:"' t t ♦ t �4 4 t 4 4 + t + ♦ ♦ 4 �a#�a,+`�>>;S�,~,y���1�9'+ >�� '� ..� ►'{°..Z• >• > i.1+,i'!�'j���11`S!; 4 t 4 ♦ ♦ f 4 ♦ f ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ,j�i�i?���fT •wil1.,>>•]��, � .. > ��: , t, `•S i"�1'r.H. �" + f t ♦ ♦ :+ + ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ t f + f i• a f�1TJ11 •S- 1. '••` .ya "�.,>afj>."9, >, - t t f t ♦ + f f ♦ + f f t f ti T+2�1f{.,,,�[,�• ; �,w`'�,t ?•A+''�7i'�"- R. K'�7 + f 4 f 4 ♦' t 4 t 4 4 4 t ♦ + f 'Cid 17z•>^ 'f? '�`^, �. �tL, �7• 4 t ♦ + + t f ♦ + ♦ i 4 t t Mx �.{ 'a'>. 4 + 4 ♦ f + ♦ ♦ + ♦ t 4 f t + S•��; i ''.►a sa `�:1 '> . 9';1'^l �'i� ,�>: + + f f t ♦ + 4, + t ♦ t t t ♦ ♦ a •.� 7z� '� „'�•► '3 .'! '�3'�. t�l 11'S�"A-d �'+��"� �.,,a��1�Y1a �'�ti,.•�z� M�` ♦ t t ♦ 4 ♦ ♦ + +. f 4 t t f 4 ;^�3>. �nrys �•t -�'' ••+t' '� 1 i>>�'>'x ,+-. + f f ♦ 4 f f f 4 * ♦ + f f 4 + s���1>�A��M� ��� ?��. •A A'r�''�* 4 f ♦ 4 4 ♦ t + t t t t ♦ t ♦ '�y a""� "} 1„•?tea > ,1 'q` # 1' Z �1+� + t + '� 4. + + ♦ 4 ♦i f 4 f 4 t + •>,y ,Rla>�>, .�{ ,> �'�••>��' anf �+1a �!1 -,�A -'+w'f� ^iZ 1 4 + 4 ♦ 4 4 f f 4 + ♦ ♦ t + t1.� 1•S+! 1'1't"�+Cy 'h, _ '�:. ,. :r?f�� ?�?h•�.�.aa•F�'�'a? �''��,� �"'�'Z+'� + f ♦ f ♦ ♦ 4 t 4 ♦ 4 + ♦ f + ♦ �� -.'1.+>'!;�?''-, ��i �.�",�;, �. k �'` >,• `� + t t + t f + t t 4 + + f ♦ ♦ �? .tyt'{ti*AaAh y'a + J�}f'a\ii, �'1 r>^ y 9 A z•'!•, �'`,•y� + t 4 4 + ♦ + 4 ♦ t 4 ♦ t 4 4 ♦ a'lY�.; *'►-Z'*'f�'�1',%{v7 '''�, �e + �a '?1 , a •� 1•.7 '� wit ✓ y.. +a-v �.C,1 fit. ,1>+ay>1>•wsf�1 a, "I'..+ �••!l -.�.;.� f 4 4 f t t 4 ♦ 4 4 f t 4 4 4 ->�sL:��•1 -. 70 yf, w .w+-�7 1s ,w 7� t t f f 4 ♦ 4 t 4 4 ♦ 4 f t -y y, .w A9. •�f "a •}' "C',);, +Aja.° + f 4 f f 4 4 ♦ 6 f t + ♦ 4 i ,>>�'9 ` a x{ 1. '► "ry3sY .;9,, 'J}, 7 >>3•+ •T- 4 + t f t 4 + + + ♦ t 4 + 4 �' •M ��.�+1'�i'"s + _ AW '"�: + 'S+ .� 'as' ti�j' s ;•Z��x~•w\ ♦ t ♦ + ♦ t 4 + f t + ♦ + t ♦ >- +,1' �"r'> a"► 'cl 1y �•;l+1a•A - 1, ��� • a t�r+a r1,�,, �' + + ♦ ♦ + ♦ 4 + 4 + 4 ♦ ♦ 4 + ♦ �;'iii'� i �'.,\�}�1 "���a'i .� .f► '`�"'�Y>'!�s>ryt•'a`�.�j , '^"� i{'>'i ; + f 4 + 4 + + + 4 + + ♦ t 4 ♦ rj S,• ,•��y'A' '°. � +� } �:,+"ra'>a•+.t'> >> �y,�-� •� >.')' 4 f 4 ♦ + t ♦ 4 4 4 t t 4 ♦ t ti.''yA� 17 "'"Ml�+��i,"?� fir. T''' 'Y!!n0''•ir+ 1S'� -A+�f'1�J•9 A!,1 ? '.r�''i ' + 4 ♦ t 4 4 4 f ♦ ♦ 4 ♦ 4 + ♦ 4 �1>�l�i.'� '+1•y-71 ,'}5'''.' K�tolefkl ,St. ?+t'�+•� y '�"'�'�.."�x i�S >>';17 3�•• M,�1:.�... + f 4 4 + + t 4 t ♦ + ♦ ♦ \, t ♦ •s;��'+` �>7,�ay '.3.1,� ax •�'^'f+ ';#ti�f� '1:�, ^'D> °J'1•. + + + 4 ♦ + 4 f 4 + f f t f w}:h;'�'rn�Y1Ky,�1.f„i;,��.. ��� ..,, -+1>ry,\3'.�=a 1 -.�:” • - +i:^o• z •"�19- j1ya.,`r •�•.•l. � �y,';ti", - , -�.a •]': ;,fj, , - >$ Sn, ,-• , •� �J��� „` �� Z �r��r,�. 7 �;e•gy+�'q+�,-? 7,�9 1�•,1at,y'.�->^1+'�'11 ,�'�'''�'� � `n4 1;'� . h "'�'yL•S fy .'TFt. ti_'.Ar>>. • "S'K A 'SyT a�A`C,,.� ,� 1: T .("�'+:✓;'.•-CT) A • 'S + 1'' •� •,f ,�ar.-�,`r. .'9�.,w+1'>•► ?:t.9 ^3.'� �a.�w�',� '>..,�`�{ �a•1i' � "}1'i � „�J�> 1ya.._ .* .+.+�.1t 'p P ryi,!;-,► � '+� a '} .a iY•" •y 'T'`91i �: - '3 :'Z�"+1'' A '?C�.f '�- + 1 `�'�l`a 'rt" ,�' 7 f>.;I►. 1 ,Z�'�Z. . •r• 9� '% ,. >i .., !�.;,�Z 1j�: •, �q y,"'x,� . , 'w"y�" ♦ ,?°ylF1 h�>'y a'1 >>•' • � ''? ti ��'� o '1 ti a,q,h'fi� �`3..`�w� �: ,1 .��•�+ � �i1 � �+ 3'+: ��• �•a, �'�;�'�`i t!f- . '�>�t t'1f �i'">•'t >.-s.•.�-,� at "''�a�x2,L4� th�•i� y�,�> '� ��,s�+ �,•y ,y,.� ,��+•��,�ry, �•f �i`>, ,�, -�,a;?" �a .�<�A „ 1"S �.;;F` s tiu a'!� f �°>?��i'yd Y-A� �� .SAA 3 Pti,, 7�>'� �..,�i1 , 'sr`•►:w +�• •,s l �so'>+ +P!7 ?>s� _ i 'f �t.> `nf�"> 'o:: ^' d 1 'i 2'1.�ti .,,:,>;w• �L•/�%'- ti?:t�>` "Y! ,+•►-3bgq '1� 1•Ar.,�'y >ft•� '`� '"3 ••��>{.1`!, .,•�+§��1^'7, ti ', �:� M "a.'° >"f,'�,,> '� ,'��a•1,i "q;i„• � '�y'l��i - .y"12^i' "',�i 3 -'�s�'`•'+'IA �1Zi•]�F � ti7'�"fi :•" � >A?f4�12w yt,,, y a,. •1��'? dR• yl 3'^'r7jx.^ S ., -.: �` 9h• a"1 . '\".�~:a,,,•� ! >A7i.,`'� S, +{_>h;? 9'�'�' +n�.�. r+ .>: -.• ^y. � •,!i t h.• 'S v .f IFP. +�) a.yz ti �.Jt• �7 + -, w..e - �''�� sh��+K��•. 7�•�'1b, ;.�> >?-.�{ , /+. „ar +p$ti*!�,ri �+c • 1a •�', 1 >'A 2 ? .a1,r7i '4�'arA.•'" �:9+A �"1s ,. .,+.4'a•"'�r.��.: - }S +~sem � ii,•.> >• f, q,�nYA;is p`'^•,F.''3'9 Fli.�� '�+s'La > +�•vYrDa�>'� 1�• 'i1.J w•ti• LEGEND .��", A}Yf i� y.�� ,�,>,.�1*f •.`' h.:'"^���TT, -�.q'1''y1, a�^�„, . ''L•.S''L+•' n► . 1:i'!,,�1�1c$'f, a s..,h�a ?P+ 1�a_- '�i'�,•F,�� +i`w �r � � bn.•rJ�1�_ � a 4r� .. �t�+{ ��>?1� ,.>,a. 1V1•>3.�a 7. �.��N1}� w .i . .. C. 1 -.2.>.+ �., ^L a "Ra:t, !•-ij.•Aa1. ', � 4,-•.-• --�a,= r •> ..>'!, •�.1 ., 1`t�•'�`J, `4,��• Parks and Recreation MARSH CANYON LANDFILL Agricultural Lands + GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT +'+♦,+ Landfill Existing General Plan CP y, MAP 2 VI. EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS: The existing zoning for the plan amendment area is A-2 (General Agriculture), while adjacent and surrounding properties are zoned A-4 (Agricultural Preserve) and A-3 (Heavy Agriculture). These zoning districts are consistent with the proposed land use change. Existing zoning designations are shown in Figure 3. VII.BACKGROUND FOR SOLID WASTE PLANNING IN CONTRA COSTA: A Policy Framework for Solid Waste Planning in the County - The County General Plan contains a number of policy provisions which affect solid waste planning in Contra Costa County. State Laws govern solid waste management efforts and the siting of landfills. The most relevant of these laws, as it applies to this general plan amendment, is the Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989. State Assembly Bill 939: The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 - In 1989, the California Legislature enacted a comprehensive revision of the State's solid waste management planning process. This new legislation is commonly known as Assembly Bill (AB) 939. Among other things, this law requires cities and counties to prepare and adopt a County-wide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP). To respond to the mandates of AB 939, the CoIWMP requires jurisdictions to identify existing or plan for new facilities to meet a 15 year disposal capacity. As noted below, Contra Costa County can comply with the requirements of AB 939 without the Marsh Canyon landfill facility. Because Contra Costa County is still preparing and has not yet adopted a CoIWMP, the existing County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) is still in effect and may serve as the basis for the permitting and siting of landfills as allowed by § 50000 of the Public Resources Codes. It was the County's COSWMP which was used as the basis for approving the Marsh Canyon Landfill land use entitlements (general plan amendment and land use permit approvals). Approved Landfills - The County issued land use permits for the Keller Canyon and Marsh Canyon Landfills. The Keller Canyon facility has been built and is presently operating. The Marsh Canyon facility, together with the Keller Canyon facility would have provided the county with enough facilities to meet a projected 100 years of solid waste demand. The elimination of the Marsh Canyon facility will now provide the county with a projected 40 year capacity. 6 t/ .,,Ij�fel/ /\ ,�\ "' �eo,•��: 40, 600 Feet Scot •`•�• ♦' /Jt�� ��l�i t..,>>r/moi,`' ••` \t\iif:l��iii it—•\i/: /I_ ool �''`i�"�i/\:/\/;jt��\\i/:�\ \i1 °•. t—\i't�/t'` \Jl;/ alt: /!\.•11. \/i�/!— \//\{fes \/1 /1—\/ � //�\/1�../t`\/I\yJ\\/J �1i1�ll�itil\ �Ji �• v J//�liJ�r�_it�/iv�iJ� /vIN i! \/! \i/ \/ !_ •:r''-k.'-+. to emp"'. !�.\ _/1— \,/ /�\_/► 1 \/!\ \ }tri; ss it�7+`K,iw�=.i3 �`,•�:i+%:$,:. }.�?5�_�•,<•'. //\\ _I I \/! �/ I -.ay;.rf ✓. ! it ...,.. ...:y. \//�..\\\/ 1 \J/ \/!�\/ \// „ti" awy•x%;),:1.2;}.� �iyrts /1 /\�j�//� I\�!\ \_/J\_/J�\ %t •:,, +�1 n" �est .t�irtr :•s .ice t�•1�;,'T.�'Si LEGEND itvte) P��uT•.+ A vY A9ticowte) M p,3lHee a,ptgse,Nel a4zo cvltvt E ess) / '' �al8vsi etain Ft- tk) %AOM Pa VIII. PRIMARY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: Requirements of State Assembly Bill 939 - The settlement agreement mentioned earlier has triggered this proposed plan amendment. The portion of the settlement agreement affected by this hearing relates to the first provision related to the general plan amendment. The agreement obligates the County to consider removal of the Landfill designation for the Marsh Canyon site. The elimination of the Marsh Canyon Landfill from the County General Plan will not prevent the County from meeting State mandates which are outlined in AB 939 regarding the provision of solid waste facilities to meet a 15 year need. Furthermore, the removal of the landfill from the County Genet 1 Plan will also eliminate the expected environmental impacts which were identified as part of the Marsh Canyon EIR. This action can be considered an overall environmental benefit when compared with the anticipated impacts of the anticipated landfill facility. Implications on the County General Plan - In addition to the considerations related to AB 939, there are several other policy implications of the proposed plan amendments on the County General Plan. In tends of the land use change, the proposed Agricultural Lands designation is the most logical land use category to apply because it will make the site consistent with with surrounding properties and will not affect the existing use of the affected properties within the plan amendment area as grazing land. :xt Additionally, the proposed change to the Agricultural Lands designation creates no conflicts with other County land use legislation, namely the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and the standards which are set forth in the County Growth Management Program. The non-urban nature of the proposed land use change will not require further.analysis under the requirements of Measure C - 1990 The 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. IX. PROPOSED GENERAL,PLAN CHANGES: Land Use Change - To remove the Marsh Canyon Landfill from the County General Plan land use map, the land use designation would be changed from "Landfill" to "Agricultural Lands." Other General Plan Changes - In addition to the land use map change, there are other changes which need to be made to the County General Plan text and maps to accommodate the proposed plan amendment. Chapter 7, the Public Services and Facilities Element, Section 7.11 - SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, of the County General Plan, includes a thorough discussion of recent solid waste planning efforts in the County and includes many references to the County's efforts regarding the siting of new sanitary landfills and transfer stations. This discussion includes references to the Marsh Canyon Landfill site and provides informational background on this and other solid waste planning projects in the County. To accomodate the proposed removal of the Marsh Canyon Landfill from 8 this part of the County General Plan the following changes are needed: • The first change to the Public Facilities/Services Element is to eliminate the Marsh Canyon site from Figure 7-7: Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities. This plan map shows all existing and proposed disposal facilities in the County. The Marsh Canyon site is shown as an approved waste disposal facility with approved land use permits; the proposed plan amendment would remove the Marsh Canyon Landfill facility from this map. • The remaining changes which need to occur affect the existing text in Chapter 7 of the County Gen;ral Plan document. The text on page 7-54, relating to Figure 7-7, provides inform:.tioi- regarding the history of siting efforts for new landfill facilities in Contra Costa County. To retain this historical perspective and to provide the reader with updated information relating to the Marsh Canyon Landfill site, the proposed text changes are recommended as follows (deletions shown in eea!; additions shown in italics): Map of Solid Waste Facilities (page 7-55 of the County General Plan) As indicated in Figure 7-7 Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities, there are three existing landfills and one vansfef stati material recover facility/transfer station IMRVTS) in the county. The Acme Fill tfftffi€er-tetiee(MRF/TS) has recently been approved and is under construction. Figure 7-7 also identifies potential locations of new sanitary landfill or vaster. s4W MRFITS projects. Originally, five sanitary landfill sites were proposed in the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan/General Plan Amendments Draft EIR (May 1989); Marsh Canyon, East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (Garaventa), Kirker Pass and Bay Pointe. Presently, woe one of these five sites 1mvehas received further approvals, and Owes while the remaining four sites are not under consideration at this time. The Kirker Pass site was removed from consideration by the Board of Supervisors in February 1990, in response to the referendum petition. The Bay Pointe site was removed from consideration by the Board of Supervisors in the Fall of 1990. The Garaventa site was removed from consideration by the County voters in the election of June 1990 when they failed to approve the General Plan amendment for the Garaventa site (after a referendum petition was filed). As of(date of Board approval of this generalPlan amendment). 1993, the Marsh Canyon site was removed from consideration due to a settlement agreement which was reached, between the County and The Sierra Club, from lawsuits which were filed in 1992. The County approved land use permits for the Keller Canyon site in July, 1990, and the Marsh Canyon situ in March 1990. Both sites were the subject of recent ballot 9 measures. When the Board of Supervisors originally approved the Keller Canyon General Plan amendment, a referendum petition was filed challenging that approval. This referendum was Measure C on the June 1990 ballot. No referendum petition was filed against the General Plan amendment for the.Marsh Canyon site, and the Board approved a use permit for a landfill at Marsh Canyon in March 1990. The Marsh site was indirectly referenced in a November, 1990 ballot measure, which failed (the County's approval was not overturned. In the June 1990 election, the voters rejected the Keller Canyon referendum and approved the Keller Canyon General Plan amendment by approximately 55 percent to 45 percent. Following this plan, the Board of Supers isors approved a use permit for the Keller Canyon site in July, 19,'0. In the interim, an initiative petition was submitted to prevent development of a landfill at Marsh Canyon. This initiative appeared on the November 1990 ballot as Measure E, and was rejected by a margin over 62 percent to less than 37 percent. -Tke deeisie . However, since that time. lawsuits were filed in late 1992 against the County challengeig the Marsh C.!nyon general plan amendment and the land use permit. The trig:court's decision in.the lawsuit challenging the general plan amendment was ruled in favor of the defendant (the County), whereas the trial court, in the matter involving the land use permit, ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Both decisions were appealed and the parties involved have since then, agreed to remove the Marsh Canyon landfill site from consideration as a landfill facility. At this time, the Marsh Canyon Landfill site is no longer being considered for a landfill facility. The final change to the County General Plan text should occur to Policy 7-96, on page 7-58 and 7- 59 of the County General Plan. The text should change to delete reference to the Marsh Canyon site as follows: • Policy 7-96 - Landfills shall be located only on lands designated LF, and shall not be located on other lands (existing landfills may continue to operate under their previous authorizations). LF lands may be located within or surrounded by open space lands. New sanitary landfill sites (other than Keller Canyon a$d MsFsh Gsayea, which eye is designated in this Plan) shall not be located in designated environmentally sensitive areas. Such new landfill sites shall not be located within any area designated for open space uses unless the landfill operation is adequately screened from view along roadways. 10 VII. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution recommending APPROVAL of a Marsh Canyon Landfill general plan amendment according to the attached maps and text. MTsMacWReWlarsh Canyon GPA SR 4 �1 ' Marsh Canyon Landfill General Plan Amendment To remove the Marsh Canyon Landfill from the County General Plan, the following changes are proposed: A) The County General Plan Land Use Map will be modified to change this site from Landfill to Agricultural Lands as shown on Map A attached. B) The County General Plan, Figure 7-7 Solid Waste Processing avd Di Vo sal Facilities, will be changed to delete the notation of the "Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill" as shown on Map B attached. C) The general plan text as shown on pages 7-54, 7-58 and 7-59 shall be modified as as described in the attached staff report. y„ : : 1>- 71^ 1 ! ,� r)) + *D''l ;a+'++•? "� �.' -�:.?♦ 1t ' �'• '` �� ' ti• '�# 3�a i�M.r'>a•, :I+ ; '.�1. s!i' s..;: �' K +`�!i,•, � rt'{1+� "'�f..�l?� 1 �• '�,�p � '�1b -5>., .,�1! >:.;. 1-► '? >.71 �.. '.?.. - 'Ye .r.1 � .�i'. �o K l*. ''df�.!f,{ ":+'(gin •.r ��. '1' ?>iy"+'- _� > ;t•' ?,\ ` •t\t'►F•• ^, >„-"f^„ .'C.,t. �",• , %�3�r4� T i 3 d�:� >r1',.�..�.'^ •s�>t:+�+,a'�•�-'�•'",� � .,,� •,-•, in � t•�� ,+ i�.•. "1 ,;r+J, 'a "L-" �^�-.,t of�t �4+ •. r!• ''► �. ��TM \:,�w. ,+}��>+a.,� ,^a 1 o,,x, 7: +� n. h�•fA1l� 4� '�".� >1 nj't�+Cj."S,. a at>,J.a ^i> Via^ ♦ fa.:\l. 1', �" + y '>w � > s �v,j'a > t��i�j:s,;;y+• .„r�.7, ,';^}}I a'". � sa �n �- 'r�:^a�4•C�.��1.1.'��• � •a^•=r.a' .i. :��.�..'e �•� -'aY"r'r�.,A��• � •,5�.��. :: 7' ,• �•,.. A� n w♦ .y T ,•A' a /'a:l.'r,., e 1i-is.•�,,' r.j+.' '"'�Y` �!y w� :r .4:11 �..�i A , � "'11>�•+ i\'y.{"�^'"i ' }?� ;^YAti. Iz !'I 1ja �"1'„'}!a 7Z; "iT"ri'',c '�ti': l- 'Si h+shit •'> 'tA'�"C` ?1 b,y� Ih2 '1- ♦n.> , ta° e 3 2� r\ � ",��►"7 �D c1 . J)�' a' ` ��-.�. `1- b"�1r•�� �� 3.f,N h;11�'2,.,sr � 1,•� ter' �5•.��Y iJ"r� }� '•�3'• .r+•n,"> �.��,. '1z, r�{.•1 I rl•> .i,t=+4`, )"\:' ,.i,♦ �+ °u s•n /' Jr4-c• +�7 ,}, t z >,�♦ .�', h -s+ ♦' t'4 A A� C ► •//'� a,p"`�► '\♦' North ♦>�,;>.. 1`•►'rh� y� � ♦1sr,♦.1 4.t,r{'! a.�7`•v> ♦7♦ ., ,.+ +v :�.. `•r3�7� ♦ '1''� )c 4ri-..�q rrty,, ihy�Y t. +>'1t i+ �1 n+�•- ,('►�' .4 �'1•.ai1 'ea+w h. '�f.. +',* �� h.. `T:���? .j9'�`,�'t�� >>,i~?''. ` � 4� �, ���•sx' ��„� � •��e�`�`yn 0 8� i's 00 .i.. r+f�>_a �,? .� a �, ->;a.,''•� 9 a`' '' Scale in Feet +�- 3? ,y,��y� ,, , 'a 11: 'i n3�.. .y ^f "��' 1 eAr.y,��1. Q ti•' �.. L_: ,y7•s Baan ','�'�'j'f�7 41 , �t T'� o�� - ►`.1 � �a�.. a_;.:. 'l _ "h'�. t♦'•�`a• •atm .!f,s#>,n�?r1 t� .�' 1 �7Tnii•+t��-�? „ 3A>ca' 3 �' •fes to �� a T �a v -a 7r+ a p � 'a': f i'•'>'!i ��ht,:� "'D +) 'T+:�ri'? -'-. , v e', h h 9 v �'l' ;`4•. � "^�' � �°�• Ai > � 7t>,•,••►A,!! r_nl>7e`� �Z4 �C :,>��' > • ."k+;fi iti 4�/1t�. ,l >.?�,Y►a+��j ,x+S•ta�1 a .� ?,;Styf „ > ). ? �` . � s 7 !'a. 1ti'i�✓a +2 t-,"'� s,^'i ta. t '�;: 9'�„y,�{ n ++YY''�'�ra:,. a+.1:, �i• ��; ���:•. .�`�'; + _' � I ^+♦,:t.a ►r '�1 a '?_�moi., a, ��'' *�,'9� � �•) as i.., '3 •'• `♦'�'t' �a !t s�^')t a .•+. 3. ly•rq'> d;;> ."+•• 1s> a1i�?jji.4 A.•♦>.I� �>+'�.Yr j'�. a�� :�•', %�T1± "'^,�''"?♦',,, .�>^ ,Z1 +�'�� sM �.%?� ''1t�•,. le;�$J ` r�.?�1' .� '�'•i'9,'"�'9 a +, - -T•. ,":, i. / �• T� �tT ;,,_x1.. .,a1 :,,-, r j l•o} .'�74•f{�'>•s''3Y2:7s'3.�i g +.1+,.,`%... 'A'\ 'a ruc;''4��.h,>,•�7•; ! + �•' i >,'i{{\- a ♦ ♦<> '?\ ,t �>.i "' ` �y' a4>►w. '►1 �s- '�i•1.•+s"La. „�• 1i►� y "1�f ei tP:�! �A A� ?*t `'a 1•f' �`Uk•'-'s�71°A�+`��7'•/�,h^'A'•3,�•.i1"".+Rl�' ��;�)'y,,-i}A i�'. , ?i 'f r= 1L1i „y''ih Af>.i ��, ..��1-r %S,S1'!AT . 1 ,.+6,.K1 d ~.yp�+,.-, vim:' ,"'' > '\a �I•. t,.'�_1 '17�+°•f�` a , '� ,A � , �::�•�.,� •e'tS�,.. "Y" � '^4-h +*r �y')"�,�-i� ,.�•_'�'> � 1��,� ;r;,,. ,,?� �' Ya�.. t a �! , 2♦ a 1 i l r\)i, >� 6'•+ ,i S,!>}� ;j}eJ • '1 `7 1' s!>3 . %.�:. �' ]a,�y, ��►� '1,,�. ?�]itv i" \Vii-"'� 7i♦� I+'��'3.!,��. tf�'°S'K. r�';�'►,+-1. >>�r .,'�A�� :lx:'l'i��i••+���;;t{{1 , ��1� �'l•''�ti � +���� •�1ti�1jti �'~'1s 'a`�1���>,91. "fan�''s"'"►'i''�"D'�.R,:O n�!� �-^t�� 'Q�:'1,;+ l�,'\th.ei��q>�'# �i''1"i111���.r�h-. , �'. + rif• Yl ..aa. ° ���_� ►:Stiji..i\ A, �','q:^'i,' `� ,:> � ti 9 '•"t , '`R".�►, hz y t Myfir<. `)�a> „��. �,\ '�♦ �i.A Vis'•.i �' 1r, v ti`3 a -';l+l- ♦v.�+^7i�•,.h ? ,. ' 1y'�,:►. 7�-"� � a i,t .y3�7,.•s� .' -n 1)' .ral, l�>'.��1,'1] ")'\ \-:.!n��x•t�-.r' ar�C.\'► �.,�,h ' -• .►1, • '1:r> wi '` a 4:� �"@, ti.�,: '►'t^ ., r`. •7s' -�•s �>,y'a� � '9� ++ �+�••�'J•• �'` ^� 'h A;• � L•i+w ,ti r• ^'?'lei, 4 ' ,t>, �-\J) �a ay♦ >,a;�, .�'i � , •�` 1';- 3y' ,,.r »-. "{ ,a '+ 1a +�.. ;aa•t;. '°-�'a�,�,i'.� '> "{„3�;�11 ti+.2?"♦ ;.S- 'e�., .y 'M� .r, ,1 T '^^1 °>c+s a 'f�a3 > •-1�. ? -i-,�hn 3. "', ...s,n�hi.'.�y.. :+` "'C�,+,.~ '}^ S', yl• i!. ♦^ _ ;ryaw+ c. ..ah ,,,r •'ieaJay� .�`�'x >tyay„�7�h.'�•• '-a,'ay,�i `♦►A'i''i�''s -.�j' 1 �'► •:. r► +i 4i O'l7.`.'1 ..tr' ,�♦y.^-.>, ', •K ,l.rN,,✓R''�> '�, •Y"► 1z� )..,. dK Ta ns �. ,tow ^D' '►•'. h ?yam!2. �► °» 19, it^^ ?t t•x, 'S�' 'f',�,_, r d, >RA;y` f+;:ki At yy"Tl'y1i1a '/!? 1 w '~^►>�' -'Xr.r' �3 1 ;,,s},'�, i\, y ,,1. r 'fi. . :► ��1; D1+^�� Zi '♦ + +7wY ^t „q�, 7 ""'+:.•7r •a1s`D., '�''T q�+i. �g Z 17 ,l ;` �.,"9 a >,-i'�`►i,4'?.'t'7•. A 'ti '''re>�' ''?:' P si s,F A?A'. �'.;1,":;, 1, f '%' ' ;ly �.•M�a > '�r w �:n'i,y� ay "N?► ''3y'i+ .I �,,1 't•.a>•iac�•..rc 't'+"A '�1 '1�1•.�♦nh"a'1�?�-» .�s'� •h'"'�''�la g Iii '1' •'ti y. + 1' -1` °? +•>'7 + tt'1 i+'a •ff A ... 1'f ,s•"'' `k•r1, b t A 1 1'- w• 'Lg a-i, A �'r ' ">�sya � .. ' 'i•,"�.'� '�,! ''tir .y � ffr{,' /t .! 'c.'+_;,aw� .�y'J•r�?'�'ro'!.. 3:J. '%Z n*,lt•,P h '►> '9•>•�� , �'*l♦ 't'. ^T } y>A]•► h>'�vy>}� 'S � � i,rel 3 � h,.' 1?` 7►, • •a ') A 7�1� �,. ?^•1. .,gip ,+ j •j,w. ins-;a, 'l>yri"2Lt •a 31 'f' +R1T•"1'( 7�yri'] Vin. �Jl a.�f,�7=;,ya•tri'w > ° Y •' '•,L; i, +'� S' '.� `isj'!S.--:?l� � .�, +t+�,�'�'A9h. �.•^��3� 1. 'F -. .tii'"�A :1 i'�, iV-?t�y��iil '1�•1,,.�} ��. �'•v'�iA a'4'i"+` -.,�ha�ATTjj �}t��fy +,�n12t •M.• �•3'�a1� �y.> ,y�c;`+1�`,,,.� )��}� A >�,`'a,`_�1a,�y1Z Zi� ,tn. :'t�,�',5 9��j'r"'^ai�'•+,�i'\,•�Zh-'�• i'f,,3A1^,?!1_y\�''!�'x'�s5'l�'ix''rt,s'♦.\s�*Tr-h^a>`,t`Ay'�'`�"+c.';. _14r.�' < . ylram1'.+��iC,'+..'+ h„�^s�a•1t;t�gt�4 , ,?;.1.,1�,fj„A1y?�h ? T'4_ >A " v �M.?ti,+]y��$a�Ay�•''il .?> af.YS %'?:a+1'• >•,,;f7'+ 1`�.' 'y,- n^�'/ ­.p? * 'ti'r"'';� ' "'A../�'^<�- �5i ,.•n " '*�, 'A ':>3•• h '♦>71, '!+t`9.�'( t ej• lt , r,?.TS �' � '1►..,�!1,. 'i si �a'll r '+•► ... •z1lt,�' �;"•��.� <•r '1i �.�•+ ,\ ..3�f'a►�">?L� �'(7'S •a„n�h• -a.5,�9•y„�r�t q��,•' 'r3'�'x'.!' 5'!♦ '? '"7i+�,,,,g+r�'g"f� �,q�", �3�'riZ t 1.7��i s9' L�') ' YL 1 1"�'"wt g4^S Z: •^T'^i,�`' '�y'.'7}__•a.� ;�� �R��T�g1'� t�•1,�,i�,� i'�fl' 'i?t?�'3 �q �''�'"f'.d�d3•"1t.?i,�.11r,-t"'�='n :),', +"f'w,Mi'''���j,,ft 'yntyt: •,air�i') �i;�;'�^f' ''h Ate'♦y","S� ?r-AY *>'•!t � ? �f 'y t 3' 'M 7'i x +s• w ?, ar 1• T 9. 3•Y�' h'�+..� j\:^''7•'+�''; "+ -•,'1., '!j .'•'a> "�.s,"�• '� - Jrf�iT'. ,y ��1! r"!, -tZb,+Y;•�""�' ,h:'3'i+h c� }'�,w +'�1'.�T ,�.+y.n,� :: �� ai,L> 4> t ��•"wZ i4l� �,(�i'Ay"Dw"� t`s.'a6 ��+-�9u�"►.. ,a _'•�y>—2' t4 0��'"e'♦• ,), -a>+ a.a j l►.', r.,wrr�'}S ,�.,'.'"}•;!!.T�`a.�'f`,�`>,,� � ."Yw•.y'9�1'+�%"'.e: . t^.�l•7 y,R'`� t� �� `7 �1';,• '• ,►> ,e,f' ,,1 >>M'`.♦. i►•x'31"\�l ~5'9 }e :,{5 +� �'��•O'iii1 q`N,�+,7'\7.\y'•. �.r. q`+ ';•1' 5"y�•�;�?4,> 1 a.'ry •a+s'",• '� g .>,,�, 'Y,�rjj� vfit+� S„�:1!,)�' i!.!1✓y'.• q:A_l�''�j 4sRt \4'�> ,f,,'�'a' j i' yA{ ,Li.T ,1•► 1�'i+tAi' "XA+��'�+ rh. "•Y1' � f'3 tom..\.A2Y ?�,�o'r.!-iii�:� a , .�+i�] �� ,`! 9_''',��"Y ;l '�1 � `>� ���'\'►'+ P)A•h- n,_ilK7� .� , ,1 n,.>�c �s-* ?'�.�? '�'Z' � ?1• ±<n�' + '' a•,,\'f '•1�'\..+:1•'�`,: �fi,.��++ -';h�i. �-i;>���];.�`,p1��-,+f?����7'+3)'��'j1'�Z Z�}�.'' .:�� .�ari��!}�:;►��•n9,sy�ja�1'��� ,Sy�'�•,�a.�''� '1 '4>,i �, �.i4'�taj`ti�.��y`�'�,,��"l��!i� ,,'1 •��f�a,r�' �%►'Sdi a�4}ai�'J l � �. rt ,�� ara A A � '♦•�4, 7?a i9•� �•'4"� 'j ?�1,1'► ,�'+,^' - ,-n1, �> .'.+ �°1; ��y+} 'l,I'Zt�, �.�,} '"T!;..3 I •w[`�,d`hf �.S: ^� ..,�'^Ai -. e,'1'tw ,'l,A'k'9 *i'r7 R ,Aa^x� }►�,�,►>"�: �,,�, v , h �. ,�,., ,♦a »�� ,�•�♦ 'ta ..A>i,ry,�� �• ' iir T�� •"t,7• i�.1. nt:Z1;♦1>+!,1:, ^ a •,`a517? }�,11 �ry .q,? �1 '�si) ( �♦ .� k1_,aa i ; . • q �y� d . i ' r ,D ,G•?�` �`X! � '-`1�A7...+'� A '4�s nS�'TJ•�. .. A 7`'Rf'�'j'F„�+s:�'• �� •:,� -��-7.`+ft ,+ °s1t�-�;'K 1:n„aa5� 't4�..ip,q"A.>�:yt .yT i�'sgi ,q,a+► � r"�•a 4+'-;T ,Afq^►i?•-• hi sa.'!3>a' •y. ♦_ y.. � �,n ) '�!?•s�'tS.♦ �' ?s ".�f .,,�" ,'�g�, �,i°r7o 'Jn2'9 'a? �i,'!r �,t.r�a ! '•►S" �f�� �.. ►L 1 �. •11�� �r o ;7j -7',rifi� jl ".�� '�, "� ..* > «r qa.,?�: `� �a .p ;'s;�>1. '� ,K +�� .> ��� t '.'►',+')'7ra�,: •7„ �7rA +► �` aCw d► �., ��� �.'; "+a ,fix'"►.^{''�-�y.�'*a,` '�,�a �';"'�': ••"x..�+t"' 1` Y'y)1�►x. >.•S: n , .1. ,�,h +.. ? ::N7 ') �'�'y � �i':A + )� y} � �?'\it'Sr; ".�_"►t•"�c+�z:5'�7H + i �} '^�• "'7' t. R` 1S .r. '►t!,j > Q ,M1?. �' •, ••:�S • s �) }s, ..�qI 'r>a s+1, Z•}�.�t 15t+1 w� ys s v ya 7 �;eh .� S ?V1 ry,a s.• w> Z. w • "'�,+} � > '�y�`1� •Z s ?xl ',j„i >7� `,Y•�,a���r>. �,e::�q'1,A v1fS 9 's � � ,,�..'\ie���a'►> ,. n�i `�S• �,,� + > 'i•:;�9n'' t',-�'t �1�•' 1..)j. !•1:otil ��eticJt ',�= •� '!•i �i`,-�' ,�t► .�lg•'JS'i ' '�. ,fi> �4 '\-i,' ±,,e7�� 7 .1'Q' 2�"l,h�,p� ti•.: '�\,"'►A� ,�+i '>t'�"'�')9�7►.'�+!" '� M�91 t�'9�y j� 1 ,1 is �?� rlFi�'1� ��f���ry�'t+1 vat ',`,Si•� �' 1y � -C�A>h t+ �� .w''A�,.����'�t• >� `w� �'2Ls , '`,�>?�,� r1 ^A,A h.,;l��7i -*�. 'a�.�,{+�.\�+�rr:�+ '� �'�vt K•''?���+'+����'�' C"'1�#a+'?�..a �?r�3l;�T��;'�'?+;'�> ,-t";�- �3f -•P• �,.�7�• ���7�`,Tti '�'v �`�+t; .V",`' .J,..'tt -, #'�'+''y'�'i '�• ::�.°' 3.^�> t 1 �.�:''�cyM.� ^ i a>>•i?'.�:s'-'+'1'�'�`'�� ��,>�:°��•.•' •�a n}.g �,r, ara t.�' e►,L�!� ;•O�,�e,,,.• `�. o -•{+Rs ?l 'fi"'t7 "Yj;'•>7��'�'.'�•r-• ;'4'>�'!D•`F,,,�'�1�s►�� �':�1a. "%,.. �'�i',•,�f'}4" �.^a;i- "ti.-'{" e•'V�.c;IL "�>+�9�O +ti�� O LEGEND MARSH CANYON LANDFILL Parks and Recreation GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Agricultural Lands s Proposed General Plan Amendment MAPA w�•� O t W w o s .• is jZaj � � lilt i 3 ` > le � 1� i 1 't �•� �� 'rte' s M Z �; 1L ,�,,, • Attachment "A" THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on December e. 1992 , by the following vote: 71YE8 NOES: ABBENT: ABSTAIN: SUBJECT: Litigation Settlement -- Sierra Club, at al. v. County of Contra Costa, at al., Superior Court No. C 69-04637, "and The Sierra Club, at al. v. County of Contra Costa, at al., Solano County Superior Court No. 110025 •1, County Counsel having recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the attached settlement agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED THAT: 1. The attached Settlement Agreement is approved. 2. The Board Chairperson is authorised to sign the agreement on behalf of the County. Orig. Dept: County Counsel ccs County Administrator Community Development Attn: Dennis Barry, Dep. Director t00"d 3�I�d0 mn seine a bb:0t 2667-W-:)30 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The parties to this settlement agreement are The Sierra Club, the East Bay Regional Park District ("the District"), the Marsh Creek Association,The Clayton Regency Residents'Association, and the City of Brentwood, hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs,"and the County of Contra Costa ("County'% and Waste Management of North America, Inc. ("Waste Management"). This agreement is made with reference to the following facts. WHEREAS, on or about October 17, 1989 the County approved certain amendments of the County's General Plan, including one designating an area in Eastern Contra Costa County known as Marsh Canyon (hereinafter referred to as the 'Marsh Canyon Site") as suitable for the siting of a landfill, then being proposed by Waste Management, and the County further approved an environmental impact report ("EW) relating thereto; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 1989, the Sierra Club and Marsh Creek Association filed Action No. 89.04637 in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, entitled Sierra Club, et aL v County of Contra Costa, et aL, (hereinafter referred to as "Marsh 1"), challenging the County's approval of the amendments of its General Plan to the extent that they related to the proposed Marsh Canyon Site and naming Waste Management as a real party in interest; and WHEREAS, on or about March 20, 1990, the County issued to Waste Management a Land Use Permit for the construction of a landfill at the Marsh Canyon Site, after certifying an EIR thereon, and thereafter on or about August 13, 1990 the County and Waste Management entered into a Development Agreement relating to the development of the Marsh Canyon Site as a landfill and on or about November 6, 1994 entered into a Landfill Franchise.Agreement relating to the Marsh Canyon Site; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 1990 the Sierra Club, Marsh Creek Association, and the Clayton Regency Residents Association fled Action No. 90.01760 in the Contra Costa County Superior Court entitled Sierra Club, et aL v. County of Contra Costa, et aL (hereinafter referred to as "Marsh U) against the County and Waste Management concerning the County's approval of the Land Use Permit for the Marsh Canyon Site and the certification of the EIR thereon, and later the City of Brentwood and the District joined as plaintiffs in such action and it was transferred to the Solan County Superior Court where it was assigned Action No. 110025; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 1991 the Contra Costa County Superior Court issued its Final Judgment in Marsb I in favdr of the County and Waste Management and against the plaintiffs therein, and such judgment was thereafter on August 30, 1991, appealed by plaintiffs to the First Appellate District and such appeal is now pending as Appeal No. A054982; and 1 Z1�D d 3:)1-W M'1 SNG38 8 tV:01 2661-W-DM iiia . a t' i•t :. i: i .. WFWRFAS, on August 7, 1992, the Solano County Superior Court granted Final Judgment in Marsh n in favor of the plaintiffs and against the County and Waste Management, and thereafter on September 18, 1992 the County and Waste Management Bled an appeal therefrom to the First Appellate District and plaintiffs fled a cross appeal therefrom, such appeals and cross appeals now pending as No. A059118; and WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement are desirous of settling the above cases and proceedings. NOW THEREFORE the parties agree as follows: 1. The County will set for bearing before its Board of Supervisors a proposal for removal of the designation of the Marsh Canyon Site as suitable for a landfill in the County's current General Plan. Except as expressly stated in this agreement, nothing herein Is intended to affect the right of the Board of Supervisors to review and consider the proposed amendment. Plaintiffs agree that they will expressly support such proposed amendment, either orally or in writing, during the period of its consideration by the Board of Supervisom but only to the extent that such proposed amendment removes the designation of the Marsh Canyon site as suitable for a landfill in the County's current General Plan and provided further that the failure of any one of the plaintiffs to support such amendment shall not be a basis for non-compliance with this Agreement. 2. In the event the Board of Supervisors adopts the proposed General Plan amendment referred to in Paragraph 1, Waste Management and its subsidiaries and affiliates agree not to pursue further any landfill project at the Marsh Canyon Site, and Waste Management (and the County, as necessary) agree to the following actions to further implement this commitment: (a) Waste Management will withdraw the hpplications to the County for a Land Use Permit and Parcel Map covering the Marsh Canyon Site. (b) Waste Management and the County will terminate the Development Agreement and Franchise Agreement. (c) Waste Management will obtain the cancellation of permits or approvals from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District relating to the Marsh Canyon Site. Waste Management hereby represents that there are no other permits relating to the Marsh Canyon Site that have been obtained and no other permit applications now pending relating to the Marsh Canyon Site. (d) Waste Management agrees not to assign to any third parties its rights under any of the preceding agreements, approvals or permits, and hereby represents that it has made no prior such assignment. 2 E00'd 30IdzI0 Mn SNam 8 Sr:01 2661-80-039 (e) Waste Management agrees not to otherwise assist anyone else in the application for or development of a landfill at the Marsh Canyon Site. I S. Also, in the event the Board of Supervisors adopts the proposed General Plan - amendment referred to in Paragraph 1, the County and Waste Management agree to each pay$25,000 in attorney's fees to the Plaintiffs,provided that the $25,800 paid by the Cv anty shall be spent or devoted by the Plaintiffs in their discretion on an environmental p-eject, purpose, cause, or matter of their choosing and provided further that the$25,000 raid by the County shall not be spent on future litigation against the County. Such ,payments shall be made by certified or cashiers checks made payable to Roger Beers, and the allocation of such payments among the Plaintiffs and their attorneys shall not be affected by this Agreement 4. Upon owu rence of the conditions specified in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above, the following further actions shall be taken: (a) All parties will dismiss any existing appeals and cross-appeals, from the Final Judgment issued on August 7, 1992 in Marsh ll,Action No. 110025. That Final Judgment shall remain in full force and effect. (b) The Sierra Club and Marsh Creek Association vnll dismiss their appeal in Marsh I (No. A054982) now pending in the First Appellate District, Division One. The Final Judgment of the tower court in that case shall remain in full force and effect. (c) Except as provided in paragraph 3 above, all parties in Marsh I and Marsh U will bear their own costs and fees incurred therein. S. In the event that any of the actions required of Waste Management and/or the County herein and referred to fn paragraphs 1,2 and 3 of this Agreement have not been completed within 90 days of the date of this agreement, plaintiffs shall have the right to declare this Agreement null and void, by written notice to the County and Waste Management within ten days thereafter. 6. Any notice required by this Agreement or other documents sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be mailed to the parties and their counsel at the addresses listed on Exhibit A. Dated: December , 1992 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA By Chairman, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 3 vM*d wI--im Mtn Sa33B 8 2661-Bd-:)3a Dated: December_,,,.1992 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. ' BY Dated: r4mr;ber 1, 1992 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT By. Radosevich, Esq. District Counsel East Bay Regional Park District P. O. Banc 5381 2950 Peraha Oaks Court Oakland, CA 9460S,5369 Dated: Iccevioer_,, 1992 SIERRA CLUB By Dated: December`, 1942 CITY OF BRENTWOOD BY Don Rtusell, City Manager • City of Brentwood 708 Tbird Street Breatwuod, CA 94S13 4 �w • r� . ��.- ��w.. ...��..Y.• �-. 1. • . Y� ..J•1 MI�f�� 11.nf Tv.f1T Y•• 7I -LYl_1'_'1t'1 •-_ S00'd Sal_gJ0 Mtn S8339 a 9t':01 z66T-80-DW Dated: December . 1992 MARSH CREEK ASSOCIATION fi 8Y Brian Kruse, Secretary Marsh Creek Association 18201 Marsh Creek Road Brentwood, Ca 94513 Dated: December , 1992 CLAYTON REGENCY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION BY Wilbert Cossel, Vice President Clayton-Regency Residents`Association 16711 Marsh Crook Road Clayton,'CA 94517 APPROVED AS TO FORM: McC[1TC1W, DOYLE, BROWN& ENERSON By . STEPHEN KOSTKA P. O. Brno V Walnut Creek, CA 94595.1274 Attorneys for Waste Management of North Americas Inc. 5 900*d 3:)NMq S?MG a sr:0z Z667-80-MG i VICTOR J. WESTMAN COUNTY COUNSEL ; B SIyLVANO B. MARCHESI Assistant County Counsel P. O.Banc 69, Co. Administration Bldg. 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Attorneys for County of Contra Costl and Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ROG EERS 260 California Street, Suite 803 San Francisca, CA 94111 Attorney for Plaintiffs in Action No. 1'.0025 DEBORAH REAMES ISO Montgomery Street #1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Attorney for Plaintiffs Sierra Club and Marsh Creek Association Action No. 110025 MICHAEL LOZEAU 709 Baker Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Attorney for Plaintiffs'in Appeal No. A054982 6 ' 331--L-10 r:tn same a ar:ei z66t-e0-:)3a Exhibit A Notices required by the Agreement should be addressed as follows: 1. To the County of Contra Costa: Director of Community Development Contra Costa County Administration Building 651 Pine Street. Mirtinea, CA 94553 Telephone: (510) 646.2026 Facsimile: (510) 646.13M with a copy to: county Counsel Contra Costa County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Ninth Floor Post Office Box 69 Martinez, CA 94553-0116 Telephone: (510) 646.2074 Facsimile: (510) 646-1078 2. To Waste Management of North America, Inc.: Mike O'Brien Waste Management of North America, Inc. s 18500 Von Karman, Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92715 with a copy to: Stephen I.. Kostka McCutchen, Doyle, Brown&Enerson P.O. Box V 1331 North California Blvd- Walnut Creek, CA 94396 Telephone: (510) 937-8000 7 _.. _ 3JI-gx Mtn %ms 8 LV:0I 266T-8e-3:jG 3. To East Bay Regional Park District: Ted Radosevich, Esq, District Counsel East Bay Regional Park District P. O. Bout$381 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA WMS•5369 Telephone: (510) 4. To the City of Brentwood: Don Russell, City Manager City of Brentwood 708 Third Street Brentwood, CA 94513 5. To the Sierra Club: Chairperson, S.F. Bay Chapter Sierra pub 5237 College Avenue Oakland, CA 94518 6. To Marsh Creek Association: Brian Kruse Marsh Geek Association 18201 Marsh Creek Road Brentwood, CA 94513 7. To Clayton Regency Residents Association: Wilbert Cossel, Vice President Clayton•Regency Residents*Association 16711 Marsb Greek Road Clayton, CA 94513 8t Copies of notices to any of the Plaintiffs should be sent to: Roger Beers Law Office of Roger Beers 260 California Street, Suite 803 San Francisco, CA 94111 8 -_ �_... .�... .. ....�. .. ...r,.. .� +"v r J.N'1 tnu-+ Cf'.'];"f^'T :J•n t f^w..nT 7r'1 �'C -C fi-'1�"f • fee-� Mii-!0 Mtn S2ma a etp:el ZG6t-e©-13,3 Deborah Reames Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 180 Montgomery Street #1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 627.6700 Facsimile: (415) 627-6740 Michael Lozeau 709 Baker Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Telephone: (415) 775.4520 Facsiam0e: (415) 775.0569 a44 9 Contra Costa County Community Development Department Date: April 20, 1993 TO: County Planning Commission FROM: James W. Cutler, Assistant Director y Comprehensive Planning SUBJECT: Status of Marsh Canyon Landfill EIR's At its April 6, 1993 regular meeting, the County Planning Commission asked staff to investig:to#e status of the environmental impact reports which were prepared for the various land use approvals relating to the Marsh Canyon Landfill. The EIR which was prepared for purposes of approving the general plan amendment in Octob--., 1989 was certified and deemed adequate by the Board. The resulting lawsuit challenging the general plan amendment ended in favor of the County, but is currently on appeal. The EIR which was prepared for purposes of approving the land use permit in March 1990 was certified as adequate by the Board. The resulting lawsuit attacked the adequacy of the EIR, an.onp other things. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and found the EIR to be inadequate. The County appealed this decision but subsequently approved a tentative settlement agreement. That agreement would dispose of substantive issues and would not affect the judge's decision invalidating the EIR. Under the tentative settlement agreement, the County agreed to consider changing the general plan to eliminate the landfill designation (Landfill (LF))for the Marsh Canyon site. Staff is proposing to change the land use designation to Agricultural Lands (AL), as it existed before the current designation. The settlement agreement requires the County to rescind all land use approvals and entitlements related to the Marsh Canyon Landfill facility, including the land use permit, the development agreement and the franchise agreement. The court has already deemed the EIR on the land use permit invalid. If the County were to consider a landfill facility, a new EIR for the land use permit would be needed. MacHD\GPA1s1Marah CanyonWlarsh Canyon EIR Status MT. DIABLO AUDUBON SOCIETY P.O.BOX 53 ti WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596 �; i 22 April 1993 �PT RECEIVED r�- `�� APR 2 61 Honorable Tom Torlokson Choir& CLERK S0 .. Members Board of Supervisors - Contra Costa County Greetings:RE:Marsh Canyon Landfill et el (2-39-CO) Notice, dated 16 April 1993 advising your Honorable Board will consider (on 16 May, 1993) o General Plan Amendment having for its purpose of returning the area from `Landfill to Agricultural Lands'. While we have previously written on this issue, we here reiterate supoort for returning the area to "Agricultural Lends'. Respectfully request the Honorable to so do. Res u , A. B. McNabney Vice President-Conserve on cc:Conservation Committee Ln v rel ® Pdnad on 100%PAgvW Pqw Al If Marsh Canyon Landfill GPA Responses to Comments on the Negative Declaration March 15, 1993 'Riese are staff s responses to the comments which were received during the public review period for the proposed Negative Declaration (no environmental impact report required) of Environmental Significance for the Marsh Canyon Landfill General Plan Amendment(2-93-CO). Three letters were received during the public review period which require responses to the comments contained within them. 1) Letter dated March 10, 1993 from the City of Pittsburg Pittsburg raises several issues in its letter which require a response. The fust point Pittsburg raises is that the City believes that the proposed plan amendment to remove the County General Plan Landfill designation from the Marsh Canyon site conflicts with the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan(CoSWMP). A) The Relationship between the Proposed Plan Amendment and the CoSWMP - It should first be noted that the 1989 legislative act known as AB 939 is the current State Law regarding solid waste planning. It generally supersedes the former state law which provided for local solid waste planning through countywide CoSWMP's. However,under the provisions of the legislations the CoSWMP is to be used as an interim document for siting purposes until a new County Integrated Waste Management Plan is adopted. Such a document is presently being prepared by the County and the cities. Until an Integrated Waste Management plan with appropriate provisions is adopted, the landfill development process requires that a landfill site be included in both the General Plan and the CoSWMP before permitting can be accomplished and before the site can proceed to the development stage. That is, a project site must be consistent with both land use and solid waste planning policies to continue to be viable. At the end of 1989, both the General Plan and the CoSWMP included five landfill sites eligible for further consideration. Policy did not call for five sites to be permitted and developed. As events proceeded, three of the five sites were eliminated from consideration and removed from the General Plan for different reasons: • The Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill site was eliminated as the result of a referendum 1 Marsh Canyon Landfill GPA Responses to Comments on the Negative Declaration March 15, 1993 action initiated by the City of Pittsburg. • The Bay Pointe Sanitary Landfill site, now in the City of Pittsburg and in part being developed for housing, was eliminated as a result of actions which included the inability of the project sponsors to develop in the US Navy's Explosives Safety Easement. • The East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill site adjoining Antioch was eliminated after the project was withdrawn following the project's failure to receive adequate support in the elections of November 1988 and June, 1990, when it was a ballot measure. Although the site was permited, at the local level,the permitting was negated by an adverse court decision on it envrionmental impact report. The project sponsor chose not to try to correct the court- determined discrepancies and repeat steps in the CEQA process, but to participate in a settlement which was tantamount to withdrawing the project. The permitting effort has been discontinued. In taking action to eliminate the Marsh Canyon landfill site from the County General Plan, the County is doing what it did in the cases of the three projects described above when those projects became non-viable. The companion action is to eliminate the Marsh Canyon site from the proposed Integrated Waste Management Plan scheduled to supercede the CoSWMP. B) Significant Impacts Related to the CoSWMP - Pittsburg also raises a CEQA issue related to the proposed Negative Declaration. The City states that the negative declaration fails to discuss the loss of savings and energy and air emissions reductions which were identified as part of the CoSWMP EIR. Review of the CoSWMP EIR does not discuss the loss of savings and energy opportunities or the reduction of air emissions associated with more than one landfill site. However,the EIR did discuss these issues,in its Alternatives section,as it pertained to the No Transfer Station Alternative. Because the No Transfer Station Alternative was not realized (the Acme Transfer Station is operating and others are planned), the concerns related to this scenario are moot at this time and do not relate to the proposed plan amendment to remove the Marsh Canyon Landfill site. 2 49* Marsh Canyon Landfill GPA Responses to Comments on the Negative Declaration March 15, 1993 C) Perceived Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed Agricultural Lands Designaton - The City raises,in its view, potential significant environmental impacts which may occur due to agricultural uses and operations which might be allowed within the Marsh Canyon Landfill site. The concern which is raised by Pittsburg is that some agricultural uses and operations may have a significant negative impact on the"sensitive and pristine pastoral setting". In response, it should be noted that the agricultural use(grazing) was the enviromental base case for the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill CEQA review. As part of that analysis, the CEQA documentation did identify several development-related environmental impacts pertaining to the habitat including: • Construction, operation and closure of the landfill could adversely affect unique, rare, endangered or candidate species including the San Joaquin kit fox, the Alameda Whipsnake, the California Tiger Salamander and the red-legged frog. • Landfill operations would increase risk of fire to surrounding natural resource areas such as oak woodlands. The "habitat benefits" of the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill project would have come from mitigation measures to compensate for the environmental damage wrought by the project. Therefore, if there is "no project" there is no environmental damage, i.e.: no significant damage, as defined by CEQA provisions, under the site's base case characteristics. Further, it should be observed that elimination of the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill project would eliminate the massive grading and topographical changes associated with the "project". The descripton "sensitive and pristine" was not used to characterize the site in the environmental analysis. Historically, the site has been used for grazing purposes,and there has been some effect on the land by these grazing activities. Although it is true that the grazing animals undoubtedly eat some oak saplings, they did not destroy the oak woodland habitat. Similarly, the San Joaquin kit fox Habitat that thelandfill project would have to mitigate existed on the site as part of the previous agricultural use. 3 Marsh Canyon Landfill GPA Responses to Comments on the Negative Declaration March 15, 1993 D) The Proposed Plan Amendment as a Policy Change, Not a Development Proposal - Additionally, Pittsburg fails to recognize the nature of the proposed plan amendment. The proposed plan amendment is a change in land use policy reverting its designation to the reflect the historic use. It is not a proposal to allow a development project or activity which would require a discretionary permit under the existing A-2 (General Agricultural) zoning regulations. "there is no application for development or any other project which might require further envrionmental review. If the property owner or any other applicant subsequently comes forth with such a proposal, then that application will be subject to CEQA and secure other land use entitlements through due process. 2) Letter dated March 9, 1993 from Kathryn L.odato (Attorney representing plaintiffs), This letter voices general support of the proposed plan amendment and generally raises no issues ve lch relate to the proposed Negative Declaration of Envriomental Significance. There is one f:accuracy which is stated however. The letter states that "this amendment would fulfill that condition [relating to the settlement agreement] and, if adopted, pave the way for the final and complete settlement of the litigation." For purposes of clarification, the settlement agreement simply directs the County to consider, through a public hearing, a general plan amendment which contemplates the removal of the Marsh Canyon Landfill site from the County General Plan land use map. It will be the public hearing to consider the plan amendment which fulfills this agreement. 3) Letter dated 19 February 1993 from the California Archaeological Inventory The comments presented in this letter are applicable to potential ground disturbance or structural changes which may be related to the proposed general plan amendment. Since the proposed plan amendment is merely a land use policy change, the comments would not apply and are hereby noted as a matter of record 4) Letter dated March 11, 1993 from the City of Brentwood 4 Marsh Canyon landfill CPA Responses to Comments on the Negative Declaration March 15, 1993 Mie City of Brentwood generally endorses the proposed plan amendment and does not raise any CEQA issues related to the proposed Negative Declaration. 5 MAR-10-1993 1628 FROM CITY OF P I TTSBLRG MANAGER TO 96461309 0.01 City of Fimbulrg Cirlc Caitu • P.O.Dox 1516 • Pimburs,Califoania 9450 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TELEFAXED 646-1309 March 10, 1993 Mr. Matt Thomas Cuntrd Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor/North Wing Martinez, California 94553 RE: MARSH CANYON LANDFILL GENFAUL PLAN AN IENDN ENT Mr. Thomas, the City of Pittsburg has he following comments on the Notice of a Negative Declaration for the Marsh Canyon 1-2nefill General Plan Amendment (2-93-20)project. The City's brief comments fall into t.�>o c..tegories: (1) tho proposed project's impact on the County's multiple landfill policy; and, (2) the .significant adverse impact of allowable agricultural uses on the sensitive ecological habitats that were to be protected under the current landfill designation. 1) Mu iRl-g-Landfill Poli The County's Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) included a multiple landfill policy. The EIR for the CoSWMP recognized that the "development of more than one landfill twould generally have greater significant impacts" then a single site. (CoSWMP EM p. 5-6.) However, the County also recognized that in some instances "multiple landfills world proclnae fewer adverse impacts" than a single landfill. The County pointed out savings in energy and reductions in air emissions due to shorter haul distances. Also, the site life of each landfill wuuld be ractraided by having more than one landfill. (Co5WhO, p. 5-7.) Throughout the public review piocess for the CoSWMP, and the Keller Canyon and Marsh Canyon landfill projects, the County staff and the Boatel re-emphasized the need for the multiple landfill policy. The County's thinking during this time was not to put all its solid waste into one basket or landfill. The proposed project to change the General Plan designation for the Marsh Canyon landfill site from the current landfill designation to an agricultural designation is in conflict with the CoSWMP. Yet, the proposed negative declaration does not even discuss the CoSWMP. Also, lregue of California OdmHdcn Pam=Awwd-1988 Nadonul cwrcr for Public Avduccis*y ExvVlarr A*Wd-1.989 City of New Horizons MAR-10-1993 1628 FROM CITY OF PITTSBURG MANAGER TO 96461309 P.02 the proposed negative declaration does not discuss the loss of savings in energy and reductions in air emissions that were identified in the CoSWMP EIR. 2) Significant Adycrse Impacts of Agncultural Uses and UneratiorL on se nc'b—ye xecatrrpc As the resiAemts of Pittshnrg know very well, according tn representatives of Sierra Club and Audubon, the Marsh. Canyon area is a significant natural treasure that needs to be protected. In order to mitigate the impacts of the Marsh Canyon landfill project on sensitive plant and wUobfe species, the County imposed several mild atiurt uttwurrs to ptutwt thmr. unique acid sensitive natural resources. The proposed negative declaration sta z: "The proposed plan amendment will not result in any environmental impacts on the affected site or surrounding properties because the change from landfill to Agricultural Lands will eliminate the impacts which were associated with the proposed landfill facility. While the landfill project's impacts w%ay be eliminated, this statement ignores the significant environmental impacts that agricultural uses and operations may have on this sensitive•and pristine pastoral setting. For example, by eliminating the landfill designation .the. County will also be eliminating the approveAl Pmtertions for the blue ca woodlands found on this property. There are no mitigations set forth in the negative declaration to protect this oak woodland from the authorized agricultural practices (i.e. grazing, cutting for fuel wood or for additional pasture land). The negative declaration assumes agricultural uses and operations are benign to the many sensitive and unique plant and wildlife species previously identified in the Marsh Canyon EIR. -Yet such unmitigated uses will not preserve the unique natural qualities of the site. This site has had the benefit of prior program and project EIRs, which have identified the unique natural resources that ztvW tv be protected. . The California Environmental Quality Act requires the County to eliminate all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts before approving the project with a negative declaration. Therefore, the County must adopt feasible mitigation treasures that eliminate any potentially significant environmental impacts. The City believes tho proposed negative declaration must both distinguish and incorporate the environmental review undertakmn on the CoSWMP FM and Marsh Canyon FOR. If you have any questions about our comments,please feel free to contact Yolanda Lopez at(510)439-4$50. S' y, Robert T. Lewis Mayor LAW OFFICE OF ROGER BEERS 1f � `'h 260 CALIFORNIA STREET,SUITE 803 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94111 9 f - JR` ROGER BEERS .` ' •• /(415)391-2710 KATHRYN LODATO March 8, 1993 j L;�� FAX 391-1484 � T Mr. Matt Tomas Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor/ North Wind Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Marsh Canyon Landfill General Plan Amendment 2-93-CO. Dear Mr. Tomas: This letter is to convey comments on the proposed_ Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the Marsh Canyon Landfill Gen-.ral Plan Amendment. I am sending this letter on behalf of, the East Bay Regional?arm District, the City of Brentwood, the Sierra Club, the Marsh Creek Association, and the Clayton Regency Residents Association ("plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs have reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration and support its conclusion that the amendment will not have a detrimental impact on the environment. For the same reasons, plaintiffs further support the underlying General Plan Amendment. The amendment will eliminate the environmental impacts that would have been associated with the development of a landfill in Marsh Canyon. Thus plaintiffs believe that the amendment is important for protecting the environment of the County. Further, plaintiffs believe that the amendment is important in order to settle the litigation involving the Marsh Canyon site. As you know, the Settlement Agreement entered into by the County and the plaintiffs, as well as several other parties, requires that the County consider an amendment to its General Plan removing the designation of the Marsh Canyon site as suitable for a landfill. This amendment would fulfill that condition and, if adopted, pave the way for the final and complete settlement of the litigation. If the amendment is not adopted, the settlement may be compromised and County could face the prospect of having to redo the Environmental Impact Report on the Marsh Canyon landfill project as well as the prospect of further litigation and appeal of the cases involving the Marsh Canyon landfill. Matt Tomas March 8, 1993 Page 2 Since this amendment is in the best interests of the County, and would be beneficial to the environment of.the County, we urge the Board to adopt the proposed Negative Declaration and the proposed amendment to the General Plan. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Kathryn Lodato BJP cc: Marie Cooper Silvano Marchesi N s AUMEOA Northwest Information Center COLUSA MARIN California CONTRA COSTA MENDOCINO SAN MATED Department of Anthropology DEL NORTE MONTERFr.-,-;c Mtl►IA Foundation Center,Bldg.300 Archaeological NUMBOLDT NAPA TA CRUZ Sonoma State University ='•, LAKE SAN BENRO 60uNo Rohnert Park,California 94928 Inventory SAN FRANCISCO SONOMA :;. (n7)664-2494 • Fax(M7)6643947 19 February 1993 File No. : 93-OC-15E :,_.<-� Matt Thomas Contra Costa County comamity Development Department 651 Pine Street Fourth Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 re: Marsh Canyon Landfill General Plan Ames>d:ment. Dear Mr. Thomas: Records at this office of the California Archaeological Inventory were reviewed to determine if this project could adversely affect prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. This review did not take into account the possibility of sites of architectural importance. However, the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that buildings and structures 45 years or older may be of historic value. Therefore, if the project area contains such properties they should be evaluated prior to camnencenmt of project activities. Please contact our office for a list of professional consultants. The proposed project area contains or is adjacent to the archaeologicr-'1 resource(s) : CA-CCO-542H, -545H, -537H, --588, -589, -590, -591, -592, V)skett House. The proposed project area has the possibility of containing archaeological resources. A study is recommended. Study # 10726' identified one or more archaeological or other cultural resources. The recommendations from the report are attached. Study # identified no archaeological resources. Further sturdy for archaeological resources is not recommended. There is a low possibility of archaeological sites. Further study for archaeological resources is not reccimnmided. Camtents: If it is the case that the change in land use designation from landfill to agricultural can be accmplished through avoidance of all cultural resources present on this property, then Alternative 1 recommendations apply (pgs. 9-10). If, however, conversion results in any ground disturbance or structural changes to these resources, then Alternative 2 applies (pgs. 10-12). In all cases, if archaeological resources are encountered during the project, work in the immediate vicinity of the finds should be halted Lentil a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. If you have any questions please give us a call (707) 664-2494. ZiS1cerely, or "t'S Assistant Coordinator 3/92 r { ^0�7I l !lit �-;/t v t trt � (�7 lo CITY OF i 5D- DL ,►I'll l . . March 11, 1993 Contra Costa County Community Development Depa=ent County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Attn: Matt Thomas Re: File Numbers 2-93-CO Dear Mr. Thomas: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced application. Th,, City supports the proposal to convert the subject property to an agricultural designatioi=. The City has no formal comments on the Negative Declaration at this time. Please continue to send future applications for our review. Sincertlyl . 9L John Knight Associate Planner A %1kcar-dY City Hall • 706 Third street,Brentwood.California 94513 Administration Offices - (510)6346900 • Planning - (510)6346905 Public Warks - (510)6346920 • Building - (510)634.6906 + Fax - (510)6346930 Police department - 500 Chestnut Street,Brentwood,CA 94513 9 (510)6346911 • Fax • (510)634.6919 7A THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 18, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Bishop, Smith, Powers NOES: Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 93/259 SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Marsh Canyon Landfill General Plan Amendment (#2-93-CO) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that: There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 19-1993, adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, which discusses a General Plan Amendment for the Marsh Creek area (#2-93-CO) . On May 18, 1993 the Board held hearings on the said General Plan Amendment discussed by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution 19-1993 . Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board, at the hearings called for testimony of all persons interested in this matter. After taking testimony, the Board closed the public hearing and APPROVED the General Plan Amendment and directed staff to include the Marsh Canyon Landfill General Plan Amendment in one of the consolidated general plan amendments as allowed by State Planning Law. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was prepared on this project. The Board has reviewed the Negative Declaration, concurs with it's findings and adopts the Negative Declaration. Orig. Dept: Jim Cutler (646-2035) I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of cc: Director o f Community an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Development Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Director of Public Works r County Counsel ATTESTED: County Administrator PHIL BAT ELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator BY i,- , Deputy RESOLUTION NO. 93/259 misl/jcmarsh.res Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �^ County !J FROM: HARVEY E.BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 5, 1993 SUBJECT: MARSH CANYON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (2-93-CO) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open public hearing and receive testimony on the proposed general plan amendment request. 2. Certify as adequate the Negative Declaration on this project for purposes of acting on-the general plan amendment. 3. Close public hearing and APPROVE the General Plan Amendment as recommended by staff. 4. Approve cancellation of the previously-approved Development Agreement(Ordinance 90-49) and Franchise Agreement(December 199 1)for the Marsh Canyon Landfill. FISCAL IMPACT Potential to incur additional legal costs for pursuing pending litigation. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ✓YES SIGNATUR RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDA IO OF BOAA COMMITTEE APPROVE _ OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON 5/18/93 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER, After thepresentationof the staff report by Jim Cutler, Community Development Department, the Board took testimony from the people listed on addendum A and closed the public hearing. On recommecation .of Supervisor Bishop, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendations are. APPROVED and R6solution 93/259 relative to the General Plan is ADOPTED. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES:1 2 ,3_ NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: — ABSTAIN: — MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 18 , 1993 cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAD's AND UN Y A NISTRATOR By ` DEPUTY r Report on Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment Continued-page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The action on the general plan amendment to remove the Landfill designation from the Marsh Canyon site is in direct response to a settlement agreement which was approved by the Board in December 1992. This action is consistent with the intent of the settlement agreement which is to nullify all related entitlements and approvals which were previously granted by the Board for the Marsh Canyon Landfill. Although it is the settlement agrement which is prompting this public hearing to consider the proposed general plan amendment the,following are additional reasons why the Board should support the proposed amendment: 1) After the County approved the land use permit in March 1990, nothing further has been done to establish a landfill; 2) Waste Management has agreed to withdraw its application for a landfill in the plan amendment area if the settlement agreement is carried out; 3) Presently,there is no proponent for a landfill in the plan amendment area; and 4) Keller Canyon has been in operation since May 1992, and the need for the Marsh Canyon Landfill is not urgent. The County Planning Commission, at their May 4, 1993 meeting,voted 3-2 in support of a motion to approve the plan amendment as recommended by staff. Although this motion received a majority vote, it failed on technical grounds since it lacked the four required votes needed for approval. ADDENDUM A Kathryn Lodato, 260 California Street, Ste 803 , San Francisco, representing the City of Brentwood, East Bay Regional Park District, Sierra Club, Marsh Creek Association and Clayton Regency Residents Association, spoke in support of the General Plan amendment; Thomas H. Lindenmeyer, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, representing East Bay Regional Park District, spoke in support of the General Plan amendment change; Walter Foskett, 100 Vernal Drive, Alamo, urged the Board to reject the General Plan amendment and refer the matter back to staff for further consideration; Brian Kruse, no address given, Marsh Creek, spoke in support of the General Plan amendment; Christian Vieville, 15675 Marsh Creek Road, Clayton, spoke in support of the General Plan amendment; Corrine Vieville, 15675 Marsh Creek Road, Clayton spoke in support of the General Plan amendment . Sanford Skaggs, P.O. Box V, Walnut Creek, representing Waste Management, submitted written comments in support of the General Plan amendment . Paula and Ric Schiff, 15635 Marsh Creek Road, Clayton, submitted written comments in support of the change to agricultural designation.