Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03071989 - 2.5 2_005 To BOARb OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. BragdonContra Director of Community Development Cx)sta DATE: February .2 Z, 1989 County SUBJECT: Transfer Station Language for Solid Waste Plan Revision � ��1 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Select one of the alternative sets of language concerning Central and South County transfer stations for inclusion in the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan Revision. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION%BACKGROUND On February 14, 1989 the Board of Supervisors reviewed the Draft 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan Revision, which included changes from the 1988 version of the Plan based on requirements of the California Waste Management Board and additional items recommended for inclusion by the County Solid Waste Commission and staff. The Board of Supervisors accepted all but one of the modifications to the Plan and authorized its use in preparing the Environmental Impact Report for the Plan. The Board decided not to accept the recommendation from the Solid Waste Commission concerning the proposed language for the Central and South County transfer station. Instead, the Board decided to leave the language as it was in the 1988 Plan. The Board requested that this issue be brought back to the Board at a later date. The Board needs to decide on one of two alternative sets of references for the Central County and South County transfer stations. `The first alternative Listed below is the language that was in the 1988 Solid Waste Plan. The second alternative is the language as recommended by the Solid Waste Commission. ALTERNATIVE #1 , 1989 PLAN LANGUAGE If the Acme transfer station project is. .not, constructed, another transfer station located in northern Central County which would take the place of the Acme Fill trans er station would also be consistent with this Plan. 4 W. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO TION OF OA COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S1: ACTION OF BOARD ON March 7, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER APPROVED Alternative #1, the language that was in the 1988 Plan. Supervisor Torlakson voted No because he preferred Alternative #2 as proposed by the Solid Waste Commission. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT — AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: I, II, IV NOES: V AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE 130ARD ABSENT: I I I ABSTAIN: OF SUPERV I SO//RRS�Sjj..��ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: )ATTESTED I I//.Qit,lb�. J &,?9 Corr�nunity Development Department (Orifi. Dept. Y - - - - -- Solid Waste Commission PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DO:jlS:tra.brd BY .—Z, � f� ,DEPUTY M382/7-83 Although the Acme Fill transfer station is planned for having the capacity to handle South County waste, a South County transfer station (full-scale or mini) may be necessary in the future and would be consistent with this Plan. ALTERNATIVE #2, SOLID WASTE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Central County Transfer Station A transfer station may be constructed by Central County public agencies as a backup in the event that the Acme Fill transfer station is not constructed. The specific location of the transfer station has not been finalized. The transfer station is expected to handle part of the waste stream now going to the Acme Fill Interim Transfer Station. The transfer station will be required to include facilities for recycling and household hazardous waste collection. This Central County transfer station, as a backup to the Acme Fill permanent transfer station would be consistent with this Plan. South County Transfer Station A transfer station may be constructed by South County public agencies. The specific location of the transfer station has not been finalized, but locations in South County would be considered. The transfer station is expected to handle part of the waste stream now going to the Acme Fill interim transfer station. The transfer station will be required to include facilities for recycling and household hazardous waste collection. This South County transfer station would be consistent with this Plan. As staff reported at the February 14th Board meeting, there is not a substantial difference between the two sets of language. The major difference is the proposed Solid Waste Commission .Language is more specific. Concerning the Central County transfer station, both sets of language give preference to the Acme transfer station and an alternative transfer station would only be proposed if the Acme transfer station was not constructed. Alternative #2 goes' into more detail concerning the backup transfer station and anticipates that if the backup transfer station is developed it will be done so by public agencies rather than another private entity. Concerning the South County transfer station both sets of language recognize that a transfer station may be needed in South County. Alternative #2 is more specific about the details of such a transfer station and also states that the transfer station would be developed by public agencies. In summary, the differences between the two alternatives is the level of detail provided and Alternative #2 states that the transfer stations will be developed by public agencies. If the Board decides to select the Alternative #2, it is recommended by staff that the construction of a backup Central County transfer station and South County transfer station not be limited to public agencies. Selection of either alternative will not affect the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Plan because the EIR will consider Central and South County transfer stations regardless of the alternative selected.