HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-19; City Council; 11449; SettlementCI'P -3F CARLSBAD - AGENDITILL y&6 @
DEPT. HD.-
1ITO.J.JLULU SETTLEMENT OF SAN MARCOS IEPT. INCINERATOR LITIGATION CITY MOR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council, by motion, place a copy of the settlement agreement in the public record thereby announcing publiclythat the agreement embodies the position of the City of Carlsbad in the matter.
ITEM EXPLANATION The City Council, at your meeting of November 5, 1991, approved a
joint settlement agreement and release between the City of
Carlsbad, City of Enchitas, City of Escondido and City of
Oceanside on the one hand and the County of San Diego, City of San Marcos and North County Resource Recovery Associates on the other. Since that time, the City of Oceanside has declined to participate in the agreement but they have agreed to withdraw themselves and dismiss all actions in connection with the incinerator litigation. Escondido will vote on November 13, 1991. The agreement has been approved by all of the other parties. It was entered as a formal stipulation before the Honorable Ronald Johnson in Vista Superior Court on November 8, 1991 and is now fully effective. One of our obligations under the agreement is to take no action to oppose the Phase I recycling center and give no assistance directly or indirectly to the citizens' groups and others who may be involved in litigation against the project. Recognizing that the Council cannot constrain the constitutional rights of our citizens to act
on matters of public interest as they see fit, nevertheless, it has been agreed to minimize such actions that a copy of the agreement be placed in the public record at a City Council meeting, and that it be publicly announced that the agreement embodies the position of the City of Carlsbad in the matter. The adoption of the recommended action will do that.
The agreement is in a slightly different form than previously presented. Oceanside has been deleted and a provision for Escondidols participation, which was not settled when this was
prepared, has been added. I think it substantially conforms to the agreement as approved by the Council and that no further action in that regard is required.
FISCAL IMPACT None
EXHIBIT Agreement
4 -
c i
JOINT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
THIS JOINT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE (hereafter, the
rtAGREEMENTtp) is entered into as of November -1 1991, by and
between those of the following parties who sign the AGREEMENT: THE
CITY OF ENCINITAS, THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO, on
the one hand (referred to herein, collectively, as ltPETITIONERSll),
and THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, and NORTH
COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, on the other hand (referred to
herein, collectively, as "RESPONDENTS") , on the following terms and
conditions. This Agreement shall be binding upon the signatures of
at least two of the PETITIONERS and upon the signatures of all of
the RESPONDENTS.
W I T N E S E T H:
A. WHEREAS NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOCIATES
(hereinafter ttNCRRAIt) is the proponent of a resource recovery and
waste-to-energy project (hereinafter, the "Projectst) to be carried
out, in part, pursuant to a service agreement with THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO (hereinafter "THE COUNTY") ;
B. WHEREAS the Project is proposed to be constructed and
operated on County-owned land at the San Marcos Landfill located
within the jurisdiction and boundaries of THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS
(hereinafter, "SAN MARCOS") ;
C. WHEREAS on August 16, 1987, SAN MARCOS granted certain
land use approvals for the Project, including General Plan
Amendment 05-85, Rezoning Ordinance No. TA23-87, Resolution No.
87-2667 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 126-87, and Resolution
No. 87-2662 certifying EIR No. 03-85;
DVKITEND.333
11/8/91 Settlement Agmt -1-
D. WHEREAS on September 23, 1987, THE CITY OF ENCINITAS and
CHRISTWARD MINISTRY, ET AL., each filed petitions for writ of
mandate and other relief, as amended, being Action Nos. N38253 and
N38255, respectively, challenging the aforementioned SAN MARCOS
approvals;
c
E. WHEREAS on October 13, 1987, SAN MARCOS adopted City
Ordinance No. 87-754 approving a Development Agreement for the
Pro j ect :
F. WHEREAS on October 27, 1987, SAN MARCOS adopted
Resolution No. 87-2707, pursuant to Condition 18 of the Conditional
Use Permit, finding that the 1987 health risk assessment for the
Project remained acceptable for the City's permitting purposes, and
PETITIONERS thereafter amended their pleadings in Action Nos.
N38253 and N38255 to challenge said approval;
G. WHEREAS on December 2, 1987, THE CITY OF ENCINITAS and
CHRISTWARD MINISTRY, ,ET AL., each filed petitions for writ of
mandate and other relief, as amended, being Action Nos. N38886 and
N38893, respectively, challenging the Development Agreement
approval ;
H. WHEREAS the CITIES OF CARLSBAD, ESCONDIDO, and OCEANSIDE
have each intervened as PETITIONERS in the aforementioned actions;
I. WHEREAS RESPONDENTS in each of the foregoing actions have
denied all of PETITIONERS' claims that the SAN MARCOS approvals for
the Project should be set aside; .
J. WHEREAS the foregoing Actions have been consolidated, in
part, and are presently set for hearing on November 7, 1991;
DV/CITEND.333
11/8/91 Settlement Agmt -2-
K. WHEREAS PETITIONERS have filed certain other litigation
challenging governmental approvals or actions relating to the
Project ;
L. WHEREAS on May 22, 1990, THE COUNTY Board of Supervisors
directed THE COUNTY Department of Public Works to commence
negotiations with NCRRA for the Project to proceed in two phases,
with Phase 1 to include generally the receiving building for
incoming solid waste, a central processing building containing
waste processing lines to remove recyclable material and produce a
shredded waste, and an interim storage area for the shredded waste
and process residue (herein the "Recycling Project"); and Phase 2
to include generally the stoker boiler to be fueled by the shredded
waste and a steam turbine generator to produce electrical energy;
M. WHEREAS on August 6, 1991, THE COUNTY Board of
Supervisors declined to approve an Amended and Restated Service
Agreement with NCRRA', (hereinafter, the "RSAI1) for the entire
Project, and thereafter on September 17, 1991, approved the I1RSAI1
for the Recycling Project only;
N. WHEREAS RESPONDENTS are now prepared to irrevocably
cancel all permits, approvals and entitlements for Phase 2 of the
Project, agreeing that none of such permits, approvals, or
entitlements may be used for any incinerator proposal to be located
at the San Marcos Landfill, and PETITIONERS are now prepared to
drop all opposition to the Recycling Project, reserving their
right to object to any future incineration proposal;
DV/CITEND.333 11/8/91 Settlement Agmt -3-
0. WHEREAS the Petitioners and Respondents now desire to
settle their disputes concerningthese matters and to terminate the
foregoing litigation on the terms and conditions set forth below:
P. WHEREAS THE CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CHRISTWARD MINISTRY,
CITIZENS FOR HEALTHY AIR IN SAN MARCOS AND NORTH COUNTY CONCERNED
CITIZENS have declined to enter into said settlement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants,
and warranties given below, the parties, and each of them, agree as
follows:
1. PETITIONERS' Undertakinss. In consideration of the
obligations undertaken and the promises made herein by RESPONDENTS,
the signing PETITIONERS hereby covenant, warrant and agree to
undertake the following actions:
(a) To dismiss with prejudice their petitions and complaints
in Action Nos. N38253dnd N38887:
(b) To dismiss with prejudice the following other actions
against the Proj ect :
(i) City of Enchitas, et al. v. County of San
Dieqo, et al., Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, No. DO13230 (on appeal from San Diego Superior
Court No. 604424) subject to the Court of Appeal's
approval, and upon the express understanding and
agreement that the filing of this case, the trial court
ruling, and this dismissal will not be collateral
estoppel or res judicata as to Petitioners as to any
issue raised, or that could have been raised, therein in
DV/CITEND.333 11/8/91 Settlement Agrnt -4-
the event of any future litigation provided howeverthat
PETITIONERS give up entirely any claim or contention that
Phase 1 is or should be subject to competitive bidding
and that any such claim is barred by any such dismissal;
(c) To file no appeal in City of Encinitas, et al. v.
California Pollution Control Financinq Authoritv, et al., San Diego
Superior Court No. 634996.
(d) To commence no legal action against the decision of the
County Board of Supervisors on September 17, 1991, approving the
RSA for the Recycling Project and certifying Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report No. 89041911 in connection therewith,
insofar as the same authorize or relate to the Recycling Project
only, but without prejudice to the right of PETITIONERS to
challenge such documents or approvals if they are attempted to be
used for an incinerator proposal at the San Marcos Landfill;
(e) PETITIONERS ',agree not to oppose the funding of the
Recycling Project before or in connection with the proceedings of
the California Pollution Control Financing Authority (the ItCPCFAlr)
scheduled on or about November 20, 1991. The letter attached
hereto as Exhibit A shall be executed by all PETITIONERS and shall
be transmitted by PETITIONERS to the CPCFA with copies to all
parties, so that it will be received prior to the meeting on
November 20, 1991. The letter shall be the only position taken by
PETITIONERS with respect to the CPCFA approval of financing for the
Recycling Proj ect :
(f) To take no action whatsoever, directly or indirectly,
whether in writing, orally or otherwise, to oppose any existing
DV/CITEND.333 11/8/91 Settlement Agmt -5-
governmental approval, permit or entitlement, or existing
modification or amendment thereof, or any additional permits and
approvals consistent with the approved RSA which may be required,
for the approval or implementation of the Recycling Project,
whether in administrative, legislative or judicial proceeding,
recognizing that PETITIONERS cannot bind future City Councils not
to participate in future permit or amendment proceedings as of yet
unknown, but further acknowledging that it is the good faith intent
of the PETITIONERS not to oppose the approval or implementation of
the Recycling Project in a manner consistent with the approved RSA
as approved by the County on September 17, 1991 in any future
proceedings based upon facts and information currently available.
The parties recognize and agree that the following solid waste
issues which may relate to the Recycling Project remain unresolved:
(1) the issue of flow control, (2) the issue of the right of the
North County Cities to access East and South County disposal
facilities, (3) the validity of the San Marcos CUP and its
conditions for expansion of the San Marcos landfill, and (4) solid
waste fees which San Marcos and\or the County may set in the
future. The parties reserve their respective rights to assert
positions on these issues and to take such actions in the future as
they deem appropriate. Any such positions or actions do not
violate this Agreement.
(4) To provide no financial or legal assistance directly or
indirectly to CHRISTWARD MINISTRY, CITIZENS FOR HEALTHY AIR IN SAN
MARCOS and NORTH COUNTY CONCERNED CITIZENS or to the CITY OF
OCEANSIDE, or to the CITY OF ESCONDIDO if it does not sign this
DV/CITEND.333 11/8/91 Settlement Agmt -6-
AGREEMENT, in this litigation or other litigation inconsistent with
this Agreement.
2. With respect to PETITIONERS' undertakings set forth in
paragraph 1 above, PETITIONERS and RESPONDENTS recognize that
individual citizens within PETITIONER CITIES not authorized to act
on behalf of PETITIONERS, may nonetheless take individual actions
contrary to said undertakings and that PETITIONERS may be without
power or authority to prevent said individual actions. In order to
prevent or minimize any such actions, PETITIONERS, and each of
them, agree to place a copy of this Settlement Agreement in the
Public Record at a duly noticed City Council meeting and to
announce publicly at such meeting that the Settlement Agreement
embodies the position of the CITIES.
3. RESPONDENTS' Undertakinqs. In consideration of the
obligations undertaken and the promises made by PETITIONERS,
RESPONDENTS hereby covenant, warrant and agree to undertake the
following actions:
(a) Not to utilize or rely on any existing approval, permit
or entitlement, or existing amendment thereto, for the Project as
a basis to proceed with Phase 2, or for any other incinerator
proposal at the San Marcos landfill, and not to assign or transfer
to any person, entity, or party in any manner any such permit,
approval or entitlement for purposes of locating an incinerator at
the San Marcos landf-ill, except that RESPONDENTS retain the right
to utilize any of their private data or work product developed in
support of any existing approval, permit or entitlement for any
future purpose. To carry out this paragraph Respondents shall
DV/CITEND.333
11/8/91 Settlement Agmt -7-
irrevocably cancel those approvals, permits and entitlements,
including existing amendments thereto, currently existing and
necessary for Phase 2 of the Project, or which could be used for
any other incineration project at the San Marcos landfill,
specifically including the irrevocable relinquishment of PSD Permit
No. NSR 4-4-10, SD 84-01 issued by Region IX of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on August 9, 1991, and the
withdrawal and irrevocable relinquishment of NCRRA's pending
Authority-To-Construct Application No. 890618 to the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District. Further, this settlement Agreement
shall constitute an express contractual commitment on the part of
NCRRA that SAN MARCOS CUP No. 126-87 and Development Agreement
Ordinance No. 87-754 shall not be used by NCRRA or assigned or
transferred to any other person, entity, or party for purposes of
locating an incinerator at the San Marcos landfill;
(b) The two permits to be cancelled as set forth in paragraph
(a) above shall be irrevocably cancelled prior to the time that any
dismissal with prejudice as to any of PETITIONERS' litigation is
entered and provided that, if time necessitates, all parties agree
that the statute of limitations shall be extended as to PETITIONERS
as to any new challenge to the Recycling Project until such time as
said permits are cancelled and that all currently pending
litigation to be dismissed hereunder will be held in temporary
abeyance, without prejudice to any party's rights pending
completion of the settlement;
(d) SAN MARCOS and the COUNTY shall not impose conditions or
charges for use of public solid waste facilities serving North
DV/CITEND.333
11/8/91 Settlement Agmt -8-
County in a manner intended to retaliate against any PETITIONER for
having initiated litigation or for otherwise having opposed the
project in the past. The parties recognize and agree that certain
solid waste issues remain unresolved, as set forth in Paragraph
l(f) of this Agreement. Any position or action taken by any party
respecting these unresolved issues shall not be deemed retaliatory
for purposes of this Agreement.
4. Power Purchase Asreement. It is understood and agreed by
all parties hereto' that this Agreement does not include or affect
in any way that certain Power Purchase Agreement in and between
NCRRA and San Diego Gas and Electric Company, nor does anything
herein affect or restrict any party's rights or actions in
connection with litigation, California Public Utility Commission
proceedings, or any other proceeding, pending or future, as to said
Power Purchase Agreement.
5. Third Partv 'Construction Cost Verification. The parties
agree that, with respect to all costs which the County Auditor is
obligated to review under Section 3 of the Agreement approved with
the RSA (Exhibit B attached hereto) the County Auditor shall
receive reports from the Consulting Engineer designated in
accordance with the terms of the RSA to assist the County Auditor
in completing such review. The County Auditor shall consider such
reports in good faith in exercising his authority under such
Section 3. Copies of all such reports from the Consulting Engineer
shall be made available to the signing Petitioners and shall be
made available to the public at the same time they are released to
NCRRA. The Consulting Engineer which has currently been designated
DV/CITEND.333 11/8/91 Settlement Agmt -9-
- 4
by the County is R.W. Beck and Associates (''Beck1'). Beck has also
been retained by the Bank which will provide the Letter of Credit
to secure the amounts due on the bonds (the being issued
by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority to finance
the Recycling Project and will provide the Consulting Engineer's
Reports to the Bank. Such reports shall be made available to the
County Auditor and to Petitioners and the public at the same time
they are released to NCRRA. Copies of all decisions and reports of
the County Auditor made under Paragraph 3 of Exhibit B shall be
provided to the signing parties hereto and shall be made available
to the public by the County.
6. Representation of RESPONDENTS as to Future Incinerator
Plants. Recognizing that SAN MARCOS and THE COUNTY cannot bind
their future City Councils and Boards of Supervisors, respectively,
as to permit actions or policy decisions which said bodies may be
called upon to make .in the future, the RESPONDENTS make the
following representations: There are no current negotiations in
process with any project sponsor for any incinerator at the San
Marcos landfill. Any new possible incinerator proposal forthe San
Marcos landfill would have to obtain all new permits, entitlements,
environmental review, and authorizations.
7. Full and Final Release. Except as to those claims
expressly reserved herein, this Agreement constitutes a full and
final compromise, release and settlement of any and all claims,
demands, actions or causes of action by PETITIONERS or by
RESPONDENTS as against each other, arising out of or connected with
the SAN MARCOS approvals which are the subject matter of Action
DV/CITEND.333 11/8/91 Settlement Agmt -10-
Nos. N38253 and N38887. All parties understand and acknowledge
that it is possible that unknown claims exist, and the parties have
taken into that account in determining whether to enter into this
Agreement: and they agree as a further consideration and inducement
for this settlement that it shall apply to all unknown and
unanticipated causes of action in addition to those that are now
disclosed. Consequently, the parties, and each of them, expressly
waive all rights under California Civil Code section 1542, which
provides as follows:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor.
8. Authority for Dismissals. PETITIONERS hereby authorize
their attorneys of record to enter dismissals with prejudice in the
actions identified in subparagraphs 1 (a) and 1 (b) above immediately
upon the execution of'.this Agreement, and in no event later than
five (5) business days from the date RESPONDENTS notify PETITIONERS
that the two permits and/or applications referenced in
subparagraphs 3 (a) and 3 (b) above have been cancelled or withdrawn.
Failure to carry out any part of this obligation shall be a
material breach of this Agreement.
9. Asreement Freely Entered Into. This Agreement is freely
and voluntarily entered into by all parties. The parties., and each
of them, have been fully advised by their counsel as to the
contents, meaning and significance of this Agreement, and the terms
of which are contractual and not a mere recital, and they fully
understand its terms and their effects. The parties acknowledge
DV/CITEND.333
11/8/91 Settlement Agmt -11-
that they have read the foregoing Agreement and each signs his or
her name as an agent of the parties herein, as his or her own free
act, on the effective date as indicated above. Each of the parties
hereto understands that if the facts under which this Agreement is
executed, and for which the dismissal with prejudice is provided,
are found hereafter to be other than or different from the facts
now believed by any party or parties to be true, such party or
parties expressly accept and assume the risk of such a possible
difference in facts and agree that this Agreement shall be and will
remain effective notwithstanding such difference in facts.
10. Remedies for Breach. This Agreement shall constitute a
complete bar, and may be pled as the basis for injunctive relief or
an affirmative defense, in any action, at law or in equity, which
is commenced in violation of the terms hereof; and in the event any
party to this Agreement should have to petition the court or
otherwise bring further proceedings to enforce the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, or assert said Agreement as an
affirmative defense, the prevailing party in any such action will
be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in such
proceeding.
11. Compromise and Settlement. This Agreement is a
compromise and settlement of disputed claims, and nothing contained
herein shall be construed as an admission of any kind on the part
of any party hereto.
12. Bindins on Successors and Assisns. This Agreement shall
bind, and inure to the benefit of, all successors and assigns of
the parties and any associates in interest, and their respective
DV/ClTEND.333
11/8/91 Settlement Agmt -12-
directors, officers, agents, servants, and employees, and the
successors and assigns of each of them, separately and
collectively.
13. California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and
enforced pursuant to the law of the State of California.
14. Entire Asreement. This document embodies the entire
terms and conditions of the Agreement described herein. This
Agreement may be executed in ten (10) counterparts, one for each
party hereto, each of which shall constitute an original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have duly executed this
Joint Settlement Agreement and Release.
Attorney of Record Partv
CITY OF CARLSBAD
BY Vincent F. Biondo, Jr., , Esq.
CITY OF ENCINITAS
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
DV/CITEND.333
11/8/91 Settlement Agmt
David R. Chapman, Esq.
-13-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Attorney of Record Mayor
NORTH courm RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOCIATES
1 -
-1 5-
Attorney of Record
Mkk C. Mead
Deputy County Counsel
Partv
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Norman W. Hickey
Mark C. Mead, Esq.
2 1
Ronald E. Van Buskirk, Esq.
DV/CITEND.333 11/8/91 Settlement Agmt
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
-14-
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
B
NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES
BY
November 7, 1991
California Pollution Control
P.O. Box 942809 Sacramento, CA 94209-0001
Financing Authority
Re: NCRRA Request for Phase 1 Only Financinq
Dear CPCFA:
In light of the fact that the San Diego County Board of Supervisors is fully committed to a recycling facility at the San
Marcos landfill (the NCRRA Phase 1 Project) and given that if the Project is to proceed as the County and NCRRA intend it to proceed,
it is in the public interest for CPCFA financing to be available for such Recycling Project, the undersigned hereby withdraw their
opposition to CPCFA financing of the Recycling Project.
Sincerely,
CITY OF ENCINITAS
BY Gayle Hano, Mayor
CITY OF CARLSBAD
BY Claude E. (Buddy) Lewis, Mayor
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
BY Jerry Harmon, Mayor
DV/CITEND1.175
A G R E EM El I 'l' -
1991 This Acjreemenb ,s made and dated as of 5 -tember -,
between the County of San Diego ("County1') and North Coiinty
Resource Recovery Associates ( 'lNCRRAt') .
1. The County and PICRRA have entered into a Restated Service Agreement dated September , 1391 (the "Service
Agreement") pursuant to which NCRFU has agreed to construct and
operate a solicl waste sorting and recycling facility (the
"Facility") .
2. The parties acknowledge that the execution of this
Agreement is a condition to the execution of the Service Agreenent.
3. With respect to all costs specified in the Ssrvice
Agreement for which the County is responsible, such costs shall be
subject to Cost Substantiation in accordance with ths Servics
A-greernent and the County A-uditor shall reviev such costs for their
reasonableness. To the extent the decision of the County Auditor
with respect to reasonableness of such costs is supported by
substantial evidence and is not arbitrary and capricicus, such decision shall be binding on the par"' Lies.
. .\
4. With respect to the County's option to purchase the
Facility pursuant to Section 11.05 of the Service Agreensnt, th2 amount specified for the purchase, shall be changed frog
$16,700,000 to $1O,OOO,COO for the first four operating yezrs of
the Facility and thereafter, such amount shall be decreased by 5%
for each operating year of the Facility and during the last operating year of the Service Agreenent such zmount shall ec;uzl
The County and NCRRh- hereby agree to utilize the proceeds
of the California Pollution Control Finance Authority's Eonds to
the extent feasible to finance the recycling Facility described in
the Service .Agreement. The parties 'further agree to release any rights they may have to utilize any remaining proceeds of such
Bonds for an incineration process or facility.
With respect to the County's optional right in accordance
with Section 11.21 of the Service Agreenent, to utilize NCR?,2?*s
permits or other property, NCRR4's obligation to cooperate with the
County shall include the assignment of agreements, pernits, or
other actions requested by the County.
7. With respect. to amounts specified in- subsections
4.01(a) (1) , (3) and (4) of the Service Agreement, such costs sha'll
b2 only payable to the extent they are allocable to the development
of the recycling Facility described in the Service Agre, The total , not-to-exceed, amount specified in the Service Agreement for such costs is equal to $9,433,000 and such'costs are subject to the
Cost Substantiation and. subject to Board of Supervisors reviev and
approval.
$100 , 000. I
5.
6.
NORTH COUNTY RESOURW
RECOVERY ASSOCIA?. ., n
4 COUNTY SAFl DIEGO
a ..
INCINERATOR LITIGATION SETTLEMENT
The Council's overriding objective and the City Attorney's mission
was to stop the San Marcos incinerator and protect Carlsbadls citizens, particularly those in South Carlsbad, from all of its adverse environmental effects. The City Attorney recommended the settlement because it accomplished our objective and, in his opinion, achieved more for the City than we could have gotten
through litigation.
The press criticism is unfortunate. It assumes that the
incinerator was dead anyway and that Phase I could be stopped and,
therefore, the settlement was somehow unnecessary and we gave something away. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The NCRRA incinerator was not dead. It was very much alive and it was unclear whether or not the City could win the litigation. The settlement killed the incinerator and eliminatedthe risk of losing
everything if we lost the litigation.
The settlement canceled all of the permits for the NCRRA
incinerator, including the EPA and APCD air quality permits. It also canceled the development agreement and the San Marcos CUP.
Some permits would have remained alive even if we won the
litigation. These permits could have been easily assigned to
another developer and used to construct an incinerator in the
future. The settlement protected our citizens against that.
The settlement also ensures that the new EIR done by the County cannot be used for any incinerator requiring #'ground zero1'
environmental review if another proposal ever surfaces; something that could take years and which makes it highly unlikely an incinerator can be built.
The City will continue to fight the NCRRA - SDG&E power contract to ensure that our rate payers are protected.
The City Council did everything possible to persuade the Board of
Supervisors not to approve the Phase I recycling center contract.
We made every argument possible to convince them that it was not a
"good deal" for our citizens but we lost. The Board of Supervisors
made that deal and we didn't have the power to stop it.
Since the Supervisors' minds were made up it was cheaper for our
citizens to have Phase I recycling center funded through the CPCFA
bonds than in any other way. It might have been politically more
satisfying to continue to oppose that but the result would have been higher trash bills for our citizens. The Board of
Supervisors' decision is already going to require them to be raised
high enough,
Litigating an incinerator is one thing. Fighting a recycling plant is another even if it is more expensive than necessary. None of the other cities, including Oceanside, were willing to file new
We didn't want to make a bad situation even worse.
b
lawsuits against it. Opposition to Phase I recycling center was
hurting the City's credibility with the South and East County
cities and damaging our efforts to get acceptance of an interim
solution that will take care of our citizen's trash when San Marcos
closes. The litigation was also being used by the County as a
reason to refuse to help us. Now, there is no excuse for them not opening the South and East County facilities.
Oceanside has refused any financial support for our litigation
efforts. The primary burden has been borne by Encinitas and they
decided to settle. Carlsbad was not prepared to bear the full cost
and expense of litigating Phase I which will not have any substantial adverse environmental effects on our citizens and will be paid for by everyone in San Diego County.
Anyone concerned about Phase I recycling center should talk to the
members of the Board of Supervisors who voted for it. Litigation can't remedy all the mistakes made by the Board of Supervisors. Only the voters can do that.
Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
Mayor, City of Carlsbad
November 19, 1991
memos\trash.res,