The land use permit (LUP) review itself has no impact to the County General Fund. Keller Canyon Landfill Company is responsible for providing reimbursement for the County's staff costs associated with the permit review process. Approval of the Option B version of the new and modified conditions is not expected to have a fiscal impact, however approval of Option A is expected to result in a decrease in County Fee revenue, including a potential $124,645 - $185,056 decrease in annual General Fund revenue derived from the Keller Franchise Surcharge (for details about estimated decreases in County Fees, see Table 1, Exhibit I).
The Board of Supervisors originally heard this item on December 16, 2014. Following a lengthy discussion at the meeting in December 2014, the Board unanimously approved modified conditions of approval number 20.3, 25.4, and 31.5. These three conditions were modified from the original land use permit (County File #LP89-2020), and pertained to material used for daily cover at the landfill. Those conditions have been removed from both versions of the new and modified Conditions of Approval (Options A and B). The Board was not prepared to make a decision on the remaining recommendations without considering additional information presented to the Board. Therefore, the permit review was continued to March 3, 2015 as an open public hearing, while the Board directed staff to research and report back five directives described below. In response to Board direction, staff prepared a detailed report on the Keller Canyon Landfill Permit Review for the March 3, 2015 meeting. The report presented two versions of Keller Canyon Landfill's (KCL) land use permit (LUP) conditions of approval as options for the Board to consider. That report also included staff's responses to five directives the Board requested staff to research and report back at the following meeting. On March 3, 2015 the open public hearing was continued to March 31, 2015, and then again to July 21, 2015, at the request of the District V Supervisor. At that meeting, Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff recommended that the Board of Supervisors (Board) continue the item once more to September 22, 2015 so that the District V Supervisor could participate in the decision making process.
This report serves as an update to the March 3, 2015 Board Order. This report includes some additional information regarding both versions of the new and modified conditions of approval (Options A and B) following the sections regarding the Board's five directives. A new "Updates to Previous Discussion Topics" section has been added to the end of this report with brief updates regarding two related matters which occurred since the March 3, 2015 Board meeting.
Directive 1: Provide a list of local cities that do not have a Construction and Demolition (C&D) ordinance.
Staff primarily relied on city websites or staff to verify current ordinance status, however in one case information was obtained from the applicable solid waste authority. The following alphabetic lists identify the 13 Contra Costa County cities that have adopted a local C&D ordinance and the six cities that have not. It is worthwhile to note that local C&D ordinances have become less significant in recent years and in some cases even inconsequential due to the expanded statewide requirements known as CalGreen. All California jurisdictions (city or unincorporated County) are subject to the C&D debris recovery requirements contained within the State's 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), unless they already have a local ordinance with more stringent requirements.
Agencies currently enforcing building codes for the applicable building occupancy types are also responsible for applicable enforcement of CalGreen requirements. The County's C&D ordinance, which had applied to covered projects (over 5,000 square feet) in the unincorporated area, is generally less stringent and has, in effect, been preempted by the statewide standards in CalGreen. Most of the C&D ordinances adopted by local cities are triggered if projects either exceed a specified square footage or cost (dollar value), rather than being applicable to all occupiable buildings as is the case with CalGreen.
| Adopted local C&D ordinance |
No local C&D ordinance |
| Antioch |
El Cerrito |
| Brentwood |
Hercules |
| Clayton |
Pinole |
| Concord |
Pittsburg |
| Danville |
Richmond |
| Lafayette |
San Pablo |
| Martinez |
|
| Moraga |
|
| Oakley |
|
| Orinda |
|
| Pleasant Hill |
|
| San Ramon |
|
| Walnut Creek |
|
CalGreen requires that at least 50% by weight of debris from applicable construction or demolition project job sites be recycled, reused, or otherwise diverted from landfill disposal. This requirement applies to demolition projects and new buildings being constructed, including additions or alterations of buildings where the changes increase the building's conditioned (habitable) area, volume or size. CalGreen requires submission of debris recovery plans when building permit applications are filed, and verifiable post-project documentation prior to final inspection to demonstrate that at least 50% of the non-hazardous C&D debris generated on the job site are salvaged for reuse, recycled, or otherwise diverted.
Directive 2: Assess a potential change to the Local Enforcement Agency proposed by the City of Pittsburg.
In response to the Board's request, the Pittsburg City Manager submitted a letter on January 9, 2015 (Exhibit D), regarding a potential change to the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). Currently, KCL is regulated under the authority of Contra Costa Environmental Health (CCEH) as the County LEA. The City of Pittsburg proposed that the Pittsburg LEA assume responsibility for solid waste inspection and enforcement at Keller Canyon Landfill. Under the City's proposal, there would be a transitional period where the Pittsburg LEA would work with the County LEA on matters related to the landfill.
CCEH reviewed the proposal and applicable legal requirements. The laws and regulations that govern the designation and certification of local enforcement agencies do not authorize Pittsburg's LEA to take on these duties because the landfill is located in an unincorporated area.
Under the Public Resources Code (PRC), only the Board of Supervisors may designate an enforcement agency to enforce solid waste laws in unincorporated areas. In a city, only the city council may designate an enforcement agency to enforce solid waste laws in that city (PRC §§ 43202 & 43203). Under the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the Board of Supervisors may designate one local agency to be the County's enforcement agency. After the designated agency has been certified by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), then that certified agency is the only LEA in the unincorporated area of the County. Similarly, a city may designate one local agency to act as the enforcement agency for that incorporated jurisdiction (CCR Title 14, §§ 18050 & 18070).
Based on these laws, only one enforcement agency can be designated within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Under these laws, the Pittsburg LEA cannot be designated by the City of Pittsburg as the enforcement agency for the Keller Canyon Landfill because the landfill is located in an unincorporated area, which is the County's jurisdiction.
CCEH has served as the LEA in the unincorporated area since 1992. In addition, 18 of the County's cities have designated CCEH as their LEA. CCEH staff has reviewed the proposal as submitted by the City of Pittsburg. In its capacity as the County LEA, CCEH has indicated it is opposed to Pittsburg's proposal and remains committed to fulfilling its solid waste enforcement duties in Contra Costa County.
Directive 3: Amount of waste currently being direct hauled to Keller Canyon Landfill that could be recovered and would therefore have to go through a transfer station as a result of the new / modified conditions of approval and possible decrease in associated fees paid to the County.
This Directive is only relevant to the Option A version of the new and modified LUP conditions. Staff has collected and analyzed all available data to offer the best estimates, which were derived from a combination of variables, some of which had to be based on assumptions. Staff did not have to rely on assumptions for three of these variables because this data is included in reports submitted by the operator: actual tons of material hauled directly to KCL, actual jurisdiction of origin for each load of material, and actual material categories (waste stream). All of the following variables rely on assumptions, which have the potential to significantly alter the outcome depending on what is assumed:
1. Question: Where would the C&D material go if not hauled directly to KCL?
Assumption: Total amount originating in each jurisdiction within Contra Costa County would go to the nearest in-County transfer station. Total amount originating outside of Contra Costa County would not be transported to any in-County transfer station or landfill.
2. Question: How much C&D material would be diverted at in-County transfer stations?
Assumption: Average of 91% diversion for the Recycling Center & Transfer Station in Pittsburg, according to the facility operator, and an average of 50% diversion for both the Contra Costa Transfer & Recovery Station in Martinez area and the Golden Bear Transfer Station in North Richmond, according to the certified facility list published by the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (RecycleSmart).
3. Question: What gate rate would be paid by customers for C&D loads?
Assumption: All tons would be subject to the current standard C&D gate rate of $83.00 per ton. Actual rates paid vary significantly (and are generally lower), but no data is available relating tons of disposal to specific rates, as further explained below.
Tonnage amounts fluctuate seasonally and from year to year based on a wide range of factors, such as the economy, which seems to have a direct impact on waste generation (more disposal when the economy is doing well). Staff-calculated estimated tons diverted and County Fee impacts are based upon actual reported tonnage by origin in 2014.
Some of the County fees are paid based on tonnage amounts, however, the highest fee paid to the County is the Surcharge required in the Landfill Franchise Agreement, which is 25% of the gate revenue (this varies based on actual rates paid by customers during any given period). The landfill sets its own rates, which can vary based on waste stream and customer. Since DCD staff does not know the actual rates charged for each load, we estimated Surcharge impact using a flat gate rate since the landfill operator indicated that most customers pay KCL's standard C&D gate rate. It is worth noting that this conservative assumption potentially over-estimates the potential fee impact noted as the Franchise Surcharge since estimates are based on a gate rate that, in some cases, may be substantially higher than the actual rate paid by some customers.
The majority of loads hauled directly to KCL for disposal contain contaminated soils, wastewater biosolids/byproducts, street sweepings, and various other special wastes. These special wastes are legally classified as Class II because they are contaminated but fall below the hazardous waste thresholds. These Class II wastes are not suited for handling at transfer stations. Therefore, the restrictions on direct haul are focused on C&D loads that can be readily identified as being potentially recyclable at local transfer stations.
POTENTIAL INCREASE IN DIVERSION: Staff's estimates are summarized below. Most of the direct-hauled C&D material has generally come from jurisdictions within Contra Costa County, however, 17% originated outside the County. The majority of this out-of-County C&D material came from Berkeley and Oakland (10% of total, 59% of out-of-County). See the table in Exhibit I for more details about the waste diversion estimates summarized below.
OPTION A - Staff's estimates do not assume any of the C&D originating outside the County would be diverted because the amount of speculation required makes any diversion assumptions quite arbitrary. The worst case scenario assumption would be that all the loads of C&D material previously direct hauled to KCL would bypass in-County transfer stations and instead be disposed of at out-of-County landfills. If only those loads originating within the County ended up going to the local transfer stations nearest each jurisdiction (69% diversion) and the out-of-County loads were disposed of in other non-County landfills (0% diversion), it would result in a total combined diversion rate of 57%, as compared to current conditions where the diversion is 0%.
OPTION B - If C&D loads continued being direct hauled to KCL and the proposed on-site material recovery operation were to be established on-site in compliance with the recommended conditions, the landfill operator would need to achieve and maintain an average diversion rate of 50% (or better) for direct hauled C&D materials, compared to current 0% diversion.
POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN COUNTY FEES: Potential estimated reductions in County fees paid at KCL vary quite a bit depending on where the previously direct hauled C&D loads end up. See the table in Exhibit I for additional context related to the potential fee reduction estimates summarized below.
OPTION A - Staff's estimates assume that most of the C&D loads would end up in one of the in-County transfer stations. However, increased in-County transfer station utilization does not include any of the C&D originating outside the County, consistent with the diversion scenario discussed above. Staff developed the estimates reflected in Table 1, Exhibit I, based on the amount of in-County disposal expected to result from the increased in-County transfer station utilization to process in-County C&D materials previously direct hauled to KCL.
Based on actual 2014 tonnage, County Fee revenue that would be generated at KCL as a result of C&D material disposal is estimated to be reduced from $266,699 to $89,725 if no longer direct hauled to KCL. Staff estimates that KCL would generate approximately $69,703 in County Fees based on the amount of C&D material that in-County Transfer Stations are projected to transfer to KCL for disposal after diverting recoverable materials. An additional amount of about $20,022 in County Fees is expected to be derived from the increased County Fees collected at in-County Transfer Stations. Collectively, these estimated changes in County Fees payable at KCL and in-County Transfer Stations are estimated to result in a net reduction of about $176,973 per year in County Fee revenue.
OPTION B - If C&D loads continued being direct-hauled to KCL and the proposed on-site C&D material recovery operation were to be established on-site, the landfill operator would continue paying all County fees on total C&D tonnage. Since County fees would be paid on tons disposed and diverted, there would be no projected reduction in County fees. Based on the current standard C&D gate rate charged at KCL and the annual tons in 2014, the estimated average annual County fee revenue that would be generated if these C&D loads continued going directly to KCL would be approximately $266,699.
Directive 4: Obtain the information needed from Republic in order to estimate the time frame necessary to complete permitting and the CEQA process that would allow on-site processing of C&D at KCL.
The landfill operator provided DCD staff with an outline (Exhibit E) describing key characteristics of the on-site C&D processing operation initially proposed in the letter dated December 16, 2014 and submitted to the Board by Scott Gordon, attorney for KCL (Exhibit F). The site and operational changes proposed to recover some of the C&D material that would otherwise be disposed of in the landfill are relatively minor in nature. The proposal does not include any new buildings or stationary sorting or grinding equipment. The landfill operator has indicated that the proposed changes could be implemented within three to six months of securing the required approvals. Changes proposed at KCL in order to implement on-site recovery of C&D material include:
- an all-weather pad would be installed to facilitate off-loading and sorting of certain material contained within incoming loads of C&D debris direct hauled to the landfill;
- mixed C&D loads would be stored temporarily on the all-weather pad until a sufficient quantity of material is stockpiled to warrant sorting;
- C&D material would be sorted manually with the aid of existing equipment (e.g. excavator, backhoe, etc.) when needed in order to recover materials to be diverted;
- recovered C&D materials would be segregated by type and consolidated into designated storage bunkers (walled-off areas on the pad) or bins (large containers that can be readily transported) awaiting removal for beneficial reuse on-site or transport off-site; and
- most recovered material would remain in storage bunkers/bins until they needed to be removed and utilized on-site for beneficial reuse purposes, however recovered wood material would be stored in bunkers/bins until needing to be transported off-site for use at biomass facility(ies).
These proposed changes would not require an LUP amendment. These can all be reviewed and approved by DCD administratively if submitted in the form of a revised Material Recovery Program pursuant to LUP condition 31.4. The existing condition language requires the landfill operator to "prepare and implement a program for recovering recyclable materials from loads brought directly to the landfill."
CEQA does not require environmental review for proposed activities that are allowed within the parameters of existing permit conditions. Land owners are entitled to establish and conduct operations in a manner consistent with any applicable permit requirements imposed by the approving authority after considering the project's potential environmental impacts identified as a result of any applicable CEQA review.
No further CEQA review is required in order to authorize implementation of this type of proposed on-site recovery operation under KCL's LUP because material recovery is already provided for within the existing LUP conditions approved when the project's original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified in 1990. Therefore, the only process necessary prior to initiating the proposed on-site recovery activity in order to satisfy requirements of the LUP will be the administrative review and approval of a Material Recovery Program (detailed project description).
However, the proposed on-site recovery activity can only be implemented if approved through the permitting process administered by CCEH in conjunction with CalRecycle. CCEH provided the attached overview summarizing the process for revising KCL's Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP), including the length of time for each step to be taken upon receipt of a completed permit application (Exhibit G).
Exhibit G shows that the maximum time to meet mandated deadlines to revise a SWFP is 150 days (five months), once a formal permit application is submitted to CCEH, in its capacity as the LEA. Operators often submit a draft application to CCEH for an informal review. The length of time this informal process takes depends on the complexity of the project, completeness of the draft package, how much time the applicant takes to make any requested changes, and the nature of the feedback from CalRecycle. If CCEH determines that additional CEQA review is needed, then this may add to the length of the informal review period. Staff believes the maximum time for revising the SWFP and completing any additional CEQA review if necessary, and obtaining the concurrence of CalRecycle to a revised SWFP is 10-13 months.
Directive 5: Identify CEQA implications associated with approving staff's recommended new and modified conditions.
In order to adequately respond to this directive from the Board, staff needs to address the two separate scenarios or sets of conditions presented as Options A and B. Thus, staff needs to identify the CEQA implications of approving Option A, which is essentially the new and modified conditions reviewed and approved by the County Planning Commission (CPC). Staff also needs to identify the CEQA implications associated with approving Option B, which incorporates the landfill operator's proposal to establish on-site processing to recover direct hauled C&D materials, involving further edits to the new and modified conditions of approval. It should be noted that the additional edits proposed by staff were prompted in part by the landfill operator's proposed modifications to the Eligible Vehicles and Direct Haul Procedures conditions (8.1 and 8.6), which were presented in Scott Gordon's letter to the Board on December 16, 2015 (see Exhibit F).
OPTION A - Staff maintains that approval of the new and modified conditions presented to the Board in December last year (Option A) is exempt from CEQA, as recommended. The vast majority of conditions proposed for modification provided more clarification language and would not have additional impacts on the environment. Having re-examined the proposed new and modified conditions related to Direct Haul Procedures, staff continues to be of the opinion that this would not create a new project or have new adverse impacts on the environment.
OPTION B - This version of new and modified conditions was originally developed containing revisions prompted by the requested changes submitted by the landfill operator (Option B), and staff also examined the CEQA implications related to that option. In reviewing the original, certified EIR for the landfill, staff closely examined the original project assumptions to better assess the potential impacts these new and modified conditions might have on the environment. KCL's existing LUP states that C&D hauling trucks are eligible as long as they contain materials originating within the County (this geographic restriction was, in effect, nullified in the 1990s as a result of court decisions). The original EIR addressed impacts for daily truck trips up to a maximum of 340, which is well above the current number of truck trips reported at the landfill. KCL’s SWFP includes a limitation on daily truck trips that also ensures that operations stay within the parameters established in the EIR. The EIR identifies C&D trucks and material among the types of vehicles and waste that could go directly to KCL, which helps explain the basis for that truck type being included in the Eligible Vehicles condition (8.1). Additionally, actions taken by the Board in 1992-93 identified certain waste load characteristics that warranted direct haul, including heavy or powdery materials, which would apply to certain C&D waste loads. Therefore, the revised new and modified conditions for Eligible Vehicles, Direct Haul procedures and Materials Recovery Program would not require additional CEQA analysis or create a new project with significant environmental impacts.
Options A and B presented herein for the Board's consideration have been slightly modified since March 3, 2015. As currently proposed, neither version of the new and modified conditions (Exhibits A and B) would require further CEQA analysis, or have potentially significant impacts on the environment in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. This final determination is reflected in staff's fourth recommendation that the Board of Supervisors find this permit review process and the Selected Version of the conditions of approval exempt from CEQA.
TWO VERSIONS OF PROPOSED NEW AND MODIFIED LUP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - OPTIONS A AND B
There are two separate sets of new and modified conditions of approval that staff is presenting as options for the Board to consider. Both versions of the new and modified Conditions of Approval (Options A and B) have incorporated the removal of conditions 20.3, 25.4 and 31.5, as approved by the Board on December 16, 2014. Since the March 3, 2015 meeting, staff slightly modified the following proposed conditions:
- Options A & B – Material Recovery condition (31.4) was revised to ensure adequate tracking and reporting of materials diverted at the landfill.
- Option B - Eligible Vehicles and Direct Haul Procedures conditions (8.1 and 8.6) now specify updated effective dates and deadlines.
- Option A - Direct Haul (8.5) condition now describes the annual process required to confirm what materials would be recovered if delivered to in-County Transfer Stations; Notification Program (11.4) condition now requires KCL to periodically remind its customers about eligible wastes for direct haul to the landfill; Wood Chipping (31.6) condition specifies what counts as diversion based on State law (all consistent with Option B).
Staff recommends the Board select either Option A or Option B as the preferred set of conditions (Selected Version). The primary differences expected to result from selecting Option A or B involve the amount of C&D material to be potentially disposed versus diverted, amount of fees paid to the County, and the amount of trips coming and going to/from KCL and in-County transfer stations as explained below. Notwithstanding the below discussion, neither option is expected to have a significant impact on the environment because the net number of truck trips that will occur under either option will not exceed what was addressed in the original EIR. This limitation has been imposed as a requirement within KCL's SWFP.
Option A is essentially the conditions presented at the December 16, 2014 Board meeting, and is the version that was reviewed and recommended for approval by the CPC (with the exception of revisions previously described and some minor housekeeping edits deemed necessary in the intervening time period). Approval of this option would require that KCL stop accepting the vast majority of loads of C&D material currently being direct-hauled to the landfill since they contain various material types that would be diverted if first processed at a local transfer station. Roughly 17% of the C&D material direct-hauled to KCL originates in other counties. It is extremely unlikely that all of the out-of-County C&D material currently being direct-hauled to KCL would end up at one of the in-County transfer stations. Selecting this Option is likely to provide for a higher level of waste diversion in comparison to Option B, however, staff is unable to reliably quantify the degree of difference as it would require too much speculation about the potential out-of-County diversion. Staff has provided potential diversion estimates under Directive 3 above. That section also contains estimated potential reductions in County fees paid at KCL, as well as associated increases in County fees paid at local transfer stations based on the diversion levels expected to result from projected in-County Transfer Station utilization.
If approving Option A, staff suggests that the Board consider authorizing a grace period (delay effective date or defer compliance enforcement for specified period) rather than imposing/enforcing this direct haul limitation immediately, in order to allow adequate time to raise customer awareness in advance of the change taking effect to avoid negative unintended consequences, including illegal dumping. Staff and the landfill operator will also need time to prepare, review and approve the documentation needed to implement the Direct Haul screening procedures. Selecting Option A is expected to reduce direct haul truck trips going to KCL, however it would also increase the amount of incoming transfer truck trips at KCL as well as added truck trips going to and from local transfer stations and out-of-County facilities. The increase in truck trips coming from local transfer stations would include waste to be disposed of as well as possibly some of the recovered materials that KCL can use beneficially on-site. Increases in truck trips does not necessarily result in increased emissions because it depends on the distances involved (more trips would result in less emissions if traveling shorter distances which together add up to less total miles traveled). Additional details regarding direct haul of C&D material received at KCL can be found in Exhibit I.
Option B contains revised versions of three conditions (8.1, 8.6 and 31.4) while the remainder of the conditions mirror what is presented in Option A. Changes to these three conditions were prompted by KCL's proposal to establish on-site material recovery at KCL. The changes include revisions intended to serve as alternatives to the landfill operator's requested edits presented to the Board on December 16, 2014. Approval of this option would allow KCL to continue accepting the same direct haul loads without requiring that they first go through a transfer station, as long as the landfill operator moves forward with the on-site material recovery permitting and implementation within the time frame prescribed in the revised conditions.
KCL would be allowed to continue disposing of all mixed C&D loads direct hauled to KCL until October 1, 2016. Thereafter, rather than continuing to dispose of all loads of mixed C&D material, the landfill operator would have to begin recovering at least 50% of incoming C&D materials on-site (unless delayed by third party legal challenge) consistent with a revised Material Recovery Program to be approved by DCD. If the required on-site material recovery is not in place by October 1, 2016, KCL would have to cease acceptance of most, if not all, direct hauled C&D loads, similar to Option A, until such time as on-site material recovery has been permitted and put into operation at KCL. Selecting this Option provides for payment of all existing County fees whether or not the material is diverted as a result of on-site material recovery, thereby avoiding any anticipated decrease in County fees associated with Option A (the estimated reduction in fees is speculative as explained previously under Directive 3).
Selecting Option B is not expected to increase the number of incoming truck trips currently going to KCL or local transfer stations, however the number of outgoing truck trips are projected to increase slightly (4-10 per month) due to transport of C&D materials recovered that would not be used on-site compared to existing conditions. Option B is expected to generate a smaller increase in outgoing truck trips at KCL than would be the case for outgoing truck trips leaving the transfer station as a result of approving Option A, since transfer stations would not retain any of the recovered materials on-site for beneficial reuse. Additional details regarding direct haul of C&D received at KCL can be found in Exhibit I.
UPDATES TO PREVIOUS DISCUSSION TOPICS
1. Staff has attached the Board Order from the March 31, 2015 Board meeting as Exhibit J. This is staff's entire report and associated exhibits regarding the KCL Mitigation Fund and Surcharge fees that the Board requested DCD staff to prepare and attach to the KCL permit review Board Order.
2. In the December 16, 2014 Board Order, one of staff's discussion topics related to landfill’s use of unchipped green waste as alternative daily cover (ADC). Concerns about green waste being used as ADC at KCL were initially raised during Board meetings in February and March of 2014. In January of 2015, CCEH acting as the County LEA, approved a proposed Report of Disposal Site Information (RDSI) Amendment, which described in more detail KCL's existing practice of using unchipped green waste as ADC. KCL's green waste ADC practice was originally approved by the County LEA in 1999 through a demonstration project. On February 13, 2015, Evan Edgar and Monica White (the Petitioners), represented by Dana Dean, attorney at law, appealed the County LEA's approval of KCL's RDSI Amendment. This Petition triggered an independent panel hearing process pursuant to Section 44307 of the PRC. The County LEA convened the County's Independent Hearing Panel (IHP) to consider the appeal at a public hearing conducted on March 13, 2015, which was continued to March 19, 2015. The IHP took testimony and reviewed evidence presented by the Petitioners, the County LEA, and the landfill operator (KCL). The IHP’s decision was limited to events that occurred in the 30 days prior to the date the Petition was filed. The IHP determined the County LEA had acted in accordance with applicable state Title 14 regulations in approving the RDSI amendment documenting the operating protocols associated with the use of unchipped green waste as ADC.
The Petitioners then appealed the IHP's decision to CalRecycle. Like the IHP decision, CalRecycle’s decision focused on events that occurred in the same 30 day period. Additionally, the decision was limited to the RDSI Amendment and not allegations pertaining to non-compliance by the landfill operator. CalRecycle’s decision notes that their agency is concerned about food waste being mixed with green waste ADC, but also noted that no evidence was presented to show that this practice is authorized or occurring at KCL. CalRecycle considered the evidence and arguments presented, and upheld the IHP decision, finding that the LEA did not err in approving the RDSI Amendment describing KCL’s existing operational practices associated with the acceptance and use of green waste as ADC. Furthermore, CalRecycle upheld the IHP’s determination that there are no specific requirements that CalRecycle concur with the 1999 demonstration project in writing. Exhibit K is CalRecycle's August 10, 2015 formal decision upholding the determination that the County LEA did not fail to act as required by law or regulation
If the Board does not approve any of the recommended new and modified conditions of approval for the KCL land use permit, the existing conditions of approval would remain in effect and continue to govern the use of the landfill site.
Speakers: Laura Wright, City of Pittsburg; Garrett Evans, City of Pittsburg; Ben Johnson, City of Pittsburg; Fritz McKinley, City of Pittsburg; Nancy Parent, Pittsburg; Gregory Harris; Scott Reylance, Lyon Homes, Scott Gordon, Republic/Keller Canyon Landfill; Lisa Della Rocca; Monica White, resident of Orinda; Evan Edgar, resident of Sacramento.
CLOSED the hearing;
APPROVED Option A of the new and modified conditions of approval for the Keller Canyon Landfill land use permit, with the caveat that the facility may continue to accept construction and demolition debris for process for 18 months while searching for a location to move that operation to;