Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-07; City Council; Minutes0 MINUTES 0 "EZT'LhJG OF: City Council (Adjourned Regular Meeting) DATE OF MEETING: January 7, 1 985 y TIME OF MEFPING: 6:OO P.M. PLACE OF MEETIIG: City Council Chambers COUNCIL MEMBERS CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Mayor Casler at 6:OO P.M. ROLL CALC was taken by the City Clerk as follows: Present: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, and Pettine Council Member Chick arrived at 6 : 02 P.M. Absent: None ( 5 5 ) INE'ORMATIONRL MEETIMC, - PROPOSED SAN MARCOS TRASH-TO- ENERGY PLANT. Mayor Casler announced the format for the meeting as presented on the agenda, and stated that no public testimony muld be taken. Proponents Mr. Richard Chase, of North County Resource Recovery Associates, began with a slide presentation. The slide presentation depicted the problems associated with the increasing amount of trash, depletion of the earth's natural resources, and the fact that there are currently only two landfill sites in north county. It also noted that the plant would be fully enclosed, and briefly explained the sorting of the trash which would occur once it enters the plant. me slide presentation focused on the need for an alternative to dumping all trash in landfills. It explained how the plant muld preserve natural resources by recycling the eighty percent of trash which is reusable, Mr. Richard Hopkins, co-managing director of North County Resource Remvery Associates, continued with the proponents reprt to council. With the aid of slides, Mr. Hopkins explained that the association has received the authority to mnstruct the plant from the Air Pollution Control District, and. he explained the conditions in the permit regarding mnitoring requirements. He talked about the emissions criteria and explained the sulfur dioxide emission in relation to federal standards and state standards and noted that the background level of sulfur dioxide will only increase by tm percent at the location of the nearest resident to the plant, He emphasized that the maximum changes at the nearest residence as a result of the emissions from the plant would be small. He stressed that all standards will be met and there is no health risk which will be created. In conclusion, Mr. Chase reported on the current status of the project with regard to the EPA, APCD, and City of San Marcos. Is I v 3 9k %e - -c 0 MINUTES 8 Page 2 Ilaw 7. 1985 A. Mr. Chase also referenced the packet of information distributed to muncil just prior to the meeting and copies of endorsements for the project mntained therein. In response to muncil questions, Mr. Stuart Russell, with the engineering consulting firm of H.D.R., indicated that he was unaware of any citizen opposition or problems in the mmunity with regard to the Ames Facility. Mr. Hopkins, in response to query, reported they were not privileged to any reports as to the actual cause of the tragedy at Akron. €!e indicated they had been told there was a series of explosions and fires from solvent-saturated sawdust which was delivered to the facility. Through human error, the material was accepted. He then indicated that their proposed plant would contain the most up to date and complete fire protection system. Mr. Chase responded to muncil query indicating there are two types of plants. The first type is where the facility mnsists of a new power plant; the second type is where trash is processed to bum into an already existing per plant. He stated their plant would be of the first type, which is a new per plant. He also stated that all such plants in the United States except one are in successful operation, and the unsuccessful plants are those in the other category. Mr. Hopkins explained that the emissions from this facility fall below the California standards. He also indicated that the emissions would be different from those at Encina because a different type of fuel would be burnt. With regard to carbon monoxide, he noted that the amount of reduction of carbon mnoxide as a result of burning at Encina would be offset by the increase from this plant. merefore, there would a small net increase in carbn mnoxide emission in north munty. Mr. Hopkins further explained the process in the plant noting that n-ajority of mmbustible items would be destroyed by incineration and would not add any pollutants to the emissions. He also further explained the separation process which muld occur in the plant. Mr. Chase indicated that stack muld be three hundred feet high and ten feet in diameter, but would be located at the lowest point of the canyon. He also responded to query indicating that there is no plant anywhere exactly like this one; however, every piece of equipment proposed for this plant is proven and in operation in an existing facility. In response to query regardins the site, Mr. Chase indicated that there muld still be a portion of the material which would need to be disposed of by landfill. Therefore, since the landfill is at this location, it seemed the appropriate location for the plant since eighty percent of the mst of disposing of trash is related to collection and disposal. 17 r \p 5 COUNCIL ?$ 9A' MEMBERS % 4 MINUTES 0 Page 3 Januarv 7, 1985 He also noted that the alternative to building the plant is expandincj the landfill, and he referenced environmental hazards associated with landfills. In response to additional query, Mr. Chase explained the current activities in San Marcos, including the iniative in process. He indicated that North County Resource Recovery Associates has already filed an application for a permit from the county to build the plant on SE&E land which adjoins the city site. He indicated that property is approximately five hundred feet from the current site, but is in the county. He noted that the action had been taken as a result of the initiative noting that if approved, it would be impossible to build the plant in the City of San Marcos. Opponents Dr. Steven Issac, 20560 Questhaven Road, Escondido, began the presentation for the opponents. He explained about his educational background and noted his concern about the quality of life in north county. Dr. Isaac referred to the Questhaven Retreat, which is located on 640 acres in the vicinity of the proposed plant, and explained the features and attractions of the retreat stressinq the natural environment. Dr. Issac indicated that when the landfill was originally sited, they were told it would have a finite life and when concluded, the area would become a park or open space. He expressed the opinion that the project is totally incorpatible with the surrounding area, and noted that Carlsbad would also have problems from the plant from pollutants, traffic, deterioration of roads; yet would receive no revenue from the plant. He indicated that the building would be an intrusion in the area, and once built, it would invite and encourage other industrial development in the area. Mr. Don Wakefield, 7412 Carlina Street, Carlsbad, continued with the presentation. Mr. Wakefield indicated his concerns about air pollution that will result from the project, and concerns about inadequacy of the studies conpleted on the matter. He comnted on the munt of pollutants that would be emitted and its disbursement to the surrounding areas. Related to that, he indicatd that the biaqest concern is when the wind is not blowing as a result of such times as heavy fog, and noted that such conditions have not been considered by the APCD or any studies. He stated that there would be an increase of pollutants within a six mile radius of the plant, and the plant will emit many toxic pollutants for which there are no standards. He then comnted on the number of pollutants which will exist in the emissions and the health hazards associated with same. 16 I \v 5 COUNCIL % ?i MEMBERS % <r - - 0 MINUTES 0 Page 4 Mr. Wakefield also expressed concern that the proponents of the plant have no previous experience in building or operatin9 such plants; therefore, it is possible that the citizens will end up paying the costs by increased fees . Mr. Bruce Hamilton, 20774 Elfin Forest Road, Escondido, concluded the presentation for the opponents. He identified the different citizens' groups in existence who are opposed to the plant, and cities which have taken a position in opposition to such plants. He commented that the objective of this plant is to reduce the need for landfill. In that regard, an alternative to the plant is recycling. He suggested that two recyclying plants together with digesting would be viable alternatives, and would leave only twenty percent of the trash for the landfill. He suggested that the plant muld be a major source of air pollution and muld represent a health hazztrd, In conclusion, he asked for council support in oppostion to the plant and asked that a representative be sent to the San Marcos council meeting. At the least, he asked that the city ask for a delay to allow north county cities to fully examine the matter. In response to council query, Mr. Chase explained that there are some pollutants for which there are no statewide standards. He indicated that there are specific permit requirements from APCD for all the potential emissions which can be identified from such a facility. Mr. Wakefield, in response to query, stated that there are no permit conditions to limit emissions, He indicated that standards are merely levels which the government or agencies are willing 'to accept and say there is no danger to health if those standards are met. He further stated that some pollutants have emission standards, but not air quality standards. He further stated that it cannot be shown whether there is danger or not, but the existance of a risk muld be present, and that risk should not be allowed. Air pollution Control District Mr. Richard Somenrille, Air Pollution Control Officer in San Diego County, addressed Council. Mr. Summenrille first explained the purpose and structure of the Air Pollution Control District. He indicated that once a permit to construct is authorized by the Air Pollution Control Officer, it can be appealed to a separate appeal board which is not the District's Board of Directors. He also noted that a permit stands unless it is appealed. In that regard, the permit for this project was authorized, and had not been appealed. 15 "r COUNCIL \p 5 % P/- MEMBERS % $ - I e MINUTES 0 Page 5 Mr. Sommerville continued explaining what had been done in regard to this pl~mt. He noted that the project had been assessed and subject to the qreatest scrutiny by some of the best authorities in the area. He explained the process followed for analysis and preparation of a report which was subject to review. He also indicated that the analysis had been accomplished in mperation with the Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Aqency. With regard to pollutants, he explained that criteria pollutants are those specifically identified in the Clean Air Act. Non criteria pollutants are controlled under another section of the Clean Air Act and are not called hazardous or toxic materials. The non criteria pollutants are not currently controlled because EPA has not taken action in that regard. As further explanation, he noted that for some pollutants, there are no standards set, but that does not mean there will be a hazard to health. Because there are no standards does not mean they are not mntrolled. If there are no standards, it means that there is no threshold level established, which mans it is presumed there is no level which is acceptable. That allows the local regulatory agencies to focus on reducing risks, He stated that the not only did the APCD subject this plant to an analysis looking at the best available technology, but it also asked for a risk assessment to determine if that best available technology was good enouah. In response to council query, Mr. Sonunerville indicated that the district did. not look at the economic viability of the plant, or traffic issues; it merely addressed the issue of air quality %acts. He reiterated the determination that there would be no risk to health, and explained what actions muld be taken should the mnitoring reflect that the pollutants exceeded the standards set in the permit, He stated that should it be shown that there was a hazard to health, the district would not hesitate to close the plant, Mr. Mike Mistrot, Assistant to the City Manager of San Marcos, responded to council questions. He briefly identified the conditions required by the San Marcos Planning Commission with regard to street improvements, and traffic signals, but noted that those mnditions only affect the areas within the jurisdiction within San Marcos, City Council Discussion Council M&X Pettine express& the opinion that the proponent on such a project should present clear and convincinu evidence that the facility will be safe, economically viable, and there will be no unmitigated adverse impacts. He indicated that he was not convinced that the site was appropriate, and muld like alternative sites considered. In that regard, he indicated he was prepared to present a resolution at the appropriate time. Blcb JI \p 5 COUNCIL % 9k MEMBERS % f - 7 e MINUTES 0 Page 6 Januarv 7, 1985 Council Member Kulchin expressed the opinion that this is a regional problem. She indicated she would be willing to take a position, and suggested that other alternatives should be considered. Council Member Lewis expressed the opinion that such a project is heavy industry and should not be located near residential areas. Council Member Chick indicated it was a oorrplex issue. He stated that the item had been advertised as an informational metinq, and suqgested that if council intended to take action, it should be placed on an agenda of a regularly scheduled meeting. Mayor Casler expressed the opinion that experts had been invited to this meeting to inform ouncil, and it appeared as though the experts omnts were being iqnored. She stated that the city council should have been lookins for the expert information which was received from the Air Pollution Control Officer. Additional discussion related to whether the item was a listed agenda item and whether muncil could take action in accordance with their council policy. The following resolution was presented by Council Member Pettine, and awroved by majority vote of the council: It was mved that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad go on record as opposing the proposed site of the trash-to-energy plant based on the potential negative impacts on air quality and traffic, as well as the experimental nature of the plant, and urued the City of San Marcos to continue to work towards a solution to the landfill problem on a regional basis, through consultation with other cities of north county. Council Member Chick reiterated his opposition to the procedure. mURNMm: By proper mtion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, &&&&ARaY7.;4.9 ALETm L. "Z City Clerk /3 - COUNCIL \v 5 % % MEMBERS % f Casler 1,ewis X% Pettine 2 Chick 8 Kulchin 8