Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-10-27; City Council; 9199; Potential Sanitary Landfill Site Keys CanyonCIT OF CARLSBAD - AGENU - BILL AB#- MTG. 10-27-87 a. GaJ cdu REQUEST BY SUPERVISOR JOHN MCDONALD AND DEPT. HD ENCINITAS MAYOR MARJORIE GAINES FOR FUNDING TO ClTYATTY I EVALUATE KEYS CANYON AS A POTENTIAL SANITARY LANDFILL SITE DEPT. U/M RECOMMENDED ACTION: Zonsider Supervisor McDonald's request for $4,000.00 and Encinitas Mayor Gaines request for $1,000.00 to perform separate ?valuations of the Keys Canyon Landfill site. BACKGROUND Zounty Landfill Siting Study: The County of San Diego has recently determined to expand its previous landfill siting study to include the Camp Pendleton area, evaluation of the Keys Canyon landfill site and expansion of the siting study into areas significantly east of Interstate 15. County staff is in the final phases of selecting a consultant to perform the required study and it is expected that results of the expanded landfill siting study will be available in March of 1988. The study sill re-evaluate sites previously considered including the Keys Zanyon site and expand the site study into the Camp Pendleton 3rea and evaluate areas generally east of Highway 15 into the jesert. A copy of the County report is attached as Exhibit "A". 3upervisor John McDonald Request: In a letter dated October 13, 1987, Supervisor John McDonald has requested the City of Carlsbad md other North County cities to each contribute $4,000.00 toward the cost of performing an extensive evaluation of the Keys "anyon area as a potential landfill site. The County would also :ontribute $4000.00. The intent of Supervisor McDonald's 9roposal is to provide a more in-depth analysis of the Eeasibility of Keys Canyon as a landfill site than will be 3rovided by the County's expanded site study. Once consultant selection has occurred the study is expected to be completed dithin 90 days. Supervisor McDonald's letter is attached as Exhibit IrBrr. Encinitas Mayor Marjorie Gaines Request: Mayor Gaines has requested that the City of Carlsbad and other North County cities 2ach contribute $1000.00 toward a study which would evaluate the feasibility of forming a joint powers agency to acquire, permit md operate a landfill site at Keys Canyon. At the present time Drily two cities have contributed the requested funds, while several cities have determined not to participate preferring instead to urge the County to exercise its responsibilities in the solid waste management field. A copy of a previous Agenda 3ill is attached as Exhibit "C". EXHIBITS A. Report from County of San Diego. B. Letter from Supervisor John MacDonald to Mayor Lewis. C. City of Carlsbad Agenda Bill, "Proposed Joint Powers Agency for North County Sanitary Landfill". I .. .- EXHIBIT A +I ,I *. c A - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF SAN DMGO ORIAN'*OILORAY CIWST DISTWICT GEORGE F. OAILLY S8CONO OISTWICT CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SUSAN GOLDING TMIWD DISVWlCT LEON L. WILLIAMS JOUN MACDONALD 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGOF CALIFORNIA 92101 TELEPHONE (61 9) 236-2722 AGENDA ITEM COUWTM DISTWSCT ClCTM DISTRICT SUBJECT: Expanded-North County Landfill Siting Study SUPV DIST: 2,3,5 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This is a request to provide the information requested by your Board on June 2, 1987, and to have your Board act on additional recommendations to approve an expanded Scope of Work, authorize funding, and authorize staff to proceed with hiring a consultant. You requested information on (1) a fee structure for solid waste disposal at County land- fills; (2) the geographic area of the expanded North County Siting Study; (3) the.scope of the expanded study; (4) monitoring of emissions at current and past landfills; (5) volume reduction through recycling; and (6) suitability of the six North County sites previously reviewed. CHIEF ADMI N ISTRATI VE OFFICER ' S RECOMMENDATION : 1. 2. Approve the Scope of Work for the Expanded North County Landfill Siting 3. 4. - 5. FUNDING SOURCES: Solid Waste Enterprise Fund CURRENT YEAR COST: $100,000 ANNUAL COST: 0 BUDGETED: [] YES [XI NO WILL PROPOSAL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? File. this report containing the information your Board requested on June 2. Study. Authorize funding of $100,000 for this project from Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Faci 1 i ties Reserve. Authorize the Director of Purchasing and Contracting to solicit, negotiate and award a contract to acquire these services for the Department of Public Works, subject to approval of the Director of Public Works. Designate the Director, Department of Public Works, as the County officer responsible for admini stration of the contract. ' NO [XI IF YES, STATE NUMBER PERMANENT TEMPORARY OTHER BOARD POLICY( IES) APPLICABLE: 1-76--Sol id Waste Disposal ; F-80--Selecting & Contractinq with Private -Architectural & Engineering Firms; F-2O--Location of County Facilities; A-96--Sequence for Obtaining Chief Administrative Officer Determination PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: June 2, 1987 (106, 106a) Requested Additional Information . - 4 VOTES REQUIRED [XI YES [] NO DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS . AUG111987 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT FORH \ SUBJECT: Expanded-North County Landfi 11 Siting Study BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Your Board asked questions about various aspects of the County's Solid Waste Management Program. In particular, the questions related to review of the fee structure, the expanded study area and Scope of Work, monitoring programs at existing and closed landfills, development of an active recycling program, and a discussion of the alternative sites identified in an earlier study: Addi tional ly, your Board asked County Counsel to review the County's legal resp,onsi bi 1 i ty to open our landfills to cities or special districts. attached. The County Counsel Report is 1. Fee Structure The current tipping fees for the County landfills have been in effect since 1983, and are approximately $8 per ton of refuse delivered to the sites. fees supports all landfilling operations, as well as the solid waste program in its entirety. The imminent renegotiation of the contract with North County Resource Recovery Associates for the San Marcos waste-to-energy plant, and/or the location and development of a new County landfill, along with increased state and federal requirements, will impact the level of the tipping fees. Expanded Landfill Siting Study includes a provision for the consultant-to anal ze the specific tipping fee impact of landfill alternatives. This analYs1s Will {e. accomplished on a site-by-site basis as 'locations are identified. Revenue from these The Scope of Work for the < .. .- .- .,' .. Further, the County has recently completed a contract with Deloitte, Haskins, and Sells which included the development of a computer model for establishing a tipping fee structure. per capita waste generation, capital improvements, new landfill purchases, etc. The model will provide a means of regularly reviewing our disposal fees and adjusting them as necessary to ensure funding for needed solid waste facilities in the future. We anticipate providing a recomaendation to your Board regarding fee schedule adjust- ments based on the application of this model after receiving input from the industry and the Public Works Advisory Board, approximately April, 1988. n ORDINANCE CI RESOLUTION CITIZENS COMMITTEE STATEMENT [XI YES [I NO LJ CONTRACT NO. APPROVED BY CO. COUNSEL AS TO LEGALITY LJYES *initials [XINOT APPLICABLE LJSTANDARD FORM The model is based on factors such as projected population increases, CONTRACT APPROVED BY CAO FOR ECONOMY []YES LJNO [XI N/A L] EXEMPT (B/S POLICY A-96) - C' 3 - .. .- a, '. ' .- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INFORHATION DEVELOPHEKT FOW Wr P ' SUBJECT: Expanded -North County Landfill Siting Study BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2. Geographic Study Area The entire expanded area will be generally the northwest quadrant of the County, bounded on the west by the Coastal Commission's coastal zone (but including Camp Pendleton) and on the east by Warner Springs, Ranchita and Banner and will include the area already studied. proposed City/County landfill search that will cover the southwest quadrant of the County. The southerly portion of the area coincides with the northerly area of the A plot of this area is shown on Attachment 1 of the Scope of Work. Expanding the search area will provide additional options for analysis. could include the possibility of a large rural disposal site taking waste from transfer stations located in defined local areas. Additional candidate sites will be considered along with the 18 sites previously identified. Because the expanded contract will consider additional uses, such as transfer stations, recycling centers, and inert landfills, all 18 sites will be reviewed again. 3. Scope of Expanded Study These options In order to evaluate the feasibility of the previously identified technically qualified sites, additional information is necessary. The proposed project will assess the cost of close in landfills versus potentially larger, more rural sites fed by transfer stations. Ultimate site capacity (landfill and transfer stations) will be evaluated with the consideration of maximum materials recovery through source separation and materials recycling at the transfer station and landfill site. A technical advisory panel made up of the various regulatory bodies and participating waste industries will provide input to the consultant and staff. ( The process to be used to select a consultant will be to call on the Department of Purchasing and Contracting to solicit, negotiate and award a contract to acquire the service, subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. The Scope of Work arranges the study into two phases and allows an opportunity for staff to review the PHASE ONE results and provide additional direction before consultant proceeds with PHASE TWO. In PHASE ONE, the Consultant will identify all feasible sites for the various functions (a landfill, transfer station, recycling center), and eliminate those with fatal flaws. In PHASE TWO, he will prioritize the sites and recommend which should be pursued. construction waste materials (Demo Landfill), for automobile shredder fluff (Mono Fill) and for sludge and municipal solid waste (Class I11 Landfill). Appropriate sites for transfer-stations will also be sought. Citizen input will be provided for in PHASE TWO, after potential sites are identified and those failing to meet technical criteria are rejected. The citizens of this County will have opportunities to provide public input at the Public Works Advisory Board, California Waste Management Board, Planning and Environmental Review Board, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors hearings. for the various permits the operation must receive, Consultant will seek separate sites for -inorganic In addition, they will have opportunities to comment at public hearings - 3- BOARD 'OF SUPERVI INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT F .". 63 ,.* 'p:f %, ' i?.I?! SUBJECT: Expanded-North County Landfi 11 Siting Study BAC KGROUNO INFORMATION : -c' b* :\ .! .3- '4 -v The Consultant will make in-depth economic studies of the candidate sites so that short and long term economic comparisons between sites may be made. recovery and recycling will be evaluated as a means to extend landfill capacity and -reduce transfer haul cost. After receipt of the final (PHASE TWO) report, the County hay then select the sites for which to pursue permitting. 4. The state has mandated programs, through the Air Pollution Control District and Water Quality Control Board, for monitoring both active and closed landfills and also former burn sites. In compliance with the program, the Department of Public Works currently monitors water quality at 12 active and closed landfills through water monitoring wells. Others were constructed in earlier years, as far back as the early 1970s. Monitoring reports are provided to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and forwarding to the State Water Quality Control Board. Material Proqram to Measure Emissions from Current and Past Landfill Sites Thirty-six of the wells were installed during 1985 and 1986 at eleven sites. Eighteen gas monitoring wells were also installed during 1985-86 at seven active and inactive sites. We have provided the results of our preliminary landfill gas monitoring to the Air Pollution Control District. currently is developing long term monitoring requirements under the Solid Waste Assess- < ment Test (SWAT) Program. The Air Pollution Control District has drafted a Local Rule 59 which requires continuous monitoring for emissions and odors. Recently, Signal Environmental Systems, the developer of the proposed SANDER waste-to-energy plant at the Miramar Landfill (City), funded an assessment of health risks at landfills. The Air Pollution Control District is reviewing the results of that assessment, and currently is preparing an alternative assessment protocol to verify the report. The results of the Air Pollution Control District evaluations will be available to the landfill search consultant. The Air Pollution Control District 5. Volume Reduction Through Recycling The County Solid Waste Management Plan recently approved by the majority of the cities and your Board calls for specific actions in regard to volume reduction. of Public Works has recently hired a Solid Waste Program Manager who reported to the County on July 27. The Program Manager's major responsibility will be the development and implementation of a recycling program. The Department Immediate activities in this office will include the refinement of the five-year plan recently' submitted by the Ecology Centre under its current County contract, as well as the development of curbside col lection-source separation policies within the unin- corporated area and in the cities in cooperation with SANDAG. The Program Manager .~ . -4- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INFORMATION DEVELOMT FORU SUBJECT: Expanded North County Landfi 11 Siting Study BACKGROUND INFORMATION : will also give attention to tire shredding and recycling, buy-back centers, and waste processing at landfills or other strategic points in the waste stream. Recycling efforts will be conducted in cooperation with involved comlunityiiand environmental groups. of Recycling Coordinator, as approved by your Board in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Spending Plan. will provide your Board with an action plan for your review in 90 days. Also this year, the Department of Public Works expects to fill the position Staff This position will add to the County's recycling effort. 6. The consultant for the original siting study in the North County area identified 18 locations all of which have potential as landfill sites. The evaluation process, which included input from a Citizens' Task Force, narrowed the sites to be considered to a field of six, selected as being the most suitable. of those six sites, ranked in order of the committee's preference. Discussion of Problems Associated with the Six North County Sites Already Reviewed Following is a discussion Site 9 Merriam Mountain Site 9, Merriam Mountain, across 1-15 from Champagne Village, was the first choice of task force members because it is better hidden from public and would impact fewer people. However, the site would need a freeway access developed. to the task force. material may be scarce, according to the consultant. The Champagne Village Homeowners Association objected to use of this site because of its proximity and wind conditions. The site lies just beyond the San Warcos' sphere of influence and is not adjacent to it. It is technically excellent. Access via surface roads by the Lawrence Welk properties was not acceptable Also the high costs for site development was of concern. Cover Site 8 Twin Oaks The consultant described Site 8, Twin Oaks Road north of Deer Springs Road, as a "technically superb" site and "the most favorable geotechnical ly". are its proximity to the residences along Sarver Road to the south, and the traffic route through San Marcos and the Twin Oaks area. On May 13, 1986, the San Marcos City Council passed a resolution (No. 86-2376) stating its "opposition to the siting of additional landfill facilities within, or adjacent to, the City's incorporated or sphere limits". "postpone selection of a North County landfill site, pending expansion of a landfill 'search' area and identification of additional candidate sites". Site 8 lies just inside the boundary of San Marcos' sphere of influence. report states: potentially devastating effect that a landfill would have on their operations. The objections The resolution also requested that the Board of Supervisors The Phase Two "Businesses along the Deer Springs Road route to the site cited the One c - 5- 6 WTION DEVELOPHENT FORN.' " business is a world renowned health spa." The task force emphasized that direct*access from 1-15 would need to be provided. area. .I. .. to this site. Site 6 Palomar Airport Road - Drag Strip There is also concern for water wells in the The citizens in the area ,e, conducted a letter writing campaign in 1. opposition Site 6, in the vicinity of the Carlsbad Raceway, would be a "technically superb" site according to the consultant. arguments about the accessibility of this site for the region. voiced strong objections because this is an industrial park site, and the City fears loss of this significant new tax base. share its revenues with the City to offset this loss of revenue. The City of Vista on August 26, 1986, passed a resolution (No. 86-254) strongly opposing "any recommendation by the task force which would include the location of a sanitary landfill within the Vista business and research park". The resolution requests the County Board of Supervisors to "direct the consultant and task force to exclude the Vista site from any further consideration as a sanitary landfill site". In the Phase Two portion of the study, the consultant recommended moving the proposed site approximately 4 mile to the southwest from the original location. it would not impact the proposed industrial park aesthetically as much as a site in the interior of the park. ._ Among the task force members, there were positive, strong The City of Vista The task force asked whether the County could < At this location Site 3 Oceanside-Vandegrift Blvd. Site No. 3, adjacent to Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, could serve the local needs of Oceanside and Fallbrook according to the task force. this site as a regional landfill, as voiced by the task force, are related to traffic and access. Pendleton. The site is not among the top three sites to develop as a regional landfill. Staff of the City of Oceanside believe the site is inconsistent with the City's land use element (area is designated large lot, single-family residential 1. with City's Hillside Ordinance requiring preservation of topographic features. traffic would conflict with Camp Pendleton traffic, and access would be through several residential areas.. The landfill would also have the potential to pollute Pilgrim The primary objections to The site abuts Vandegrift Blvd., which is a major thoroughfare to Camp The only alternate route passes a high density residential development. It would conflict Truck - .. Creek riparian corridor. .. ~ .. - c -6- . .. . . , I. ,A. ", . : I , BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT FORM \ SUBJECT: Expanded North County Landfi 11 Siting Study BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Site 16 Oameron Valley This site, which abuts the Riverside County line just west of Highway 79,was ranked with the explicit proviso that it be considered only under a joint planning/cost venture with Riverside County. along S.H. 79. of that area. a regional landfill in that area. There was also concern about the traffic impacts to the communities However, they felt that this site could be used to meet the needs The Oak Grove Community Group has presented strong opposition to siting Site 18 Blue Canyon Site 18, located near Highway 79 and north of Lake Henshaw, was the least preferred by the task force because of its distance from population centers, and is very poor technically. In summary, five of the above six sites could be developed to serve as landfills, subject to further geological verification. At least three (#6, 8, 9) could serve well as regional landfills, while two (#3, 16) could serve as local area landfills. ( CAO's Recommendations \ The Department of Public Works has prepared a report addressing your Board's concerns, and now requests authorization to proceed with the expanded siting study for North County. for this project from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Facilities Reserve, and authorize the Director of Purchasing and Contracting to solicit, negotiate and award a contract for these services. The Director, Department of Public Works, will be responsible for administration of the contract. Staff recommends that you approve the expanded Scope of Work, authorize funding C IT1 ZEN COMMITTEE STATEMENT The North County Landfill Siting Expansion of Study Scope was reviewed by the Public Works Advisory Board on June 11, 1987. The Advisory Board made no comment. Exception to Board Policy A-96 - Sequence for Obtaining a Chief Administrative Officer Determination Under Charter Section 916. An exception to Board Policy A-96 is requested because the work required for this ' project is of a highly specialized, technical nature, the need for this type of work is intermittent. c -7- .. -. , " - :,6 DfYELOPtJEKT FOW - \ 9. I. . .I SUBJECT: EXPANDED NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL SITING STUDY - t *. (Oil IT1 ONAL I NFORHAT ION: 4- I ~ FISCAL IMPACT STATEHENT: b .. PROGRAH: SOLID WASTE PROGRAM (SWEF) 19 87-88 19 87-88 19 87-88 1988-89 . ! RECOXIEHOED ADJUSMHTS IWACT ADOPTED BUDG€7 FROPOSAL Direct Cost $ 20,300,699 $ 100,000 0 0 Indirect Cost (Dgpt. 011) (ext, supp, OH) 428,411 0 0 0 TOTAL COST . - B 100.000 0 0 Earned Revenue 20.300.699 .loo ,000 0 0 HET COUNTY COST 0 0 0 0 +aff Years 57 0 0 0 hant of Added c Scurce of Added Funds SWEF FACILITIES RESERVE Fcnds Rcquimd TOTAt CiET PROGWJ COSTS: REFLVW: This project shall be funded by the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Facilities Reserve. -.- I w v >*- %U woc 3cal ma- 000 cor vn .. , ,. i u cc oa -0 su F p: 0 = Q w 0 =z K w 5 c 8' .. .. . . - -a- I*-- .. W Y Y Y -0 s. m q UY L g Pu 'E Ye Y u c'c 00 cc 00 9 cv U zs 0 c m Y h 0 c a 0 uc 0 uul CL 00 n os, U um 00 Ye -0 cu m -m ul ua, -0 mu 2 Y >; U a Y 0 e - a ul e 0 V vr a, c u e 0 U 0) u U E n c 0 0 U - f a! s 0 c - VI a, ul m c n 0 u c 0 0 L 0 e n u U 0 0 E c - cc 2," Lu 0101 '0 u k2 a;: 0 3. ulu Y m. cY 00 uzs a, --a+ 00 nu n a0 cu 0m. I c) u c +I 'c 0 Y u U n c 2 0 U a, --l 0 a .-e -0 -v L u Y 'c m ul Y u u w- .E c .u - -E I' m 0 - E n ul - c c 3 2 * 0 c .. z 'I c c m .r mm .-u Ln V e,L -a Le un c ulm S 0- -0 ou 'cc Q mu co 2s -- un ..L U d t 0 n a 0 L V n e m ... uvc ... mc - Ah nu d N i 0 U VI a 0) c m E 0 e, a- 50 c ..- "0 no ale 4.l q L- .?!E -E le U -m ne u- OH 00) -4 E8 rn .. 22 U 3: ou OL NI- U L 0 \ U c 0, c U n x V n V U U m - - - n m n 5 u V c 0 w h U E x Y B c - E 0) c u U c .v- a - n V U - e 0 U L n U m - a c 4 c o 0 n 0 0 e, e V n u L Q 0 U n m n c c) N ,' . -. , 0- la p: e N 0 W c i- 3 W L 2 i c U c Y u 'c e Ul c c m Y u u al H 0 Y U al -0 al 0 c U c m .. U al 0 U c 0 Y 0 U L u Mal c- Lal CL c c m +$ e> U U 5 2 e c c 0 V u s 2 W c Y c u c m c 2 c m U u c n c - c 3 U c 0 Y m u - 7 c P c c a u 0 0 I 0 u 0 U 0) c C c c - a c c m a z .. i I 0, I < c 4?L? ' I r( d I , .. 4 .* .-4 . i . .e 4 E 8 0 8 C r( -- L X .4C * 00 U bC 4JU b. .oc . mrl 111 ab me 0 C. rla Y<Y cc moo brlU hY O.U bU 8 LCrn bW bIC 4 0-4 1: bU C BP C cca .m rlu d .4 cu4 BOOJ hrl 04 2 .Prl .a* w aa i 8 a a .. ?iF 1' 1 C I 4 .c c ha so ,u bm ao ao e u -8 zss C .e 0 44 x 4J s4 auc ~a 08 b h OC OZ4J xc c +I 04 4c e44J s .4 I8B EO uoc h4 u a4 bU 4Jbh .>U br( b *m* bC *1bb cc . rtYV Lb La* bI?U coc 4J u4 .O .Y 8 40 h 8C b 4Juu ChC (I.. 1"s b x4J Ob oc . 44 8 0 u ow W4J 0 o am Bc' - b +I 0 4 B 4 4 0 Y b c 4J c 4 .. a 4J 0 0 C 4 B 4 4 0 W b 1: 4J c rl 8 4J 4 J Y Id e 0 4 4J 0 I 0 c. 4 0 0 h 0 W b c 0 c 4 4 . u 4 4 0 a ua bC 4J e .U i b Y bL b4 b 4 LCY 4J4J 4 Cub J SC 0 *4J c 4 au ri 4 Y b LY ui m4J a 4~a Y b UP c cup -a m$tb .P 44 40 4 4uu m PbbO >4 0. 440 4bsU r( u4J . U(I8 Uh C C bo 8 UP0 a4 0 4 3 8 b c 4 0 4 0 4 0 I2 uc b4 TJ ca 04 Ub bC 8 C -0 04 c4J 4u 4 - om Oh b LO Ob mo 4 >m Lh b0 a4 w> WY ZVI co urn am 00. ZW gU U b 0 4 x Y 4 8 E 4 . m 4 4 4 4 1 hm .I L. 4 04 mu Lhh -844 >>> *Lh bbb ana saa WPP 2 2: 888 mz4 L 4 > b P 8 1 b C 4 i d I 4 4 . 0 d 0 4 4J u 4 U 8 4 L -. a .a, a 0. t n n e 4J < " ..... i if; * ow 4 3P '* m 4 4 0 Qc C 1 "! Y . -. c < c I N w 0 a u) u) 3 0 ul W ':: n .. .I ". 0 E 0 *( 0 U C Q a .r( a! s 0 U 4 4 4 W a 4 a m m a w. 4 c m e r-. Q 4) rl a C 4 JJ o* Yd, . UIQ rlu . -. -. I am oJJ 40 d, a ow W 0. am CJd L.P! c .. I- 0) o c . c c I w 0 Tu) -2 mb 00 a!> PIS. *a L.J OUl nu 0 E c c ."..,,&', .; 1 ,. a,., .. , m m c . c sr 4 r, I .m w 0 , I w I c w 0 e- brl . .. , . .... - .., .. I- m m c . c 21 d r, a I In I w 0 Bm mm ab 00 .4 a> drr ne ma OW C I rra d d .rl YI 5 :: W 0 C 0 lc u a 0 84 0 Y (I) a 5 a C e I. V W u a . o U 4J C OW aJ d usc cm o u e . .. .. EXHIBIT B JOHN MACDONALO SUPCRVlSqR. ClcTn DISTRICT (610) 5fi-5655 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1800 PACIFIC HIGHWAY. ROOM 335, SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101-2470 October 13, 1987 Mayor Bud Lewis CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 &. Dear -: I am enclosing a copy of a proposal that I will make to the Each city Board of Supervisors if the North County cities first adopt resolutions to participate in a study of Keys Canyon. and the County would contribute $4000 toward the cost of the study. Mayors' Council meeting last week. siting a landfill is a top priority for North County. keep you posted on the progress we are making. of the Keys Canyon site, if there is sufficient interest on the part of the cities in an even more thorough study I will be happy to take your resolutions and the attached board letter to the Board of Supervisors. I enjoyed our open and frank discussion of this issue at the I think we all agree that I will while the County landfill study will include an examination I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Sincerely, fi Supervisor, Fifth District JMD : NEA: mf Attachment I SUBJECT: Keys SUPV DIST: 5 BOARD OF SUPLRVISORS BRIAN C OILBRAY CQUNTY OF SARI DIEGO .*.I5T DISTRICT GEORGE C BAILEY SUSAN GOLDlNt 5. ZJno 0, * rm IC7 - CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO, CALIF Tt4110 DISTRICT L WILLIAMS TELEPHONE (61 91 236-2722 AGENDA ITEM Canyon Engineering Feasibility Analysis - 5UWRY OF REQUEST: This is a request to approve an agreement with North County cities in the amount of $36,000 and direct the CAO to conduct an engineering feasibility analysis of the Keys Canyon sSte for development and operation as a Class I11 landfill. The Keys Canyon site was identified in an earlier site search as a potential landfill but was not ranked as a strong candidate due to environmental considerations and lack of cover aaterial. and have contributed $36,000 toward the analysis.. ELECTED OFFICIAL'S RECOMMENDATION: Approve this study. CHIEF ADHINISTRATIVE OFFm'S RECOf4HENDATION: 1. The site does however have an excellent location and.an apparefitly Several North County cities have expressed a desire for further analysis ' i;tilling seller. - Find this site evaluation exempt from CEQA under Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies. c 2. Approve and agreement for $36,000 with the cities of partial funding for the analysis. to provide 3. Authorize an expenditure of $4,000 from the Solid Waste Dro ject . 4. Direct the CAO to conduct the analysis employing an eng acceptable to the cities and the County. .4uthorize the Director of Purchasinq and Contractinq to a 5. Enterprise Fund for this neering consultant mutually solicit proposals and to negotiate and award a contract for the analysis in an amount not to exceed $40,000. FUNDIN6 SOURCES: CURRENT YEAR COST: $4,000 ANNUAL COST: 0 BUDGETED: [I YES [XI NO WILL PROPOSAL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? Sol id Waste Enterprise Fund NU [XI IF YES, STATE NUUl3ER PERMANENT TEMPORARY OTHER PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: n/a 4 VOTES REQUIRED [XI YES [] NO a? c - .1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INFORRATION DEVELOPMENT FORH - SUBJECT: Keys Canyen Engineerins Feasi bi 1 it BACKGROUND IwOCWATION: - The Keys Canyon site has an excellent location as a landfill to serve North County. It is approximately 12 miles north of Escondido and approximately one half mile east of 1-15. Access could be taken from Lilac Road at the upper end of the site or from Old Highway 395 near the San Luis Rey River to enter from the lower end of the canyon. The canyon was identified as a pctential landfill site in Phase One of the North County site search but was rejected in the final ranking due primarily to the presence of a large stream in the canyon end the resultant high cost of environmental mitigation. High development costs could be expscted due to the need to (a) avoid groundwater contamination and (b) conduct approximately 20,000 cfs of stormwater through the site or provide for diversion and (c) acquire an offsetting acreage of disturbed riparian habitat. A second cost consideraticn involves the need for material for daily cover of the trash. The site is very rocky and production of cover materials on-site could be costly as would importation of material. Use of foam is a possibility to be explored. Due to the scarcity of North County sites and the apparent willing seller th5 site warrants further analysis. Contributions The North County cities have expressed a willingness to equally share in the estimated cost of $40,000 as evidenced by the attached revenue'contract approved by each city. The County would contribute an equal 1/10 share. $40,000, the additional amount will be proportional among the nine cities and the County. Timinq and Consultant Selection Should the cost of the study exceed ,. The analysis of the Keys Canyon site is of utmost importance to the North County cities and it is my desire to have the analysis completed within 90 days. The administration of the consultant contract should be accomplished by the Department of Public Works; however, it is appropriate for the cities to participate in the selection process and to provide input to the Scope of Work and to monitor the progress of the consultant. IJ ORDINANCE LJ RESOLUTION CITIZENS COWITTEE STATEMENT LJ YES LJ NO [I CONTRACT NO. APPROVED BY CO. COUNSEL AS TO LE6ALITY UYES *initials LJNOT APPLICABLE CONTRACT REVIEY PANEL ACTION [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [I NOT APPLICABLE AUDITOR APPROVAL NEEDED LjYES *ini tialsLjN0 FIN.ffiT,APPROVAL NEEDED []YES *initials []NO CONTRACT APPROVED BY CAO FOR ECONOMY []YES []NO [] N/A [I EXEMPT (B/S POLICY A-96) -- []STANDARD FORM - CONCURRENCES (If Applicable) CONTACT PERSON PHONE & MIL STOP DEPT AUTHOR1 ZED REPRESENTAT I VE/Dmg CHIEF ADHINISTRATIVE OFFICER HEETING DATE .* '. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INFORHATION DEVELOPENT FOW -- - -- -- SUBJECT: Keys Canyon Engineering Feasibility Analysis --- - - - BACKGROUND I NFOWT ION : Results of Analysis The consultant will be asked to perforn the following work: volume of refgse that could be placed at this site, (2) estimate costs for land acquisition, developriient of the site (including access roads), and landfill operations, (3) estimate the anount of usable cover material onsite and determine whether adequate cover is available, whether foam could be used, or whether a borrow pit will be needed for cover material, (4) identify the environmental impacts and costs cf qitigation for the primary landfill, (5) determine potential community impacts, and (5) consult with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and State Solid Waste Management Board to identify their concerns. (1) determine the total - 3- . .. *. i' P w > 0 e e a a 2 0 U z 3 5 : 8 AB#- MTG. 9-22- 87 DEPT. HD. TITLE: PROPOSED JOINT POWERS AGENCY FOR 9pprove in concept city of Carlsbad participation in further Siscussion of a proposed joint powers agreement to acquire and >perate a landfill site and operate a recycling program in North Jounty. Appoint Mayor Lewis and Council Member Mamaux as the Zity's representatives for further discussions. DEPT. cc- NORTH COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL 5' lTEM EXPLANATION: cinMma In August 26, 1987, Council Member Mamaux and I attended 3 neeting 3f officials of most of the North County cities to fiscuss a proposal to form a joint powers agency to acquire, fevelop and operate a landfill site in Keys Canyon. The proposal qas presented by Mayor Marjorie Gaines of the City of Encinitas issisted by Melba Bishop, former Council Member of the City of Iceanside. The proposal appears to have merit, since the joint )ewers concept could provide the structure to finance and idminister a landfill. 'he presentation and ensuing discussion was general in nature rith solid waste and financial consultants answering questions irom the group. ;everal concerns were expressed which merit further :onsideration: 1. Are more cost effective sites available than Keys Canyon? 2. Shouldn't recycling be a responsibility of the proposed. joint powers agency? 3. Shouldn't the County be a member of the joint powers agency? [n view of the above concerns and other unanswered questions, :ontintied study and discussion is required. The proposal for a ioint powers agency has merit and I believe that the City should )articipate in further discussions of the proposal. Due to the >otential problems with the Keys Canyon site, I believe that tdditional landfill sites should be evaluated. Recycling should ilso be one of the specific responsibilities of the joint powers tgency. ... Page 2 of- Agenda Bill No. q/7! FISCAL IMPACT: No dirict fiscal impact as a result of this recommendation. EXHIBITS : 1. Szunty of San Diego, Keys Canyon Landfill Site Report W CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY. SAN OIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101 June 23, 1987 TO: Supervisor Brian P. Bilbray, Chairman Supervisor George F. Bailey, Vice Chairman Supervisor Susan Golding Supervisor Leon L. Williams Supervisor John MacDonald FROM : Norman W. Hickey Chief Administrative Officer KEYS CANYON LANDFILL SITE We have received an amended preliminary report from Lawrence/Trumbull & Associates on the potential of the Keys Canyon site as a landfill. The amended report concludes that the site will have more difficulty with regulatory agencies than the Committee selections, but can be operated and maintained in an environmentally safe manner. This site was rejected in Phase I of the study because of high stream flows and flooding. While the report includes both positive and negative observations on the viability of the site, we beli.eve the consultant may have seriously underestimated the cost and complexity of resolving three site selection factors: . Flood Control The area of the drainage basin tributary to this site is considerably larger than indicated in the amended report which results in larger flood flows and more costly solutions. Further, the option to construct a dam to control flood flows would result in a structure of such size as to be subject to regulation by the State Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams. are exposed over much of the site which results in inadequate quality and quantity of cover material." soil cover will be more costly and environmentally complex than . Cover Material The report states.. ."Granitic boulders and bedrock The development of ad Board Members - 2- June 23, 1987 the report implies, considering the potential need to site and operate a borrow pit nearby and the impact of added truck traffic to haul cover material to the landfill. Substitutes for soil as a cover material, such as foam, may have merit but further analysis is needed. . Environmental Impact The scope of work for the report did not require the consultant to determine the specific mitigation required by State and Federal agencies. Our staff, however, has determined that the site is under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers due to the presence of the stream in the canyon. Our recent project experience indicates that for each acre of riparian habitat damaged or destroyed by land- filling the Corps may require the County to purchase and maintain in perpetuity an equal acreage of riparian habitat. On June 2,'1987 the Board of Supervisors directed me to return with a Scope of Work for an expanded North County Landfill Siting Study together with information on fee structures, landfill emissions and recycling. The report is due to the Board of Supervisors no later than August 11, 1987. In view of potential Board direction regarding an expanded study and because of the signific.ant problems identified at Keys Canyon, I have directed that further staff and consultant work be suspended on this site. considerable interest in the report it has been marked "Preliminary" in order to minimize possible misinterpretation. Furthermore, since there has been Respectful ly, Chief Admi ni strati ve Officer NWH:RFW: jb Attachment 155 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone (415) 322-0505 TERRY A. TRUMBULL, President -. 24 Severson, Yroj2ct !.ianayer County ot Saa Diego Ik2artr:w:lt 02 Puolic i!ori:s ii.3. 0323 5555 dvtrland Avenuz 3an iliqo, CA 92123 Su>jscr: Ksys Canyon Evaluation !iorth Couiity LandZill Siting Project Dear Ecl: As our earlier re,,ort indicateJ, Keys Canyon is cqaole 02 bein-j c7 ncw 1anciZii.l site for ttic Jorth County, The major prodm is the size 02 Xcys Crzek, which caused us to.initially reject it in the Phase I work (sez 2, 15, Piiase I report). Tile strza,J sizi. i3rozd.w can 3s solved with an underdrain iC tm Coun.;=y finds tile eqcnse acccp-lablc. f Yiie site has a 2otential cqmcity for a' 60 million cubic yard Iniiulill, and his could oe e;c+:ided if quarryiiig occurs. Horlever, tizere is not sufficient cover onsite for the landfill . Xiilc there woulci be seine usaule fines Zroa SuarryinQ, tile cover shortage would raisin, C)ar analysis witir the state De?artx,ient 02 Fisa and Gam did not indicate any significant ssecial plant or aniriial proaicr.is Xi1ilt. average hauling distznces to Xeys Canyon vere about 59% 1iigliic.r than tile Convittee's selected sites, we do not believi? these aril a serious in@inent, Tho yroxinitjj 02 tae site to 1-15 neans that the tine needed to drive to trie site is less or' a disadvantage than the distance, . VJe have evaluated tha Keys Canyon site accordin; to the Citizens' Cormittee's criteria, Tais evaluation concludes that the Keys Canyon site will nave nore difficulty with reguiatory agencies than ti:e Connittea selections, but can be oDeraW6 and I .. ! I II I! I I I: I: 1: 1: I. I' I. 1 I I I I 31 .. FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL I November 2, 1937 TO : CITY MANAGER VIA: Assistant City Manager FROM: Director, Utilities & Maintenance NORTH COUNTY CSTIES' INVOLVEHENT IN LANDFILL SITING Ycu requested that I poll riorth couiity cities to determine those interested ir, participating in an informal coalition of neorth comty cities. to encourage the county to accomplish the siting of a landfill for the mrth county. Accordingly, I have coctacted representatives of the north comty cities and. determined the following: City Del Kar E nc in it as In t e re s t No official interest, however, a Councilwoman will partici- pate informally. Yes, participating E scondido Yes, participating c c e ai: s id e Poway Sail Marcos Maybe, pending review of Solid Was%e Cornnittee Very likely, awaiting further information Not participating Solaila Beach Yes, participating vista Unknown, but likely partici- pating The first meetir,g of the informal group%ith Supervisor Macdonald is scheduled for Monday, November 16, 1987, at 9 AM at Supervisor Macdonald's office in the County Administration Center, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego. City Manager November 2, 1987 Page 2 As of Monday afternoon, November 2, 1987, the above information Should you have any questions, please contact me RWA: jlc fl. +. Acting Assistant Director