Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04041989 - 2.5 005 TO- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ^C I,,.., Harvey E. Bragdon tra Director, Community DevelopmentCosta DATE: March 22, 1989 SUBJECT: Comments on Senate Solid Waste Task Force Policy Paper SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGJ?OUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize submission of the attached paper to the Senate Task Force on Waste Management as comments on their policy paper. 2. Authorize Roy Hawes, chairman of the County Solid Waste Com- mission, to make the presentation on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND Last year, the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 33 which created the Senate Task Force on Waste Management. The Task Force was created to assist the Senate in researching and evaluating alter- natives in developing a comprehensive legislative program to help solve the solid waste crisis. The Task Force has developed a policy paper and have requested 11 comments from the public. A workshop is being held in Sacramento on', April 5 , 1989. The Solid Waste Commission has reviewed the policy paper. Although a quorum of the Commission was not available at the March 22, 1989 , meeting, those in attendance worked with staff to develop the attached comments. The attached paper comments on , selected policies included in the Task Force policy paper. Roy Hawes, chairman of the Solid Waste Commission, has volunteered to present a summary of the comments to the Task Force at their Sacramento meeting. The entire comment paper will be presented for the record. 1, CONTINUED 014i1ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM T ON OA BO D COMMITTEE APPROVE j OTHER it SIGNATURE S : ACTION OF BOARD ON APR APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER i j VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ` 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 'y AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. C cc: Orig.Depts Community Development ATTESTED APR 4 1989 Solid Wastq Qommission County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY r G COMMENTS OF CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y ON SENATE TASK FORCE ON TASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY PAPER i; Authorized by Board of Supervisors APR 4 1989 i i POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES Al. Establishment of hierarchy of Integrated Waste Management (IWM) components. f Comment: Support the hierarchy as a goal. Actual implementation of various components of the hierarchy must be a local decision based on I considering economics and local needs. i B. i Public education, information and involvement in IWM programs (at the State level) . 4 Comment: In addition to a Statewide public education program a mechanism for funding local solid waste public education programs needs to be established. Enabling legislation is necessary to allow local solid waste education programs to be funded by assessments on solid waste facility operators. The Statewide public education program including curriculum development should be designed to compliment local efforts. Primary emphasis should be local programs. C. Economic analysis of IWM options. Comment: It is appropriate for the State to provide technical _assistance to local government on these complicated economic issues. There needs to be a mechanism for direct local input as to what type of economic analysis and studies are necessary. Previous studies done by State agencies have not always been useful in making local decisions, while there is a great need for local assistance from State and Federal agencies on these matters. Dl. Expand State laws to enable assessment planning and enforcement fees locally to fund local IWM planning and program development work. Comment: Current State law allows for local financing of preparing and administering the County Solid Waste Management Plan. New legislation is needed to specifically state that these funds can be used for local project planning of IWM system components as well as Y program development of IWM system components. This will allow these fees to be used to develop local programs instead of just preparing and administering the County Solid Waste Management Plan. D2a. � Establish Statewide fees on generation, disposal, hauling, litter generating products to fund State IWM program cost. h Comment: Any state fees should be separately assessed from local fees. State fees will be supported only if a local funding mechanism is also established as noted in item Dl above. There must be local direct input into how the Statewide funds are distributed and spent. E 2. f C 4 f E3. In EIR"s for solid waste facilities, review the full range of IWM options in detail in discussions of alternatives to project and/or mitigations. Comment: Detailed review of IWM options should occur in the development of the County Solid Waste Management Plan rather than in project-specific Environmental Impact Reports, The Solid Waste Management Plan should act as the overall plan for development of solid waste facilities. only facilities consistent with the Plan should be established. The EIR process should not be used in place_ of the County Solid Waste Management Plan process. E4. Restrict development of landfills within one-half mile of existing homes; restrict urban development within one-half mile of existing landfills. Comment: A one-half mile distance requirement is arbitrary and does not allow for interpretation of local conditions. This type of restriction should be left up to the local land use authority to determine through the environmental review process. F4. If less than eight years landfill capacity in County Solid Waste Management Plan, prohibit further development. Comment: This requirement is too restrictive. Given the situation in California where many existing landfills are closing, many counties will be in the position of not having eight years of landfill capacity available. Counties in this position, even though they are making good faith efforts to seek additional landfill capacity, should not be required to impose a building moratorium. Many of the actions required to establish a new landfill site are out of control of local government (i.e. they rest in the hands of the private sector or State or Federal regulatory agencies) . The County and cities have a responsibility to formally acknowledge a situation where there is less than eight years of landfill capacity when approving new developments. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) may provide a mechanism to provide this acknowledgment. During an environmental review of a project that would generate solid waste, a county (including all cities in the county) could be required to consider less than eight years of landfill capacity a significant impact that needs to be mitigated either by actively working on a process to secure new landfill capacity and/or significantly reducing the wastestream from the project through recycling on other method of waste reduction. 3. u i u j I, F3. Upon request of local government, State make land use decision required to site a facility to resolve problem. Comment: State preemption of local land use decisions is not desirable. However, an appeal process similar to the process in the law for hazardous waste facility siting (AB 2948) may be appropriate for solid waste facilities. Further review of the hazardous waste facility siting process needs to be conducted before it is applied to solid waste facility siting. Consideration should also be given to requiring County Solid Waste Management Plans to predesignate general areas suitable for sanitary landfills as is required in new County Hazardous Waste Management Plans for siting of hazardous waste management facilities. Il. Restructure California Waste Management Board (CWMB) as a full-time, professional board similar to State Water Resources Control Board. Comment: We support this option for improving the CWMB. I3. Transfer Division of Recycling from Department of Conservation to the CWMB. Comment: We support the restructuring of the SWMB as a full-time professional board similar to the State Water Resources Control Board. With a restructured and improved CWMB all solid waste activities, including all recycling activities, should be consolidated into the CWMB. However, even if the CWMB is not restructured recycling planning should not be separated from solid waste planning. Therefore, recycling planning should be a part of the responsibility of the CWMB so that local government does not have to report to two different State agencies for the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The duties of implementing AB 2020 do not necessarily have to be part of the CWMB, however, the Department of Conservation has gone beyond just the implementation of AB 2020 and is involved in recycling planning and advocacy. I4. Remove LEA's and establish responsibility in regional solid waste management boards to deal with local siting, permits and enforcement issues and implement IWM - air districts and water board issue own p permits. r Comment: We do not support, at this time, establishment of a new regional agency for solid waste management even if this agency is part of the California Waste Management Board. We prefer that solid waste management and enforcement be done at the County level with assistance from the CWMB. "Regional" solid waste management boards are premature. 4. n it G E i i SOURCE REDUCTION POLICY ISSUES i A. Incentives for source reduction. B. Disincentives to encourage source reduction. Comment: It is very appropriate for the State to be the lead agency for planning and implementing source reduction programs. Changing manufacturing and packaging of products should be done at a level higher than local government in order to have the most effect. The State should produce guidelines for local implementation of source reduction programs. RECYCLING POLICY ISSUES A. Market development. Comment: It is appropriate for the State to take a lead role in the planning and implementation of market development for recycling. Market development efforts and incentives should be Statewide. The State should produce guidelines for local implementation of recycling market development programs. El. Increase State goals for recycling, composting, and source reduction to 25% of the total wastestream in the next County Solid Waste Management Plan and up to 50% (dependent on local and market conditions) by the year 2000. Comment: A goal of 50% for recycling, composting and source reduction is unrealistic and should not be considered, unless transformation projects are included. The goal should include transformation projects because they can significantly reduce the wastestream. Local decisions in implementing the hierarchy of IWM components are preferred (see comment on Al - Policy and Implementation Issues) . For example, in Contra Costa County there is a large facility which uses wood waste as fuel. We consider this an appropriate and effective form of recycling which should be included in any waste reduction goal. E2. Require each city in county (and counties with populations of over 100,000) to develop a waste reduction plan. Comment: Give the option for the cities and the county to jointly develop a waste reduction plan as part of the County Solid Waste Management Plan. There does not appear to be a need to have separate waste reduction plans. Waste reduction should be a major part of the overall County Solid Waste Management Plan. 5. s "F r y i' General Comment: The State should develop uniform methods of measuring recyclable materials. State assistance is needed in identifying and quantifying recyclables, especially if definitive goals are to be included in plans. i DISPOSAL POLICY ISSUES A. Strengthen regulations regarding landfills to assure the public everything possible is being done to make facilities safe and environmentally sound, Comment: Existing State laws and regulations could be strengthened in certain areas for greater public acceptance of solid waste facilities. It appears State and regional agencies have the authority to condition new landfills to assure that they will be safe and environmentally sound. Local agencies have the ability to condition Land Use Permits with additional measures, Contra Costa County requires that land use permits • for solid waste facilities be kept current with technological advances. This is done by requiring that the land use permits be reviewed on a regular basis (every three to five years) and a modified as necessary to require new measures to ensure public safety and environmental protection. The public needs to be informed of existing and new regulations and authorities of State, regional and local agencies. B1. Establish State policy that all new landfills in the State be publicly owned, although may be privately operated. Comment: This will not result in a lessening of difficulty in siting new landfills. In addition to the public liability issue, there are also problems concerning coordination if there are multiple public agencies involved in the establishment or use of new landfills. Attempting to coordinate public agencies may result in a delay in the siting and development of new landfills. If a joint powers authority exists among public entities developing a new landfill the problem of coordination may not impact the timing of establishing new landfills. If the concern of private ownership of landfills is in regard to rate regulation, State laws and regulations may need to be modified to clearly allow local agencies to control rates at private facilities. it DO:jal jlll:stf.pap 6..