Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-03; City Council; 13944; COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SITING ELEMENTt w w cd u [II h a a, 5 P a E 0 L) a, M cd u M 0 [I) a a, L4 c a, 4J a a, 4 ad Q4 2 cd a ? -4 a, 0 a, M rl *r( c) V z fi \I) o\ \ m \ rl hl .. z 2 5 4 i 0 Z 3 0 o de CITAOF CARLSBAD - AGEN - AB#- TITLE: COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE DEPT MTG, 12/03/96 MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CITY DEPT. CSD SITING ELEMENT CITY RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report. Staff is authorized to communicate this action to the County, i.c not prepared to approve the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) a ITEM EXPLANATION AB 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, established waste red of 25% and 50% by 1995 and 2000, respectively, from the base year 1990. The Act reqL jurisdiction to adopt Source Reduction & Recycling (SRRE), Household Hazardous Wastf and Nondisposal Facility (NDFE) Elements to demonstrate how the jurisdiction will achiev mandated goals. Carlsbad adopted its SRRE and HHWE in June 1992 and its NDFE in. In calendar year 1995, Carlsbad achieved a disposal reduction of 57%, well exceeding th goals. AB 939 also required every county to adopt the CIWMP comprised of a Countywide Sum and Countywide Siting Element. The Summary Plan is a compilation of all jurisdictions’ S HHWEs, and NDFEs. The Siting Element demonstrates how the County will provide disF capacity for the next fifteen years. In August 1995, the County began drafting the CIWMP. The document was approved in 1996 by the Local Task Force (SANDAG) for distribution to the cities for action. The Boa Supervisors approved the document on September 17, 1996 and copies were fotwarded October 16, 1996. A majority of the cities with a majority of the population must approve document at a thirty-day noticed public hearing within ninety days after receipt (October 1 action within 90 days is deemed an approval by the California Integrated Waste Managei The CIWMP has gone through numerous edits. Due to the disparity of comments submii sections contain compromise language. For example, some of the language recommenc counsel Dwight Worden was not incorporated in its entirety. Notably are the comments r impacts of regionalism on meeting solid waste management goals. While the language ( warrant disapproval of the document, a formal approval may not be the best course. For taking no action, Carlsbad does not formally endorse any of the opinions rendered in the yet does not hinder the County’s ability to get the document approved. Should the Council desire to formally approve or disapprove the document, staff will initi2 day noticed hearing. An informal survey at the November Technical Advisory Committee indicates that stal half the cities are recommending approval of the document and the other half are re taking no action. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact of the recommended action. EXHIBITS 1. Transmittal letter from the County dated October 16, 1996 2. Summary of Dwight Worden comments 3. Copies of the County of San Diego Integrated Waste Management Plan are on fi Clerk‘s Office. I EXHIBIT #1 * 0 e COUNT) COUNTY ROAl TOM GARIBAY TRANS1 COUNT) cown amntg af Ban piqa FLQOOC WASTEWATE DEPARTMENT QF PVBLIG WORK8 DIRECTOR lei si 994-221 2 FAX (61 9) 268-0461 LOCATION CODE S50 SOLI 5555 OVERLAND AVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123-1295 October 16,1996 Mr. Ray Patchett City Manager, City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Patchett, Re: Approval and Adoption of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Summary and Countywide Siting Element On September 17,1996, the County Board of Supervisors approved and adopted the Countyv Integrated Waste Management Plan (the "Plan") consisting of the Countywide Summary Plan Siting Element. I want to personally thank each of you for taking the time to review the many & of the Plan that staff produced over the last year. We appreciate your comments and suggestions improving the Plan and thank you for being an integral part of the Plan. By your city approving Plan, we are taking another step forward and committing on a regional level to obtain the reduc goals of Year 2000. Although the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) ( not require that your city take action, I would request that your jurisdiction take formal action approve the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. For your consideration, I have enclosed a copy of the most recent Plan which now includes required California Environmental Quality Act documentation and Negative Declaration as apprc April 23, 1996, the relative Board Minutes, and the signed resolution adopting the Plan. For Local Adoption to occur as required by AB 939, the majority of the cities within the County contain a majority of the population must approve the Plan within 90 days of receipt of the enclc Plan. To take action, your city needs to conduct a public hearing for the purpose of adopting Plan. After considering all public comments, your city may, by resolution, either approvc disapprove the Plan. If your city takes no action within 90 days, your city shall be deemed to k approved the Plan. by the Board of Supervisors. Under separate cover, I have included the County's board letter d: 0 Pnnted on recyded paper e e r Upon Local Adoption, AB 939 requires that the Plan be forwarded with each jurisdiction's resolu to the CIWMB for their consideration. As the County is the lead agency on this matter, our staff coordinate this effort. Please forward a copy of your jurisdiction's public hearing notice, J jurisdiction's most current population numbers and a signed copy of the resolution passed by j jurisdiction to the Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division, Attn. Aimee Esch, 5 Overland Avenue, San Diego, CA, 92123-1295. If your jurisdiction does not take action, plc provide that information and forward your city's most current population figures to our office. If have any questions, please feel free to contact Aimee Esch at 974-2688. Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to our continued relationship. Very truly yours, Tom Webster, Acting Deputy Director & Solid Waste Authority General Manager cc: Technical Advisory Committee Representative L-z.... Y. . Tr e e Summary of Dwight Worden Comments on Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan The vast majority of comments on the Countywide Integrated Waste Management PI authored by legal counsel Dwight Worden and submitted by the ken cities were included in 1 final document verbatim or staff considers the differences immaterial. However, the followi language was not modified to staffs satisfaction: Early Draft Lannuane: Pane SE-1 “Purpose” Jurisdictions within the county may, at their own discretion, opt to export their municir solid waste to out of county disposal facilities, although the region’s integrated wa5 management program would be better realized with all cities participating jointly in dispo! strategies. It should be noted here that some jurisdictions within the county are exporti some or all of their solid waste to out of county landfills at this time. Dwiaht Worden ProDosed Revision Given that the US Supreme Court has held that legislatively imposed flow control illegal, absent a voluntary contractual commitment to flow control jurisdictions within the cour may, at their own discretion, opt to export their municipal solid waste to out of county dispos facilities or to private in county facilities. In the future if all other factors are equal, includir cost, the region’s integrated waste management program would be better realized with cities participating jointly in disposal strategies. It is noted that some jurisdictions within tl county are exporting some or all of their solid waste to out of county facilities at this time. Dwiqht Worden Comment The foregoing revised language is recommended to insure that this document is r misread as endorsement by our Cities of the concept that the region is better served if we bring our trash back to the county system. I would recommend that if your city endorses tf, opposition is going to try to use the fact against us in the pending litigation (note - sin( resolved) that most of our cities approved the old COSWMP which had NCRRA in it, and I c not want this new document to be used against us by having the county claim our cities ha\ admitted by approving this new document that “the regional be interest” would be served if \n all stayed with the other cities in the county system. Final Lannuaae document it do so with the recommendation that this language be changed. We know 01 Given that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that legislatively imposed flow control illegal, absent a voluntary contractual commitment to flow control, jurisdictions within tt county may, at their own discretion, opt to export their municipal solid waste to out-of-count disposal facilities or private in-county facilities. However, it is clear that the region’s integrate waste management system would be better realized with all cities participating jointly I disposal strategies. It is noted that some jurisdictions within the county are exporting some ( all their solid waste to out-of-county facilities at this time. 1) 6 Other Staff Comments In addition to the language above, there are a couple of anomalies which staff would like clarify. On Page 44 “Transfer Stations”, the document reads, “Palomar Transfer Static leased from the County and operated by Coast Waste Management, permitted and located Carlsbad, currently serves the City of Carlsbad and the City of Escondido (for part Escondido’s trash).” Due to a staff oversight, the unincorporated area of the county was r included. Staff does not believe this to be material, but will clarify with county staff. Table 5-3 on page 45 indicates that the Palomar Transfer Station serves the cities of Carlsbz Encinitas, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and North County. The Palomar Transfer Station do not serve all of these jurisdictions. This table is merely a compilation of those cities whi included the Palomar Transfer Station as a facility they are currently Using Or may Use at SO\ time in the future.